TexasCHLforum.com

LarryH wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: On Planet TAM, collectivists are treated just like cancer.

Chemo, radiation, surgery or all three?

Sometimes I make them sit and listen while I rant until they are bored to death.

Liberty wrote:

tacticool wrote: Any Texas legislator that voted to make professional sporting events off limits for CHL.
Any Texas legislator that voted to make school sporting events off limits for CHL.
Any Texas legislator that voted to make schools off limits for CHL.

Hmm these would be all the pro CHL folks in the state house in `95 and `97 along with George W.
The guys who voted against it were trying to kill CHL and concealed carry.

I'm going out on a limb here and suggest that there are probably pretty good reasons for the above three restrictions...if you think about 'em for a minute or two.

I'll concede that perhaps some thought could be given to relieve the restictions on university and college campus carry. Afterall, these kids are supposed to know right from wrong and act accordingly by the time they reach college/enlistment age.

Oldgringo wrote:I'm going out on a limb here and suggest that there are probably pretty good reasons for the above three restrictions...if you think about 'em for a minute or two.

Those places were not off limits to off duty LEO in the decades before the CHL law passed. Those places are still not off limits to off duty LEO.

Therefore, I can't think of any good reason they should be off limits to citizens with a CHL.

jester wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:I'm going out on a limb here and suggest that there are probably pretty good reasons for the above three restrictions...if you think about 'em for a minute or two.

Those places were not off limits to off duty LEO in the decades before the CHL law passed. Those places are still not off limits to off duty LEO.

Therefore, I can't think of any good reason they should be off limits to citizens with a CHL.

Think really hard, you can do it.

BTW, a trained off duty LEO is not the same as a citizen with a CHL and a citizen with a CHL is definitely not the same as a trained off duty LEO. If CH licensees want to be LEO's they should apply to the respective agencies and go to the respective schools and receive the respective training. A CHL is not a BATMAN license.

Oldgringo wrote:

Liberty wrote:

tacticool wrote: Any Texas legislator that voted to make professional sporting events off limits for CHL.
Any Texas legislator that voted to make school sporting events off limits for CHL.
Any Texas legislator that voted to make schools off limits for CHL.

Hmm these would be all the pro CHL folks in the state house in `95 and `97 along with George W.
The guys who voted against it were trying to kill CHL and concealed carry.

I'm going out on a limb here and suggest that there are probably pretty good reasons for the above three restrictions...if you think about 'em for a minute or two.

I'll concede that perhaps some thought could be given to relieve the restictions on university and college campus carry. Afterall, these kids are supposed to know right from wrong and act accordingly by the time they reach college/enlistment age.

Is the implication that LEOs don't understand Sports, so they don't attend sporting events? or that they don't go into schools to pick up their kids when they are ill?

Oldgringo wrote:

jester wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:I'm going out on a limb here and suggest that there are probably pretty good reasons for the above three restrictions...if you think about 'em for a minute or two.

Those places were not off limits to off duty LEO in the decades before the CHL law passed. Those places are still not off limits to off duty LEO.

Therefore, I can't think of any good reason they should be off limits to citizens with a CHL.

Think really hard, you can do it.

BTW, a trained off duty LEO is not the same as a citizen with a CHL and a citizen with a CHL is definitely not the same as a trained off duty LEO. If CH licensees want to be LEO's they should apply to the respective agencies and go to the respective schools and receive the respective training. A CHL is not a BATMAN license.

True, but Batman hasn't been seen protecting ANY of the kids at any school shooting anywhere in the world that I've seen, so I'm not sure why that red herring got thrown out. ... If a nut is shooting up kids at my kids' school, I'd prefer the nearest CHL in the school picking up their kid/grandchild from the school nurse, be armed.

Trained CHLs may spend more time at the range, have better criminal histories, and be less stressed/more level headed than some young inexperienced/highly stressed LEOs. As a group, generally, most CHLs I've known have more weapons knowledge than some LEOs I've known and many have a better understanding of the Penal Code and other provisions of the law in many areas. I don't believe Trained CHLs need extra training in traffic laws etc if you are referring to the fact that LEOs spend more hours in classes than CHLs, who learn the applicable laws for what they do.

Not all CHLs are "young enough" to be hired as LEOs. (Not all want a lower paycheck either) But all CHLs are
"OLD enough" to help protect kids. (Including a former LEO who retired and is now a CHL freind of mine ... he doesn't wear a cape either though, nor does he want to be an elderly LEO using a cane, unless the guy he is chasing uses a walker, but if a nut starts shooting while he's picking up his grandchild at my kid's school, I'd prefer he be armed and able to help offer SOME protection for the childrens' sake)

bnc wrote:This is because a beard can compromise the seal between the wearer's face and the mask, letting nasty stuff in.

Funny, the Israelis manage it.



Just move the seal lower so it can seal against the bottom of the chin behind the beard, or use a full hood, which is a better idea in a lot of dangerous environments anyway. (The scalp and ear canal are fairly high absorption areas; 3.7 and 5.4, compared to 1.3 for the palm. Can't find the units for those measurements, but they're pretty commonly discussed in pesticide training.)

RPB wrote:Including a former LEO who retired and is now a CHL freind of mine ... I'd prefer he be armed and able to help offer SOME protection for the childrens' sake)[/b][/u]

He can be armed and carry in schools. Just has to have his dept that he retired from hook him up.

The point is that these restrictions were installed to get a bill passed so that we could gain the right to carry,

I find it sorta funny that some people actually believe that LEO is for some reason better qualified to carry a gun than the average CHLer. The facts just don't bear this out.
Are cops under less stress therefore less likely to to go postal?
Do they have a better criminal record?
Is their percentage of good shoots better than our?
Do they spend more time at the range?

I'm not cop bashing here, but I think that us CHLers have proven ourselves with our records.

RPB wrote:

If a nut is shooting up kids at my kids' school, I'd prefer the nearest CHL in the school picking up their kid/grandchild from the school nurse, be armed.

I can see where an armed CHL might be of assistance in that situation; however, that is quite a different scenario from carrying in the schools and during the sometimes crazy partisan passion of sporting events.

While I am a believer and supporter of our fundamental RKBA, we do not live in the same world our founding fathers did. For example, neither they nor their offspring had idiotic TV programs and video games that exploit and delight their idle senses with all sorts of violent fun filled killing games.

C-dub wrote:Anyone see this? This is unbelievable. Maybe the police should get a statement from this business man that he doesn't want police in his store and then not show up for any calls to that store. I'm just stunned.

Or see if any of the cops have a good working relationship with the health inspector.

gigag04 wrote:

RPB wrote:Including a former LEO who retired and is now a CHL freind of mine ... I'd prefer he be armed and able to help offer SOME protection for the childrens' sake)[/b][/u]

He can be armed and carry in schools. Just has to have his dept that he retired from hook him up.

What if the small town former Dept/prior employer doesn't want to be "hooking people up" who no longer work for them due to a difference in political opinions or personal reasons such as personality conflicts being the reason for retirement? (Such as this retired guy having more "moral convictions" than the chief maybe.)

Are you referring to :
http://www.leaa.org/218/218text.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; SEC. 3. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS. ?

`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified retired law enforcement officer' means an individual who--

`(3)(A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more; or

`(B) retired from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency;

`(4) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency;

`(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State's standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms;


So, assuming you had 15 instead of 14 and a half years, had a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan , etc etc etc ...
Having to have a former employer whose politics may be the very reason you retired "hook you up" is too similar to:
Retired police sergeant denied concealed carry permit despite being attacked (in another State which requires local PD to approve Concealed Carry Permits)
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2010/04/r ... enied.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
---------------

Funny story: I was once next to an active LEO freind (before 9/11) who had a letter from his Dept stating he could carry on the airplane, I hit the floor as we approached the metal detectors while he held up his note and pistol in the air. (Same guy didn't know oil needed to be changed in his truck every 100,000 miles, so the motor froze up, but he was an excellent LEO ... now retired. )
-------------

Oldgringo wrote:

RPB wrote:

If a nut is shooting up kids at my kids' school, I'd prefer the nearest CHL in the school picking up their kid/grandchild from the school nurse, be armed.

I can see where an armed CHL might be of assistance in that situation; however, that is quite a different scenario from carrying in the schools and during the sometimes crazy partisan passion of sporting events.

While I am a believer and supporter of our fundamental RKBA, we do not live in the same world our founding fathers did. For example, neither they nor their offspring had idiotic TV programs and video games that exploit and delight their idle senses with all sorts of violent fun filled killing games.

And a LEO doesn't get as passionate with sports as CHLs do?
Most LEOs I have known are more into sports than average people.
Previously level-headed law abiding CHLs are more likely to "lose it" emotionally and shoot umpires than a LEO is?
LEOs are people too, some (not all) even shoot their wives, drink at parties and fire off a couple rounds into the pool then drive home etc. ... just sayin, of course not all do, but I'd bet fewer CHLs would act less responsibly than some young rookie/fairly new LEOs.... both of those two "groups" of people are still just "people"
Most CHLs are pretty darn level-headed responsible people, as are most LEOs, but I've been to some LEO parties that were wilder thaan some "normal" people parties too ...
Perhaps LEOs shouldn't be allowed to carry off duty or after retirement or at sports where they could "lose it mentally/emotionally" either?

Personally, I haven't cared about sports since I graduated high school, ( I enjoyed playing, not watching ) but if I'm picking up my niece after a game at her high school, and some nut shooting the band members needs stopping, I guess I could throw a rock at him, ... or try to get between him and the kids as a shield till he runs out of ammo.

If I'm at a game, it's because my niece is in the band, I could give a rat's tail who wins or loses, if they lose this one, they'll win one later or next year or won one before, 75 years from now, no one will care about this game, unless it makes the news because some schizo shooter went wild and no responsible law abiding chl could stop him because legislators decided it should be a target rich zone like Virginia Tech..

Liberty wrote:The point is that these restrictions were installed to get a bill passed so that we could gain the right to carry,

I find it sorta funny that some people actually believe that LEO is for some reason better qualified to carry a gun than the average CHLer. The facts just don't bear this out.
Are cops under less stress therefore less likely to to go postal?
Do they have a better criminal record?
Is their percentage of good shoots better than our?
Do they spend more time at the range?

I'm not cop bashing here, but I think that us CHLers have proven ourselves with our records.

That's kinda what I'm sayin, I've known more stressed officers getting divorces etc etc etc partly because of their job, who have higher daily stresses due to the job, than I have known stressed out CHLs (most chls I've known were pretty relaxed older people where I live, mostly retirees, or around age 49 or up, though some claim it's their 19th time celebrating their 30th birthday, most of us are in the "or up" catagory). Most LEOs handle the stress well, I commend them, but they and we are still just "people" though both LEOs and CHLs are more likely to be law abiding responsible ones than some others out there.

Sorry, appears we are off topic.

I'm still laughing over what if they ban CHLs and who would they call to report a CHL in there.

C-dub wrote:So, now I'm wondering if they also prohibit concealed weapons. If they do, I wonder if they would call the police if someone were to be discovered violating that.

I think it is Unchristian and quite frankly disgusting that some people here are saying they hope the place gets robbed.

RPB, an observation:

I am probably a small minority, but I personally suffer from what is referred to as "Male Pattern Color Deficiency". It means that I can see various colors but I don't see them the way normal folks do, and in some respects is considered color-blindness. What that means is that your multi-colored posts drive me crazy.
This is in no way a personal attack, simply an observation.

//end observation

On the issue of CHL-holders being better shooters than LEO's. I imagine that you have made that observation because of the people that you prefer to hang out with. Based on your posts, I imagine that you have a lot of range time and range buddies. So from your point of view, your statement has some validity.
From a general point of view and observation from a pogue like myself who is at best an intermittent range kind-of-guy, the majority of folks that I observe and or know that have the opportunity to handle firearms are not all that proficient. So I would tend to disagree with you, as it is my belief that the bottom-line is that LEO's and CHL-holders are pretty much hit-and-miss (no pun intended) when it comes to who is good with a firearm, and who is not.

bdickens wrote:I think it is Unchristian and quite frankly disgusting that some people here are saying they hope the place gets robbed.

I'm pretty sure I never said that, nor do I hope that's what happens to them; but I do believe in the laws of unintended consequences. Part of that is that when there are such consequences, those who set them into motion ought to be called to account for them. The article in the OP says:

Detective Mary Wheat, a spokeswoman for the Portland Police Department, characterized the incident as a "fluke" but noted the city's ongoing tension between the police and some members of the community.

"This is Portland," Wheat told FoxNews.com. "We have been dealing with that for years and years and years. It's a very liberal city. We have anarchists here and we deal with them on a regular basis."

The coffee shop attracts homeless individuals and activists, the newspaper reported, and Wheat said it is known to be "not friendly" to officers who work the area.

"Most officers would know that this is not a coffee shop that's friendly to police," she said. "It's obviously discrimination to police. He works that area and he can't go in for a cup of coffee -- it's not fair." [emphasis mine]

Criminals, contrary to popular perception, have Internet access and are at least marginally aware of what is going on in their areas. This story has been reported at the national level. It is only a matter of time before it is common knowledge on the streets that there is a high probability this coffee shop's donut money will be unprotected by anyone marginally competent to do so.

LEO's, being professionals who are held to a higher standard in their conduct, should not discriminate against this coffee shop if the scabs who infest it need their services. However, LEO's being also human, might understandably be reluctant to enter into where they are not only not wanted, but from which they are normally expelled, in order to render aid that is only grudgingly asked for. In that environment, while I do not hope they get robbed, neither will I shed a tear if they do get robbed for that donut money.

Thus, if they do get robbed, it will be perfectly legitimate to point out that their own feckless policy is what put them into the heightened probability of being robbed. That is a conversation I will take great pleasure in watching — not because I hope they get robbed, but because there is nothing unChristian about saying "I told you so."