TexasCHLforum.com

ninjabread wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:LEOs often do not issue a citation when drivers don't have their driver's license on their person. They do so because they are able to quickly confirm they have a license with a computer check. A provisional vote is not confirmed as an actual vote until and unless the person is ultimately determined to be properly registered as a voter.

If a LEO can quickly confirm someone has a license to drive with a computer check then confirming someone has a license to carry should be just as easy. I know driving without a license in ones possession is "punishable by a fine not to exceed $200" and I think the penalty for carrying a concealed handgun without the license in ones possession should have a similar punishment, not a threat of jail time. Being properly licensed but forgetting your ID at home should not lead to a class A misdemeanor, and definitely should not escalate to a felony of the third degree in a grocery store.

In 21 years of CHL, I've never heard of a CHL/LTC being arrested because they forgot their wallet. Have you? If not, then why are you arguing about angels on heads of pins? BTW, you have now changed/dodged the issue twice because you have no valid response, so I'm through playing games.

Chas.

ninjabread wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

ninjabread wrote:I think very few would object to a LTC that followed the voter registration model.

1. shall issue
2. no cost to apply
3. no fingerprints unless voter registration also requires fingerprints
4. not required to carry LTC while carrying a gun (per voter ID rulings)
5. not required to carry ID when carrying a gun (per voter ID rulings)
6. easy add-on when renewing driving license (per motor voter)

what else?

I used voter registration as an example of requiring government approval to engage in a constitutionally protected activity. It's not a one-size-fits-all gold standard.

I agree with your first three points, but not the others. You are required to show identification when engaging in the activity that required voter registration, i.e. voting. It can be your voter registration card or your driver's license if you are registered to vote and are on the rolls. If you are required to have a license to carry a handgun, then requiring you to have that license on you when engaging in the activity that requires a license would be in keeping with my voter registration example.

We considered adding CHL to your driver's license as a "restriction" code, but there was much opposition. Many people simply didn't want anyone to be able to see they had a CHL. When the CHL was extended to five years duration, it made it impossible to add it to a driver's license that had a four year duration that has grown to six years. If we go over five years on the LTC, we lose NICS exemption.

Chas.

I suggested motor voter as an example of how easy it should be to get a LTC for qualified people. Voter registration isn't printed on my DL and my voter registration expiration is independent of my DL expiration. Furthermore, my voter registration renews automatically at no charge, which seems like a reasonable cost for other civil rights permission cards.

I agree with you on requiring people to carry their LTC as soon as (a) people have to carry their DL to drive legally and (b) people can't cast provisional ballots without their voter card. There's no 66th Amendment protecting the right to own and operate motor vehicles, so carrying a handgun without a license in your immediate possession should be no worse an offense than operating a motor vehicle without a license in your immediate possession. (in principle)

Sorry, but I'm not sure I follow your argument. It appears that you believe that 1) you are not legally required to carry your DL when driving, or that you can vote without being properly registered to vote. If my understanding is right, then you are incorrect.

LEOs often do not issue a citation when drivers don't have their driver's license on their person. They do so because they are able to quickly confirm they have a license with a computer check. A provisional vote is not confirmed as an actual vote until and unless the person is ultimately determined to be properly registered as a voter.

The bottom line is you think the Second Amendment prohibits the requiring of a license to carry a firearm. The SCOTUS has not held this to be true and it has strongly indicated in Heller that licensing is constitutional.

Chas.

ninjabread wrote:I think very few would object to a LTC that followed the voter registration model.

1. shall issue
2. no cost to apply
3. no fingerprints unless voter registration also requires fingerprints
4. not required to carry LTC while carrying a gun (per voter ID rulings)
5. not required to carry ID when carrying a gun (per voter ID rulings)
6. easy add-on when renewing driving license (per motor voter)

what else?

I used voter registration as an example of requiring government approval to engage in a constitutionally protected activity. It's not a one-size-fits-all gold standard.

I agree with your first three points, but not the others. You are required to show identification when engaging in the activity that required voter registration, i.e. voting. It can be your voter registration card or your driver's license if you are registered to vote and are on the rolls. If you are required to have a license to carry a handgun, then requiring you to have that license on you when engaging in the activity that requires a license would be in keeping with my voter registration example.

We considered adding CHL to your driver's license as a "restriction" code, but there was much opposition. Many people simply didn't want anyone to be able to see they had a CHL. When the CHL was extended to five years duration, it made it impossible to add it to a driver's license that had a four year duration that has grown to six years. If we go over five years on the LTC, we lose NICS exemption.

Chas.

canvasbck wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

hillfighter wrote:I won 't be a criminal. The supreme law of the land is clear.

The SCOTUS decides what is the "supreme law of the land" and it has stated in dicta that license requirements are constitutional.
That said, stop violating Rule 4.

Chas.

I'm going off topic here, but wanted to broaden my understanding.

Since the statement was in dicta, doesn't that mean that no precedent has been set? As it stands right now, it just kind of warns lawyers on our side that if the court who issued the decision were forced to rule on the constitutionality of restrictive license requirements that they would (depending on the exact facts of the case) tend to rule in favor of restrictions on licensing being constitutional? In other words, with SCOTUS not issuing a ruling within the facts of a previous case on the constitutionality, a case that comes before a future SCOTUS (PLEASE let Trump replace Ginsburg, or even Kennedy) would not necessarily give weight to the dicta opinion.

I'm honestly trying to learn more about the way that the judicial side operates and what is and is not binding (precedent)

Dicta in an opinion is merely educational. It forecasts what the court may hold if/when the issue is presented. It's been years since I read the Heller decision so I may have forgotten something, but I don't think the Plaintiff argued that the DC license scheme was unconstitutional on its face. If I'm correct, then the language about licenses being constitutional is merely dicta.

Voter registration is constitutional because it 1) ensures one is eligible to vote; and 2) ensures one-man-one-vote. (Yeah, I know, but that the theory and the grounds for constitutionality.) If voting can be subject to a background check and a license (voter registration card), then the SCOTUS isn't likely to rule that requiring a license-to-carry is unconstitutional. The best argument is that the license should be shall-issue and that eligibility requirements be limited to the ability under federal law to possess firearms.

Chas.

hillfighter wrote:I won 't be a criminal. The supreme law of the land is clear.

The SCOTUS decides what is the "supreme law of the land" and it has stated in dicta that license requirements are constitutional.
That said, stop violating Rule 4.

Chas.

bblhd672 wrote:http://www.gunlaws.com/ConstitutionalCarryIndex.htm

Looks like the number may be 15, in varying levels

That sounds more realistic.
Chas.

Ameer wrote:More than half of the states allow citizens to carry a handgun without a license but I learned to accept that Texas Republicans are not pro gun enough to support mainstream gun legislation like that.

You are saying that more than 25 states have so-called constitutional-carry?

Chas.

treadlightly wrote:I emailed TSRA about this, and got a nice reply. HB560 is old legislation that has never gotten any support.

My wild guess is that legislators must look at HB560 as going too far, and CC is just eliminating government prejudice against the unlicensed.

My wild guess. TSRA didn't say that, I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning.

Edited to add: I am going to sign up for TSRA. I may not agree with them on this point of strategy and timing, but I think overall they do a lot of good.

When did you email TSRA? What exactly was the response?

Chas.

The only way to pursue "constitutional carry" is with the bill I've already written for 2019. It 1) moves all of TPC §46.035 to §46.03 so as to apply it to unlicensed carry; 2) renders LTC exempt from not only TPC §46.02, but §46.03 as well; and 3) makes anyone who can lawfully possess firearms under state and federal law eligible for a LTC. The Legislature will not pass constitutional-carry unless people are prohibited from carrying in locations currently in TPC §46.035. Removing off-limits areas for LTCs by exempting us from §§46.02 and 46.03 will give a strong incentive to get a license even though it is not required. This will give the Legislature a measure of comfort in supporting constitutional-carry.

This is the bill I'm going to promote, whether or not TSRA backs it or something else. I'm sick of HB560 being ignored for 10 years and I'm not about to support a constitutional-carry bill without providing relief for LTCs that they have deserved for years. I too am tired of "maybe next session."

Chas.

I would love to say so much more folks, but this is a public forum and I simply cannot expound on the situation. We need to fight hard for some very important gun bills we have filed. Clarifying "school activity grounds," exempting volunteer church security teams from the Occupations Code, dramatically lowering the LTC fee and several more improvements deserve our full support. We need to be strong in our opposition to anti-gun bills. We cannot let our anger at the death of HB560 yet again destroy our impact on Texas gun laws overall.

I will say this much. I'm a good soldier, but I cannot control everything, everyone or every organization. Immediately after this session is over, I will announce a new effort. I've outlined a comprehensive bill dealing with the carrying of handguns with and without a license in terms of license requirements, eligibility, off-limits areas, self-defense and more. When time permits, I will draft this comprehensive bill and when the session is over, I will launch this entirely new program. If we have a massive response it will be successful, otherwise, it will fail. It's that simple. Unfortunately, among the gun community as everywhere else in life, less than 10% of a group carry the load for everyone else. Only time will tell how many Texas gun owners are serious about sweeping changes to our gun laws.

Chas.

I'm not happy that HB560 isn't going to pass. That said, let's not kill every other gun bill by attacking the people whose support and votes we need to pass pro-gun bills.

Chas.

Ruark wrote:The record shows it was referred to HS. Nothing beyond that yet. Is there some way to find out when the committee will discuss it? Can people go to the committee meeting and provide input?

It's dead.

Chas.

Skiprr wrote:It concerns me that this bill still has zero co-authors or sponsors.

Me too!

Chas.

vjallen75 wrote:Not quite the answer I was hoping for.

Dear Mr. Allen:

Thank you for reaching out to our office about House Bill 560. We have documented your concerns and will take them into consideration if it comes up in the House.

If you have any further questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to reach out.

The Office of the Honorable Jonathan Stickland
Texas House of Representatives, HD 92
P.O. Box 2910, Room E1.402
Austin, TX 78768
512-463-0522

I can't imagine Stickland would oppose HB560, but I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to amend HB375's language into it.

Chas.

Russell wrote:Honest question - how can a Senator provide support for a house bill? I am going to call my senator today and want to know what it is I can actually ask her to do to provide support.

There are two ways. If a Senate companion bill is filed, they can sign onto it and/or support it. If no companion is filed, then they can support it when it comes to the Senate. Asking them for support now shows him/her that the bill has wide support and increases the chance of a companion bill being filed.

Chas.