There's a point in time that, if you are lucky enough to live so long, your child will demand that you turn over the keys to your car because you present a danger to yourself and others. In Texas now, you must have a current photo ID to VOTE, and this was recently passed by a Republican legislature. Go figure. If you are too feeble to get to the DPS office, wait in line for a couple hours and get your picture taken, you can't vote. Seems like that is a basic right as you define them. Same goes for our personal protection. If one is not capable of handling a small pistol, perhaps someone needs to take it away, just for the protection of the senior.Dragonfighter wrote: And so the person who is not mobile enough to stand at the firing line or strong enough to fire 50 rounds at a target are precluded from self protection. I know a gentleman who still gets out but is too arthritic to rack a slide or handle individual rounds, but he can point and pull the trigger. His family or friends ensures he is heeled with a ready weapon. But he is incapable of sitting still long enough for the class or able to sustain the rigors of CHL range qualifications. I guess his carrying is "unacceptable".
Search found 2 matches
Return to “12 States Considering Permitless Carry Laws”
- Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:32 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: 12 States Considering Permitless Carry Laws
- Replies: 33
- Views: 4760
Re: 12 States Considering Permitless Carry Laws
- Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:47 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: 12 States Considering Permitless Carry Laws
- Replies: 33
- Views: 4760
Re: 12 States Considering Permitless Carry Laws
In practice, a system in which no permit is required, i.e., no training required, no demonstration of a minimal competency, is unacceptable. Even to get a driver's license you must prove to someone that you are capable of driving and abiding the laws. I would be very uncomfortable if I knew that anyone could go to the emporium, purchase a handgun, and never fire it but merely load and carry. Training and some experience with the weapon is mandatory if for no other reason than to protect the person carrying from placing themselves in a situation where they might spend time in criminal or civil court. Now, the state of Texas sees the CHL as a cash cow. It need not be. The fees we pay for the license should cover the actual costs and nothing more, and the license should signify to the LEOs that we have been previously vetted. Yes, the BG doesn't care about a permit because he doesn't care who the bullet hits. The CHL must pause at times, look beyond the target, and consider the consequences. Minimal training would aid that goal.