TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote: As I have said before on this board, my end goal is the total repeal of Penal Code Chapter 46, the GCA of 1968 and the NFA of 1934. Based on what I have seen so far, I will continue to work with the TSRA and the NRA on my goals. There are many other organizations working towards my goals, such as OCT, SAF, and JFPO. I am not putting any organization down, but I have to admit that the TSRA is the most successful lobbyist for my firearm rights in Texas and the NRA is the same at the national level. I certainly hope we can cut out the in-fighting and work together, but until that happens, I am going with the NRA and TSRA.

Well said, and I'm with this guy.

Gun rights organizations should be working to improve the laws. Sadly I see a lot of groups who consider themselves gun rights organizations that spend a lot more time attacking other organizations than working towards improving the law.

I'm a proud member of the NRA and TSRA and will continue to support them as long as they work hard to improve gun laws. I welcome other organizations to join us in the fight, but insulting or attacking the NRA/TSRA is not helping anyone.

Those who care only about who gets credit get no credit from me. Let's just work hard to get some more pro gun bills passed this session.

Jumping Frog wrote:

74novaman wrote:I've heard people make the argument that a CHL is needed because people need to be trained how to carry. My response is always that responsible people will seek out training regardless of whether or not the law mandates it, and that there were no incidents in states like Arizona or Alaska that can be blamed on a lack of a CHL class after they both enacted constitutional carry.

Haven't seen any blood running in the streets of Vermont either.

Vermont has been a Constitutional Carry state for a long time , right?

The reason I mentioned Alaska and Arizona is they went from permit required to CC more recently, so they parallel our situation more closely.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: As with CHL, the Motorist Protection Act has not resulted in any of the problems the anti-gunners shouted from the rooftops. Unlicensed carry has not proven to be a problem in the few other states that allow it, so that adds a bit more comfort.

Most crimes are committed by repeat offenders and a very large percentage of them will be convicted felons, meaning they cannot legally carry. HB195 faces an uphill battle, but there may be no better session to make an attempt.

Chas.

Agreed 100%. I've heard people make the argument that a CHL is needed because people need to be trained how to carry. My response is always that responsible people will seek out training regardless of whether or not the law mandates it, and that there were no incidents in states like Arizona or Alaska that can be blamed on a lack of a CHL class after they both enacted constitutional carry.