TexasCHLforum.com

IF, by some strange set of circumstances, you were asked to "fix" Texas law with regard to firearms, what would you change? You can't re-write US law, of course, but would you make it easier to get a CHL (or do away with licensing), make it tougher, change any of the requirements, or...what? Other than 30.06 issues, what bugs you about gun laws in Texas?

If I could only change one law, I would make having a CHL an exception to Penal Code 46.03, places weapons prohibited, and abolish 46.035.

If I had carte blanche, I would abolish chapter 46, except maybe the part of 46.06 that makes it illegal to transfer a firearm to a minor, criminal, or drunk. Then, of course, CHLs would be unnecessary in Texas. They could still be issued for use in states with reciprocity and NICS bypass, and to carry in schools (otherwise federal law would prohibit that).

I would also amend the Texas Constitution to say

No act of the legislature or regulation or ordinance of any agency or political subdivision shall limit the right of an adult to keep and bear arms, except during an arrest, prison sentence, probation, or parole, or upon a judicial finding of mental incompetence.

- Jim

I would still keep the CHL because it allows a mechanism to carry in other states.

I would allow any adult (17 year old) to carry, open or concealed any weapon with out a permit.

Any business that posts a 30.06 should provide proof of insurance for patrons while on their property on demand.

Gun safety with range time should be mandatory for all students Students should be proficient with rifles shotguns and handguns.

Carry should not be prohibited at schools, If they are not felons and are adults 17 and older

I was thinking about something like this just the other day.....

Not "King of Texas", but rather if I could make something happen on the national level:

I would open the 50 states to all qualified CHL holders, regardless of state of issue. Issue would still be by the states because I don't want the federal government involved in that.

CHL's would actually be 'weapon carry permits' to allow both open and concealed carry for all qualified license holders.

There would be a mandatory life sentence with no chance for parole until at least 80 years of age for ANYONE committing a crime involving the use of a firearm.

Mandatory death sentence for anyone committing a crime with a firearm that involves the death of another.

My intentions are two fold:

1. Allow nationwide, open or concealed, carry to all qualified license holders.

2. Get criminals and gang bangers to quit using firearms and giving the rest of us a bad name.

I know, I know..... I guess I live in a dream world........

I would allow for both open and/or concealed carry in all public places, public accommodations, workplaces, and businesses. An exception would be any place that set up a "sterile environment" where people were screened for weapons on the way in. Such places would require armed security manning the screening points, and provide for people to be able to check their guns in a secure facility, retrieving them when they leave.

Also, prisons, secure areas of airports, courtrooms, etc. would continue to be off limits.

To obtain a LTC, a person would have to take a course that covered:

1) Self defense and the law

2) The safe handling of firearms

3) Shooting proficiency

Persons would have to demonstrate proficiency in each of these areas before a LTC is issued.

Basic gun safety and safe gun handling would also be taught in public schools.

I would also change the laws on carrying while intoxicated so that they would apply to LEO's as well as non-LEO's. The new law would incorporate a 0.08% BAC standard for intoxication.

I would also broaden the Castle Doctrine law so that civil immunity would apply if someone was either not charged or if they were no billed after the lawful use of force or deadly force.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
I would also change the laws on carrying while intoxicated so that they would apply to LEO's as well as non-LEO's. The new law would incorporate a 0.08% BAC standard for intoxication.

Yes - a car seems just as dangerous, if not more so, than a firearm. .08 sounds reasonable. If not .08, than anything concrete to get the subjectiveness out of the law.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:
I would also broaden the Castle Doctrine law so that civil immunity would apply if someone was either not charged or if they were no billed after the lawful use of force or deadly force.

This would mean someone like OJ would have gotten off Scott free.

Liberty wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I would also broaden the Castle Doctrine law so that civil immunity would apply if someone was either not charged or if they were no billed after the lawful use of force or deadly force.

This would mean someone like OJ would have gotten off Scott free.

OJ was sued in federal court. That could still happen no matter what a state does.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote: OJ was sued in federal court. That could still happen no matter what a state does.

- Jim

I don't think so. My understanding is that OJ was sued in a CA court for "wrongful death". He was found civilly liable.

http://www.cnn.com/US/OJ/simpson.civil.trial/

Also, as Stephan has pointed out, to be sued in federal court for a civil rights violation, you need to be acting under the color of the law. This wouldn't apply to a private citizen using force in lawful defense.

It's correct that with my proposed modification to the civil immunity law, OJ would get off scott free. But he would probably have gotten off with the current law as well.

Sorry, my memory was faulty.

There are other bases for private parties to sue each other in federal court besides civil rights violations. I don't exactly what they are.

You could write state law in such a way as to relieve someone of civil liability if his actions were taken in self defense, but not otherwise.

I'm pretty sure that's how current Texas law will be interpreted.

If, for example, you accidentally shot someone, you could not be charged or found not guilty in criminal court, and still be sued. That is probably as it should be.

- Jim

I would take away all your guns and turn all of you into subjects.

seamusTX wrote:Sorry, my memory was faulty.

There are other bases for private parties to sue each other in federal court besides civil rights violations. I don't exactly what they are.

You could write state law in such a way as to relieve someone of civil liability if his actions were taken in self defense, but not otherwise.

I'm pretty sure that's how current Texas law will be interpreted.

If, for example, you accidentally shot someone, you could not be charged or found not guilty in criminal court, and still be sued. That is probably as it should be.

- Jim

Accidental shootings are not presently covered by the TX civil immunity statute. I don't have the exact wording handy, but to have civil immunity one's actions need to conform the requirements of the use of force statute for lawful use of force.

This statute does not address the accidental use of force.

So even if there was an accidental killing, and for whatever reason the DA declined to prosecute (for manslaughter for instance), and/or the grand jury no billed the actor, the actor could still be sued for wrongful death.

My proposed change would not affect this in any way.

Russell wrote:17 years old? I don't know about that. I do not have a problem with the 21 or up group, but I do believe teenagers are too mentally immature.

I have a problem with this. There is too much ambiguity over when someone becomes an adult.
I started paying taxes at 16 when I went to work.
At 17, I could have left home, yet my parents would have been responsible for any trouble I caused (how much sense does that make?).
At 18, I could vote, and I could have purchased tobacco products and porn had I chosen to do so. I could have also entered the military at 18 and died for my country had I chosen to do that. At 18, I could have been charged as an adult for any crime I committed. At 18, I could have married, but could not have consumed a glass of wine at my wedding.
At 18, someone could give me a handgun, but I could not purchase one myself with the money I earned from the job I got at 16.
At 21, I could consume alcohol and purchase my own handgun. Had my dad not been so kind as to give me one when I was younger, I could have purchased one on my own.

My youngest sister will be going to college in less than two years. I don't think her weight is in the triple digits as of yet. I would like to see her carry a gun on her hip on her first day of college.

Venus Pax wrote:At 18, I could have married, but could not have consumed a glass of wine at my wedding.

Actually you could. As long as you had an adult spouse. But this just goes to further explain your point about how strange some of these laws are.