No more than federal reciprocity for driver licenses and marriage licenses.marksiwel wrote:wouldnt that go against state rights?Keith B wrote:There was a bill in Congress last session that tried to get CHL unilateral reciprocity between all states that have permits. It had some fairly good support. Contacting your senator and congressman advising them you would still like to see this happen is a good idea. It may get reintroduced in a future session and we need to let them know we want it.
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Would you go through more CHL training?”
- Sun Dec 20, 2009 1:51 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Would you go through more CHL training?
- Replies: 55
- Views: 7844
Re: Would you go through more CHL training?
- Sun Dec 13, 2009 2:19 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Would you go through more CHL training?
- Replies: 55
- Views: 7844
Re: Would you go through more CHL training?
Would I opt for more training if it meant a less restrictive CHL? I suppose I would, if this became law. On the other hand, I think this would be a bad idea. The concept of CHL in Texas is complex enough as it is. Let's not pile additional complexities for both the license holder and the guys who have to enforce these new, complex statutes.
Should CHL holders be required to go through additional training period? No!
Should CHL holders voluntarily seek out additional training? Absolutely!
I'm a huge proponent of personal responsibility and accountability. With rights come responsibilities. When people are "allowed" to carry guns, bad things will happen; accidents, poor judgment. This is a necessary evil in a free society. The freedom and the security available to the remaining 99% of the population is worth it.
The concept of 30.06 is a sound one, but not without its political implications. First off, there's a misconception that it applies to businesses. Section 30.06 applies to any private property and selected government properties. I support private property rights, including the right of the owner to exclude admittance to anyone he chooses on whatever basis he chooses (yes, including carrying a gun). Yes, this might be a politically incorrect position, but the alternative is to open the door to the obvious inconsistencies discussed earlier.
On the other hand, why should Section 30.06 apply specifically to CHL holders and not just anyone carrying a handgun. Well, we have laws for that, right? Secondly, the guys who wrote this statute know that you're a law abiding citizen and will actually heed the sign. Will those carrying illegally? We all know the answer to that question.
And while we're talking about those evil 30.06 signs, I choose not to spend my hard earned dollars at businesses that post 30.06. In my opinion, a property owner who posts 30.06, thereby disarming me if I choose to enter, has effectively taken moral responsibility for my safety. To be more exact, I have relinquished responsibility for my safety. He cannot effectively take responsibility for my safety, nor should I ever relinquish this responsibility. Can a business, in any practical sense, ever provide the security necessary to guarantee your safety? I think not.
You have a choice. If you need that widget badly enough, I guess you'll compromise your principles, disarm and waltz into XYZ store. On the other hand, you might not have a choice. How many choices are available to you when you're taking your kid to the emergency room?
Personally, I'd like to see the restrictions opened up. We have so many overlapping laws. You can't carry in a bar. You can't carry while intoxicated. You can't shoot people willy-nilly, drunk or not. Rick Perry made noises on this subject last year, but nothing ever gelled. Our State Senate wussed out on us earlier this year, allowing certain bills beneficial to CHL holders to remain unaddressed when the session ended. Thanks guys!!! Way to take a stand!
You can't carry in the post office, when ironically (and historically), the employees are more of a danger to you than you are to them.
RANT::OFF
Should CHL holders be required to go through additional training period? No!
Should CHL holders voluntarily seek out additional training? Absolutely!
I'm a huge proponent of personal responsibility and accountability. With rights come responsibilities. When people are "allowed" to carry guns, bad things will happen; accidents, poor judgment. This is a necessary evil in a free society. The freedom and the security available to the remaining 99% of the population is worth it.
The concept of 30.06 is a sound one, but not without its political implications. First off, there's a misconception that it applies to businesses. Section 30.06 applies to any private property and selected government properties. I support private property rights, including the right of the owner to exclude admittance to anyone he chooses on whatever basis he chooses (yes, including carrying a gun). Yes, this might be a politically incorrect position, but the alternative is to open the door to the obvious inconsistencies discussed earlier.
On the other hand, why should Section 30.06 apply specifically to CHL holders and not just anyone carrying a handgun. Well, we have laws for that, right? Secondly, the guys who wrote this statute know that you're a law abiding citizen and will actually heed the sign. Will those carrying illegally? We all know the answer to that question.
And while we're talking about those evil 30.06 signs, I choose not to spend my hard earned dollars at businesses that post 30.06. In my opinion, a property owner who posts 30.06, thereby disarming me if I choose to enter, has effectively taken moral responsibility for my safety. To be more exact, I have relinquished responsibility for my safety. He cannot effectively take responsibility for my safety, nor should I ever relinquish this responsibility. Can a business, in any practical sense, ever provide the security necessary to guarantee your safety? I think not.
You have a choice. If you need that widget badly enough, I guess you'll compromise your principles, disarm and waltz into XYZ store. On the other hand, you might not have a choice. How many choices are available to you when you're taking your kid to the emergency room?
Personally, I'd like to see the restrictions opened up. We have so many overlapping laws. You can't carry in a bar. You can't carry while intoxicated. You can't shoot people willy-nilly, drunk or not. Rick Perry made noises on this subject last year, but nothing ever gelled. Our State Senate wussed out on us earlier this year, allowing certain bills beneficial to CHL holders to remain unaddressed when the session ended. Thanks guys!!! Way to take a stand!
You can't carry in the post office, when ironically (and historically), the employees are more of a danger to you than you are to them.
RANT::OFF