TexasCHLforum.com

Jumping Frog wrote:

TrueFlog wrote:But the most important reason of all is this - when it comes to 2A rights, any licensing scheme is nothing more than a system of bribes. That includes both OC and CHL. It's no different from a poll tax, and it has its roots in the same insidious racism. Requiring a class and a license places an undue burden on all classes of people and especially serves to disenfranchise the poor - those who need the right most of all. Also, the time required to issue the license thwarts those whose need is most urgent (think domestic abuse). Martin Luther King Jr. stated, "A right delayed is a right denied." I would add to that, "A right which must be purchased is no right at all." In Texas, it is currently illegal to carry a firearm without a mandatory expense and waiting period (aka a CHL). This flies in the face of the Constitution, and licensed OC would do nothing to resolve this abhorrence.

I agree 1000%

I agree with this with this 100% as well. However we know the reality is were not going to get this in one or two Legislative sessions as great as it would be. So we need to continue to push for our rights at the State and especially the Federal level. If this is not done we could fall prey to a scenario much like what took place in the UK.

Personally, I would like to see unlicensed Open Carry implemented in Texas. We would run the risk of people who have no business with a firearm carrying in a public place, however we have that exact same risk now. I don't think that should be such a big deterrent that it keeps us from it. Look at other states they do not have mass shooting's or road rage shootout's every day.

Unlicensed open carry could be scary! In my last CHL renewal class I saw a person load a 9mm magazine backwards. The concept of pointy (or semi-pointy ) end first into the breech was unknown. I was a USAF Security Police member for 20 years. I went to the range twice a year for 4 courses of fire. Some people still had problems. Weapons training is a must before carrying any firearm. I don't have a problem with a training requirement before firearm ownership. We require a drivers license. How many idiots do we still see on the road? But, I fear that the "Yankee" politicians would use a training requirement to stop or limit gun ownership. Chicago and DC are still limiting gun ownership, by adding unreasonable requirements. We all know how safe those cities are!

Added for "Bullwhip": The term "Yankee" was easier to type than liberal (probably east coast democrat).

Added for " Liberty" : There is never an easy answer to the subject of infringing our rights. I was taught basic firearms safety 50 plus years ago. The average American never has had the opportunity to "plink". Poice departments are finding cadets that have never fired a revolver before, and want to shoot "gangasta" style. There only previous firearms training was watching crime shows.

I just know that there people out on the street with hand cannons that should only have water guns. We have some people driving cars that should be in pedal cars. Some people should not reproduce. None of these things can be regulated. I don't want anyone appointing thought or behavior police. We have enough laws as it is.

RVN War Dawg wrote:Unlicensed open carry could be scary! In my last CHL renewal class I saw a person load a 9mm magazine backwards. The concept of pointy (or semi-pointy ) end first into the breech was unknown. I was a USAF Security Police member for 20 years. I went to the range twice a year for 4 courses of fire. Some people still had problems. Weapons training is a must before carrying any firearm. I don't have a problem with a training requirement before firearm ownership. We require a drivers license. How many idiots do we still see on the road? But, I fear that the "Yankee" politicians would use a training requirement to stop or limit gun ownership. Chicago and DC are still limiting gun ownership, by adding unreasonable requirements. We all know how safe those cities are!

Wow, that must take L33T skillz!

RVN War Dawg wrote:Unlicensed open carry could be scary! In my last CHL renewal class I saw a person load a 9mm magazine backwards. The concept of pointy (or semi-pointy ) end first into the breech was unknown. I was a USAF Security Police member for 20 years. I went to the range twice a year for 4 courses of fire. Some people still had problems. Weapons training is a must before carrying any firearm. I don't have a problem with a training requirement before firearm ownership. We require a drivers license. How many idiots do we still see on the road? But, I fear that the "Yankee" politicians would use a training requirement to stop or limit gun ownership. Chicago and DC are still limiting gun ownership, by adding unreasonable requirements. We all know how safe those cities are!

The real "Yankees" in VT and NH don't have a problem with it. Open carry, no license, no problem. Two safest states in the country, no training required.

RVN War Dawg wrote:Unlicensed open carry could be scary! In my last CHL renewal class I saw a person load a 9mm magazine backwards. The concept of pointy (or semi-pointy ) end first into the breech was unknown. I was a USAF Security Police member for 20 years. I went to the range twice a year for 4 courses of fire. Some people still had problems. Weapons training is a must before carrying any firearm. I don't have a problem with a training requirement before firearm ownership. We require a drivers license. How many idiots do we still see on the road? But, I fear that the "Yankee" politicians would use a training requirement to stop or limit gun ownership. Chicago and DC are still limiting gun ownership, by adding unreasonable requirements. We all know how safe those cities are!

It seems you don't believe or understand the the part about
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now, this seems pretty clear to me, that demanding the right to certain training is an infringement to the the right to bear (carry). I admit that I'm just a simple country Yankee, and I don't have a Havard education, or even an Aggy education, but I sure know an infringement when I see it. I think that our right to bear arms is is more threatened by gun owners owner who accept "reasonable" limitations of the RKBA are a bigger threat to us than the Yankee politicians.

Pogo said it best. "We have seen the enemy and he is us!"

I didn't vote, cause I couldn't figure out how to vote.

1) I don't want any new rules or legislation to limit the ability of a law abiding citizen to carry a gun on their person.
2) I think Mr. C has convinced me (in this forum) that open carry will have an overall negative affect.
3) I agree with the original poster than no one needs to know that I'm carrying....


But, if I'm off to the range or hunting or other legal activity, it would be nice to be able to just strap on and walk out.

TLE2 wrote:I didn't vote, cause I couldn't figure out how to vote.

1) I don't want any new rules or legislation to limit the ability of a law abiding citizen to carry a gun on their person.
2) I think Mr. C has convinced me (in this forum) that open carry will have an overall negative affect.
3) I agree with the original poster than no one needs to know that I'm carrying....


But, if I'm off to the range or hunting or other legal activity, it would be nice to be able to just strap on and walk out.

A, you don't get to vote

B, you already can strap it on and walk out (if you're directly on your way to do something involving that kind of gun)

Absolutely not for either option. I cannot begin to fathom the negative impact that either might have. Agreeing with other posters, some of which are more "no guns allowed" signage and forget about campus carry, criminal element posing as law abiders and reduced shock value over time. There are many, many reasons.

DFWTT wrote:Absolutely not for either option. I cannot begin to fathom the negative impact that either might have. Agreeing with other posters, some of which are more "no guns allowed" signage and forget about campus carry, criminal element posing as law abiders and reduced shock value over time. There are many, many reasons.

If its such a problem, why aren't there problems in all the states where its legal?

...I agree...fear of the unknown or fearing to rock the boat often keeps the good from being done...yet there are not more than a handful of verifiable examples to support all the "what ifs"...Vermont and Alaska do it right...no permit needed and no problem unless you make one...then YOU are punished...not all who would carry...much closer to the constitutional intent...punish the offender instead of over-regulating the innocent...
...I understand that from no carry to where we are now has been achieved by much BST...and appreciate all those efforts, but it can get better than this...it'll probably take a whole lot MORE BST...and time....

Bullwhip wrote:

DFWTT wrote:Absolutely not for either option. I cannot begin to fathom the negative impact that either might have. Agreeing with other posters, some of which are more "no guns allowed" signage and forget about campus carry, criminal element posing as law abiders and reduced shock value over time. There are many, many reasons.

If its such a problem, why aren't there problems in all the states where its legal?

If you don't feel that a large increase in 30.06 signs would follow passage of open-carry, why did we see an epidemic of generic "no guns" signs between 1995 when CHL first passed and Sept. 1, 1997 when the then-new TPC §30.06 went into effect making the "Big Ugly Sign" necessary to bar CHL's? Please don't try to tell me the that 2.69% of Texans with their guns hidden "taught" 97.3% of Texans anything.

It continues to amaze me how the most ardent of open-carry supporters want to point to other states while ignoring what actually happened in Texas. Experience is better than theory in predicting the future.

Chas.

[The 2.69% v. 97.3% are figures based upon population and CHL's in 2009.]

RVN War Dawg wrote:Weapons training is a must before carrying any firearm. I don't have a problem with a training requirement before firearm ownership. We require a drivers license. How many idiots do we still see on the road?

There three major problems with your analogy:

1. Owning (keeping) a car and driving (bearing) it is not a constitutionally enumerated right.
2. Keeping and bearing arms is a constitutionally enumerated right.
3. If you can justify mandated training before the right to bear arms can be exercised, then you can justify mandated literacy before the rights to free speech, religion, and assembly can be exercised. The cynic in me says that literacy ought to be required before you can vote, but we know from Jim Crow that literacy requirements would simply be used to keep down people who have a stake in the exercise of justice. Where does it stop?

Mandating training before a citizen can exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right is a very, VERY bad idea..

Charles,
I understand that this is a general topic that we have pretty much over done on the forums, but I like many believe that our ultimate goal should be constitutional carry.

What would be the best path too pursue this in the future?
I personally believe that we already have had more success in increasing the rights of the unlicensed, so that it would be legal for any non felon to carry concealed and openly without license or registration. Gaining this right first, and getting the public used to the idea that there are guns every where, and are a safety feature, not a public hazard. Is the dream of constitutional carry an impossible dream for Texas?

My concern with pursuing constitutional carry as the law of Texas, is that there are too many of us in the CHL community that aren't too crazy in about the idea. Some of us like the idea that our CHL is a membership too an exclusive type of club. Some of us even make a few extra bucks giving classes. While I don't doubt that most instructors believe in the 2nd amendment the support might soften when a source of their income. (and an activity that they truly love) becomes threatened.

My thought is that additional 30.06 signs will be a threat until some business gets sued because of their no gun policy and someone was denied their right to protection.

I've yet to see a legal expert think that such a lawsuit is viable. It's promoted on the Internet but that's about it. Can anyone find legit legal scholarship that suggests such a suit is possible?

While not open carry - I found an article on parking lot liability from a law review:

http://www.law.uiowa.edu/documents/ilr/Steines.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2. Duty to Provide Adequate Security
Victims of workplace violence may also claim that the employer
breached his or her duty as a landowner to provide adequate security.204
Landowners have “a duty to exercise reasonable care under the
circumstances to maintain the property in a safe condition,” which includes
“taking precautions to protect others from reasonably foreseeable harmful
acts of third parties.”205 Landowners can discharge this duty by ensuring that
their property has adequate security and by warning invitees of any known
dangers.206 If a landowner has no reason to anticipate a sudden, intentional
violent act on his property, however, courts cannot find him or her to have
breached this duty.207 Regardless, “it may be logically inferred that
permitting weapons in the workplace increases the foreseeability that
violence may occur.”208 As such, employers will likely face a greater risk of
liability in states that pass parking-lot laws.

--- Thus, legal theory seems not to support the contention you can sue for not being allowed to carry but goes the other way. Now, I didn't search all the legal literature - just a few past years. If there is a legal review article supporting the suit for not being allowed to carry, I'd like to see it rather than the common Internet speculation.

GEM

GEM-Texas wrote:I've yet to see a legal expert think that such a lawsuit is viable. It's promoted on the Internet but that's about it. Can anyone find legit legal scholarship that suggests such a suit is possible? GEM

IANAL, so I am not a legal expert. Such a suit is possible in that a person could file such a lawsuit. Whether or not it is viable or winnable is the real question. My opinion is that if it is based solely on not being allowed to carry the suit would fail. If the party can prove that the owner knew or should have known that their business was not safe and they failed to provide for the safety of their customers they could win. But that is not breaking any new legal ground. IMO, a suit based entirely on 30.06 restrictions is wishful thinking on the part of some CHL/RBKA advocates. I would be glad to hear the opinion of some legal experts.