TexasCHLforum.com

ScottDLS wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Ameer wrote:More than half of the states allow citizens to carry a handgun without a license but I learned to accept that Texas Republicans are not pro gun enough to support mainstream gun legislation like that.

You are saying that more than 25 states have so-called constitutional-carry?

Chas.

I think 25 states have some type of unlicensed handgun carry, usually open carry. But only 4 or 5 have unlicensed concealed carry.

Texas has neither. We gained licensed handgun open carry last year with holster restrictions. However, more than 20 years after the CHL law passed, we're still prohibited from carrying a concealed handgun many places where it's legal to carry a deer rifle.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

treadlightly wrote:I emailed TSRA about this, and got a nice reply. HB560 is old legislation that has never gotten any support.

My wild guess is that legislators must look at HB560 as going too far, and CC is just eliminating government prejudice against the unlicensed.

My wild guess. TSRA didn't say that, I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning.

Edited to add: I am going to sign up for TSRA. I may not agree with them on this point of strategy and timing, but I think overall they do a lot of good.

When did you email TSRA? What exactly was the response?

Chas.

I did the same thing about a month ago and got a similar response.

They had plenty of opportunity to get it right. They refused, time after time. Since they won't be reasonable, there's no point in further debate or compromise with them. After my CHL expires, the second amendment will be my gun permit.

hillfighter wrote:They had plenty of opportunity to get it right. They refused, time after time. Since they won't be reasonable, there's no point in further debate or compromise with them. After my CHL expires, the second amendment will be my gun permit.

While I share your frustration, I'd advise against carry without permit. It will do nothing but make you a criminal. And why would you want to switch and be a Lib?

I won 't be a criminal. The supreme law of the land is clear.

hillfighter wrote:I won 't be a criminal. The supreme law of the land is clear.

The SCOTUS decides what is the "supreme law of the land" and it has stated in dicta that license requirements are constitutional.
That said, stop violating Rule 4.

Chas.

parabelum wrote:

hillfighter wrote:They had plenty of opportunity to get it right. They refused, time after time. Since they won't be reasonable, there's no point in further debate or compromise with them. After my CHL expires, the second amendment will be my gun permit.

While I share your frustration, I'd advise against carry without permit. It will do nothing but make you a criminal. And why would you want to switch and be a Lib?

with parabelum. That would be a bad idea.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

hillfighter wrote:I won 't be a criminal. The supreme law of the land is clear.

The SCOTUS decides what is the "supreme law of the land" and it has stated in dicta that license requirements are constitutional.
That said, stop violating Rule 4.

Chas.

I'm going off topic here, but wanted to broaden my understanding.

Since the statement was in dicta, doesn't that mean that no precedent has been set? As it stands right now, it just kind of warns lawyers on our side that if the court who issued the decision were forced to rule on the constitutionality of restrictive license requirements that they would (depending on the exact facts of the case) tend to rule in favor of restrictions on licensing being constitutional? In other words, with SCOTUS not issuing a ruling within the facts of a previous case on the constitutionality, a case that comes before a future SCOTUS (PLEASE let Trump replace Ginsburg, or even Kennedy) would not necessarily give weight to the dicta opinion.

I'm honestly trying to learn more about the way that the judicial side operates and what is and is not binding (precedent)

canvasbck wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

hillfighter wrote:I won 't be a criminal. The supreme law of the land is clear.

The SCOTUS decides what is the "supreme law of the land" and it has stated in dicta that license requirements are constitutional.
That said, stop violating Rule 4.

Chas.

I'm going off topic here, but wanted to broaden my understanding.

Since the statement was in dicta, doesn't that mean that no precedent has been set? As it stands right now, it just kind of warns lawyers on our side that if the court who issued the decision were forced to rule on the constitutionality of restrictive license requirements that they would (depending on the exact facts of the case) tend to rule in favor of restrictions on licensing being constitutional? In other words, with SCOTUS not issuing a ruling within the facts of a previous case on the constitutionality, a case that comes before a future SCOTUS (PLEASE let Trump replace Ginsburg, or even Kennedy) would not necessarily give weight to the dicta opinion.

I'm honestly trying to learn more about the way that the judicial side operates and what is and is not binding (precedent)

Dicta in an opinion is merely educational. It forecasts what the court may hold if/when the issue is presented. It's been years since I read the Heller decision so I may have forgotten something, but I don't think the Plaintiff argued that the DC license scheme was unconstitutional on its face. If I'm correct, then the language about licenses being constitutional is merely dicta.

Voter registration is constitutional because it 1) ensures one is eligible to vote; and 2) ensures one-man-one-vote. (Yeah, I know, but that the theory and the grounds for constitutionality.) If voting can be subject to a background check and a license (voter registration card), then the SCOTUS isn't likely to rule that requiring a license-to-carry is unconstitutional. The best argument is that the license should be shall-issue and that eligibility requirements be limited to the ability under federal law to possess firearms.

Chas.

I think very few would object to a LTC that followed the voter registration model.

1. shall issue
2. no cost to apply
3. no fingerprints unless voter registration also requires fingerprints
4. not required to carry LTC while carrying a gun (per voter ID rulings)
5. not required to carry ID when carrying a gun (per voter ID rulings)
6. easy add-on when renewing driving license (per motor voter)

what else?

ninjabread wrote:I think very few would object to a LTC that followed the voter registration model.

1. shall issue
2. no cost to apply
3. no fingerprints unless voter registration also requires fingerprints
4. not required to carry LTC while carrying a gun (per voter ID rulings)
5. not required to carry ID when carrying a gun (per voter ID rulings)
6. easy add-on when renewing driving license (per motor voter)

what else?

I used voter registration as an example of requiring government approval to engage in a constitutionally protected activity. It's not a one-size-fits-all gold standard.

I agree with your first three points, but not the others. You are required to show identification when engaging in the activity that required voter registration, i.e. voting. It can be your voter registration card or your driver's license if you are registered to vote and are on the rolls. If you are required to have a license to carry a handgun, then requiring you to have that license on you when engaging in the activity that requires a license would be in keeping with my voter registration example.

We considered adding CHL to your driver's license as a "restriction" code, but there was much opposition. Many people simply didn't want anyone to be able to see they had a CHL. When the CHL was extended to five years duration, it made it impossible to add it to a driver's license that had a four year duration that has grown to six years. If we go over five years on the LTC, we lose NICS exemption.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

ninjabread wrote:I think very few would object to a LTC that followed the voter registration model.

1. shall issue
2. no cost to apply
3. no fingerprints unless voter registration also requires fingerprints
4. not required to carry LTC while carrying a gun (per voter ID rulings)
5. not required to carry ID when carrying a gun (per voter ID rulings)
6. easy add-on when renewing driving license (per motor voter)

what else?

I used voter registration as an example of requiring government approval to engage in a constitutionally protected activity. It's not a one-size-fits-all gold standard.

I agree with your first three points, but not the others. You are required to show identification when engaging in the activity that required voter registration, i.e. voting. It can be your voter registration card or your driver's license if you are registered to vote and are on the rolls. If you are required to have a license to carry a handgun, then requiring you to have that license on you when engaging in the activity that requires a license would be in keeping with my voter registration example.

We considered adding CHL to your driver's license as a "restriction" code, but there was much opposition. Many people simply didn't want anyone to be able to see they had a CHL. When the CHL was extended to five years duration, it made it impossible to add it to a driver's license that had a four year duration that has grown to six years. If we go over five years on the LTC, we lose NICS exemption.

Chas.

That would nix adding it to DL for me.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:We considered adding CHL to your driver's license as a "restriction" code, but there was much opposition. Many people simply didn't want anyone to be able to see they had a CHL. When the CHL was extended to five years duration, it made it impossible to add it to a driver's license that had a four year duration that has grown to six years. If we go over five years on the LTC, we lose NICS exemption.

There is an easy workaround for this. If they have an LTC, the DL is only good for five years. DPS does this with a CDL that has a hazardous materials endorsement to meet federal laws requiring a background check every five years for haz-mat.

I am not addressing the other issues because I don't have a dog in the fight. I just do not want some argument used that is not technically a problem.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

ninjabread wrote:I think very few would object to a LTC that followed the voter registration model.

1. shall issue
2. no cost to apply
3. no fingerprints unless voter registration also requires fingerprints
4. not required to carry LTC while carrying a gun (per voter ID rulings)
5. not required to carry ID when carrying a gun (per voter ID rulings)
6. easy add-on when renewing driving license (per motor voter)

what else?

I used voter registration as an example of requiring government approval to engage in a constitutionally protected activity. It's not a one-size-fits-all gold standard.

I agree with your first three points, but not the others. You are required to show identification when engaging in the activity that required voter registration, i.e. voting. It can be your voter registration card or your driver's license if you are registered to vote and are on the rolls. If you are required to have a license to carry a handgun, then requiring you to have that license on you when engaging in the activity that requires a license would be in keeping with my voter registration example.

We considered adding CHL to your driver's license as a "restriction" code, but there was much opposition. Many people simply didn't want anyone to be able to see they had a CHL. When the CHL was extended to five years duration, it made it impossible to add it to a driver's license that had a four year duration that has grown to six years. If we go over five years on the LTC, we lose NICS exemption.

Chas.

I suggested motor voter as an example of how easy it should be to get a LTC for qualified people. Voter registration isn't printed on my DL and my voter registration expiration is independent of my DL expiration. Furthermore, my voter registration renews automatically at no charge, which seems like a reasonable cost for other civil rights permission cards.

I agree with you on requiring people to carry their LTC as soon as (a) people have to carry their DL to drive legally and (b) people can't cast provisional ballots without their voter card. There's no 66th Amendment protecting the right to own and operate motor vehicles, so carrying a handgun without a license in your immediate possession should be no worse an offense than operating a motor vehicle without a license in your immediate possession. (in principle)

ninjabread wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

ninjabread wrote:I think very few would object to a LTC that followed the voter registration model.

1. shall issue
2. no cost to apply
3. no fingerprints unless voter registration also requires fingerprints
4. not required to carry LTC while carrying a gun (per voter ID rulings)
5. not required to carry ID when carrying a gun (per voter ID rulings)
6. easy add-on when renewing driving license (per motor voter)

what else?

I used voter registration as an example of requiring government approval to engage in a constitutionally protected activity. It's not a one-size-fits-all gold standard.

I agree with your first three points, but not the others. You are required to show identification when engaging in the activity that required voter registration, i.e. voting. It can be your voter registration card or your driver's license if you are registered to vote and are on the rolls. If you are required to have a license to carry a handgun, then requiring you to have that license on you when engaging in the activity that requires a license would be in keeping with my voter registration example.

We considered adding CHL to your driver's license as a "restriction" code, but there was much opposition. Many people simply didn't want anyone to be able to see they had a CHL. When the CHL was extended to five years duration, it made it impossible to add it to a driver's license that had a four year duration that has grown to six years. If we go over five years on the LTC, we lose NICS exemption.

Chas.

I suggested motor voter as an example of how easy it should be to get a LTC for qualified people. Voter registration isn't printed on my DL and my voter registration expiration is independent of my DL expiration. Furthermore, my voter registration renews automatically at no charge, which seems like a reasonable cost for other civil rights permission cards.

I agree with you on requiring people to carry their LTC as soon as (a) people have to carry their DL to drive legally and (b) people can't cast provisional ballots without their voter card. There's no 66th Amendment protecting the right to own and operate motor vehicles, so carrying a handgun without a license in your immediate possession should be no worse an offense than operating a motor vehicle without a license in your immediate possession. (in principle)

Sorry, but I'm not sure I follow your argument. It appears that you believe that 1) you are not legally required to carry your DL when driving, or that you can vote without being properly registered to vote. If my understanding is right, then you are incorrect.

LEOs often do not issue a citation when drivers don't have their driver's license on their person. They do so because they are able to quickly confirm they have a license with a computer check. A provisional vote is not confirmed as an actual vote until and unless the person is ultimately determined to be properly registered as a voter.

The bottom line is you think the Second Amendment prohibits the requiring of a license to carry a firearm. The SCOTUS has not held this to be true and it has strongly indicated in Heller that licensing is constitutional.

Chas.