TexasCHLforum.com

mr.72 wrote:

Zee wrote:I sure hope not. One of the instructor's tasks is to stop those from getting a CHL who obviously do not need state-approval to carry a loaded gun either due to iffy mental state or inability to safely carry a gun.

This would be a potentially anti-gun factor. No live, in-person assessment of a person's capacity to responsibly carry a gun? It would be like Oswald-style mail-ordering. You know how that ended up.

Wow. So a nut decides (allegedly) to use a RIFLE to commit a CRIME, and that is a reason to restrict law-abiding citizens to carry a concealed handgun? If you are going to use the JFK series of events to restrict the carry of concealed handguns, you really should be trying to get LEOs restricted from carrying concealed handguns since it was Jack Ruby who used a concealed handgun to commit a crime on that day.

Zee, I suppose you support the repeal of the 2nd Amendment? Because that says nothing about screening by the government for your right to keep and bear arms. Suppose the state government were to require a government-approved class, high fees, a test, background checks, proof of proficiency, and the same kinds of restrictions as we have for a CHL in TX in order for you to be able to exercise your freedom of speech? Posting on this forum, for example? Should you have to have a license and prove you know the laws before you can carry a pen and a pad of paper? Or maybe you should be licensed by the state in order to be able to exercise your "freedom of religion"? Perhaps you would like to waive your right to not incriminate yourself unless you have a license and have taken a state-approved class, at your expense? Maybe we can move some of the Fort Hood soldiers into your home until you get a license and take a class to prove you are competent to exercise your 3rd Amendment rights? Howabout if you are subjected to a daily search and siezure of your property until which time you have taken a course and gotten a license to exercise your 4th Amendment rights?

I couldn't agree more, this would be VERY DANGEROUS if it were to happen, but you never know.

Yeah, almost as dangerous as letting people go to church, vote, evade unlawful searches, speak their minds, have a trial in case they are accused of a crime, without being duly screened and licensed by the government.

M4Dogg wrote: M4Dogg wrote:Agreed, but one could also argue that the knowledge gained from the class is truly how one would defende themselves (both physically and legally). Also, some people are stupid enough to kill themselves w/out formal training, thus taking the class helps to protect them from them.

Furthermore, mandating such a training helps to protect ME from them and their stupidity, so thusly I would vote to keep having such formal classes and organization around the CHL license.

And I will vote to keep from letting anyone who does not uniformly support the Bill of Rights from being able to vote at all.

Do you really think that keeping someone from getting a CHL is going to prevent an idiot from injuring you? I guess the only people who can acquire a deadly weapon and do harm to themselves or others are those who are given a CHL by the State of Texas... the reports of other such criminals and fools are fiction?

This is the anti-gun playbook, people!!

The "stupidity" you think you are being protected from is far and away more dangerous when this person does things like getting into a car and driving it on the street. But frankly, the real dangerous stupidity is exercised at the ballot box.

fizteach wrote:

The right to bear arms is a right, not a privilege. I am glad the state let's us exercise our right, after we pay our concealed-carry tax.