TexasCHLforum.com

AJSully421 wrote:ok... lets make sure that we all understand a few simple things...

The second amendment says that the FEDERAL .gov cannot infringe our rights to keep and bear arms. it literally should be read as... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the Federal Government."

the 10th amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. so, the state is not specifically prohibited from infringing gun rights... according to Heller, they cannot ban guns entirely, but it has been long held that they can ban assault weapons and standard capacity magazines... This holds that states can infringe gun "rights".

the Texas constitution says: Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

Texas allows the unregulated right to "keep" arms, but reserves the right by law to regulate the wearing, or "bearing" of arms.

In my educated opinion, anyone who insists that Texas requiring a CHL to carry a handgun infringes on their 2A rights is less than correct.

that being said... i personally kinda like that we have to be able to pass a shooting test, and a written test about the laws and deadly force statutes. I do not consider it to be invasive, or overly difficult. Personally, if i could wave a magic wand, i'd require every CHL holder to be able to recite Penal Code section 9 verbatum from memory. I also support having OC contingent on having a CHL... i don't want any nut out there able to carry without knowing the laws, or passing a simple shooting test.

flame on!

No flame here and I agree with some of what you are saying. As originally written, all of the Constitution applied solely to the federal government. However, the Fourteenth Amendment changed that and the Supreme Court has selectively applied the safeguards of the U.S. Constitution to the States. As yet, this has not been done with the Second Amendment and, in fact, the Cruickshank decision (1875) expressly said it applied only to the federal government. As noted by Justice Scalia in Heller however, the Cruickshank Court also held the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. This is a very clear signal that the Second Amendment will be "incorporated" to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

As I've stated in other posts, the only opinions concerning the scope of the Second Amendment that matter are a majority of the Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. Right now, the majority have held that the Second Amendment is an individual right, that licensing is constitutional so long as it is not applied so as to ban handguns. So my comments about what I believe the Second Amendment means is just that, my opinion. With the right Court, my opinion could become the law of the land, or with the right Court, Sarah Brady's opinion could become the law of the land. I agree that, under current Supreme Court cases, requiring a CHL to carry a handgun in Texas does not violate the Second Amendment. I could foresee a day when the only licensing that would pass constitutional muster could be one that is similar to a voter registration requirement; i.e. checking to see that the licensee isn't a person who has lost their constitutional rights as with a felony conviction or otherwise. Even this analogy is faulty however, since a voter registration requirement isn't to confirm that a person hasn't lost his right to vote, it exists to further the greater constitutional goal of "one man, one vote."

I'm somewhat of a fanatic on education and training myself. That's why I put on the Texas Self-Defense & Deadly Force Laws Seminar free of charge. I also strongly encourage people to get the best training they can afford in terms of money and time. I even encourage my CHL students to do so, analogizing their CHL with my Private Pilot License when my first FAA Examiner said, "congratulations, you passed your check ride and here is your temporary license. Remember, this is really just a license to learn, so please don't kill anyone while you are doing it!" I also agree that I would prefer not to be standing downrange of some incompetent shooter trying to shoot a BG. But I cannot in good faith support a proficiency or knowledge requirement to exercise a constitutional right. No where else is such a constitutional right subject to an education and training requirement. Right now we have a training requirement and as we agree, there is no Supreme Court decision that makes this training requirement unconstitutional.

Chas.

Philosophically, I believe that the Second Amendment is a near-absolute constitutional right. As such, I also believe that the only people who are legally prohibited from owning, possessing and carrying a firearm are those who have lost all of their civil rights through a felony conviction, or otherwise. As Stephen said, the Second Amendment's wording is unique (no infringement) and that is legally significant.

Realistically, we probably will never see a day when this will be the "law of the land." The Constitution is no longer viewed by elected officials or the public as the bulwark of freedom, but merely an inconvenience that can be overcome when the need arises. Years ago I heard the statement that, "if the Ten Commandments, Golden Rule and the Bill of Rights were put up for a popular vote, none would pass." Sadly, I believe this is true. As Stephen said, if my rights are to be preserved, I must stand up for the rights of others. However, too many in our country feel that is too high a price, so they will sacrifice their own rights so they may restrict others.

Freedom has a cost and that isn't measured only by the blood of those who died in defense of our country and our way of life. The cost also includes accepting that there is some risk to society and to individuals when we honor, respect and uphold all rights guaranteed by the Constitution. If the Fourth Amendment is violated by government, or if the Fifth Amendment is invoked by a defendant, then it may result in a criminal going free. If the First Amendment is fully honored and enforced, then people we may not want as next door neighbors may buy some land, fence it, and live as a "cult" with values and practices we do not accept. But that is part of the cost of freedom.

That said, I live and operate in the real world subject to political reality that is as controlling as the laws of physics. The difference is the laws of physics aren't going to be changed, but the political landscape does change. It takes time, hard work, patience and dedication, but it can be done. It took years to pass the first CHL bill in 1995. This was a sea change event that reversed 124 years of Texas legislative history and jurisprudence and restored Texans' ability to defend themselves. To get it passed, we had to accept some provisions that weren't warranted from a safety standpoint, but we have removed many of those provisions over the years. Unlicensed car-carry was thought utterly impossible as recently as three years ago, but the excellent track record posted by Texas CHLs for over a decade had subtly brought about a major change in the political landscape.

Could Texas see a day when everyone who is not prohibited from possessing firearms is free to carry a handgun without a CHL? Absolutely, but it will take the same hard work, patience and dedication that made CHL possible. Right now, I'm focused on trying to prevent a Virginia Tech massacre in Texas by passing campus-carry, and trying to ensure that honest people are not disarmed and defenseless going to and from their places of employment, because of unwarranted and dangerous employer company policies. I also want to streamline the DPS processing of CHL applications so people can expect to receive their "plastic" in the time frame required by law. Heck, I have a whole list of things on my "Christmas List" and have drafted bills for every one of them! But that old nemesis "time" is one of the laws of physics that hasn't been repealed and there are only 140 days to do all of the State's business. Prioritizing isn't easy and it's certainly not fun, but it is a political reality.

I have visions of how I would like things to be, even though I know I won't see it in my lifetime. All I can do for the present is work on improving the status quo and praying that we will see continued progress and that my granddaughter will live in a country where all Constitutional rights are once again revered and Americans are willing to pay their share of freedom's cost.

Chas.