TexasCHLforum.com

The law is the law. Why shouldn't it be applied equally, regardless of personal prejudices?

I'm not suggesting to cut the guy slack because he holds a CHL. If you check my posts ITT, I say that he should be fired since his company has policies that do not allow him to have the gun in or out of his backpack in that office (according to OP). I would not advocate turning him in even if he did not hold a CHL and the incident occured in his vehicle.

Using extremely strict interpretation of written laws leads to things like raids on guitar factories, overzealous cops using some obscure law to justify a raid on a residence, ect. You will find me to always err on the side of leniency in the case of acts that are illegal according to code but have no victim. I will also tend to want to lock up those who commit crimes against others and throw away the key.

It has run it's course.....

chuckybrown wrote:

It has run it's course.....

I have to concur. I don't recall seeing any topic get 13 pages in quite a while. I guess the mall cops have been active. Just kidding.

After shedding more tears than I care to count today, it's time to take a deep breath and try to find the good things in life.

yup

chuckybrown wrote:

It has run it's course.....

Is someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to click on the topic and read it? If not, maybe you should try skipping the topics you don't like.

I know. I know. That's the Adult thing to do and not everybody learned about PAC in the CHL class, even though it's on the test.

Ameer wrote:

chuckybrown wrote:

It has run it's course.....

Is someone is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to click on the topic and read it? If not, maybe you should try skipping the topics you don't like.

I know. I know. That's the Adult thing to do and not everybody learned about PAC in the CHL class, even though it's on the test.

Remember, there are people who WILL keep the thread going, just because you what it to go away

Not that I'm doing that of course

Ok I know this thread is waaaaaay old but I am in Kuwait and bored out of my mind so here I go.....


Isn't there case law in Texas where a CHL was convicted for intentionally failing to conceal under the authority of his CHL and was DENIED the ability to offer the traveling defense because he was actually charged with failure to conceal by a CHL rather than 46.02 so while he very well may have been traveling, he wasn't even able to argue that because it wasn't an available defense to what he was actually charged with... That case law has muddied when a CHLer is/is not carrying under the authority of a CHL..... For the detriment of us CHLers.... I just don't remember the case.

Not only is it way old (Sep 2011) but it was a troll that managed to get 13 pages of replies to his trolling thread.........

He is probably still laughing at everyone (even me) that responded to this bull.

AFCop wrote:Ok I know this thread is waaaaaay old but I am in Kuwait and bored out of my mind so here I go.....


Isn't there case law in Texas where a CHL was convicted for intentionally failing to conceal under the authority of his CHL and was DENIED the ability to offer the traveling defense because he was actually charged with failure to conceal by a CHL rather than 46.02 so while he very well may have been traveling, he wasn't even able to argue that because it wasn't an available defense to what he was actually charged with... That case law has muddied when a CHLer is/is not carrying under the authority of a CHL..... For the detriment of us CHLers.... I just don't remember the case.

You're not traveling after you get to your office.

Right, my piont was the CHLer was but he didn't get the benefit of the defense based on the charged crime omeone without a CHL would have. So it would be safe to say that case law makes all the defenses and exceptions in 46 moot for a CHLer.