TexasCHLforum.com

I'm sure it's been said ...

I sure wish "Disorderly Conduct" Sec. 42.01 could be revised(Ideally).... or at LEAST the CHL applicable portion revised to only revoke/deny eligibility for x and x but because of Y

I mean some infractions of that warrant locking a person up, and others should only warrant saying a few "Hail Marys"

To lose a license for some of those offenses or be ineligible for 5 years just seems harsh. ( I recall a "Disorderly Conduct Language" thread earlier in the year here)

I don't curse, but I haven't hit my thumb with a hammer lately either, and I expect some people who otherwise don't ... might..

I recall in the 1970s with the "Jesus Movement" someone did a "one-way Jesus" index finger sign, and another person thought it was another finger .... almost started an attack/fight from the person who didn't see well, due to poor vision ... I'd hate to see rights lost due to such.

Other than that ... Campus Carry

Personally, I'd like our TPWD to stop stocking "USACE" waters with MY money to improve fishing on THEIR (USACE) lake to bring more tourists income to the USACE.
Put those fish WE paid for and paid to raise in OUR lakes.

(This was a pet peeve of mine, but I resolved to not spend a penny near USACE places. I probably should pull up letters for all the NEW legislators though.

U.S Army Corps of Engineers figures it's safer for us to get snakebit and torn to shreds by wild boars, and shot at by people cooking in their still (meth labs/pot farms) than if we were able to be armed. My squeal like a pig needs practicing. Paddle faster, I hear banjos...

If we can't get USACE to change their regs, at least I want to stop handing them MY money and dinner (fish) (And my city could use tourist dollars too ...)
Perhaps if we stopped stocking their lakes and subsidizing them, it would work like passing out 30.06 sign=no $money cards, providing an economic reason to change their regs.

"acceptable level of government regulation"
That's the second time this week HLA Hart and Dworkin come to mind.
A governor on an engine limits it's freedom., at some level that's good, too much is bad
Striking balance is the dilemma.

I understand the Oliver Wendall Holmes "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" thing ... but:

I don't want my neighbor dumping toxic chemicals on his yard next to my fence, as his chemicals might migrate into my yard.
So some control over HIS property use might be necessary to ensure safety of MY property use. (Wouldn't you feel the same way if I'm dumping toxins in MY yard next to YOUR fence? ... You'd want your property protected by regulations on MY private property.)

Extending this to regulating privately owned BUSINESS property; there are some homeowners near a toxic waste dump (BRIO SUPERFUND SITE) near San Jacinto College South in Houston where there was a high rate of cancers one could talk to and get their input on the matter if businesses should be regulated as to what they can do on their privately owned property.

Ladies, we'll X-ray your purses after the FBI van X-rays your homes, please remove all articles inside your house from any lead safes, and take all chemicals out from under the sinks and place them on the countertops, so we may examine what you have and if we consider it safe or not. Also, please flush all toilets ... we don't like getting "grossed out."

Striking balance is the dilemma.

Back to original topic.

1) more places we can carry (campus imho will illustrate that parking lots are ok, if the "immature school aged 20-somethings" [their words, not mine] can control themselves and grow into business people)
2) Open carry; to de-sensitize people so it's as normal as carrying a knife on your belt, which imho is much deadlier as it's silent, allowing more time to "bleed out" without attracting attention of EMS/Police first responders

... but I'm going to catch heat for saying I think the SA/NSA should be replaced by CC and OC differentiations with additional class hours on "gun retention" required for OC (4 hours of Youtube "gun retention" videos should do it)

Ok, now I'm in trouble .... running away and hiding.

OldSchool wrote:Employer parking lot legislation won't do a thing for me at job #1, the penalties will remain (it would only help if there were a lockup facility required to be available at the gate, as there was years ago).

However, campus carry would be a huge improvement in my situation for jobs #2 and #3! Also, I think it would help educate those who seem most against CC, when they find that the campuses won't erupt with gunfire (as much as now, anyway)!

and that education for the younger crowd may carry over into other areas, when they become employed and/or own/manage businesses

I'm like 85/whatever is left - Campus Carry/EPL

Because ......... I'm retired, but intend to go back to skewl (I need to take Math)