Thanks to the Media!

[KBCraig]

Ok, I appreciate all of your responses, including the ones making me look like the backside of a mule.

Scooter, I apologize if the responses (including mine) seemed to attack you. That certainly wasn't my intent.

However, I on the first hand live next door to a person that scares the bejesus out of me, just as soon as he heard this, yehaw now he wants to have a gun to carry in the car.

Is this person legally proscribed from owning a gun? Could he qualify for a CHL if he chose to go that route? Note: except for disqualifiers like back taxes and child support and certain misdemeanor convictions, anyone who can legally carry in a car could also qualify for a CHL.

Now you ask why dont I move, Its my dad, he has been diagnosed as mentally ill, and child like tendencies. Got arrested in a store recently for hitting a store manager.

Now would you want that person to have a gun? You know my opinion.

Can he get a gun? Legally no, but guess what I got my first gun from him. actually 3 now, 2 shotguns and a pistol.

You answered your own question: the law might forbid him to get a gun, but that's isn't the same as preventing it. The law forbids murder, but it doesn't prevent it. The country is full of felons who are illegally in possession of firearms. I process 5-10 every week.

So why do I speak out? to get looked down upon

I disagree with your position. I don't look down on you.

Kevin

[LedJedi]

I guess its just me, maybe not. We that have the CHL have gone through quite a bit to recieve the great piece of plastic to have the right to carry a concealed handgun whereever we go.

Now what bothers me is that just any Tom , Dick and Harry can carry one in their car while concealed. According to the Media!!!!

Is this right??? I knew that there were new laws that were going into effect on the 1st of Sept., but I believed that the law for anyone to carry concealed in their car would be as long as they were traveling.

Maybe someone can make me happy and not have to worry about this. I only say this because their are some people who should not even be allowed to look at guns, much less own one.

I apologize for stepping on anyones toes if I do.

Thanks

This bothers you? hmm, i find that puzzling.

Personally i'm a bit offended that we have to jump through hoops to carry concealed and that open carry is not allowed in public in Texas. I personally see that as a violation of the 2nd amendment and have made those views very clear to my representatives.

It's sounding like you're miffed that more citizens are armed. please explain. :)

(for the record, not trying to 'peck a fight'... just curious. My favorite uncle is named Scooter <g> )

[scooter03]

Well, yes it does bother me that just anyone can carry, not that more citizens, but just anyone. Please lets get that straight.

The person I was speaking of in th post earlier, no he couldn't qualify for the chl due to the mental illness, much less see the sights and target to shoot a pistol.

Yes crminals will do what they want, but guess what, if he is pulled over with a pistol in the car, is the officer going to run a background check to see if he is mental ill. I think not, so how is he breaking the law? I am puzzled that someone would think that. I did not say he was a felon, sex offender, or someone who has a record. I said mentally ill, childlike tendencies, and will add bipolar.

If I was a law enforcement officer, I would now be more paranoid due to this.

I am glad that we are now seeing the 2nd amendment right to bear arms coming back to us. Believe me, maybe I wont have to spend a fortune next time I want to carry my own.

I am not upset at anyone for the responses, I dont think anyone is picking a fight. I do appreciate all the responses, I was hoping maybe someone could help me see the light about this.

thanks to all

[LedJedi]

are you sure you're not my uncle scooter?

+1 on being physically and mentally able to carry a gun. I support both of those restrictions actually, as well as banning habitual criminals from carrying.

[frankie_the_yankee]

are you sure you're not my uncle scooter?

+1 on being physically and mentally able to carry a gun. I support both of those restrictions actually, as well as banning habitual criminals from carrying.

Without a licensing system of some sort, how would you accomplish that?

Scooter's point is well taken. A license requirement won't stop a criminal or mentally ill person from carrying, but it DOES make it easier to IDENTIFY such people during routine encounters with LEO.

That's what I like about having (and needing) a CHL. It is a strong piece of evidence that I am a bona fide LAC.

[LedJedi]

you simply institute mental history background checks on the sale of firearms just like we do criminal history checks. The logistics of gathering that data would be an issue, but that's for a logistics person to figure out.

I would also make it a criminal offense to knowingly provide or sell arms to anyone who is mentally unstable, just like it is now for felons.

Licensing just provides a method of tracking for authorities which does not need to exist and makes me nervous.

We dont need a license to speak freely. You do not need a license to travel. Those are guaranteed rights and should not be licensed and tracked.

One could argue that this really wouldn't be effective in keeping arms out of the hands of the mentally unstable and i would point out that out current system is pretty inept at keeping them out of the hands of the criminals as well. You can't legislate to those who ignore the laws. Well, you can, but you have to catch them first.

Licensing for a guaranteed right is redundant and unnecessary. You can't argue that it keeps guns out of the hands they don't belong in, because it doesn't. Turn on the news and you'll see plenty of proof.

[frankie_the_yankee]

you simply institute mental history background checks on the sale of firearms just like we do criminal history checks. The logistics of gathering that data would be an issue, but that's for a logistics person to figure out.

Actually, Congress just passed a law to accomplish this. The NRA supported it.

I would also make it a criminal offense to knowingly provide or sell arms to anyone who is mentally unstable, just like it is now for felons.

The problem is that except for FFL's, who can run background checks, how would you know someone was "mentally unstable", or even how that condition was defined?

Licensing just provides a method of tracking for authorities which does not need to exist and makes me nervous.

Asserting that it "does not need to exist" does not make it so. My point is that it makes it much easier for LEO's to identify legitimate gun carriers (during routine encounters) from those not qualified to carry. This makes it more difficult for unqualified people to carry (and get away with it). When something is more difficult, fewer people will do it.

Licensing for a guaranteed right is redundant and unnecessary. You can't argue that it keeps guns out of the hands they don't belong in, because it doesn't. Turn on the news and you'll see plenty of proof.

There's an old saying that goes something like this. "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

As long as licenses are available to any LAC, I personally do not see it as an infringement.

Just my 2 cents.

[seamusTX]

Asserting that it "does not need to exist" does not make it so. My point is that it makes it much easier for LEO's to identify legitimate gun carriers (during routine encounters) from those not qualified to carry. This makes it more difficult for unqualified people to carry (and get away with it).

Remember we're talking about car carry.

A felon or mentally ill person can carry a long gun in a vehicle. They have always been able to do that in Texas. How are the police going to know, unless they have probable cause to arrest them for something other than possessing a firearm?

- Jim

[frankie_the_yankee]

Ease of concealment makes handguns a different thing than long guns. That's why the laws in so many states, including TX, have distinguished between the two.

What applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other.

[mr surveyor]

I believe the idea that a massive number of unquilified Toms, Dicks and Harrys are now going to rush out to the local pawn shop and buy guns to carry in their vehicles is a bit outlandish. I would say there are going to be a far fewer percentage of "unqualified" new vehicle carriers than there are currently unqualified applicants for the CHL. I would venture to guess that over half the people in my CHL class were very unqualified (unqualified by definition as interpreted in this thread) to carry firearms as they had first fired a weapon in the days immediately preceeding their class. These people will have a license to carry any legal handgun, in any legally recognized location in the State of Texas, and many having had no more than 60 days of experience with a weapon. A great number of these new licensees do not obtain their first handgun until after receiving their CHL. Now, compare that with the many thousands upon thousands of older Texans that have handled weapons since early childhood, have carried weapons in their work trucks (rural/small town Texas) all their adult lives, and have more weapons handling experience than the vast majority of CHL holders, particularly big city dwellers.

On second thought, maybe a restriction such as the age type limitation requiring "Hunter's Safety Course" before allowing a hunting license to be issued to anyone born after a certain year... what was that...1972?

There are a lot of folks out here in small town Texas that cut our teeth on firearms, and raise our children and grandchildren in an environment that teaches proper respect for firearms. We are not all Tom, Dick, Harry or Bubba!

[frankie_the_yankee]

I believe the idea that a massive number of unquilified Toms, Dicks and Harrys are now going to rush out to the local pawn shop and buy guns to carry in their vehicles is a bit outlandish. I would say there are going to be a far fewer percentage of "unqualified" new vehicle carriers than there are currently unqualified applicants for the CHL. I would venture to guess that over half the people in my CHL class were very unqualified (unqualified by definition as interpreted in this thread) to carry firearms as they had first fired a weapon in the days immediately preceeding their class.

In my posts, when I use the term "unqualified", I mean it in the legal sense. I mean someone with a disqualifying criminal record or mental health record.

My only point is that if you have a license, it is clear that you are not a criminal and not mentally disqualified. If you have a gun but no license, it is not clear that you have a clean record and mental health history.

Since there is no easy way for LEO to perform a quick check, it is easy for unqualified people to "blend in". IOW, their risk of getting caught is reduced, so more of them will do it (carry).

[Big Calhoun]

The way I see it is:

-Those who dislike firearms won't carry anyway
-Those who don't want to obtain a CHL, but are otherwise responsible folks may feel more inclined to carry in their vehicles.
-Those that probably shouldn't even say the word 'gun' will probably jam themselves up sooner or later.
-Those prohibited from carrying weapons (ie. felons) don't read the newspaper anyway so not much will change their.

[srothstein]

I think I'm in the minority here, but I'll go and say this anyway:
I think EVERYONE has the right to keep and bear arms. That includes people that have been formerly convicted of a crime. As long as they are not using their weapons to intimidate people or break the law, they should be allowed to have and carry them.

I certainly hope that you are not in the minority in this forum, at least. I agree with you and I am afraid we are in the minority, but I hope we are not.

Remember, people banned for life from keeping and bearing arms include such dangerous people as Martha Stewart, G Gordon Liddy, and Kenneth Lay.

Just a technical correction but Kenneth Lay is not barred from carrying a firearm or buying one. It may be a little hard for him to do so, being dead and all, but he legally can. His conviction was vacated when he died due to a quirk in federal law about deaths between conviction and sentencing making the conviction invalid.

[txinvestigator]

Now what bothers me is that just any Tom , Dick and Harry can carry one in their car while concealed. According to the Media!!!!

For once, the media are correct.

For the record, I'm not bothered in the least that Tom, Dick, and Harry can carry concealed in their cars. Likewise for Suzie, Sally, and Jane.

That's part of the right to keep and bear arms. The requirement for a CHL is an infringement on that right. The CHL should be viewed as a bother, not membership in an exclusive club.

Is this right??? I knew that there were new laws that were going into effect on the 1st of Sept., but I believed that the law for anyone to carry concealed in their car would be as long as they were traveling.

As of 9/1/2005, anyone in their car is traveling. As of 9/1/2007, it doesn't matter if they're traveling, because UCW no longer applies.

Maybe someone can make me happy and not have to worry about this.

You should consult with this guy.

I only say this because their are some people who should not even be allowed to look at guns, much less own one.

And who gets to say who "those people" are?

No toes were harmed in the reading of your post.

Kevin

I agree 100% word for word.

[KD5NRH]

Just a technical correction but Kenneth Lay is not barred from carrying a firearm or buying one. It may be a little hard for him to do so, being dead and all, but he legally can. His conviction was vacated when he died due to a quirk in federal law about deaths between conviction and sentencing making the conviction invalid.

Unless death somehow invalidates his citizenship or residency, I don't see anything on the 4473 that would keep a dead person from buying a gun.