TexasCHLforum.com

thetexan wrote: The largest portion of the class is about the laws of carrying guns, most of which will go away with constitutional carry. What will be left is all of the self-defense laws, gun safety, conflict resolution and proper storage.

Then there are a LOT of instructors that need remedial education on gun laws. I'm partners in a gun shop, and the stuff we hear from new LTC holders is scary.

thetexan wrote: Since this is a public safety issue why shouldn't there be some state requirement for some method to mitigate the problem of improper use of handguns such as the education that is mandated now. We require pilots to get a licence. The airspace belongs to us all.

Because there's no provision in the Constitution for personal flight.

thetexan wrote: If Texas decides to have little or no regulation then that's their choice. But this issue is safety related and I don't see a problem with requiring reasonable education for anyone who wants to carry.
In fact I recommend it.

Interesting....define "reasonable education". Russia used to use reeducation programs, as did many other countries. They called theirs "Gulags".

We don't require Voter Education.......

s3779m wrote: Makes sense, my son and daughter in law also have put off the license for the time being. I hope your trip will help the get the fees for the license removed.

Everything I've seen/heard/read indicates that SB 16 WILL make it - with a $40 fee rather than the free of charge we were hoping for.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
There was no Tex. Penal Code §30.06 in 1995. The epidemic was the posting of small 2"X2" or 3"X3" decals with an international slash over a Beretta 92. Businesses never stop posting them and very few removed them, even after 9/1/1997. We passed HB2909 in 1997 and it went into effect on 9/14/1997. This stopped the small decal problem and relatively few businesses posted a 30.06 sign until we saw a short-lived surge prior to 1/1/2016 when open-carry came into effect.

Chas.

Yep - you're right.....been too long, I reckon!lol!!! I remember all those signs, and the PITA to try to spot 'em.

But, I AM still seeing signage going up at a higher rate that we used to - and some of 'em in some places that rather surprised me. I'm hopeful that with the passage of time, many of them will come back down.

G.A. Heath wrote:Let me give you a scenario where unlicensed carry would help someone:

Trust me - you're preaching to the choir here - IMHO, CC in some form or fashion is LONG overdue. We've got to get by all the "blood in the streets" types - which includes folks within our own gun community - so I say do what it takes to get it, and refine it over the years, if that's what it takes to get it passed. The "all or nothing" mindset WILL end up giving us nothing.

s3779m wrote:

Lambda Force wrote:
Well, same here, I am just looking for reasons why someone who wants to carry has not got their license.

I can tell you one reason - budget. If you figure an average course is $100, and add the $140 for the license, and the fingerprint fees, you can get to $500+ for a couple. Factor in a couple of kids to raise, and it can be a large hurdle.

My oldest son and his wife are a single-income family. They made the choice to raise the kids with her at home - it's been great for the kids, but a challenge for them at times to afford things many of us take for granted - but they do it.

His wife is EXTREMELY shy, and has never spoken publicly. She's also pro-gun and wants to get a LTC, so I was able to talk her into going to Austin with me last week and speak to the committee in favor of removing/reducing the state license fees. I was proud of her doing so - she was VERY nervous about it, but handled herself VERY well.

Of course, her testimony was picked up back in San Antonio and broadcast on the local TV/radio stations, so I figure that it'll be safe for me to back back around her in a coupla months......lol

Ruark wrote:

TexasRedneck wrote:...the 30.06 sign postings have continued to increase ...

That's another thing that worries me. A senator's assistant told me last year that if we were so concerned about the explosion in 06 signs after the last session, we should have left well enough alone. Before the last session, 06 signs were a quiet, background issue. Most people didn't even know what it was. Then all the open carry foofooraw called huge amounts of attention to the signage issue, and suddenly businesses that had never heard of them were posting them by their front doors. I hope all the 560/375/1911 noise this session doesn't kick it up yet another level.

All the more reason that we need to work towards engaging the owners of these businesses as to educating them with regards as to just how SAFE a customer someone with a LTC is, and why it's in their best interest NOT to keep them out. I saw the same proliferation back in '95, then they gradually tapered off, and most businesses started removing them. Given time, I think the same thing will happen again - ESPECIALLY if something happens to require rewording of the signs. At that point, I think a lot of the businesses will simply decide it's more hassle than it's worth and leave 'em down, or leave the old signs up (and therefore negating their legality, as so many have over the years).

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Not hardly! HB375 would amend TPC §30.06 such that it applies to both licensed and unlicensed concealed-carry. That would be a disaster as it would strip property owners of the ability to allow licensed concealed-carry while prohibiting unlicensed concealed-carry. Concealed-carry has been a non-issue for decades and this is why very few locations post 30.06 signs. Many property owners faced with either letting everyone in with guns or no one while choose no one. That's not a "good start."

HB1911 in it's as-filed form does likewise, but the committee substitute has already been drafted and it fixes that problem. A committee substitute has allegedly been prepared for HB375, but it does not correct the TPC §30.06 problem.

Chas.

Good point. Then again, the 30.06 sign postings have continued to increase so I'm not so sure that it's a reason that would cause them to increase even further. But - IMO, NEITHER should be prohibited because we're allowing someone else to determine whether we have the ability to defend ourselves without any legal consequences on their end for doing so.

As a practical matter, though - I think that 1911 is a more palatable option for those that continue to be convinced that a LEO will arrive in time to "save" them - and the fewer folks that oppose it, the better.

G.A. Heath wrote: Is that you Shane McCrary?

No, sir.....

G.A. Heath wrote:I haven't seen where anyone said it would negate the LTC (Although in 2014/2015 OCT did call to "overturn the CHL law" and later clarified their position that they wished for it to remain, but be optional). There are additional legal benefits to possessing an LTC than what you mention such as protection from the Federal Gun Free School Zones act which unlicensed carry at the state level would not fix.

Exactly - there would be further years of "tweaking" of any law that might be passed - but it would be a step in the right direction IMO.

G.A. Heath wrote: As you pointed out criminals already carry, and those on this forum are not fretting that unlicensed carry will allow them to carry, they are concerned that it will be more difficult for Law Enforcement to determine if someone is legal to carry or not. While this argument is being made, most people do not realize that when a LEO runs a person through NCIC this is determined rather quickly better than 98% of the time.

Agreed - but it's unfortunate that so many within the gun community seem to have the attitude of "I don't want to do it, so let's not make it legal." Ain't mad at anyone over it, but it IS disheartening to hear that kind of talk from fellow gun owners, similar to those that, since they don't hunt with AR's, seem okay with letting them be banned/controlled. Anyone that wants to see where THAT leads need only to look to California, where collectors such as myself may no longer import a Randall .45 or 9 mm, since it's no longer on the DOJ "approved guns" list.

CC will not negate LTC. What many forget is that LTC allows you to cross many state lines while carrying without risk of violating the law - but more importantly, it allows you to bypass the NICS check. THAT is the primary reason I'll continue to maintain my LTC, because I tend to acquire several guns every month or so....

Those fretting that criminals will carry....they already do. Those fretting that folks might take the law into their own hands....they already do. Those fretting that one bill might "win" over the other....so what? EITHER one is a good start, IMO. The more folks that carry, the more that will be raising hob with the businesses posting 30.06/30.07 - which is where the true issue lies, IMO - those that would deny us the right to carry the means to defend ourselves and our loved ones.