Major advancements for Texas CHL holders

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 26852
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Major advancements for Texas CHL holders

#121

Post by The Annoyed Man »

Beiruty wrote:I am NOT starting a flame war. However, The 2ndA, starts with "A well regulated......

CHL as well as gun ownership should be somehow regulated as it is high responsibility. "Wackos with guns" are real the enemy of our gun rights. It is just fresh in our mind what Loranza did of uncalculated harm to our rights.
Beiruty, In Arizona and Vermont (the former a conservative to libertarian state, and the latter a liberal to socialist state), where no permits are needed to carry in the open or concealed in either state, and where there is no state mandated registration of firearms or other "controls" beyond the 4473 we are all required to fill out, people manage not to get sideways and gun each other down, while freely exercising that part of the amendment which says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." Adam Lanza lived in Connecticut, a state which already had onerous gun laws on the books, and yet those laws did nothing to prevent his depredations. In the wake of that shooting, Connecticut passed even more onerous laws against firearms. Does anybody seriously think that those laws will prevent another Lanza?

In the late 18th century/early 19th century usage of the language, the term "well regulated" referred to logistical aspects of blending local militias with national armies; and it meant that the locals needed to have ownership of and access to the same kinds of weaponry as one another, AND that the active duty militaries had at their disposal. Indeed, at that time there was no law against private citizens owning artillery pieces—the high "buy-in" price being the primary "control" on ownership. That high expense kept private ownership low, but there were no regulations against it. In other words, the free market determined whether or not you could own a cannon just like the boys down at the local fort had. The term "regulation" had more of the same meaning as we would use to refer to a properly-timed internal combustion engine, in which "regulated" means that all cylinders are firing at the same number of degrees from top dead center, etc., etc.

The phrase "well-regulated militia" has been as abused by the left in this country as much as has the term "shall not be infringed," and we need to be diligent in preserving the original intent of those words. That original intent was NOT to create an elite subset of the common man.

There is some merit in the idea that those who possess a CHL belong to an "upper stratum" of the law-abiding, in the sense that CHLs have had to prove certain things about their character and past history in order to obtain a CHL; and that sense of belonging to part of the "upper stratum of the law-abiding" is born out by the statistical evidence proving that CHLs not only commit crimes at a lower rate than the general population, but we commit them at an even lower rate than LEOs.

But such evidence is never required as proof that we have a right to freedom of speech, religion, and association; freedom from having soldiers quartered by force in our homes; freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; freedom from self-incrimination; a right to a speedy trial and confrontation of witnesses, etc., etc., etc. TODAY, we ascribe ALL of these things in courtroom settings to people whom we are PRETTY sure are guilty of crimes, with the exception of increasingly intrusive violations of the 4th Amendment, and yet we require a common citizen to PROVE his 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms before we will A) sell him a gun; and B) allow him to carry it.

I am not required to prove to government that I am not a criminal or a deadbeat in order to attend the church of my choice, to vote the way I want to, to join whatever political party resonates with my beliefs, to tell a local National Guard NCO or officer to go fly a kite if he wants me to put his squad up in my home, to tell a cop who knocks on my door to come back with a warrant before I let him inside, to refuse to answer any question which I believe will entrap me into a (right or wrong) confession of having committed an illegal act, to insist on legal representation and a speedy trial by a jury of my peers and the right to confront any witnesses against me, and on and on and on.

I am not required to be a part of any "elite" to have and to claim these rights. ONLY the 2nd Amendment is treated this way (and to a lesser extent, the 4th Amendment). Suzanna Gratia Hupp had it exactly right when she said:
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."
Now, all of the above is a separate issue from whether or not incrementalism is the proper and/or realistic way to restore rights which were incrementally lost. But unless you begin ALWAYS with the presumption that the 2nd Amendment language must be understood within the literal context and use of language in which it was written, then you will ALWAYS end up losing incrementally more of your rights—because the PRIMARY ARGUMENT used by the forces of darkness in this debate is that the Founders did not intend the 2nd Amendment to apply to any firearm that wasn't a cap and ball muzzle loading pistol or rifle or smoothbore musket. That is a very difficult argument to make in the face of documented evidence of the private ownership of artillery pieces.

Yes, your CHL distinguishes you as a person who has less baggage in their past than a common criminal, but I personally know people with significant criminal records in their pasts, who cannot legally buy or carry a gun today, who are powerfully anointed by God today and who live far more moral lives today than some of the members of this board......and I say that without meaning to sound judgmental. I have a good friend who is a pastor whose special ministry is people in hospice, ministering the gospel to them as they are living out their last days. He is a kind and gentle and moral man. He also was busted in his youth on a felony drug possession charge and served some time up at the big house. I won't go into any more detail about him, but suffice it to say that his church, of which he is a staff member, was in the national headlines some years ago for a mass-shooting by a disgruntled member. But my friend can't carry or own a firearm........because he isn't part of some self-congratulatory "elite."

My friends, be very, VERY careful about whom you label and why, and about whether or not you advocate for the loss of their rights, using current law to justify your own membership in an elite at the expense of other equally deserving people. Personally, I dislike the idea of belonging to an elite. It's a source of false pride for me.....a sin against which I struggle every day.

We either have rights, or we don't. Period. How we approach the restoration of rights which have been infringed is a matter of political strategy, but it is not a matter of whether some deserve rights and others don't!!! THAT is a separate argument having to do with due-process before the law; but the law must be predicated upon something higher, and that is the Constitution of the United States of America. And the Constitution either says that the right shall not be infringed, or it says that the right may be infringed. My copy says it shall not. It doesn't say that it can be infringed because I owe some back taxes or have unpaid child support. Being a dirtbag doesn't mean you don't have rights. Dirtbags still have the right of free speech. Dirtbags still have the right to a speedy trial before a jury of their peers. They still have a right against unreasonable search and seizure. Dirtbags have rights too, whether or not you or I like it. The 2nd Amendment is not only a human right, it is a right of citizenship, and it is the only one in which the current state of the law is that we have to PROVE ourselves "worthy" in order to exercise it.

There's something wrong with that, particularly when there are no prosecutions to speak of in documented cases of known felons voting from prison.

Now, the current law being what it is, I agree that incrementalism is the most efficient and lasting way to win back the full expression of the 2nd Amendment right. But I will will not agree to think that I am a better person than someone else simply because I have a CHL and he doesn't. The fact of the matter is that we represent maybe 2%-3% of the state's population, and SURELY among the remaining 97%-98% of the population, there are many many more people who are at least our moral equals, who have simple decided not to get a CHL. Therefore, the possession of a CHL is no guarantee that you actually belong to an elite.........evidenced by the fact that, even though CHLs commit crimes at a lower rate than non-CHLs, some CHLs still commit crimes, while the majority of non-CHLs don't commit any crimes at all.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT

scud runner
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 4:52 pm

Re: Major advancements for Texas CHL holders

#122

Post by scud runner »

switch wrote:What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?
:patriot:

The founding fathers did not intend for criminals to be denied the right to keep and bear arms except while locked up. If a criminal was dangerous, they kept him locked up or they executed him shortly afterward. There was no need for Carona-style elitist gun control restricting where the common people can have guns but exempting the nobility and politicians.
User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 10371
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: Major advancements for Texas CHL holders

#123

Post by jmra »

Which bill was this?
"Texas lawmakers have sent to Governor Rick Perry a bill that allows concealed handgun license holders to carry a revolver or semi-automatic pistol, regardless of what they trained with on the shooting range.
Current law certifies license holders to carry only the type of gun they use to get their license. The bill by Senator Craig Estes, a Wichita Falls Republican, allows them to carry either model."
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member

un0fficial
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:19 pm
Location: Dallas

Re: Major advancements for Texas CHL holders

#124

Post by un0fficial »

So just that I'm clear, this has all passed?

If so, when will they be effective?

Sorry if it's been asked, didn't want to go through 6 pages or so :P
User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 10371
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: Major advancements for Texas CHL holders

#125

Post by jmra »

jmra wrote:Which bill was this?
"Texas lawmakers have sent to Governor Rick Perry a bill that allows concealed handgun license holders to carry a revolver or semi-automatic pistol, regardless of what they trained with on the shooting range.
Current law certifies license holders to carry only the type of gun they use to get their license. The bill by Senator Craig Estes, a Wichita Falls Republican, allows them to carry either model."
Found it - HB 3142.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 15
Posts: 10371
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: Major advancements for Texas CHL holders

#126

Post by jmra »

un0fficial wrote:So just that I'm clear, this has all passed?

If so, when will they be effective?

Sorry if it's been asked, didn't want to go through 6 pages or so :P
Most of the bills being passed become effective Sep 1.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member

un0fficial
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:19 pm
Location: Dallas

Re: Major advancements for Texas CHL holders

#127

Post by un0fficial »

jmra wrote:
un0fficial wrote:So just that I'm clear, this has all passed?

If so, when will they be effective?

Sorry if it's been asked, didn't want to go through 6 pages or so :P
Most of the bills being passed become effective Sep 1.
So they *have* passed. Excellent. One small step for CHL holders. And a Giant leap for people wanting to be a CHL holder :)

Bitterclinger
Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:27 am

Re: Major advancements for Texas CHL holders

#128

Post by Bitterclinger »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Bitterclinger wrote:Remember, back in 1776 the original program was free, required 0 hours of training, and had NO registration or licensing of any kind. I'd like to see all of the states return to that program. From that perspective, the progressives and opportunists should be glad to have gotten what they were able to get from prohibition thus far. These bills represent a minor victory, but the pendulum will swing back the other way when progressives outside of Texas can no longer tolerate living in the states they ruin, and decide to move here.

If you think it's called the "Bill of Rights" because "Bill of Things Properly Trained Taxpayers Could Do If They Met All The Requirements and Could Afford to Pay Additional Taxes in the Form of License Fees" was too long then maybe you have an honest argument. A stupid argument, but an honest argument. No. I suspect everybody knows EXACTLY what "shall not be infringed" means, but they either, A) don't like it because an armed citizenry is harder to control, and/or B) there is nothing in it which would help line the pockets of lawyers, lawmakers or CHL instructors.
You chose an appropriate username. Your post is nothing but a rant and if you don't see these bills as major gains, then you will never be satisfied with any advancement short of repeal of any and all gun laws. You belittle the effort to improve gun laws and expand gun rights, while you sit back and do absolutely nothing other than whine that someone else isn't doing enough.

Chas.
I want to publicly apologize to Charles and anyone else I offended with my thoughtless post. I am frequently frustrated by those who seem to feel that the right to effective self-defense is a privilege bestowed on us by our government rather than the "unalienable" right I believe it to be. I apologize that this frustration led me to vent my frustrations here. I also regret saying that the bills represent a minor victory while in fact they are quite formidable and I am personally grateful to him and all those who work to defend the rights of Texans who, like me, have a family to defend and would prefer to do so effectively and legally.

My user name was a reaction to a anti-christian slur made by the current President, but I realize it has outlived the memory of the slur that inspired it, so I would be happy to change it if necessary. How about "Onesimus?" That's a pretty good user name.

I have done my best to support the efforts of gun rights advocates, but you are right; It's not enough. I will increase my contributions and correspondences and I will continue to remember you in my prayers, praying that you may meet with even more success in your endeavors on our behalf.

PhillRoath
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2010 9:31 am
Location: Houston

Re: Major advancements for Texas CHL holders

#129

Post by PhillRoath »

Bitterclinger wrote: I want to publicly apologize to Charles and anyone else I offended with my thoughtless post. I am frequently frustrated by those who seem to feel that the right to effective self-defense is a privilege bestowed on us by our government rather than the "unalienable" right I believe it to be. I apologize that this frustration led me to vent my frustrations here. I also regret saying that the bills represent a minor victory while in fact they are quite formidable and I am personally grateful to him and all those who work to defend the rights of Texans who, like me, have a family to defend and would prefer to do so effectively and legally.

My user name was a reaction to a anti-christian slur made by the current President, but I realize it has outlived the memory of the slur that inspired it, so I would be happy to change it if necessary. How about "Onesimus?" That's a pretty good user name.

I have done my best to support the efforts of gun rights advocates, but you are right; It's not enough. I will increase my contributions and correspondences and I will continue to remember you in my prayers, praying that you may meet with even more success in your endeavors on our behalf.
Good for you. It's most often difficult to recognize and apologize for things spoken in haste. As for Onesimus, attempting to be profitable for everyone is always good.

Phill
User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 18502
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

Re: Major advancements for Texas CHL holders

#130

Post by Keith B »

jmra wrote:Which bill was this?
"Texas lawmakers have sent to Governor Rick Perry a bill that allows concealed handgun license holders to carry a revolver or semi-automatic pistol, regardless of what they trained with on the shooting range.
Current law certifies license holders to carry only the type of gun they use to get their license. The bill by Senator Craig Estes, a Wichita Falls Republican, allows them to carry either model."
Slight correction. Currently if you qualify with a semi-automatic you can carry either a semi-auto or revolver. If you qualify with a revolver you can only carry a revolver. As stated, the new bill would allow someone who qualifies with a revolver to carry a semi-auto and vice versa.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4
User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 17
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Major advancements for Texas CHL holders

#131

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

Bitterclinger wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Bitterclinger wrote:Remember, back in 1776 the original program was free, required 0 hours of training, and had NO registration or licensing of any kind. I'd like to see all of the states return to that program. From that perspective, the progressives and opportunists should be glad to have gotten what they were able to get from prohibition thus far. These bills represent a minor victory, but the pendulum will swing back the other way when progressives outside of Texas can no longer tolerate living in the states they ruin, and decide to move here.

If you think it's called the "Bill of Rights" because "Bill of Things Properly Trained Taxpayers Could Do If They Met All The Requirements and Could Afford to Pay Additional Taxes in the Form of License Fees" was too long then maybe you have an honest argument. A stupid argument, but an honest argument. No. I suspect everybody knows EXACTLY what "shall not be infringed" means, but they either, A) don't like it because an armed citizenry is harder to control, and/or B) there is nothing in it which would help line the pockets of lawyers, lawmakers or CHL instructors.
You chose an appropriate username. Your post is nothing but a rant and if you don't see these bills as major gains, then you will never be satisfied with any advancement short of repeal of any and all gun laws. You belittle the effort to improve gun laws and expand gun rights, while you sit back and do absolutely nothing other than whine that someone else isn't doing enough.

Chas.
I want to publicly apologize to Charles and anyone else I offended with my thoughtless post. I am frequently frustrated by those who seem to feel that the right to effective self-defense is a privilege bestowed on us by our government rather than the "unalienable" right I believe it to be. I apologize that this frustration led me to vent my frustrations here. I also regret saying that the bills represent a minor victory while in fact they are quite formidable and I am personally grateful to him and all those who work to defend the rights of Texans who, like me, have a family to defend and would prefer to do so effectively and legally.

My user name was a reaction to a anti-christian slur made by the current President, but I realize it has outlived the memory of the slur that inspired it, so I would be happy to change it if necessary. How about "Onesimus?" That's a pretty good user name.

I have done my best to support the efforts of gun rights advocates, but you are right; It's not enough. I will increase my contributions and correspondences and I will continue to remember you in my prayers, praying that you may meet with even more success in your endeavors on our behalf.
Thanks for the apology. I too have vented on occasion and have had to delete my own posts. In fact, after HB508 died on the House floor, I posting a rather long description about how the "Carona" amendment actually wound up being added to the Bill. I deleted it after 5 minutes or so to cool off. I will post it again, so if the Senator who's really behind that disaster is still reading the Forum, the truth will come out.

Thanks again and your apology is gratefully accepted.
Chas.

Trele6
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 11:27 am
Location: Katy, TX

Re: Major advancements for Texas CHL holders

#132

Post by Trele6 »

Keith B wrote:
jmra wrote:Which bill was this?
"Texas lawmakers have sent to Governor Rick Perry a bill that allows concealed handgun license holders to carry a revolver or semi-automatic pistol, regardless of what they trained with on the shooting range.
Current law certifies license holders to carry only the type of gun they use to get their license. The bill by Senator Craig Estes, a Wichita Falls Republican, allows them to carry either model."
Slight correction. Currently if you qualify with a semi-automatic you can carry either a semi-auto or revolver. If you qualify with a revolver you can only carry a revolver. As stated, the new bill would allow someone who qualifies with a revolver to carry a semi-auto and vice versa.
Never understood why they made that distinction in the first place to be honest...
NRA Life Member
User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 17
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Major advancements for Texas CHL holders

#133

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

Trele6 wrote:
Keith B wrote:
jmra wrote:Which bill was this?
"Texas lawmakers have sent to Governor Rick Perry a bill that allows concealed handgun license holders to carry a revolver or semi-automatic pistol, regardless of what they trained with on the shooting range.
Current law certifies license holders to carry only the type of gun they use to get their license. The bill by Senator Craig Estes, a Wichita Falls Republican, allows them to carry either model."
Slight correction. Currently if you qualify with a semi-automatic you can carry either a semi-auto or revolver. If you qualify with a revolver you can only carry a revolver. As stated, the new bill would allow someone who qualifies with a revolver to carry a semi-auto and vice versa.
Never understood why they made that distinction in the first place to be honest...
When drafting SB60 in 1995, we had two lists. One was titled "Things We Need" and the other was "Garbage We Have to Take to Get It Passed." NSA v. SA was on the latter list.

Seriously, the lists are fictitious, but the concept was alive and well. We had to accept a lot of stuff that was not necessary and this was among those useless but necessary burdens. If anything, it should have been the other way around. It's much harder to shoot accurately with a double action revolver than a semi-auto, even DOA semi-autos.

Chas.
User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 26852
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Major advancements for Texas CHL holders

#134

Post by The Annoyed Man »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:We had to accept a lot of stuff that was not necessary and this was among those useless but necessary burdens. If anything, it should have been the other way around. It's much harder to shoot accurately with a double action revolver than a semi-auto, even DOA semi-autos.
Politics...... :roll: Isn't it just irritating as all get out that people who actually know nothing about a subject will claim expertise in that subject, and then insist on that "expertise" being acknowledged in legal definitions?

It would be like.....if for example....if we had a president who:
  • had never held an honest job a day in his life;
  • had spent all of his high school and college years getting high and claiming to academic authorities to be from either this country, or another country, according to whichever would be to his financial advantage;
  • Had never served a day in either either the military or some benevolent international org like the Peace Corps,
  • had been the editor of the nation's most prestigious law school review for a whole year (1991) without, most curiously, ever having published any of his own work (despite there having been several important cases with national implications in 1991);
  • had inflated his resumé in his own mind to the point where he began to believe it himself—from being a mere lecturer on the law into being a PROFESSOR of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW;
  • had been a community rabble rouser at the local level;
  • had been a minor local politician in the country's most corrupt political machine;
  • had served only two years in an abbreviated term as a U.S. Senator;
  • had voted "present" on a lot of issues before him because he either couldn't admit ignorance or wouldn't risk establishing a verifiable track record;
  • had sought the mentorship of fully confessed communists and known violent murdering terrorists;
  • had, prior to running for president, sealed all of his academic records so we could never really know how bad he was before having to vote on him;
  • had sat at the feet of the country's most racist "pastor" for 20 years but said that he could not recall any of his racist messages;
  • had never in a single day of his life owned or used a firearm, spent a friendly afternoon at a range learning gun safety, participated in any hunting or firearms competition activities, or even so much as had a publicity photo taken of himself with a shotgun on a skeet course;



    and then, AFTER all of that.....
  • had claimed to be an expert on economics, business, military strategy, the 2nd Amendment, and international relations.............AND SERIOUSLY EXPECTED US TO BELIEVE HIM!!!!!
That would be just crazy, wouldn't it?

.....oh wait.....

We DO have such a president! :shock:

Please Lord, if there is any such a person currently serving in the Texas state legislature, help us to remove him or her from office and replace that person with someone who actually knows a thing or two.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT
User avatar

goose
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 881
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:20 pm
Location: Katy-ish

Re: Major advancements for Texas CHL holders

#135

Post by goose »

Just another "Thank you!" to Charles, TSRA (new-ish member finally) and the NRA as applicable and to those members of our legislature that are working on our behalf.

I also appreciate the tone of this board. We aren't perfect but man, we collectively seem to work on trying to hang out over on that side of the room. The debates are awesome and 95 out of 100 times the results are too. (That is an internet statistic for anyone that cares.)

Thanks again, Charles.
NRA Endowment - NRA RSO - Μολὼν λάβε
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”