Texas gubernatorial candidate says end CHL law

[chabouk]

I don't know about you guys, but I have met some downright disturbing people who would pick up a gun and carry it tomorrow if the Texas chl law was revoked.

Really? I know (of) plenty of downright disturbing people who don't know or care what the law is: they carry anyway. I don't know of anyone who is scary or disturbing who is sitting around shaking a fist in frustration, wishing the law would change so they could carry.

[KD5NRH]

The most votes any Libertarian Party canidate running for President was Ron Paul who got 0.5%.

Uh, no: that would be Ed Clark in the 1980 election, with 1.1%. Considering the competition in that election was an incumbent and an immensely popular major-party challenger, not half bad.

[bdickens]

I don't know about you guys, but I have met some downright disturbing people who would pick up a gun and carry it tomorrow if the Texas chl law was revoked.

Really? I know (of) plenty of downright disturbing people who don't know or care what the law is: they carry anyway. I don't know of anyone who is scary or disturbing who is sitting around shaking a fist in frustration, wishing the law would change so they could carry.

There's also some downright disturbing people picking up a pen and writing stuff, too.

[sjfcontrol]

There's also some downright disturbing people picking up a pen and writing stuff, too.

Well, as long as we're listing disturbing people, how about including the majority of current senators and congressmen, and our current president?

[bdickens]

Now that's disturbing! Are you sure that conforms to the 10-year-old-daughter rule?

[sjfcontrol]

Now that's disturbing! Are you sure that conforms to the 10-year-old-daughter rule?

'Fraid I'm not familiar with that rule...

(What are you talking about?)

[The Annoyed Man]

I'm not in favor of ending the CHL law in one fell swoop. Let me be clear that completely unrestricted RKBA would be my perfect goal. But that said, there are just certain political realities in play, and a quixotic move to do it all in one maneuver is absolutely destined to fail. Why? Because it refuses to acknowledge the political reality of substantial numbers of voters who are entirely opposed to the 2nd Amendment, let alone licensed concealed carry.

A refusal to acknowledge the reality of it will lead to results that will be more damaging than beneficial to RKBA. The right to keep and bear arms was infringed upon incrementally, and the correct path to removing those infringements must also be incremental in order to be successful.

I'll draw a parallel... Communists could not win elections and change the face of American politics and our economic system until they rebranded themselves as "progressives" and infiltrated the system to alter it from within. Sure, it took longer than a revolution, but it was far more effective, and it is so thoroughly inculcated into our political landscape that there now exist a couple of generations of Americans who don't know any other way. We have already been overthrown from within. The mess is so huge now that there are only two ways to return us to the founders' original intent.

One is in one fell swoop, achievable only by means of armed revolution, and which is for all intents and purposes out of the question. The other, and only realistic means, is to incrementally reverse those changes by, among other things, rebranding conservatism as "classical liberalism" (which is true), promoting the fact that "classical liberalism" promotes personal freedom AND personal empowerment. Incremental changes can be made to stick without all the fuss and muss - as progressives have so eloquently shown us.

If Medina is saying that she supports, philosophically speaking, doing away with the idea of a CHL law, then I can support that. So am I. But if she is saying that she would actually work to repeal the law without regard to the unintended consequences, then I would work as hard as I can to defeat her; because all that would do is return the state to the status ante, and suddenly all of us who hold CHLs would be criminalized if we persisted in carrying concealed.

[Purplehood]

I totally agree with TAM above.

Political realities overshadow our ultimate desires. They will always be tempered by the hopes and aspirations of those who do not share our own.

[chabouk]

Now that's disturbing! Are you sure that conforms to the 10-year-old-daughter rule?

'Fraid I'm not familiar with that rule...

(What are you talking about?)

It's the decorum rule here on the forum: don't say or link to anything that shouldn't be seen or read by someone's 10 year old daughter.

[sjfcontrol]

Now that's disturbing! Are you sure that conforms to the 10-year-old-daughter rule?

'Fraid I'm not familiar with that rule...

(What are you talking about?)

It's the decorum rule here on the forum: don't say or link to anything that shouldn't be seen or read by someone's 10 year old daughter.

Would that we could hide congress and the pres from view by children (not to mention the rest of us). Course they're spending the children's money, so the kids SHOULD pay attention.

[MechAg94]

I'm not in favor of ending the CHL law in one fell swoop. Let me be clear that completely unrestricted RKBA would be my perfect goal. But that said, there are just certain political realities in play, and a quixotic move to do it all in one maneuver is absolutely destined to fail. Why? Because it refuses to acknowledge the political reality of substantial numbers of voters who are entirely opposed to the 2nd Amendment, let alone licensed concealed carry.

A refusal to acknowledge the reality of it will lead to results that will be more damaging than beneficial to RKBA. The right to keep and bear arms was infringed upon incrementally, and the correct path to removing those infringements must also be incremental in order to be successful.

I was thinking along the same lines. If she wants to make it legal to carry without a license, do that. Don't get rid of the CHL laws until you make it legal to carry without a license. Then it will take care of itself naturally.

[The Annoyed Man]

I'm not in favor of ending the CHL law in one fell swoop. Let me be clear that completely unrestricted RKBA would be my perfect goal. But that said, there are just certain political realities in play, and a quixotic move to do it all in one maneuver is absolutely destined to fail. Why? Because it refuses to acknowledge the political reality of substantial numbers of voters who are entirely opposed to the 2nd Amendment, let alone licensed concealed carry.

A refusal to acknowledge the reality of it will lead to results that will be more damaging than beneficial to RKBA. The right to keep and bear arms was infringed upon incrementally, and the correct path to removing those infringements must also be incremental in order to be successful.

I was thinking along the same lines. If she wants to make it legal to carry without a license, do that. Don't get rid of the CHL laws until you make it legal to carry without a license. Then it will take care of itself naturally.

Exactly. But in order to do this successfully requires greater wisdom and understanding of the law than most politicians, even sincere and right thinking politicians, are possessed of. It would be foolish to undertake such a move without lots of input from folks like Charles L. Cotton, for instance, who are both properly current on all of the nuances of firearms law AND on the legal/political consequences of how bills are worded and the political sausage making process.

I don't claim to be that wise; but I am wise enough to know that there are people who do know more than I do and to trust them with that using that knowledge to my benefit.

[sjfcontrol]

This was broadcast on our local news last night.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/texas-news/GOP ... 98277.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I noticed several things about this.

Number one -- she broke the law. She displayed her pistol (an XD) from within her car. She broke concealment.
Number two -- she didn't appear to me to be all that familiar/comfortable with the pistol. She would remove/replace the magazine and seemed nervous to me.
Number three -- she keeps it in a zippered pouch. "It goes with me everywhere I go." But she wouldn't be able to get to it very quickly.

The report states she doesn't have a CHL as she feels it government Interference.

[marksiwel]

This was broadcast on our local news last night.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/texas-news/GOP ... 98277.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I noticed several things about this.

Number one -- she broke the law. She displayed her pistol (an XD) from within her car. She broke concealment.
Number two -- she didn't appear to me to be all that familiar/comfortable with the pistol. She would remove/replace the magazine and seemed nervous to me.
Number three -- she keeps it in a zippered pouch. "It goes with me everywhere I go." But she wouldn't be able to get to it very quickly.

The report states she doesn't have a CHL as she feels it government Interference.

Well, when I take my gun from my glove box and put it in my pocket am I breaking concealment?
You could also argue that it was for News purposes or some such nonsense.

Otherwise, 100% with you

[sjfcontrol]

PC 46.02(a) "A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun... if the person is not:

1) On the person's own premises...
2) Inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle ...
a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle ... at any time in which:
1) the handgun is in plain view; or
2) the person is: (otherwise not allowed)"

I don't see any exceptions for "News Purposes" in the law.

And yes, I'd say if you're not on your own property, your breaking concealment if you move your pistol to/from the glove box and the gun is in view of anybody outside of the vehicle. (Or even inside the vehicle, I suppose.)