TexasCHLforum.com

chartreuse wrote:I'm disappointed to see that this thread has become moribund.

I guess that either (a) folks who love this country and make incredible efforts to come from overseas to make it their home, or (b) young folks who love this country and go out and put themselves in harms way to defend it, or both, don't happen to be a big enough donor pool to figure in the plans of the various political machines that we're all supposed to go along with, these days.

I'd suggest that anybody who claims to fight for liberty should support the Quixotic causes, at least occasionally, if for no other reason than to guard against becoming that which they purport to oppose.

The problem is people who are not residents of the state will have little to no weight in changing the law of another state. The only reason we were able to rally the forces and saber rattle this one down was it was in interpretation by the NM DPS, and not making a change in their actual statute. To get the statute changed, you will have to get a member of their legislature on board and garner the drive by his and other members voting constituents to even have any chance of getting a bill introduced to change the rules. In simpler terms, if you aren't a person who can vote for them and keep them in office, then your cry will more than likely fall on deaf ears.

Heartland Patriot wrote:...but when there is a law enforcement training facility at your school, where they have sniffer dogs come in on a regular basis, its hard to conceal things from those dogs...unless I have been misled as to the power of those dogs' sniffers. Thank goodness I am almost done with the program I am enrolled in.

I do understand that there needs to be changes in the laws to allow college students a way to protect themselves. I am all for 'Campus carry'.

As for the dogs, a clean gun in a holster will not trigger a dog from outside the vehicle, and I would think they would even have a hard time inside the vehicle as the powder is contained in sealed cartridges. Bomb dogs are also usually trained to sniff for large quantities of powder, not the bullets in a gun. Just think about this, the dog handlers and others searching usually have a pistol on their hip that is very close to the dog, so for them to be able to smell a gun inside a locked vehicle is a little over the top as I know it. And, drug dogs are usually trained for just that, drugs. There are 'dual purpose' dogs, but they are usually few and far between.

I think unless they were specifically looking for a bomb, then the dogs that will be on most school campuses will be drug dogs; there is a much higher chance of payoff on those searches. Now, if they trained a dog to trigger on Hoppe's, then maybe.....

And, we are way off topic and need to get back on for this thread.

RHenriksen wrote:Tough to graduate without entering the campus buildings on a regular basis. And I can't remember the last time I saw a hospital that did NOT have a 30.06 sign posted on

Yeah, I understand where you are coming fromunderstand. However, the 30.06 sign is a private business restriciton, not a state statute restriction . As for college, guess you can do an online degree. I would like to see college buildings being legal for carry though.

RHenriksen wrote:

recaffeination wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote: Ok, I'm done being sarcastic but what I would like to know is why does New Mexico hate LEGAL immigrants and our military?

As a Texan, I'm more concerned about why Texas legislators hate paramedics, college students, and waitresses.

LOL! Amen. I'm so thankful I'm self employed, *and* I don't have any clients in hospitals, college campuses, or bars. But I feel for the people who do work in those places.

Hospitals are not off limits, neither are college campuses (just the buildings), but bars are IF they are 51%.

Beiruty wrote:

Keith B wrote:NP, just glad they backed down some!!

They did NOT, myself and thousands perm resident of TX are still denied. Selectively allowing some CHL to carry while others are not is simply a clear discrimination.

I said SOME. I understand you are still affected by their rules. They will not issue a CHL to a non-resident alien who resides in their own state, so it is a full restriction they have.

NP, just glad they backed down some!!

scref wrote:Looks like NM has changed their minds

http://www.dps.nm.org/index.php/nm-conc ... greements/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yep, posted about halfway back in the topic already.

chartreuse wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

chartreuse wrote:So what happens to the 20 year old veterans and the folks with green cards? Do we let them go hang, just 'cos NM has said it'll play ball with the rest of us, as long as we turn our backs on our neighbors?

Move to NM and fight to change the law. We can't do that here in Texas. We have plenty to do here at home.

Really?

We just effected positive change in NM, change that benefited many, but not all Texans. What's the calculus that says "this is the point where we throw the rump under the bus"?

Residents of New Mexico will be much better to fight the actual license requirements and get them changed from inside the cage vs. outside. We were able to get NM to reverse a total ban on CHL reciprocity with us, but their age and citizenship requirements still stand even for their own licenses. Other states have similar restrictions on age, like Virginia, where you have to be 21 to carry, resident or not.