TexasCHLforum.com

Saffron wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:Are you implying that it would be to our benefit to have firearm training in high school?

I think it's irresponsible for schools not to teach firearm safety at the very least.

Chas.

paxton25 wrote:I certainly wish Abbott would come out for the party platform. There is a difference from essentially saying, I won't veto the bill if it happens to land on my desk and pushing for it to be a legislative priority. He likes to ride that political fence a lot.

I agree that I wish every elected official was required to support the Party Platform, but that's not the case. However, are you aware what Abbott as AG has done for gun owners? He's not just a talking head, he's been in the trenches for gun owners.

Also, he didn't say he wouldn't veto an open-carry bill. He said he would sign it; that's a big difference. In Texas, a Governor can let a bill become law without his signature simply by not vetoing the bill within the time frame for doing so. If a Governor doesn't want to be associated with a law but they don't want the flak from vetoing it. they let it become law without his signature. Signing a bill, and telling everyone they will sign the bill, indicates their support.

Chas.

joe817 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

gdanaher wrote:From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

BTW, it would be a good idea to stop referring to a legal concept that does not exist, i.e. "constitutional carry." Now matter how appealing this buzz phrase may be, it diminishes one's arguments in favor of unlicensed carry of firearms when one grounds those arguments on a nonexistent premise. Until the SCOTUS issues an opinion stating that the Second Amendment includes an unfettered right to carry handguns, there is no such constitutional right. This is especially true in light of dicta in the Heller case and the SCOTUS' recent refusal to hear a New Jersey case challenging that State's "may issue" statute on Second Amendment grounds. I disagree with the Court, but that means nothing.

Chas.

Well, not to split hairs, or give the appearance of being argumentative, the term "constitutional carry" is the title of HB195:

"BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. This act shall be known and cited as the Texas
Constitutional Carry Act of 2015."

Now, if I'm totally off base, or misunderstand the message you are imparting, I just want to say, I retract everything I just posted, and further disavow having any knowledge of any topic in the history of the world in the past, present or future.

You are correct, that's the Bill's title.

Chas.

gdanaher wrote:From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

I support the bill to the extent it removes the requirement to obtain a CHL in order to carry a handgun. I don't like the fact that it leave all off-limits areas intact, but repealing those provisions would never fly. The best way to handle this issue would be to remove remove the off-limits areas for people who choose to obtain a CHL.

This is a good bill that has virtually no chance of passing.

BTW, it would be a good idea to stop referring to a legal concept that does not exist, i.e. "constitutional carry." Now matter how appealing this buzz phrase may be, it diminishes one's arguments in favor of unlicensed carry of firearms when one grounds those arguments on a nonexistent premise. Until the SCOTUS issues an opinion stating that the Second Amendment includes an unfettered right to carry handguns, there is no such constitutional right. This is especially true in light of dicta in the Heller case and the SCOTUS' recent refusal to hear a New Jersey case challenging that State's "may issue" statute on Second Amendment grounds. I disagree with the Court, but that means nothing.

Chas.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

joe817 wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

gdanaher wrote:From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

Idk about that. I would like to keep CC the way it is, but add an OC option that would allow for licensed/unlicensed carry with proper certification like the CHL. I just don't want somebody to buy a gun who's never shot it, carry it around in public, and try to engage somebody without knowing the laws regarding the use of force, or having any training at all to hit their target and not kill innocent people.

Totally agree!That's a BAD IDEA!. Just asking for trouble.

Thanks Joe, I am ANTI-restrictions as much as practically possible. I just want everybody to be safely practicing their rights.

That's dangerous territory. What about First Amendment rights for example?

Chas.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

gdanaher wrote:From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

Idk about that. I would like to keep CC the way it is, but add an OC option that would allow for licensed/unlicensed carry with proper certification like the CHL. I just don't want somebody to buy a gun who's never shot it, carry it around in public, and try to engage somebody without knowing the laws regarding the use of force, or having any training at all to hit their target and not kill innocent people.

So you do not support constitutional carry? How many more rights do you want restricted by requiring certain qualifications?

And you would support felons allowed to walk around unhindered with an AK and Pistol on their side because it's our right to bear arms.

You need to read Rep. Stickland's bill before making this statement.

Chas.

ONLINECHL wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:

Bladed wrote:How would changing it from a Class A misdemeanor (up to one year in jail and/or a $4,000 fine) to a Class B misdemeanor (up to six months in jail and/or a $2,000 fine) "take the teeth out of" the law? A conviction of either a Class A or Class B misdemeanor will cost you your CHL for five years.

There have been previous discussions in these forums that it should be a Class C misdemeanor to knowingly carry past a no guns sign on private property. If you are subsequently asked to leave and refuse, then that should be a Class B like an ordinary unarmed trespass.

The Class A misdemeanor for Armed Trespass should apply to an unlicensed person carrying illegally, IMO.

I think it's good it applies to people who are armed with a deadly weapon when trespassing, even if it's a legal long gun.

There are more serious charges that could be filed, if the deadly weapon where misused. Jail time for mere possession of a legal firearm is unwarranted. I have long sought support for a change in the law that would prohibit owners/managers of commercial property from barring entry by armed CHLs, but there's no support in Austin.

Chas.

txpilot wrote:Perhaps when OC is legal, Texas might follow the Kansas example where they have signs to cover all combinations: http://ag.ks.gov/public-safety/conceale ... ed-signage

Absolutely not!! At a minimum of 6" diameter, those generic signs are larger than the typical 2"X2" "no gun" decals we saw in Texas, but not nearly as large as a compliant 30.06 sign.

Chas.

Texsquatch wrote:My biggest concern is what OC may do to impact CHL. Could OC somehow lead to the end of 30.06 and make it easier for places to ban guns? Could it spell out more restrictions?

In a word, NO. We'd kill the bill if it hurt concealed-carry. But that won't be necessary and I wish I could say more.

Chas.

steveincowtown wrote:. . . we can't get anyone to even present a bill for any type of OC?????

On what do you base this statement?

Chas.