huh?

[alvins]

this is from the chronicle today. This has me confused? first he says to carry a weapon and then just to have a permit to get in faster without a gun permit?


"Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth, wants people willing to undergo background checks to get a fast pass into the state Capitol while carrying weapons.

Under current procedures, Texans with concealed handgun licenses can bypass metal detectors to enter the building. Lobbyists, journalists and other frequent visitors have signed up for gun permits in droves, just to get in quicker.

Geren’s bill, filed Thursday, would establish a “pass for expedited access” to people who undergo the same background checks and pay a fee, but without having to get a gun permit. "

[WildBill]

this is from the chronicle today. This has me confused? first he says to carry a weapon and then just to have a permit to get in faster without a gun permit?

He wants people to be able to have the same background checks as CHL holders and get a "special pass" so they don't have to wait in line to get into the capitol. On the surface, I don't see anything wrong with it. Although it might be nice to force an "anti" to get a CHL.

Here's the link http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7455116.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[The Annoyed Man]

this is from the chronicle today. This has me confused? first he says to carry a weapon and then just to have a permit to get in faster without a gun permit?

He wants people to be able to have the same background checks as CHL holders and get a "special pass" so they don't have to wait in line to get into the capitol. On the surface, I don't see anything wrong with it. Although it might be nice to force an "anti" to get a CHL.

Here's the link http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7455116.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He just can't stand it that people with guns could get preferential treatment. This reminds me of a story told to me by my Poli-Sci teacher at A&M, back in the dark ages. He was an avid bow-hunter, and I think he was even a one-time president of some statewide bow-hunters association. Anyway, he liked to go bow-hunting in Colorado. Like most states at the time, hunting license fees and other related fees/taxes were almost the sole support of wildlife management. He told me that tree-huggers in Colorado were upset because they wanted to be able to contribute to wildlife management (and get some control over how the money was spent), but they were morally opposed to hunting, and they didn't want to have to buy a hunting license to do it.

So, in order to give the tree-huggers an opportunity to contribute without violating their consciences, the state created something like an "Outdoorsman Card" which could be purchased by non-hunters. The fees collected would be added to the wildlife management fund, and in exchange, the card holder would receive some kind of additional outdoors usage privileges not available to non-cardholders or non-hunters.... ...like maybe being allowed to camp where others cannot, or something like that. After this program was created, the state sold something like only 20 of these cards. The startup costs were far more than the fees collected, and no money went into the wildlife management fund. In fact, the whole thing lost money.

You see, it wasn't really about wanting to contribute without compromising their morals, it was about gaining control over the contributions of others (much like "progressives" and taxes). When they couldn't control those contributions, they were uninterested in making any contributions of their own.

That's what this story reminds me of.

[C-dub]

The problem is that a couple of folks around here have been there and said that they were told if they were not actually carrying they must go through the regular line. So, just getting the license isn't good enough to get to use the shorter line.

[RPB]

The problem is that a couple of folks around here have been there and said that they were told if they were not actually carrying they must go through the regular line. So, just getting the license isn't good enough to get to use the shorter line.

It's about being armed or not, it isn't just about background checks. Metal detectors weren't installed to check backgrounds, but to see if people are armed or not. If they aren't armed, prove it by going through detectors.

I WOULDN'T FEEEEEEL SAFE JUST LETTING ANYONE IN. They might be armed and not had training, they need to go through the metal detectors

Edited to add feelings

[C-dub]

Of course, the other problem is that going through this line tells everyone that sees you going through it that you ARE carrying a gun.

[WildBill]

Of course, the other problem is that going through this line tells everyone that sees you going through it that you ARE carrying a gun.

That way they don't have to profile.

[RPB]

I'd feel so unsafe ... what if I look over and see a concealed gun on one of those unlicensed untrained metal-detector skippers?

[alvins]

well if going through the line makes me look like im carrying. If they are going to profile me i can assure you I can make some darn good assumptions based on how you act and talk about you. lol

i have heard they turn away people from the short line without a weapon maybe i need to go try it somtime. I would probably carry at the capital just because I can.

[LikesShinyThings]

Of course, the other problem is that going through this line tells everyone that sees you going through it that you ARE carrying a gun.

Wouldn't that violate the terms of the CHL which, as I seem to recall being taught in my class, are something to the effect that if anyone else knows you are carrying concealed you are in violation of the law?

The instructor made some sort of joke that if asked (by other than LEO) if we were carrying, we were bound by law to not answer. I don't remember the exact details any more (it was about four years ago, after all, and the memory cells could use that refresher course I'll be taking in a few months), but that was the gist of his point - you don't tell others whether you are carrying or not. If that's the case, then the above requirement to be carrying concealed in order to get into the short line would seem to me to be in direct conflict with the training I was given.

Or was my instructor extrapolating his own rules in this case?

[RPB]

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

According to the DPS, I believe "Concealed" means that the weapon cannot be visible, and that its presence cannot be discernible through ordinary observation.
(Invisible guns are hard to find) (really they are ... I'm looking for mine, but ..)
It is a criminal offense for a license holder to carry a handgun in plain view, or to intentionally fail to conceal the weapon.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... chlfaq.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ELB]

As RPB points out, the law says you are supposed to keep your gun concealed; you don't have to keep it secret. I don't think it is a wise practice to tell people you are carrying just for the heck of it, but I do not know of anything that says it is illegal.

When I went to the Capitol, the trooper at the CHL line told me that if I wasn't carrying, then I would have to go thru the regular line. Really, this doesn't make much sense to me -- if you have the CHL, which means you have been background-checked and are a known good guy, then it should not make any difference whether you are armed or not.


But I love the rule anyway....

[LikesShinyThings]

As RPB points out, the law says you are supposed to keep your gun concealed; you don't have to keep it secret. I don't think it is a wise practice to tell people you are carrying just for the heck of it, but I do not know of anything that says it is illegal.

Thanks ELB and RPB. Sounds like maybe my instructor was doing a little ad libbing. Thankfully no harm in this case.

[RPB]

As RPB points out, the law says you are supposed to keep your gun concealed; you don't have to keep it secret. I don't think it is a wise practice to tell people you are carrying just for the heck of it, but I do not know of anything that says it is illegal.

Thanks ELB and RPB. Sounds like maybe my instructor was doing a little ad libbing. Thankfully no harm in this case.

Any time LikesShinyThings,
And if you see my invisible gun anywhere, let me know, but I doubt you will because it's ....

[LikesShinyThings]

As RPB points out, the law says you are supposed to keep your gun concealed; you don't have to keep it secret. I don't think it is a wise practice to tell people you are carrying just for the heck of it, but I do not know of anything that says it is illegal.

Thanks ELB and RPB. Sounds like maybe my instructor was doing a little ad libbing. Thankfully no harm in this case.

Any time LikesShinyThings,
And if you see my invisible gun anywhere, let me know, but I doubt you will because it's ....

Just curious, you didn't take the course from Pat on Hwy 29 did you? http://www.touringtexas.com/guns/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'd be surprised if he said that, but I get surprised a lot.

Now where did I put my invisible gun? I know it's around here somewhere....

Nope, didn't take the course from Pat on Hwy 29. Don't remember the guy's name offhand, but it was off in the wilderness South and East of Marble Falls by a short way.