TexasCHLforum.com

No worries, I know where you're coming from. yes... small "l" libertarian.

HGWC wrote:

I'm all for every honest, law abiding general citizen who has no illegal intentions who wishes to get the proper understanding of the law and some basic training to be allowed to carry a gun. The more the merrier.

Then of course you don't support the 2nd and fourteenth amendments that assure us we have no such obligations to the state of Texas. The government can never allow us to exercise our rights. They have no such power. They can only prevent us from it.

EXCUSE ME? I think I understand what you're saying here... but it seems to be based on your incorrect assumption that I believe that "get the proper understanding of the law to be allowed to carry a gun" be some kind of mandate. I suppose my use of "allowed" might lead you there, and that was unintentional. I'm not sure exactly how else to put it. Perhaps "not be disallowed" would be better.

All I really meant was that I personally would PREFER it if people who do NOT wish to gain an understanding of the law and do NOT wish to gain basic training would not carry.

HGWC wrote:

Morgan wrote:Actually, I'd posit that it's at least statistically more significant that you suggest... People who have student loan issues, owe child support or back taxes... none of these impact NICS, but there are a LOT of people who have those... SO that's a lot of people who can pass a NICS that can't obtain a CHL.

How many is a lot? That's the question, and it's an important question. More importantly, what evidence is there that any crime is prevented by keeping this subset of people from wearing firearms in public? On the other hand, these secondary requirements, outside of the NICS, present an enormous burden to the rest of the population.

I'm sorry, I think you got the impression that I feel that the restriction of these people is good. I do not. I didn't trim your quote enough. I was merely arguing that I think it's more people that your statement seems to indicate.

First, no, I don't have ANY idea how many people have their applications denied due to non NICS issues. But I DO know that there are plenty of people who do NOT APPLY because they see the list of exclusion factors and say, "I won't qualify."

I'm all for every honest, law abiding general citizen who has no illegal intentions who wishes to get the proper understanding of the law and some basic training to be allowed to carry a gun. The more the merrier.

Actually, I'd posit that it's at least statistically more significant that you suggest... People who have student loan issues, owe child support or back taxes... none of these impact NICS, but there are a LOT of people who have those... SO that's a lot of people who can pass a NICS that can't obtain a CHL.

HGWC wrote:Second, out of all the CHL applications, what percentage of people can pass the NICS check but then fail to meet all of the other CHL requirements? It's only the delta we're talking about in this thread, and I bet it's a tiny tiny fraction. How much crime does that prevent compared to substantially more armed citizens out and about in public?

For those who are for regulation, let me ask you a question from the other direction... If someone is of such character that they not be allowed to carry a gun in public, why should they be allowed to own it in the first place? Because if they're of such a character that they can't be trusted to carry, then what's to stop them from doing so, when they have it because they can buy it? Wouldn't it be BETTER to have restrictions in place on ownership so those who's character is so in question that they not be allowed to own, and let anyone who can own them carry them? Then if you have someone who's on the "no guns list" the onus is on them to demonstrate why they should be an exception to the rule, and be allowed to own a gun for home defense, and prove they won't take it in public?

Liberty wrote:

Morgan wrote:
And if you're doing so and you commit a crime, they should nail your hide to a tree. Carrying a gun while committing a crime should be an incredible additional penalty, AND those sentences should not EVER be allowed to run concurrently. So if you get 5-10 for the rape or robbery, you get an additional 5-10 for having a gun while doing it, and that clock starts after the first sentence is done....just an example.

OK, but ....
How about while speeding, or jaywalking?

Or tax evasion, being evasive to the Feds or smoking illegal plants. Some of these are felonys

I prefer the reasonable man criteria be applied here. Speeding? Not a problem. Don't stop and evade the police while you have a gun? Bad deal. Tax evasion? No, it's white collar. The gun won't help you. Being evasive to the feds? What's THAT? If the gun helps you or endangers the public in the illegal endeavor, it should go worse for the criminal. There shouldn't BE any illegal plants. That's another discussion entirely.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean "pick your position, folks."

Personally.... I'm for open carry. I'm for concealed carry. I believe that the restrictions on buying firearms should be the same as the restrictions on carrying them. If you're law abiding enough to purchase and own a gun, you should be able to carry it on your person concealed or not.

And if you're doing so and you commit a crime, they should nail your hide to a tree. Carrying a gun while committing a crime should be an incredible additional penalty, AND those sentences should not EVER be allowed to run concurrently. So if you get 5-10 for the rape or robbery, you get an additional 5-10 for having a gun while doing it, and that clock starts after the first sentence is done....just an example.

I have a question, and I'd like to keep the scope of the discussion more on the side of philosophy and belief rather than practice and tactics.

First... CHL is limited. By that I mean the restrictions are HARDER than simply the ability to buy a handgun. Do you favor opening the restriction to basically allow anyone who can PURCHASE a handgun to be able to obtain a CHL? Further, if you believe that, do you go a step further and believe that anyone who can purchase and own a handgun should be allowed to concealed carry without a permit?

Second... Open carry. Do you support the initiative to make open carry legal? I'm NOT NOT NOT asking if you personally would eschew concealed carry in favor of open, I'm just asking if you support the initiative to make open carry legal or if you're against it.

Please tell me why and why not to all of the above.