TexasCHLforum.com

Tex1961 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:53 am

Jusme wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:41 am

extremist wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:31 am I know, although they may not admit it, that some opposed to Constitutional Carry are instructors not wanting to lose business if it passes. There I said it. But there can be a compromise to appease those instructors and have them get behind CC. Many states have both, we can still have both. There are now 18 States with Constitutional Carry.

Constitutional Carry and Shall Issue to Residents Only:
Alaska, West Virginia, Wyoming

Constitutional Carry and Shall Issue to Residents and Non-Residents:
Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia

Vermont has had Constitutional Carry for quite some time.

BUT, there has to be a hook - Licensees that go to the trouble of getting it must have enhanced privileges. CC still has restrictions on places to carry, and so should Texas - keep CC restrictions equivalent to what LTC is now. But offer LTC Enhanced licenses to allow carry where we cannot now.

Why can't everyone get behind that proposal?

Also Texas LTC holders, along with other State licensees, do not have to submit to a NICS background check at point of sale. I will keep my LTC, even if we pass Constitutional carry, so that I can carry in other states, and to bypass the NICS hassle.

I find merit with the idea of enhanced LTC, my question is how would you be identified. It would put to much burden on establishments to tty to identify you. And NO, I will NOT wear a sash.

tommyg wrote: ↑Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:56 am There are several bills that would allow permit less carry. This is disturbing
there are a lot of people out there that would carry even though they have never fired a gun before.
I take a class occasionally as a refresher. There is always somebody that has no idea of how to use a gun.
I have seen them with the wrong ammunition for a new in the box gun . I saw one candidate reading an
owners manual during the class. These types if carrying are a danger for themselves and those around them.

[PASS WITH CARE and at least need to have proof that they have taken
and passed a basic firearms safety class that includes live fire to carry

Ok, now do the 1st Amendment. I cannot disagree strongly enough.

"Shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says. Period. Liberty does not come without risk.

Ever hear of Col. Jeff Cooper? He was a professional firearms instructor, btw, and he certainly agreed with the need for people to be properly trained. But he did NOT agree that the free exercise of the RKBA was dependent upon state-mandated training. He had an interesting quote about liberty, and its differentiation from freedom. They are NOT the same thing. He said:

“It is an uphill struggle, but I wish that we could distinguish more carefully between freedom and liberty. These conditions are not the same, though they are certainly related. Freedom is the absence of restraint—a physical circumstance. Liberty, on the other hand, is a political situation denoting the lawful capability of the citizen to defend himself and his near and dear without interference from the state. Note that the Declaration of Independence forcibly and particularly establishes the blessings of liberty upon ourselves and our posterity. I like to carry a pocket copy of the Declaration, plus the Constitution, in my travels. It is a good thing to have in hand when discussions arise.”

I have highlighted the part relevant to this discussion. ALL gun laws constitute interference from the state. Like I said, liberty is not without risk. You seem to imagine that, if we constrain liberty, it will somehow also magically restrain the freedom of criminals and dunderheads to carry or use firearms. Please show me where ANY law has ever restrained either a criminal or a fool from carrying or using a gun. All that any laws retraining access to the ownership, bearing, or use of firearms have ever accomplished, is to diminish the liberty of the law-abiding without in any way impacting the freedom of criminals and/or fools to behave criminally or foolishly.

And every additional layer of law added on only serves to make the upright and law-abiding jump through more hoops, just to exercise a liberty that is part of their natural birthright as human beings. You assume that it isn’t, and that the state must grant the right before it can be exercised. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The RKBA is not granted by the Constitution; it is enumerated in the Constitution for its protection....... EXACTLY so that neither well-meaning fools or dictators (but I repeat myself) can trample that right into the ground.