TexasCHLforum.com

What we really need, of course, is national reciprocity and a uniform set of concealed carry rules.

I remember when I first started driving the rules in each state were different. I.e. some states allowed right turn on red, some didn't; the traffic control signs were different; etc. Then Congress came up with a uniform set of rules, which makes it much easier to drive.

There was also a time way back when state driver's licenses weren't reciprocal.

Note that while I think national standardization needs to happen, I realize it will be a nail-biter of a process ironing out the details.

No way.

I hate the idea of Washington DC getting involved.

What is happening now is taking longer but it will be better for us in the long run.

We need to focus on getting Texas law changed to improve things here.

Ok,
I retract part of my national statement.

If the supreme court ruled that the 2nd amendment meant what I think it means AND
ALL Gun laws were NULL AND VOID

That would be ok with me.



AND Yes
This includes Machine Guns, Noise Suppressors, Firearms through the mail, National FBI Instant check, CHL, Felons with guns

LarryArnold wrote:

Note that while I think national standardization needs to happen

What if Diane Feinstein was but in charge of standardization?

I'd rather have states writing the laws. That way I can CHOOSE the type of place I want to live.

LarryArnold wrote:What we really need, of course, is national reciprocity and a uniform set of concealed carry rules.

I remember when I first started driving the rules in each state were different. I.e. some states allowed right turn on red, some didn't; the traffic control signs were different; etc. Then Congress came up with a uniform set of rules, which makes it much easier to drive.

There was also a time way back when state driver's licenses weren't reciprocal.

Note that while I think national standardization needs to happen, I realize it will be a nail-biter of a process ironing out the details.

I agree. I think that if it can work with DLs then it can work with CHLs. I would like to suggest PA or Indiana as the model for the rest of the country.

Tecumseh wrote:

LarryArnold wrote:What we really need, of course, is national reciprocity and a uniform set of concealed carry rules.

I remember when I first started driving the rules in each state were different. I.e. some states allowed right turn on red, some didn't; the traffic control signs were different; etc. Then Congress came up with a uniform set of rules, which makes it much easier to drive.

There was also a time way back when state driver's licenses weren't reciprocal.

Note that while I think national standardization needs to happen, I realize it will be a nail-biter of a process ironing out the details.

I agree. I think that if it can work with DLs then it can work with CHLs. I would like to suggest PA or Indiana as the model for the rest of the country.

Another proplem; whose standard do you use. You better be careful, you might get what you ask for and California's model will be the National one.

ANd will this be some federal law? You want the feds regulating you more? No thanks. It is a state's rights issue. The people of each state get the government they deserve.

Can you point me towards the law congress passsed about driving laws? I was certain that Texas had state traffic laws, not federal ones.

txinvestigator wrote:

Tecumseh wrote:

LarryArnold wrote:What we really need, of course, is national reciprocity and a uniform set of concealed carry rules.

I remember when I first started driving the rules in each state were different. I.e. some states allowed right turn on red, some didn't; the traffic control signs were different; etc. Then Congress came up with a uniform set of rules, which makes it much easier to drive.

There was also a time way back when state driver's licenses weren't reciprocal.

Note that while I think national standardization needs to happen, I realize it will be a nail-biter of a process ironing out the details.

I agree. I think that if it can work with DLs then it can work with CHLs. I would like to suggest PA or Indiana as the model for the rest of the country.

Another proplem; whose standard do you use. You better be careful, you might get what you ask for and California's model will be the National one.

ANd will this be some federal law? You want the feds regulating you more? No thanks. It is a state's rights issue. The people of each state get the government they deserve.

Can you point me towards the law congress passsed about driving laws? I was certain that Texas had state traffic laws, not federal ones.

We all know Utopia would be a "National Standard" but TX your correct, whose standard would it be? I think I like the way Texas does things....
I think letting the states work it out amoung themselves is safer. IMHO

txinvestigator wrote:Can you point me towards the law congress passsed about driving laws? I was certain that Texas had state traffic laws, not federal ones.

It's been a long time since I've had any History classes or Driver's Ed, but, IIRC, the Feds didn't make the laws, they just threatened to withhold Federal highway funds (and maybe other Federal moneys) if the states didn't adopt what they considered to be the "right" laws. I know that's why the drinking age went up to 21.

barres wrote:It's been a long time since I've had any History classes or Driver's Ed, but, IIRC, the Feds didn't make the laws, they just threatened to withhold Federal highway funds (and maybe other Federal moneys) if the states didn't adopt what they considered to be the "right" laws. I know that's why the drinking age went up to 21.

In my opinion, this tactic of getting by extortion that which the Constitution won't allow congress to do by legislation is extremely dangerous! Couple this with the absurd extension of the Commerce Clause and we have the potential for federal control at levels of state and local government that would have stunned people as recently as 30 years ago.

As txinvestigator said, allowing the feds to set a standard is very risky. Plus, once the feds have ventured into an area, we won't be able to get them out later when the political winds have changed and congress passes a ban on carrying of handguns. The only "authority" for congress to legislate on the issue of carrying handguns in the states is the Commerce Clause. If congress can tell the states you cannot prohibit the carrying of a handgun that has traveled in interstate commerce, then it can just as easily change the law later to state it's unlawful to carry a handgun that has traveled in interstate commerce. (This is the basis for both the NFA prohibition on machine guns as well as the federal “Gun Free School Zones.�) Yes, this warning ignores the Second Amendment, but we don't yet have a U.S. Supreme Court decision stating the Second Amendment is an individual right, much less one that says that right cannot be regulated to some degree.

Now an interstate compact like the driver’s license compact would be fine.

Chas.

Don't misunderstand me; I wan't saying that the Feds should interfere with CHL regulation. I was just explaining what I remembered of how they interfered with states' laws regulating driving (or at least drinking). I think the Federal government has its fingers in too many pies already.

barres wrote:Don't misunderstand me; I wan't saying that the Feds should interfere with CHL regulation. I was just explaining what I remembered of how they interfered with states' laws regulating driving (or at least drinking). I think the Federal government has its fingers in too many pies already.

Amen.

barres wrote:Don't misunderstand me; I wan't saying that the Feds should interfere with CHL regulation. I was just explaining what I remembered of how they interfered with states' laws regulating driving (or at least drinking). I think the Federal government has its fingers in too many pies already.

I didn't think you were; I appreciate you pointing out the 21 year old drinking age. That's also how we had the "national 55 mph" speed limit for so many years.

Chas.