TexasCHLforum.com

Beiruty wrote:

jmra wrote:

Beiruty wrote:I am NOT starting a flame war. However, The 2ndA, starts with "A well regulated......

CHL as well as gun ownership should be somehow regulated as it is high responsibility. "Wackos with guns" are real the enemy of our gun rights. It is just fresh in our mind what Loranza did of uncalculated harm to our rights.

Did you forget the "shall not be infringed" part?

Not really, however, can you arm a career-criminal, a violent felon, or an insane person under the clause "Shall not be infringed"?

Criminals and "wackos" are already prohibited from owning guns so additional regulation (today's definition) which only burdens the legal, intended group, is ludicrous.

There were and always will be a percentage of the population that is criminal, mentally unstable, etc., you don't permanently punish the entire population to address a few. I believe that there are already plenty of laws regarding criminals, yet they still manage to get and use guns, drugs, etc. (quite easily, I think)

tobasco wrote:I think it's a mistake to lower the bar for CHL. If anything I would want to increase the overall requirements. CHL holders are sort of an elite group right now and I think they should be. If someone has plastic then you know they are responsible and committed enough to have gone through the hoops to carry. I'm against constitutional carry for this reason but that seems to be what we are evolving towards in Texas. I know that most people in this thread disagree, but before you do I would wonder if you are taking for granted the high quality of the current body of CHL holders are and assuming it will always be that way. Having 100% of the population carrying would be excellent but not at any price.

Ironic that the changes will take place September 1st. I just hope it's not a new Eternal September.

I think I understand what you are trying to say... but to mandate it in the statutes is not the way to go.

I think that anyone who carries a gun should seek additional training to be adequately prepared. Different folks need different amounts and kinds training. Take a guy who carried in the service, perhaps an MP. Should he be required to complete a bunch of training that is designed to take a 60 year old woman (no offense to any 60 y.o. ladies) from never fired a gun to being proficient and confident in a carry encounter??? I think not. It unfairly burdens people to spend lots of time and money on training that some need/some don't. The responsibility lies with the individual. Sadly, there will always be those who don't- which is why we have legal limits on almost everything!

You walk a slippery slope when talking of watering down out rights... Would you also be a fan of us losing or diluting the 1st, 4th and 5th amendment rights? I would not.