TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:Geeze, I wish they would. Your pollyanna act is getting really tired. Fortunately for you, but unfortunately for me, you're not being censored, unless you call enforcement of rules which you agreed to when you joined the forum "censorship." On the other hand, if you only cynically "agreed" so that your membership registration would go through but you had no intention of abiding by them, then that makes you a deceitful person. I would like to think better of you than that. Can you please address this?

I've had posts censored for apparently saying a simple "LMAO"... Ooops... Looks like this one will get censored also... Oh well... I guess my definition of profanity is a bit different than the censors of this board... Come to think of it, a quick search of the board comes up with 25 instances of someone putting that in a posting. They didn't get censored, but I did...

skub wrote:There is one last point that I feel compelled to make - your notion that, "Sometimes, we do things that are not in our self-interest, but rarely intentionally," is, I believe, mistaken. We could not have enjoyed our recent Independence Day celebration if that were true. Men do not willingly and persistently go to war and die for their country because they believe it is in their self-interest. They do so because they believe in higher values like liberty, justice and sacrifice for others.

I think that one could argue that a person does not go to war truly believing that he is going to die... He might think that it is possible, but he believes that somehow he is going to be one of the ones who do not die... Then again, one of the symptoms of being young is that you think that you are invulnerable -- otherwise us guys would not do all the stupid things that we do at that age...

Hopefully this post makes it though the censors... I've noticed a few of mine disappearing from yesterday...

WildBill wrote:

CollinLeon wrote:32 is classified at "whopping"? Kind of sounds like the grade inflation that they do in schools these days...

See facetious. http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/facetious" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Obviously, someone needs to get busy and create a "facetious" smiley...

Charles L. Cotton wrote:You've only been a member for 10 days and you have a whopping 32 posts. I don't recall anything about your or your posts, but we don't edit posts because of content, unless it violates our rules. So if you really have had posts edited, then you either can't or choose not to follow our rules.

32 is classified at "whopping"? Kind of sounds like the grade inflation that they do in schools these days...

I stumbled across this forum while searching for something on Google recently... I saw something that I thought deserved being replied to, so I signed up for the forum... Since then, I have found other topics that I thought were interesting enough to be replied to... I'm ex-Navy and not politically correct in the least... I am also too old to change my ways and become politically correct... If I offend anyone with my frank talk, I am sorry that you feel offended, but I am not sorry for what I say...

skub wrote:If you are going to argue that it is all about the money, then you cannot forget the Utah CWP instructors who advertise their Utah classes as a way to get around a Texas CHL. Are you going to argue that their motives are based on principle, or are they in it for the money too? I would say that advertising is at the top of list of things driven by money.

The Utah instructors who are advertising are doing it because they believe that it is in their self-interest to do so... Maybe that is for money, maybe it is for principle, but regardless, it is something that they believe to be in their self-interest. To do otherwise is not rational behavior. I'm not saying that there is anything inherently wrong with doing it for money. You just need to be honest about it. Capitalism is GOOD.

Sometimes, we do things that are not in our self-interest, but rarely intentionally. For us guys, it is part of surviving long enough to propagate our genes. Up until 25 or so, us guys tend to do really stupid things -- usually preceded by something like, "Yo! Check this out!"... It's one of the reasons that more males are born than females -- up to 25 or so, our life expectancy is not all that great... As I've often said, the leading cause of death to guys before 25 or so is testosterone... After 25 or so, it is estrogen, but it is a very slow and painful death...

The Annoyed Man wrote: But, since you think that tactic is OK to use, let's use it on you. Since you have difficulty obtaining a Texas CHL (isn't that what you said previously?), then perhaps you have a reason for being intellectually dishonest in the debate because it is your ox being gored. See how that works? It has a bitter taste when argumentum ad hominem is used against you, doesn't it?

Nope... I have not had a difficultly obtaining a Texas CHL... I said that it took about 5-6 months for my wife to get hers, but that was just because of how slow the Texas system was running at that time... Not that having or not having a CHL has ever stopped me from carrying anyway.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Now, if we can dispose with that kind of tactic, and you can agree that people can act on principle, independent of their wallets, your apparent ignorance of what is happening at the level of the legislature is startling. This is what Charles does for a living. He knows more about what is going on at the legislative level, in fine detail, than probably anybody else on this board, and has done so for a while now, both as the incumbent TSRA executive director, and as a member of the National Board of the NRA. Now you can choose to disregard his insider knowledge and experience, but in so doing, you're challenging the owner of this board in a way to imply that you know more about what is happening at that level than he does. Not a smart move.


Somebody get me a lawn-chair and a big bowl of popcorn. This one is going to be fun to watch.

Although I suspect that there might be some people in the world who are altruistic, I have yet to ever meet anyone who is truly that way. People work towards things that they at least believe to be in their self-interest. That doesn't mean that it always is in their self-interest, but at least they thought it was at the time. Sometimes they extrapolate this belief to include their belief in an afterlife that is affected by the actions that they do in this life. Sometimes it is just that they value what others think of them more than what might actually be good for them. I'm a grumpy old man and I say it like I see it. Unfortunately, my views sometimes get censored on this forum since it seems that I'm not politically correct enough for the moderators (aka "censors").

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It has nothing to do with money; a handful of jerks thumbed their noses at the Texas Legislature and now all of us are going to pay the price for their arrogance and stupidity. It's as simple as that and it doesn't do gun owners any good to look for conspiracies where none exist.

I say just look at who is against it... If they are CHL instructors, then they have a financial interest in Texas residents being required to get a Texas CHL since any Utah instructors are taking away their business. The media makes a bid deal about it because for the most part, the media is full of a bunch of leftist pinko's who are against the 2nd Amendment anyway. Which legislators have spoken out against it? I suspect that any that might have spoke out are Democrats and as such, they are probably completely against the 2nd Amendment and as such, their motives are definitely suspect.

The Texas CHL program was supposed to just be a stopgap in our restoration of our complete 2nd Amendment rights. Unfortunately, some people have lost sight of this and others have discovered that there is money to be made with only partial restoration of our 2nd Amendment rights. If we make it so that a CHL is not required for concealed carry (i.e. our 2nd Amendment rights are fully restored, then these people will start losing money. Even discounting the Utah license, there are CHL instructors right now who are complaining that some of the Texas CHL instructors are not charging enough for the class. I know an instructor that charges $100 for the class and he says that he gets complaints from other instructors all the time concerning his pricing it $50 or more less than what they charge.

tacticool wrote:It does show the real motivation is greed and it also shows a possible political solution in November.

As in most things in life, if you want to find the real reason for something, all you have to do is "follow the money"...

The people who are making a big deal of this are either against concealed carry completely (and just want to use this to nibble away at our 2nd Amendment rights) or they have a financial interest in having Texas only accept the CHLs from other states if they are not Texas residents.

Liberty wrote:Texas has a couple of legally blind folks with CHLs .. As far as I know there hasn't been any blood flowin' in the streets. The 2nd amendment didn't exclude blind people.

Most blind people are pretty aware of what they can do and what their limmitations are.

Unless you are directly attacking a blind person with a gun, the odds of getting shot by one are probably fairly remote... Probably about the same odds as if I walked outside my house right now and just fired in a random direction... Yeah, it could happen, but it is pretty unlikely... I'm sure that they are aware of their surroundings enough that they would only fire when they are directly attacked... It's not like they are going to be shooting someone who is breaking into their car, right?

VoiceofReason wrote:Question

Does anyone know why Ohio recognizes Utah’s license but not a Texas CHL?

There's quite a few states like that... Sometimes it's because that one state allows someone under 21 to get a CHL if they are either in the military or have been discharged from the military and the other state has a rule that says that no one no matter what can have a CHL if they are under 21. Personally, I don't agree with this, but that's not the only thing related to the government that I don't agree with... :-)

I suspect that there are very few people who are under 21 that have a CHL and even those that do due to their military exemption, they are not ones that you should be concerned about. The fact that the other state will penalize every person with a CHL from Texas just because of a couple of people who are under 21, it ridiculous. They could just as easily say that they recognize the Texas CHL as long as the holder is at least 21 years old.

In fact, I asked this question to the Washington (state) attorney general about a year ago and here is part of what he replied back to my email:

1. The other state must have a reciprocal statute allowing Washington residents to carry concealed weapons in the other state if the resident has a Washington concealed pistol permit; and

2. The other state does not issue concealed pistol licenses to persons under twenty-one years of age; and

3. The other state requires mandatory fingerprint-based background checks of criminal and mental health history for all persons who apply for a concealed pistol license.

Texas definitely allows honorably discharged veterans who are less than 21 to acquire a CHL, so they have a problem with that... I'm not so sure that we conform to their idea of a mental health history either...

jester wrote:I doubt there are very many, even if you include MPA which has no class, no test, and no background check.

I seriously doubt that someone would choose to carry a firearm in their vehicle (under the MPA provisions) or even with a CHL that required no range time unless they at least had some familiarity with the gun that they were choosing to carry. Maybe they won't be all that competent with it, but let's fact it, the current Texas range time doesn't really make someone competent either. I've seen instructors loan semi-automatics to women who brought revolvers to the range so that they could not be restricted to just revolvers on their license. Many of these women have never even touched a semi-automatic before. In fact, I've seen some that even needed help with the chambering of the first round out of the magazine and even the reloading of the magazines, but they still passed. In fact, if you hit the target consistently when it is at its closest point, you can completely miss the target when it is further out and you would still pass. Of course, the way the range test is structured (i.e. using the same target for each distance), the instructors are likely to just assume that you hit the target with every shot if you don't have any strays even if you completely missed the target in every instance other than when the target was closest to you. From a practical standpoint, I do not have a problem with this since defensive situations are usually quite close and it gets a bit more difficult to claim that you felt that your life was threatened by someone who was 15 yds away from you -- not impossible, just a bit more difficult...

PUCKER wrote:I've read some (not ALL) of this thread...I think I saw a mention of the Motorist Protection Act (MPA) - you know, it's really almost a slap in the face to those of us who are CHL holders...folks can carry in their car with no training, no license, etc...just pointing this out - NO, I'm NOT at all opposed to the MPA - but just throwing that out there for consumption - you don't have to know squat about any states' deadly force laws and it's A-OK to carry a concealed pistol in your car in Texas - where's the outrage?

I suspect that the legislators who are so opposed to this are also ones who are opposed to ANY type of concealed weapon permit for Texans anyway. The news media makes a big deal of it because they are full of a bunch of leftist idiots and as such, they are completely opposed to the 2nd Amendment. I suspect that any Texas CHL holders who are opposed to it fall under the following categories:

• They are irritated that they had to go through more effort to get their permits than someone who chooses a Utah permit
• They have a financial interest in the existing system (e.g. TX CHL instructors) and as such, would not want a system that did not require training for renewals or reduced training for the actual permit
• They have forgotten that the idea behind the CHL was that it was to be a stopgap measure until we can have complete restoration of our 2nd Amendment rights.
• They think that the restrictions that we place on getting a CHL should also be on any CHL from a different state. They fail to realize that these restrictions are just compromises that we needed to make with the anti-2nd-Amendment leftists in our legislature in order to get them to vote for the bill. Other states have had to make different compromises (some less, some more). Utah does not have a child support clause in their CHL because either that is not a major issue in Utah or they realize that it does not deserve to be associated with a concealed carry law.

PUCKER wrote:Regarding the UT CFP - I have one, along with the Texas CHL. After having "jumped through the hoops" for a Texas CHL (since '96 from what I recall) I've gotta tell you that I much prefer the UT CFP due to initial price AND renewal price ($10!!!! from what I recall), ease of filling out the form (ONE page!!!) and length of license (term). Texas seriously needs to look at the citizen-friendly aspect of the Texas CFP.

Florida was the first to start the restoration process of our 2nd Amendment rights with their CHL law. From my understanding of their current law, you do not even have to take a test on the laws nor do you have to take a course if you are ex-military or have previously gone through a NRA or hunter education course (as is required for a hunting license these days). For around $107, if I remember correctly, you can get a Florida license that is good for 7 years. The Florida one is quite a bit more expensive than the Utah one when it comes time to renew. I believe that the renewal on the Florida license is basically the same price as the original license. Florida expect you to be able to read the handout that they give you that details where you can carry and when you can use deadly force whereas Texas requires that you attend a class that spoon feeds you this information during 10 hours of classroom time. Does it really make a difference? Do we see a higher percentage of Florida CHL holders vs Texas CHL holders getting arrested for carrying in places where they are not supposed to or using deadly force when it is not authorized? Well, I'm not aware of any such statistics... One could even argue that Florida, with the high number of Democrat retirees from the northern states would need more class time for them since they have trouble understanding even the simplest things (remember how much trouble some of them in southern Florida had with the "butterfly ballots"?)...

In my opinion, we do not need to start making exceptions for non-resident CHL holders. A person should be able to get a CHL from any state that they want and it should be recognized by any other state. At the very least, there should be a simple reciprocal relationship so that if a state recognizes a CHL from your state, you should recognize the CHL from that state. I do not believe that we should recognize NY's CHL if they will not recognize ours...

What some people fail to understand was that the Texas CHL process is just a stopgap in our struggle to have our full 2nd Amendment rights restored to us. The Texas Legislature has its share of liberals who would vote against any pro-2nd-Amendment legislation. It also has its share of 'progressives' who will vote whichever way the tide is flowing. They are afraid of standing up for what is RIGHT and repealing all the anti-2nd-Amendment 'laws' that we were saddled with after the War of Northern Aggression. The Texas CHL was one way in which we could start getting back our 2nd Amendment rights, one small bite at a time. The ultimate goal is a complete restoration of our 2nd Amendment rights where there are no laws saying what, when, where, or how we can carry any firearm. Hopefully, I will live long enough to see this goal achieved. We should not be complaining about the Utah CHL, we should be welcoming it since it has gone further towards the restoration of Utah's 2nd Amendment rights than our legislature has the balls to do.

People argue about "Texas-specific" or "Utah-specific" laws related to firearms. This is total bull. From a practical standpoint, does it really matter if one state says that you cannot carry it in a church, bar, or wherever and another state says that it is ok? As long as it is concealed and you do not have to use it, no one is going to know the difference. If you do have to use it, it better be justified and as such, are you really concerned what the law might say since your life is already in danger?

baldeagle wrote:So now we argue about whether or not it's right for the state to allow residents to use non-resident permits to carry within our state, when the real argument should be, what on earth gave our state the idea that they could regulate our right to carry a weapon in the first place?

The leftist gun laws that we have in Texas are a carryover from the occupation of Texas after the War of Northern Aggression by the Yankee Imperialistic forces. We've been trying to throw off the yoke of Yankee Imperialism ever since then... They installed their puppet government at that time and pushed through many laws to take away our rights.

VoiceofReason wrote:So when I’m 96, my hands shake, and I can’t see ten feet with thick glasses, I can get a Utah license and carry in Texas? That’s good to know. Yall be safe now.

Well, isn't that better than just painting a Scarlet "V" (for "victim") on your forehead?

For that matter, why shouldn't someone who is confined to a wheelchair and totally blind not be able to defend themselves? I don't seem to remember the Founding Fathers saying anything about age or infirmity in the 2nd Amendment. In fact, I'm pretty sure that they said, "SHALL NO BE INFRINGED". As such, even the requirement to get a CHL is an infringement on our 2nd Amendment rights.