TexasCHLforum.com

Charles,
I understand that this is a general topic that we have pretty much over done on the forums, but I like many believe that our ultimate goal should be constitutional carry.

What would be the best path too pursue this in the future?
I personally believe that we already have had more success in increasing the rights of the unlicensed, so that it would be legal for any non felon to carry concealed and openly without license or registration. Gaining this right first, and getting the public used to the idea that there are guns every where, and are a safety feature, not a public hazard. Is the dream of constitutional carry an impossible dream for Texas?

My concern with pursuing constitutional carry as the law of Texas, is that there are too many of us in the CHL community that aren't too crazy in about the idea. Some of us like the idea that our CHL is a membership too an exclusive type of club. Some of us even make a few extra bucks giving classes. While I don't doubt that most instructors believe in the 2nd amendment the support might soften when a source of their income. (and an activity that they truly love) becomes threatened.

My thought is that additional 30.06 signs will be a threat until some business gets sued because of their no gun policy and someone was denied their right to protection.

RVN War Dawg wrote:Unlicensed open carry could be scary! In my last CHL renewal class I saw a person load a 9mm magazine backwards. The concept of pointy (or semi-pointy ) end first into the breech was unknown. I was a USAF Security Police member for 20 years. I went to the range twice a year for 4 courses of fire. Some people still had problems. Weapons training is a must before carrying any firearm. I don't have a problem with a training requirement before firearm ownership. We require a drivers license. How many idiots do we still see on the road? But, I fear that the "Yankee" politicians would use a training requirement to stop or limit gun ownership. Chicago and DC are still limiting gun ownership, by adding unreasonable requirements. We all know how safe those cities are!

It seems you don't believe or understand the the part about
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now, this seems pretty clear to me, that demanding the right to certain training is an infringement to the the right to bear (carry). I admit that I'm just a simple country Yankee, and I don't have a Havard education, or even an Aggy education, but I sure know an infringement when I see it. I think that our right to bear arms is is more threatened by gun owners owner who accept "reasonable" limitations of the RKBA are a bigger threat to us than the Yankee politicians.

Pogo said it best. "We have seen the enemy and he is us!"