TexasCHLforum.com

I see many questions asked and many opinions offered on matters of law regarding weapons here, but opinions are just that.

When it comes to weapons and law, I'm concerned some of us read opinions that frankly aren't qualified.

How do I separate those who are offering their opinion vs. those actually in the know?

Thanks!

That, my friend, is an excellent question!

I would bet, that even the Lawyers here when giving advice or quoting statutes cannot/will not guarantee their answers.
If they could, what would be the necessity for Courts and other Lawyers........

Even the best training in Law is only for conjecture in the Courts and the outcome can be dramatically different than anyone expects (just ask O.J.).

Lawyers don't have the answers. They only have opinions and precedent. That is what the entire Legal System is about. Did I say MONEY?
If you think it is bad now, how bad must it have been when they were just starting out with no precedent?

You will not know what the outcome in ANY case is until you are standing before the Judge to receive the Verdict.

I think AEA's sig line just about says it all...... but I think at least 90% of the reponders to firearms law questions have at least 9 hours of book time with the Texas CHL Handbook. It covers mostly all of the Texas laws pertaining to firearms, and weapons in general. No most of us aren't legal council.... and that goes for 99.99% of the web.

Abraham wrote:How do I separate those who are offering their opinion vs. those actually in the know?

I trust Charles Cotton completely. If he says something that is out of sync with my thinking, I try to figure out why I'm wrong.

Charles is an attorney, a shooter, an instructor, a lobbyist, and a member of the NRA board of directors. He also had as much to do with the CHL law being passed as anyone.

Certain instructors who post here are never wrong, in my experience, or if they are, they readily admit it.

Personally, I'm not a lawyer or anything special, so when I answer a legal or procedural question, I refer to the source of my information (most of the time, unless I'm very sure).

If you read the forum regularly, you can see who has credibility and who is frequently proven wrong.

- Jim

Abraham wrote: How do I separate those who are offering their opinion vs. those actually in the know?

Thanks!

Form your own opinion based on references provided.

For example, if I say "Amusement Parks are not off-limits unless posted 30.06", ask for the proof/reference. I will be able to show you in the code where it says that. If I can't, then I am probably making it up or just mis-informed.

Remember, it's all free advice, nothing against Charles or anyone else on here (I have even been looked on as sort of an expert myself) but the overruling maxim on free advice is that you get what you pay for.

I have found that the "LAW" mean whatever the Judge whose presiding over the case in his court says it means. That's not to say that can't be reversed until it is decided on by SCOTUS.

Jungle Work

I always listen to Charles.

Abraham wrote:I see many questions asked and many opinions offered on matters of law regarding weapons here, but opinions are just that.

When it comes to weapons and law, I'm concerned some of us read opinions that frankly aren't qualified.

How do I separate those who are offering their opinion vs. those actually in the know?

Thanks!

I share your concern. Some statutes and legal principals are "well-settled" as attorneys say, but many are not. Even when the law is "clear," it's application to specific fact patterns can be problematic and uncertain.

In my posts, I try to acknowledge when the law on an issue is well-settled or not. I also try to acknowledge counter arguments that can be presented with a specific fact pattern and I often indicate whether I know of any case law or the issue.

Most people would view my opinion on diagnosis and treatment of medical maladies, or my recommendations to NASA on how to design a heat shield for the shuttle, with a great deal of caution. This same approach should be taken to legal opinions offered by non-lawyers who do not otherwise possess expertise in the subject matter. Other reliable sources would be LEO's, CHL Instructors, law professors, or even people who have personal experience with the subject matter.

I think most posters do a pretty good job of making it known that they are expressing their personal opinions. People also need to recognize that even between "experts," disagreements of the meaning or scope of a statute, or the application of case law to a specific fact pattern occur.

Chas.

I think for the most part once, most questions get a consensus for an answer and those answers are pretty much on the money, sometimes the question is more complex than it first seems and the real experts help sort it out.

I tend to back up any opinions or 'facts' that I read with my own independent research -- no matter what the subject matter. Everyone is inclined to to have thier own interpretation and usually within those lies the absolute truth. When it comes to Texas gun laws, I have various sites with the statutes bookmarked for easy reference. I also won't hesitate to shoot a e-mail to DPS or the local PD. DPS I find to be pretty responsive, Irving PD is usually better with a phonecall or face-to-face visit.

Big Calhoun wrote:I tend to back up any opinions or 'facts' that I read with my own independent research -- no matter what the subject matter. Everyone is inclined to to have thier own interpretation and usually within those lies the absolute truth. When it comes to Texas gun laws, I have various sites with the statutes bookmarked for easy reference. I also won't hesitate to shoot a e-mail to DPS or the local PD. DPS I find to be pretty responsive, Irving PD is usually better with a phonecall or face-to-face visit.

Excellent procedure!

Yikes!

I'm way past due in expressing my thanks to everyone.

So thank you one and all.

Great feedback.

I'm in the process of catch up and missed this one.

Hmmm..... The ones that start off with "Hmmmm" I wouldn't trust. :)