TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote:I have a black car. Perhaps I should bury it in the back yard.

Too late, you have already registered it, we will find it and come take it from you!!

I've actually used the sports car analogy with varying success before.
(What do you need a sports car for, all it's good for is speeding which is illegal, etc)

hheremtp wrote:

Purplehood wrote:I have a black car. Perhaps I should bury it in the back yard.

Too late, you have already registered it, we will find it and come take it from you!!

Can't I just say that I sold it to a guy at a car show?

Purplehood wrote:

hheremtp wrote:

Purplehood wrote:I have a black car. Perhaps I should bury it in the back yard.

Too late, you have already registered it, we will find it and come take it from you!!

Can't I just say that I sold it to a guy at a car show?

you could, but then we can just inact legislation that requires the private sale of vehicles to go thru a licensed car dealer. That way it would comply with the 3 day waiting period for the purchase of a car and we will have a recod of it's sale for later confiscation.

Personally, I've put the conversion kit on my car to make it "Brandy Law" ( Double Pun! ) compliant.

-It can only increase 1 mile per hour every time I push the pedal to the floor, after which I need to return it fully to the top of it's travel before I can put it to the floor again to increase by one more mph. This prevents me from 'rapid acceleration'
-It only has a 1 gallon gas tank, giving me 10 miles range, before I have to stop and relo... err refill.
-The FBI had to come inspect & certify my house and garage to make sure it would be 'secure'.
-In addition to this, I have to put a pedal lock on it whenever I'm not actively driving it.

Somehow, I still am not allowed to drive it in public.
I can only drive it where noone else will see me driving it, or on my own property, or the property of a friend or relative who has given me consent.

I really think this makes it all the more safe tho, so it's worth it.

dicion wrote:Personally, I've put the conversion kit on my car to make it "Brandy Law" ( Double Pun! ) compliant.

-It can only increase 1 mile per hour every time I push the pedal to the floor, after which I need to return it fully to the top of it's travel before I can put it to the floor again to increase by one more mph. This prevents me from 'rapid acceleration'
-It only has a 1 gallon gas tank, giving me 10 miles range, before I have to stop and relo... err refill.
-The FBI had to come inspect & certify my house and garage to make sure it would be 'secure'.
-In addition to this, I have to put a pedal lock on it whenever I'm not actively driving it.

Somehow, I still am not allowed to drive it in public.
I can only drive it where noone else will see me driving it, or on my own property, or the property of a friend or relative who has given me consent.

I really think this makes it all the more safe tho, so it's worth it.

I am curious why DWI/DUI are such big issues. Why is .08 the magical number to determine if you are drunk? Back when drinking and driving was OK or at least not enforced, there weren't crashes due to drunk drivers clogging the streets. All I have ever heard from MADD and other anti-drinking groups are stories about some guy at absurdly high BAC levels killing some teenagers, which is tragic, but not a problem you can legislate away. And if you wanted to try, why not increase penaltys for accidents, this could also help slow people down to the speed limit.

This issue has the same problems as gun control, the government does not believe people will act in a responsible manner when they do anything. They also believe they can force everyone to follow there arbitrary rules, when it just becomes a hassle for people who are already responsible.

If I understand Texas law correctly, if you are convicted for DWI you will lose your drivers license for 1 year max (first offense), and you will also lose your CHL for 5 years. It makes no sense to me that you will be allowed access to the tool used to break the law in the first place long before you regain your right to carry a gun which was not used in the commission of the original crime.

If I were a cynical person, I'd say DWI conviction is just another excuse that the statists will use to infringe upon one's Second Amendment rights.

plannuier wrote:If I understand Texas law correctly, if you are convicted for DWI you will lose your drivers license for 1 year max (first offense), and you will also lose your CHL for 5 years. It makes no sense to me that you will be allowed access to the tool used to break the law in the first place long before you regain your right to carry a gun which was not used in the commission of the original crime.

If I were a cynical person, I'd say DWI conviction is just another excuse that the statists will use to infringe upon one's Second Amendment rights.

But DUI/DWI isn't the only conviction for which you will lose your CHL for 5 years (or is it 7?). Any misdemeanor conviction will cost you your CHL. You write hot checks and are convicted of a misdemeanor, your CHL is going to be revoked, even though no firearm was involved in your crime. That is the cost of being a CHL holder. We are expected to keep our noses clean. It doesn't mean we can't own firearms. It doesn't mean we can't carry in our vehicle via the MPA. It means we can't carry everywhere a CHL holder can carry, because we disqualified ourselves.

It's not a perfect system, but it is what we have. And we're not going to change that system by fighting it from an inferior position.

Purplehood wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:You reckon that the liberals are more prone to experience a DWI than a trip to the gun range?

I don't drink.

Neither does Ted Kennedy.

Actually that really offends me, because I really don't.

Good for you, I don't either....

hheremtp wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

hheremtp wrote:

Purplehood wrote:I have a black car. Perhaps I should bury it in the back yard.

Too late, you have already registered it, we will find it and come take it from you!!

Can't I just say that I sold it to a guy at a car show?

you could, but then we can just inact legislation that requires the private sale of vehicles to go thru a licensed car dealer. That way it would comply with the 3 day waiting period for the purchase of a car and we will have a recod of it's sale for later confiscation.

What if I say I lost it in a boating accident?

barres wrote: But DUI/DWI isn't the only conviction for which you will lose your CHL for 5 years (or is it 7?). Any misdemeanor conviction will cost you your CHL. You write hot checks and are convicted of a misdemeanor, your CHL is going to be revoked, even though no firearm was involved in your crime. That is the cost of being a CHL holder. We are expected to keep our noses clean. It doesn't mean we can't own firearms. It doesn't mean we can't carry in our vehicle via the MPA. It means we can't carry everywhere a CHL holder can carry, because we disqualified ourselves.

It's not a perfect system, but it is what we have. And we're not going to change that system by fighting it from an inferior position.

I understand completely. And for the record, I'm not arguing that convicted drunk drivers should or shouldn't be allowed to hold a CHL. Nor is this a personal thing with me -- I rarely consume alcoholic beverages, and certainly never do while driving or while handling firearms!

I just think it is ludicrous that if you commit a crime with a car and lose both your driving privileges and CHL rights*, you will regain your driver's license 4 years before your CHL. If it is ostensibly done under the guise of "public safety", and the public is kept safe by denying a convicted drunk driver from carrying a gun legally for 5 years, how is public safety served by allowing the same person to get behind the wheel of a car after just 1 year?

I ask this rhetorically, of course, because I know there is no reasonable answer to this question; it is just another example of government hypocrisy when it comes to gun ownership and public safety -- just like the flawed logic used by politicians who tell us that you and I will be safer once they ban civilian gun ownership and leave guns solely in the hands of criminals who seek to do us harm.

Clearly the system is not perfect.

(* Yes, I consider concealed carry a 'right', not a 'privilege', even though the politicians may think otherwise.)