TexasCHLforum.com

Hi folks,

I'm new to all this concealed handgun business. I've recently bought a handgun and have taken the CHL class and applied for a license. I've also been doing a lot of reading about the laws, court cases, and the pro-gun/anti-gun debate. I've come to the conclusion that I have a right to carry a handgun in public for self defense. I believe everyone has that right, and that this is a right that isn't granted by either the state or federal government. They can only recognize that right.

It seems to me that Texas, like many other states, is still operating on the legal opinion that carrying a handgun is a privilege granted by the state. This was based upon an interpretation of the 2nd amendment where there is no individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense. We don't have the complete set of legal precedence to fill out the details of how that individual right should be recognized yet, but what we do have is a clear ruling that it's an individual right to self defense. We have a ruling that recognizes and guarantees that right to everyone.

So, the point I'd like to make is that I'd like to see Texas laws changed such that the states' recognition that I will keep and bear arms for self defense is only a recognition that I'm a citizen. I don't believe in the concept of tailoring laws to only allow the "good guys" to keep and bear arms. I don't believe in tailoring the laws to keep the "wrong people" from keeping and bearing arms. I believe the recent Heller ruling requires the state to completely re-think it's firearm regulations starting with the basis that "all" people have a right to keep and bear arms. Short of that, what dire interest does the state have to infringe upon that right or to strip that right from all the "wrong people?"

People that don't have $250+ to get state mandated training and registration fees?
People that haven't completed an onerous registration process?
People that haven't submitted to fingerprinting and photographs?
People that are unwilling take 10hrs of training to, in large part, learn about this onerous registration process and complex set of statutes?
People that have only been accused of a non-violent non-firearm related Class C misdemeanor?
People that have been convicted of a non-violent non-firearm related Class C misdemeanor?
People that are delinquent on taxes, student loans, or child support payments?
People that haven't waited for background checks across multiple counties and government agencies?

I think that Texas has it all wrong that these, and countless others, are the "wrong people" to keep and bear arms in public for their self-defense.

What do you guys think?

Welcome to the forum.

I agree with you, that self-defense and keeping and bearing the means of self-defense are God-given rights.

However, we're stuck with the political reality of a public, legislators, and judges who do not accept this principle.

The best we can do for now is to support the TSRA and those legislators who recognize the way things should be, and make incremental progress. The recent Heller decision was a huge gain for us, and the consequences of it will play out over many years.

Look at the history of Brown v. Board of Education and long and difficult the struggle to eliminate racial discrimination took.

These issues have been discussed many times in this forum.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Welcome to the forum.

Thanks. Looks interesting.

The best we can do for now is to support the TSRA and those legislators who recognize the way things should be, and make incremental progress. The recent Heller decision was a huge gain for us, and the consequences of it will play out over many years.

I'm going to look into this TSRA. Thanks for the reference. I would definitely like to support an organization that's lobbying in Texas.

Now that I'm waiting for my CHL, I'm particularly irritated that the DPS will do lengthy background checks in both Harris and Brazoria county since I was forced to reveal that I work in a different county than I live. It's also frustrating that they're going through various government agencies and bureaucracy to check for student loans, taxes, child support payments, and protective orders. I just can't see any legitimate government interest in denying anyone a CHL for these reasons. It sure makes the registration process take a long time though. What does a student loan have to do with my right to defend myself? God help us if someone convicted of disorderly conduct legally gets a hold of a gun! How many criminals won't go kill their ex-wife with a handgun because it's not legal to get out of their car with it, if they're already willing to violate the protective order, walk up to her door, and commit the murder? It's just nonsense.

I don't think any of these things will get fixed in the legislation. Does anyone know about any likelihood that any of this will be challenged in the courts in Texas?

You state CHL's are the good guys, but you seem to be of the opinion that everyone and anyone should be able to carry a gun for "self defense"
There are rules, laws, procedures in place for a reason, not to stifle our ability to defend ourselves, but to allow us to do so and not put others needlessly at risk.
If everyone had a "right" to carry a firearm and use it, then when drug deals go bad they would be legally able to defend themselves with deadly force while in commission of a crime. Same thing would apply if Joe Scum Bag tries to steal my wallet, I pull a gun on him, and he somehow pulls his and shoots me in "self defense", he can now steal my wallet which woul dbe against the law, but he could legally kill me to achieve it.
You can't have a deadly force option without laws protecting individuals from prosecution, or establishing a means of prosecuting.

You can read about and join the TSRA here: http://www.tsra.com/

It's safe to say that very little pro-RKBA legislation would be passed without the efforts of the TSRA, and they also watch for and work against bad legislation. They recently prodded DPS to hire people to process applications in the legally required timeframe.

The trend of tying licenses to child support and other arrears is widespread. I don't know if anyone has tried fighting it in court. It's very expensive to take a case to the Texas Supreme Court.

Mr. Scott, the fact that is generally illegal to carry a handgun in public without a CHL does not stop criminals from carrying weapons and committing crimes. They do it all the time. Even if they are caught and prosecuted, they get probation or a short jail term, and they are right back on the street.

- Jim

The Supreme Court's decision in Heller expressly stated that it cannot be cited as authority to strike down laws that prevent felons from possessing firearms. I agree that the "money" provisions in the CHL eligibility requirements are both unnecessary and violative of the Texas Constitution. Those provisions should be deleted.

Chas.

[i]Heller[/i] wrote:2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms.

Mr.Scott wrote:You state CHL's are the good guys, but you seem to be of the opinion that everyone and anyone should be able to carry a gun for "self defense"

I disagree. I am a good guy, and I do not hold a CHL. The state CHL registration process by no means defines the "good guys." It does on the other hand prevent many "good guys" from carrying a handgun for self defense. For example, I am denied the right to carry a handgun, and I am a "good guy."

There are rules, laws, procedures in place for a reason, not to stifle our ability to defend ourselves, but to allow us to do so and not put others needlessly at risk.

Perhaps the government has a great interest in keeping felons from legally carrying firearms, but I feel that many of the administrative statues have no interest related to public risk associated with firearms. For example, what great public risk is there for the state to recognize the rights of someone who is delinquent on a student loan? There's not any. This statute was based upon it being a privilege granted by the state, which now the Supreme court recognizes that it's not that.

If everyone had a "right" to carry a firearm and use it, then when drug deals go bad they would be legally able to defend themselves with deadly force while in commission of a crime. Same thing would apply if Joe Scum Bag tries to steal my wallet, I pull a gun on him, and he somehow pulls his and shoots me in "self defense", he can now steal my wallet which woul dbe against the law, but he could legally kill me to achieve it.
You can't have a deadly force option without laws protecting individuals from prosecution, or establishing a means of prosecuting.

Granted, however, you're focusing on the areas where the government does have a substantial interest. I don't agree that the bulk of the laws governing CHL fall into that category.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The Supreme Court's decision in Heller expressly stated that it cannot be cited as authority to strike down laws that prevent felons from possessing firearms. I agree that the "money" provisions in the CHL eligibility requirements are both unnecessary and violative of the Texas Constitution. Those provisions should be deleted.

The CHL handbook I was provided in my application has 36 out of 75 pages dedicated to the onerous registration, suspension, and revocation statues on the books. In my opinion, very little of that reflects a government interest any where near it's interest in keeping felons from legally possessing firearms. Surely the Heller ruling shaded some protection for some of those, and left the door open to many of the rest. However, it seems to me that the key part of the ruling was the declaration that it's an individual right to self-defense. I believe that eventually, this will lead to some of these statutes that I object to being taken off the books. For example, I'm interested in the second Heller case where he challenges the onerous registration process in DC.

HGWC wrote:So, the point I'd like to make is that I'd like to see Texas laws changed such that the states' recognition that I will keep and bear arms for self defense is only a recognition that I'm a citizen. I don't believe in the concept of tailoring laws to only allow the "good guys" to keep and bear arms. I don't believe in tailoring the laws to keep the "wrong people" from keeping and bearing arms. I believe the recent Heller ruling requires the state to completely re-think it's firearm regulations starting with the basis that "all" people have a right to keep and bear arms. Short of that, what dire interest does the state have to infringe upon that right or to strip that right from all the "wrong people?"

I was responding to this is the part of your post that appears to be arguing that Heller would protect a convicted felon's right to possess firearms. Heller clearly does not.

As I noted, I agree that the "money" provisions (Texas school loans, Texas taxes/fees, and child support) for CHL eligibility should be repealed. If you do a search, you'll find that most TexasCHLforum members agree with this position.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I was responding to this is the part of your post that appears to be arguing that Heller would protect a convicted felon's right to possess firearms. Heller clearly does not.

As I noted, I agree that the "money" provisions (Texas school loans, Texas taxes/fees, and child support) for CHL eligibility should be repealed. If you do a search, you'll find that most TexasCHLforum members agree with this position.

Chas.

What I meant by that was that they should start with "all" have the right. From there, they need to have a clear public interest before they deny those rights. It seems they may be able to make that case for felons, but Class C disorderly conduct? I could easily be wrong, but I suspect it's a new ball park for all of that.

Here's what would be acceptable to me. If I can buy a handgun in ten minutes at a gun store, I should be able to put it in my holster and carry it out of the store. No problem if they want me to take it out to the range and hit the broad side of a barn with it. No problem if they want me to take the same 50 question written test. Only take out 25 questions on the onerous registration, suspension, and revocation process. Test me on the penal code, trespassing, etc, that's fine. Frankly, I don't believe the public is getting much more than that with the process we have now. It is keeping a lot of people from being willing or able to carry a firearm though.

If they would allow open carry with a very limited infringement, that would give them more leeway in restricting concealed. As it stands though, it's widespread denial to handguns for self defense for a whole lot of people. I don't think that could stand up to Heller.

Welcome, HGWC. I can tell you're going to fit in just fine around here.

I'm of the persuasion that anyone walking around breathing free air, should be unrestricted from their inherent right to keep & bear. Anyone who has proven themselves untrustworthy, who has repeatedly initiated force against others, should not be free to walk the streets. Problem solved.

No matter how many "what if?" or "but... the children!" strawmen and red herrings are thrown out there, the fact remains that prohibition does not equal prevention. No law can ever be adequate to stop bad people from carrying weapons, thus no law is ever justified that prevents honest people from carrying adequate means of self defense.

Old-timers here may grow tired of hearing me say it, but I subscribe to the Atlanta Declaration:

Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.
Someday to demonstrate that principle -- before I'm lying on my deathbed in a hospital with green plastic tubes up my nose, before arthritis sets in and I have to do it on crutches -- I intend to walk the length of Manhattan Island with a handgun openly on my hip, unmolested by any freelance or official parasite.

(Much more in-depth explanation at the link above.)

The principled stance isn't popular. People like to think they're qualified, but "those other people" probably shouldn't carry. Sometimes there is a degree of jealousy and/or resentment: we see it right now with CHLs who only got the plastic to carry in the car, and now (almost) anyone can.

Stick around. We have some lively discussions, but it's all civil. For those who would impose more restrictions than I would, I consider it a mission field. Everyone here is on the right track, some just haven't made it all the way yet.

Thank you! I was beginning to feel like I'm all alone on this. I've read quite a few people on these Internet boards that feel like they are the "good guys", and proud of it, but they're all too quick to support restrictions on all of the "wrong people." I haven't had any real involvement with guns since I was between 12-15 when I did a fair amount of hunting on my own and with my father. I've done a bit of hunting here and there along the way. It's only recently that I've looked into going to gun shows, gun shops, and target ranges. I've been kind of shocked by some hypocrisy there. They'll sell you a gun to take out into the public, but God help them if you have a gun on you in their store. I got that in the CHL class the other day. They wouldn't let us bring our handguns into the classroom, loaded or unloaded, for our own safety. I thought to myself, if the instructor doesn't think anyone in this class can responsibly carry even an unloaded handgun into the classroom, why the hell is he going to give them the go ahead for a CHL? If I was afraid of being in the same room with any of these armed folks, there sure wasn't anything taught in that class that would have changed my mind!

BTW, I realize now that it's illegal to put a .22 or a 20 gauge in the hands of a twelve year old and let him go hunting on his own. That is unless you're a farmer. Somehow, the trade of farming either eliminates the risk of allowing a child access to a gun, it eliminates the shocking irresponsibility of it, or because you're a farmer, society will look the other way and suffer through your shocking irresponsibility without consequences. My dad was doing it when he was 10. I had my own .22 and 20 gauge when I was 12. God only knows how I didn't kill anyone with it!

Thanks for letting me take my turn on your soapbox!

Seriously though, I don't think any of these stupid laws are going to get changed in the legislature any time soon. It's going to take court cases, and I think that with the Heller case, there's a lot of leverage. Does anyone know how much money that would take? Is this TSRA able to provide any leadership in getting some cases filed in the courts? How about the NRA? Is anything being done or planned already?

HGWC wrote: I got that in the CHL class the other day. They wouldn't let us bring our handguns into the classroom, loaded or unloaded, for our own safety. I thought to myself, if the instructor doesn't think anyone in this class can responsibly carry even an unloaded handgun into the classroom, why the heck is he going to give them the go ahead for a CHL? If I was afraid of being in the same room with any of these armed folks, there sure wasn't anything taught in that class that would have changed my mind!

I don't think the position of the CHL instructor you cited above is unreasonable. Firearms trainers see many instances of truly scary firearms handling well beyond anything you could even imagine. The CHL class is the first training many of the students have ever received on firearms safety. Before class, many of them literally don't know how to determine if a gun is loaded or not. They may have bought one, but some haven't even opened the box. Of those who did, many did not read the manuals. Under these circumstances, it would be irresponsible to allow new students to bring firearms into the classroom where they may be negligently discharged and injure others.

The restrictions and costs of obtaining a CHL in TX are very clearly intended as a deterrent or impediment to normal citizens to get a CHL. Of course the whole idea of requiring a license to begin with is 100% counter to the idea of the "right" to bear arms.

When I applied for my CHL I still owed money to my county for property taxes. I contacted them about it, as I had been paying it on a schedule. They said they were perfectly content with me paying it on schedule, no problem. I had been in contact with them and worked this out. But in order for me to not risk throwing away my CHL fee, I had to pay it all right then and there.

If I hadn't had to pay that all at once, then I would have also taken my wife to the CHL class and she would have her own gun to carry.

Of course if there were no license fee, then we would both have a license right now (at least pending) and be a long way towards a second handgun for my wife. As it stands, I had to take a day off of work to go to the class, give up that income, and sell some things to pay for my CHL class+license costs.

Often times things like student loans, property taxes, and child support are issues either subject to dispute or available for resolution other than "full and final payment". So clearly the intent of the law is to use the CHL as leverage to force people to pay these debts and give up their other options or rights to dispute or resolution beyond full payment.

Quite simply I think the costs alone (both in time and fees), plus the cost of immediately resolving pending debts excludes a great number of people from obtaining a CHL and this is just as unconstitutional as a poll tax.

Sure, I understand that. I've heard a couple of stories myself. However, I get the impression that this policy of not allowing firearms in the class is applied across the board. Given that you and many other people are reporting safety issues in CHL classes, I'd say I got it just about right. They don't get the firearm in their hand until they go out to the range, after all this training. It's after all this training that the gun is put in their hand and the safety issues happen. Like I said, if I was concerned about a student possessing a handgun before the class, given the limited training in the class, I'd still have the same concern after the class. You're confirming that with all the safety issues you're aware of at the range.

Still though, all this "irresponsibility" being tied to simply letting a person enter a room with a firearm. It doesn't make any sense to me. This is a gun range and gun shop we're talking about. They'll sell you a gun with no questions asked about training. Customers enter the premise with guns everyday. They don't make any determination as to their training or responsibility before they're allowed to enter the premises. At best, they put up a sign with the rules, and they expect their ordinary gun customer is responsible enough and intelligent enough to read it comply. No formal training required to enter their facility, head to the range, pull out that handgun, load it and fire it. They're only particularly concerned about CHL class attendees. Only CHL class attendees are asked to leave their firearms in their cars. If they're only concerned about CHL attendees, out of all of their other customers, these would be the least likely candidates for receiving CHL training. I find this whole concept ridiculous and insulting.