TexasCHLforum.com

I guess its just me, maybe not. We that have the CHL have gone through quite a bit to recieve the great piece of plastic to have the right to carry a concealed handgun whereever we go.

Now what bothers me is that just any Tom , Dick and Harry can carry one in their car while concealed. According to the Media!!!!

Is this right??? I knew that there were new laws that were going into effect on the 1st of Sept., but I believed that the law for anyone to carry concealed in their car would be as long as they were traveling.

Maybe someone can make me happy and not have to worry about this. I only say this because their are some people who should not even be allowed to look at guns, much less own one.

I apologize for stepping on anyones toes if I do.

Thanks

As I have understood it, with the new law you are presumed to be traveling if you are in your privately owned vehicle and not engaging in criminal activity.

I'm sure someone will put me straight if I read it wrong.

I kinda agree on this. We have gone thru a lot to get our "Right" to carry.

I also agree that there are those people (and a lot of them) who should never even be allowed to look at a picture of a gun, much less have one in their car or anywhere else!

I foresee a lot of bad actions being taken by these people that will come back to haunt us CHL'ers and the 2nd Amendment Debate.

Lack of training (that we have all done) will be the basis of the "problems".

I wasn't around here when Texas passed the CHL law, but I have read that among the arguments against were concerns that fender benders would turn to shoot-outs and the streets would be flowing with blood.
It has been proven that those concerns did not become reality.

I come from a country where citizens have basically NO right to defend themselves from violent attack, and where rights of criminals are valued much higher than rights of law abiding citizens. The goverment there does not trust its citizens to do the right thing.

As I see it, the Texas legislature has shown that they do trust their citizens, and has given them the means to defend themselves.
Of course there are people who can't be trusted with guns, and many of them are already disqualified from owning them. The clarified "traveling law" doesn't give the right to previously disqualified persons to carry in their cars, but defines what it meant by "traveling".

Part of the "Castle Doctrine" gives you the right to use deadly force in your defense if someone is trying to enter your vehicle by force, or trying to remove you from your vehicle by force. There are many people I think to be unfit for owning guns, but when I think of them needing the means of defending themselves, I will give them the benefit of the doubt.

scooter03 wrote:Now what bothers me is that just any Tom , Dick and Harry can carry one in their car while concealed. According to the Media!!!!

For once, the media are correct.

For the record, I'm not bothered in the least that Tom, Dick, and Harry can carry concealed in their cars. Likewise for Suzie, Sally, and Jane.

That's part of the right to keep and bear arms. The requirement for a CHL is an infringement on that right. The CHL should be viewed as a bother, not membership in an exclusive club.

Is this right??? I knew that there were new laws that were going into effect on the 1st of Sept., but I believed that the law for anyone to carry concealed in their car would be as long as they were traveling.

As of 9/1/2005, anyone in their car is traveling. As of 9/1/2007, it doesn't matter if they're traveling, because UCW no longer applies.

Maybe someone can make me happy and not have to worry about this.

You should consult with this guy.

I only say this because their are some people who should not even be allowed to look at guns, much less own one.

And who gets to say who "those people" are?

No toes were harmed in the reading of your post.

Kevin

KBCraig wrote: For the record, I'm not bothered in the least that Tom, Dick, and Harry can carry concealed in their cars. Likewise for Suzie, Sally, and Jane.

That's part of the right to keep and bear arms. The requirement for a CHL is an infringement on that right. The CHL should be viewed as a bother, not membership in an exclusive club.

100%.

Maybe someone can make me happy and not have to worry about this.

You should consult with this guy.

In your life expect some trouble
But when you worry
You make it double
Don't worry, be happy......

The only reason I'm a little upset about this is the main reason I got my CHL was so I could have a handgun in my vehicle with me. Overall I see it as a good thing, it's a step forward on getting one of our should be rights back.

I am a believer that we should need no license whatsoever to carry a pistol, as the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the US Constitution.

It really disgusts me that we live in a society where we are ruled by a nanny government, lorded over by those who believe they know what’s better for the masses than the masses themselves.

Unfortunately the sheeple are ignorant enough to elect and continue to re-elect this "elite" class that knows what’s best for us "common folk". You call that freedom? I sure don’t.

<steps off soapbox>

The new law that goes into effect 1Sept2007 removes the presumption of traveling altogether from the law. It will no longer matter if you’re driving across the street or across the state. Provided the pistol is concealed at all times, and no laws are being broken, it is perfectly legal for any law abiding person to have a loaded pistol in their vehicle.

Gotta love Texas

I think I'm in the minority here, but I'll go and say this anyway:
I think EVERYONE has the right to keep and bear arms. That includes people that have been formerly convicted of a crime. As long as they are not using their weapons to intimidate people or break the law, they should be allowed to have and carry them.

Remember, people banned for life from keeping and bearing arms include such dangerous people as Martha Stewart, G Gordon Liddy, and Kenneth Lay.

Even someone that was convicted of a nastier crime, that did their time, and repaid their debt to society should be able to defend themselves and their family. If they are such a danger to society that we can't trust them with a cornerstone right, they need to stay locked up.

According to the constitution, EVERYONE has that right, even though our current federal, state, and local laws do not recognize that right.

Much in the same way everyone has the right to free speech and exercise of religion.
Sure, I might not like satanists, but they have the right to say and practice the way they want.

None of us would stand for any law that would force longtooth, or carlson1 to wait 60 days for the government to check them and make them pay $300 for the "right" to preach.

The fact that we have a CHL means we have the money and time to get the state to partially restore a right we should have anyway.

If you had to go through the same rigmarole to exercise your 1st amendment rights, nobody would stand for it.

It's a sad state of affairs that people stand for as much as we do in regards to our 2nd amendment rights.

OK, I'll get off my soapbox now.

Ok, I appreciate all of your responses, including the ones making me look like the backside of a mule.

I can accept that we all have oppinions.

However, I on the first hand live next door to a person that scares the bejesus out of me, just as soon as he heard this, yehaw now he wants to have a gun to carry in the car.

Now you ask why dont I move, Its my dad, he has been diagnosed as mentally ill, and child like tendencies. Got arrested in a store recently for hitting a store manager.

Now would you want that person to have a gun? You know my opinion.

Can he get a gun? Legally no, but guess what I got my first gun from him. actually 3 now, 2 shotguns and a pistol.
So why do I speak out? to get looked down upon,
I do know that I will do everything in my power to keep my CHL and abide by all rules. Yes we have a right to bear arms, but does everyone, NO. Even the laws do state people with this type of illness legally cannot carry.

thanks

nitrogen,

I agree with you for the most part. I too think if they have done their time then they have paid their debt and should have all their rights back.....with a few exceptions: mentally ill, sex offenders or those that were charged with violent crimes should not be allowed to carry.

Scooter,
I'm sorry to hear that your father is ill. But from what you say, I would think the new law doesn't change anything for him. If he can't legally own a firearm, he sure can't carry it in his car legally.

I worry much more about any government that would deny law abiding people their basic God given right. I am happy and count this clarification of the law a great victory for all law abiding Texans. Now if we can get the same sort of thing for concealed carry outside the car we will be moving in the right direction. Using a gun in a crime is illegal. Negligent handling of a firearm is covered as well. There is no need for the state to control the innocent in order to stop the would be guilty. Doesn't work and never has. That is my opinion.

Seems to me the fear of a gun in a car is a little over rated.
In as much as a Illegal gun owner, a person who is barred from buying a gun will not have a gun to place in their car in the first place for what ever reason they cant own a gun.
And if they carry a gun they are breaking the law even if it is in their car.

If a person is a criminal they will have a gun no matter what and if a person is a law abiding person then nothing has changed except they can carry a gun in their car without fear of punishment for doing so.

This new law is for the person that could carry and will follow the law.

The criminal wont care anyway!