Military Exemption

[txinvestigator]

I don't believe "military" in general is sufficient for a special class for carry anywhere.

I do support removing the restrictions altogether.

Instead of "special class" would you have also meant "exemption"???

And when you state "restrictions" do you mean places we can carry at? Such as, venues, events, and other facilities (in the law) that are allowed to restrict our carrying, yet are not required to post???

I actually think thats what you meant, but I am not a very good mind reader...

Y'all leave "Txi" alone! he's under a lot of stress and strain these days!

Pick on me instead...I'll show you! I'll just ignore ya...

I'll try to be more clear.

I don't think the military should receive any more special carry priviledges than they currenty have.

I believe ALL CHL holders should have the limitations on places where they can carry removed, save perhaps the secured area of airports and jails.

I appreciate the support steve but Txi is just fine.

[stevie_d_64]

I'll try to be more clear.

Good...

I don't think the military should receive any more special carry priviledges than they currenty have.

Agreed, but I thought the original question and or comment related to seeing if an "exemption" to carrying under the CHL law here in this state, was what they were implying for military personnel...

I believe ALL CHL holders should have the limitations on places where they can carry removed, save perhaps the secured area of airports and jails.

Absolutely...Thats a very doable goal for us to shoot for...If Vermont and Alaska can do it...And everyone is happy with that in their state...I don;t see a lot of effort to take away those "systems" if you can call them that, happening...They be in pretty good shape if you ask me...

I appreciate the support steve but Txi is just fine.

Ok, dogpile on "Txi" everybody!

[Zero_G]

§46.02. Unlawful carrying weapons.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally,
knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his person a handgun,
illegal knife, or club.

46.15 Non-Applicability
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:

(1) (As added by L.1997, chap. 1221(4). See other paragraph (1)
below.) is in the actual discharge of official duties as a member of
the armed forces or state military forces as defined by Section
431.001, Government Code, or as an employee of a penal institution
who is performing a security function;

(1) (As added by L.1997, chap. 1261(28). See other paragraph
(1) above.) is in the actual discharge of official duties as a member
of the armed forces or state military forces as defined by Section
431.001, Government Code, or as a guard employed by a penal
institution;

I've wondered about this clause - what do they mean by "actual discharge of official duties"? Does this mean a military cop who normally carries a weapon day-to-day? Or what about me? I'm an active duty Air Force doc, assigned to a local government agency. My normal duties don't require me to carry a gun (only when in dry, sandy places) - heck, I don't even wear a uniform. We're told by the command chain that we're on duty 24/7.

Does that mean I could carry anytime/anywhere? I'm betting not. I might be able to convince a jury that I was legal, but it would be a whole lotta $$$ and some time behind bars until it got worked out. I don't think that would be too good for my career.

It's an interesting piece of law, but I'm really curious what the intent was.

Keith
[Yes, I have my Texas CHL]

[KBCraig]

You'll never have any doubt about when you're carrying a firearm as part of your "actual discharge of official duties as a member of the armed forces or state military forces", because the service will be handing you a gun and telling you to carry it.

Anything short of that would be unofficial.

[Zero_G]

You'll never have any doubt about when you're carrying a firearm as part of your "actual discharge of official duties as a member of the armed forces or state military forces", because the service will be handing you a gun and telling you to carry it.

Anything short of that would be unofficial.

I don't think the law says 'is carrying a firearm in discharge of official duties', but rather the *member* is in discharge of official duties, or at least that's how I read it....

[Right2Carry]

Ok, so we agree there.

Now, is it a waste of time to add a subset of the CHL community to a "Carry Everywhere Group"? Or is the CHL class enough?

Can the first group of "carry everywhere CHL holders" be those with military experience? Or Even CHL Instructors?

As a CHL instructor, you have had to of seen some folks who clearly have no other training than you have provided to them. Doesnt that scare you a bit?

Being in the military is not enough. I have HUGE respect (a a little envy) of our military, but they are a different animal. As I said, the only handgun training many get is in CHL class. I don't believe "military" in general is sufficient for a special class for carry anywhere.

I do support removing the restrictions altogether.

I can only speak for the NAVY, but when I went through boot camp (89) every single person had to shoot a handgun, a .45 chambered for .22, lol. Now I would suspect that all other bootcamps are the same across the military. I believe everyone gets exposed to guns in boot camp, and then after boot camp depending upon your job function some may never touch a gun again while others may be around them dailly.

I find this no different than the CHL person who takes the course and proves that he can shoot a gun at a close target once every 4 years. Every man and woman currently serving in the military is required to use a firearm if directed. In a war zone, they don't start asking for qualifications if the a problem arises.

I have no problem with what GA has done, in fact I would support it here in Texas. Our second amendment rights gaurentee us the right to keep and bear arms, and I am unaware of anything suggesting that Qualifying with a gun is required. In fact I think what GA has done brings us closer to our 2nd ammendment rights. Personally I think having to pay for a CHL and qualify to be able to do what the constitution gave me the right to do is laughable.

Military people can drink on base at 18 and I think that should be extended to everywhere myself. I believe that if you are old enough to die for your country you should be able to drink and carry a gun also.

[NcongruNt]

Ok, so we agree there.

Now, is it a waste of time to add a subset of the CHL community to a "Carry Everywhere Group"? Or is the CHL class enough?

Can the first group of "carry everywhere CHL holders" be those with military experience? Or Even CHL Instructors?

As a CHL instructor, you have had to of seen some folks who clearly have no other training than you have provided to them. Doesnt that scare you a bit?

Being in the military is not enough. I have HUGE respect (a a little envy) of our military, but they are a different animal. As I said, the only handgun training many get is in CHL class. I don't believe "military" in general is sufficient for a special class for carry anywhere.

I do support removing the restrictions altogether.

I can only speak for the NAVY, but when I went through boot camp (89) every single person had to shoot a handgun, a .45 chambered for .22, lol. Now I would suspect that all other bootcamps are the same across the military. I believe everyone gets exposed to guns in boot camp, and then after boot camp depending upon your job function some may never touch a gun again while others may be around them dailly.

I find this no different than the CHL person who takes the course and proves that he can shoot a gun at a close target once every 4 years. Every man and woman currently serving in the military is required to use a firearm if directed. In a war zone, they don't start asking for qualifications if the a problem arises.

I have no problem with what GA has done, in fact I would support it here in Texas. Our second amendment rights gaurentee us the right to keep and bear arms, and I am unaware of anything suggesting that Qualifying with a gun is required. In fact I think what GA has done brings us closer to our 2nd ammendment rights. Personally I think having to pay for a CHL and qualify to be able to do what the constitution gave me the right to do is laughable.

Military people can drink on base at 18 and I think that should be extended to everywhere myself. I believe that if you are old enough to die for your country you should be able to drink and carry a gun also.

I'm going to have to sort of... disagree with you there.

The CHL course isn't really about shooting. It's about knowing the laws and situational preparedness. Boot camp doesn't cover this. The shooting portion of the course takes a trivial amount of time, and is simply there to make sure you can hit the broad side of a barn with your handgun. The course doesn't train you to shoot at all. It simply makes sure you have remedial shooting skills.

[GreenGuy]

That is where I actually agree, the CHL class is more about the Texas laws, which I think everyone needs to know and understand.

Now I think that all CHL's should be able to carry anywhere, but there are those who do not.

My though was, could we Test this with a Military and TX CHL Instructor clause. One that says if you have a valid CHL and Military ID, or Valid CHL and CHL Instructor, then you are entitled to "Carry Everywhere"

If we got this small group passed, it would open up the door to add other classes of CHLS until eventually all CHLs would have the right...

[srothstein]

I can only speak for the NAVY, but when I went through boot camp (89) every single person had to shoot a handgun, a .45 chambered for .22, lol. Now I would suspect that all other bootcamps are the same across the military. I believe everyone gets exposed to guns in boot camp, and then after boot camp depending upon your job function some may never touch a gun again while others may be around them dailly.

Well, I have to sort of agree and sort of disagree with this part. In the Army, everyone enlisted gets exposed to fireamrs and has to qualify with the M-16/M4 or whatever is the current version. They do not all get exposed to handguns, and most never see them. The only people the army teaches handgun use to is the people who they expect to be issued one (MP's, Officers, etc. - I am not sure about tankers anymore).

And I will give the Amry credit for being able to teach people to shoot a rifle. They got my daughter qualified and she would not go shooting with me because she wasn't interested in guns.

But as pointed out, they teach nothing about the law, which could be a requirement. I rpefer the other proposed alternative. Make it easier (read cheaper) for them to get a CHL after they go through a regular CHL class and qualification.

[Right2Carry]

Ok, so we agree there.

Now, is it a waste of time to add a subset of the CHL community to a "Carry Everywhere Group"? Or is the CHL class enough?

Can the first group of "carry everywhere CHL holders" be those with military experience? Or Even CHL Instructors?

As a CHL instructor, you have had to of seen some folks who clearly have no other training than you have provided to them. Doesnt that scare you a bit?

Being in the military is not enough. I have HUGE respect (a a little envy) of our military, but they are a different animal. As I said, the only handgun training many get is in CHL class. I don't believe "military" in general is sufficient for a special class for carry anywhere.

I do support removing the restrictions altogether.

I can only speak for the NAVY, but when I went through boot camp (89) every single person had to shoot a handgun, a .45 chambered for .22, lol. Now I would suspect that all other bootcamps are the same across the military. I believe everyone gets exposed to guns in boot camp, and then after boot camp depending upon your job function some may never touch a gun again while others may be around them dailly.

I find this no different than the CHL person who takes the course and proves that he can shoot a gun at a close target once every 4 years. Every man and woman currently serving in the military is required to use a firearm if directed. In a war zone, they don't start asking for qualifications if the a problem arises.

I have no problem with what GA has done, in fact I would support it here in Texas. Our second amendment rights gaurentee us the right to keep and bear arms, and I am unaware of anything suggesting that Qualifying with a gun is required. In fact I think what GA has done brings us closer to our 2nd ammendment rights. Personally I think having to pay for a CHL and qualify to be able to do what the constitution gave me the right to do is laughable.

Military people can drink on base at 18 and I think that should be extended to everywhere myself. I believe that if you are old enough to die for your country you should be able to drink and carry a gun also.

I'm going to have to sort of... disagree with you there.

The CHL course isn't really about shooting. It's about knowing the laws and situational preparedness. Boot camp doesn't cover this. The shooting portion of the course takes a trivial amount of time, and is simply there to make sure you can hit the broad side of a barn with your handgun. The course doesn't train you to shoot at all. It simply makes sure you have remedial shooting skills.

You can disagree all you want but the fact is that no where in the 2nd ammendment does it state I need to take any kind of course in order to keep and bear arms as a qualifier. Should they know the laws, absoutley, is it a good idea they take a course for that, probably, is it necessary, I don't think so.

I carry a kniife. Did I have to take a course in order to carry that knife? Did I have to take a course that explained all the laws regarding what kind of knife is legal to carry and what isn't? Nope sure didn't. But it is my individual responsibility to know those laws, but no course is required. Concealed weapons can come in many forms yet the only one I am required to take a course on is a handgun. It is up to me to know what is legal and what isn't, and act accordingly.

[NcongruNt]

Ok, so we agree there.

Now, is it a waste of time to add a subset of the CHL community to a "Carry Everywhere Group"? Or is the CHL class enough?

Can the first group of "carry everywhere CHL holders" be those with military experience? Or Even CHL Instructors?

As a CHL instructor, you have had to of seen some folks who clearly have no other training than you have provided to them. Doesnt that scare you a bit?

Being in the military is not enough. I have HUGE respect (a a little envy) of our military, but they are a different animal. As I said, the only handgun training many get is in CHL class. I don't believe "military" in general is sufficient for a special class for carry anywhere.

I do support removing the restrictions altogether.

I can only speak for the NAVY, but when I went through boot camp (89) every single person had to shoot a handgun, a .45 chambered for .22, lol. Now I would suspect that all other bootcamps are the same across the military. I believe everyone gets exposed to guns in boot camp, and then after boot camp depending upon your job function some may never touch a gun again while others may be around them dailly.

I find this no different than the CHL person who takes the course and proves that he can shoot a gun at a close target once every 4 years. Every man and woman currently serving in the military is required to use a firearm if directed. In a war zone, they don't start asking for qualifications if the a problem arises.

I have no problem with what GA has done, in fact I would support it here in Texas. Our second amendment rights gaurentee us the right to keep and bear arms, and I am unaware of anything suggesting that Qualifying with a gun is required. In fact I think what GA has done brings us closer to our 2nd ammendment rights. Personally I think having to pay for a CHL and qualify to be able to do what the constitution gave me the right to do is laughable.

Military people can drink on base at 18 and I think that should be extended to everywhere myself. I believe that if you are old enough to die for your country you should be able to drink and carry a gun also.

I'm going to have to sort of... disagree with you there.

The CHL course isn't really about shooting. It's about knowing the laws and situational preparedness. Boot camp doesn't cover this. The shooting portion of the course takes a trivial amount of time, and is simply there to make sure you can hit the broad side of a barn with your handgun. The course doesn't train you to shoot at all. It simply makes sure you have remedial shooting skills.

You can disagree all you want but the fact is that no where in the 2nd ammendment does it state I need to take any kind of course in order to keep and bear arms as a qualifier. Should they know the laws, absoutley, is it a good idea they take a course for that, probably, is it necessary, I don't think so.

I carry a kniife. Did I have to take a course in order to carry that knife? Did I have to take a course that explained all the laws regarding what kind of knife is legal to carry and what isn't? Nope sure didn't. But it is my individual responsibility to know those laws, but no course is required. Concealed weapons can come in many forms yet the only one I am required to take a course on is a handgun. It is up to me to know what is legal and what isn't, and act accordingly.

I'm not going to argue with you about philosophies. I'm talking about practicalities.

Firstly, you're not going to get a bill passed that simply allows military personnel to carry without any kind of qualifying training and certification such as the CHL. With all due respect, I've known some real hothead military folks who would be dangerous if allowed to carry a concealed weapon in public without restriction. One incident with such a member of the military under a special class of regulation would cause a backlash against us, and likely undo a lot of what has been accomplished in recent years.

Secondly, as much as I respect the members of the military, I do not believe it to be fair to enforce regulation of concealed handguns differently for members of the military simply because of their service. Exemptions exist for certain individuals such as judges and LEOs because the commission of their duties is performed in public places where they are significantly at risk to be targets of an attack. I do not believe creating a special class where an abstract group of people are regulated differently without specific differentiating need is constructive towards obtaining unregulated affirmation of our rights under the 2nd amendment. I believe this would create more of an elite classification in the perception of the public, and work against the notion of equality in exercising our rights.

(edited for clarification)

[Right2Carry]

Ok, so we agree there.

Now, is it a waste of time to add a subset of the CHL community to a "Carry Everywhere Group"? Or is the CHL class enough?

Can the first group of "carry everywhere CHL holders" be those with military experience? Or Even CHL Instructors?

As a CHL instructor, you have had to of seen some folks who clearly have no other training than you have provided to them. Doesnt that scare you a bit?

Being in the military is not enough. I have HUGE respect (a a little envy) of our military, but they are a different animal. As I said, the only handgun training many get is in CHL class. I don't believe "military" in general is sufficient for a special class for carry anywhere.

I do support removing the restrictions altogether.

I can only speak for the NAVY, but when I went through boot camp (89) every single person had to shoot a handgun, a .45 chambered for .22, lol. Now I would suspect that all other bootcamps are the same across the military. I believe everyone gets exposed to guns in boot camp, and then after boot camp depending upon your job function some may never touch a gun again while others may be around them dailly.

I find this no different than the CHL person who takes the course and proves that he can shoot a gun at a close target once every 4 years. Every man and woman currently serving in the military is required to use a firearm if directed. In a war zone, they don't start asking for qualifications if the a problem arises.

I have no problem with what GA has done, in fact I would support it here in Texas. Our second amendment rights gaurentee us the right to keep and bear arms, and I am unaware of anything suggesting that Qualifying with a gun is required. In fact I think what GA has done brings us closer to our 2nd ammendment rights. Personally I think having to pay for a CHL and qualify to be able to do what the constitution gave me the right to do is laughable.

Military people can drink on base at 18 and I think that should be extended to everywhere myself. I believe that if you are old enough to die for your country you should be able to drink and carry a gun also.

I'm going to have to sort of... disagree with you there.

The CHL course isn't really about shooting. It's about knowing the laws and situational preparedness. Boot camp doesn't cover this. The shooting portion of the course takes a trivial amount of time, and is simply there to make sure you can hit the broad side of a barn with your handgun. The course doesn't train you to shoot at all. It simply makes sure you have remedial shooting skills.

You can disagree all you want but the fact is that no where in the 2nd ammendment does it state I need to take any kind of course in order to keep and bear arms as a qualifier. Should they know the laws, absoutley, is it a good idea they take a course for that, probably, is it necessary, I don't think so.

I carry a kniife. Did I have to take a course in order to carry that knife? Did I have to take a course that explained all the laws regarding what kind of knife is legal to carry and what isn't? Nope sure didn't. But it is my individual responsibility to know those laws, but no course is required. Concealed weapons can come in many forms yet the only one I am required to take a course on is a handgun. It is up to me to know what is legal and what isn't, and act accordingly.

I'm not going to argue with you about philosophies. I'm talking about practicalities.

Firstly, you're not going to get a bill passed that simply allows military personnel to carry without any kind of qualifying training and certification such as the CHL. With all due respect, I've known some real hothead military folks who would be dangerous if allowed to carry a concealed weapon in public without restriction. One incident with such a member of the military under a special class of regulation would cause a backlash against us, and likely undo a lot of what has been accomplished in recent years.

Secondly, as much as I respect the members of the military, I do not believe it to be fair to enforce regulation of concealed handguns differently for members of the military simply because of their service. Exemptions exist for certain individuals such as judges and LEOs because the commission of their duties is performed in public places where they are significantly at risk to be targets of an attack. I do not believe creating a special class where an abstract group of people are regulated differently without specific differentiating need is constructive towards obtaining unregulated affirmation of our rights under the 2nd amendment. I believe this would create more of an elite classification in the perception of the public, and work against the notion of equality in exercising our rights.

(edited for clarification)

It appears that GA already allows this so to say it won't happen without training is just false. If it can happen in one state it can happen in others.

[jhutto]

"You guys know I am pro, but giving everyone a gun is just bad business.
_________________
*CHL Instructor* "

Usually I am pretty tolorant and respect individuals opinions, but this is just wrong .
I think anyone who feels confident enough to carry should be able to.
It is our god given right, and obligation; to keep and bear arms, to defend our family and country, from threats abroad and within.

[Right2Carry]

"You guys know I am pro, but giving everyone a gun is just bad business.
_________________
*CHL Instructor* "

Usually I am pretty tolorant and respect individuals opinions, but this is just wrong .
I think anyone who feels confident enough to carry should be able to.
It is our god given right, and obligation; to keep and bear arms, to defend our family and country, from threats abroad and within.

Agreed. They also didn't put any stupid training requirements on our constitutional right.