TexasCHLforum.com

rotor wrote:

Doug.38PR wrote:

Russell wrote:HB 375 was filed today, which does away with the licensing requirements to carry a handgun.

I know where folks come from on 2A unlicensed carry, I really do.... but at the same time I'm hesitant for my own selfish reasons. I feel like going through the class and shooting test make you a better 2A citizen. Without the class requirements, how would every day citizens be expected to know the law, when you can and cannot escalate force, etc?


Convince me otherwise (or agree with me too!).

Same way I know how to eat food, mow my yard, walk through a crowd, drive a car (driving school and a plastic card didn't teach me anything), riding a bike, hooking up a dvd player to a tv, cooking food, grilling meat, changing oil, using an ax, preparing a camp fire, growing food, etc. You just live life and be prudent as you go. You don't need the state testing you on engaging in your right to life, liberty and property.

You must be a bunch smarter than me. I wasn't born with the knowledge about how to ride a bike, etc. I am also a pretty good pilot but it sure took a lot of training to get there. The state does impose limits. I am old enough to not need a hunter safety course to get a hunting license, youngsters need one. I didn't learn how to weld until I was in my 50's and took the course with a bunch of high school students in a vocational training program. The skill did not come naturally. My 10 year old grandson knows how to shoot because I taught him how to do it safely. I don't claim the state needs to control everything but to be safe with a gun there needs to be some level of training. Have you been in the military? If so you probably went to boot camp like I did to learn the basics.

My point is: being licensed didn't teach me all of those things. I learned them myself or had family or friends to guide me and went into it as a got comfortable. In short: I lived life. I DIDN'T NEED THE STATES PERMISSION TO DO IT.

People didn't need the State's blessing 200 years ago or even 100 to live life and they sure don't now. You're smarter than you think you are (and other people are smarter than you think they are)

It moved quick in Missouri. It was introduced in 2015 but only made it out of the first committee in April when it was way too late and the speaker at that time, the sexting pervert RINO didn't care to get it moving. Now Missouri has a very pro gun southerner as speaker of the house and got the bill moving along on the house floor and this year it passed.

Next year they got huge super majorities again with a Republican governor so hopefully gun free zones such as colleges are removed AND add open carry pre-emption to state law. Currently local towns in Missouri can only regulate discharging of firearms and OPEN carry but with a ccw permit you can open carry in those towns. That needs to change so you don't need a permit to open carry just like you don't need a permit to conceal it.

Doug.38PR wrote:

rotor wrote:

Doug.38PR wrote:

Russell wrote:HB 375 was filed today, which does away with the licensing requirements to carry a handgun.

I know where folks come from on 2A unlicensed carry, I really do.... but at the same time I'm hesitant for my own selfish reasons. I feel like going through the class and shooting test make you a better 2A citizen. Without the class requirements, how would every day citizens be expected to know the law, when you can and cannot escalate force, etc?


Convince me otherwise (or agree with me too!).

Same way I know how to eat food, mow my yard, walk through a crowd, drive a car (driving school and a plastic card didn't teach me anything), riding a bike, hooking up a dvd player to a tv, cooking food, grilling meat, changing oil, using an ax, preparing a camp fire, growing food, etc. You just live life and be prudent as you go. You don't need the state testing you on engaging in your right to life, liberty and property.

You must be a bunch smarter than me. I wasn't born with the knowledge about how to ride a bike, etc. I am also a pretty good pilot but it sure took a lot of training to get there. The state does impose limits. I am old enough to not need a hunter safety course to get a hunting license, youngsters need one. I didn't learn how to weld until I was in my 50's and took the course with a bunch of high school students in a vocational training program. The skill did not come naturally. My 10 year old grandson knows how to shoot because I taught him how to do it safely. I don't claim the state needs to control everything but to be safe with a gun there needs to be some level of training. Have you been in the military? If so you probably went to boot camp like I did to learn the basics.

My point is: being licensed didn't teach me all of those things. I learned them myself or had family or friends to guide me and went into it as a got comfortable. In short: I lived life. I DIDN'T NEED THE STATES PERMISSION TO DO IT.

People didn't need the State's blessing 200 years ago or even 100 to live life and they sure don't now. You're smarter than you think you are (and other people are smarter than you think they are)

Doug, you are a better man than most. I just don't trust kids that couldn't even make it out of high school to be safe with a gun. I understand your reluctance to have state control. Perhaps as mentioned every kid in high school has to take gun safety (that will never happen). The point is that there does need to be some training, either by family or friends or whatever to safely handle a firearm. If I knew that everyone received that training I would have no problem with constitutional carry. The issue then boils down to shall every yahoo regardless of intelligence or experience be able to carry a handgun or should a minimum amount of training be required? I think that the majority of people will conclude that some level of training is required and therefore even though we both agree that this is a constitutional right the legislature is unlikely to pass this without people having some training. At least that's my opinion of the issue.

rotor wrote:

Doug.38PR wrote:

rotor wrote:

Doug.38PR wrote:

Russell wrote:HB 375 was filed today, which does away with the licensing requirements to carry a handgun.

I know where folks come from on 2A unlicensed carry, I really do.... but at the same time I'm hesitant for my own selfish reasons. I feel like going through the class and shooting test make you a better 2A citizen. Without the class requirements, how would every day citizens be expected to know the law, when you can and cannot escalate force, etc?


Convince me otherwise (or agree with me too!).

Same way I know how to eat food, mow my yard, walk through a crowd, drive a car (driving school and a plastic card didn't teach me anything), riding a bike, hooking up a dvd player to a tv, cooking food, grilling meat, changing oil, using an ax, preparing a camp fire, growing food, etc. You just live life and be prudent as you go. You don't need the state testing you on engaging in your right to life, liberty and property.

You must be a bunch smarter than me. I wasn't born with the knowledge about how to ride a bike, etc. I am also a pretty good pilot but it sure took a lot of training to get there. The state does impose limits. I am old enough to not need a hunter safety course to get a hunting license, youngsters need one. I didn't learn how to weld until I was in my 50's and took the course with a bunch of high school students in a vocational training program. The skill did not come naturally. My 10 year old grandson knows how to shoot because I taught him how to do it safely. I don't claim the state needs to control everything but to be safe with a gun there needs to be some level of training. Have you been in the military? If so you probably went to boot camp like I did to learn the basics.

My point is: being licensed didn't teach me all of those things. I learned them myself or had family or friends to guide me and went into it as a got comfortable. In short: I lived life. I DIDN'T NEED THE STATES PERMISSION TO DO IT.

People didn't need the State's blessing 200 years ago or even 100 to live life and they sure don't now. You're smarter than you think you are (and other people are smarter than you think they are)

Doug, you are a better man than most. I just don't trust kids that couldn't even make it out of high school to be safe with a gun. I understand your reluctance to have state control. Perhaps as mentioned every kid in high school has to take gun safety (that will never happen). The point is that there does need to be some training, either by family or friends or whatever to safely handle a firearm. If I knew that everyone received that training I would have no problem with constitutional carry. The issue then boils down to shall every yahoo regardless of intelligence or experience be able to carry a handgun or should a minimum amount of training be required? I think that the majority of people will conclude that some level of training is required and therefore even though we both agree that this is a constitutional right the legislature is unlikely to pass this without people having some training. At least that's my opinion of the issue.

Well, you can't have a free society without taking some risks. Or, more to the point, you can't live life without taking some risk. You are always going to have accidents. The most common reaction anti-gun people give for supporting "gun control" is: "Oh, sure we need gun control. I know a lot of people I wouldn't trust with a gun." But that's not how we are supposed to live in a society of free men. You hold people accountable for what they do, not what they might do because you or I may not trust them. You are always going to have people who make mistakes and do things without thinking. You hope they learn from it. If they don't, then sooner or later they must face the consequences. But, if somebody is REALLY so dangerous that they shouldn't have a gun...then they probably shouldn't be out of prison or the nuthouse...in fact it's very possible that they shouldn't be walking around breathing.

Doug.38PR wrote:
Well, you can't have a free society without taking some risks. Or, more to the point, you can't live life without taking some risk. You are always going to have accidents. The most common reaction anti-gun people give for supporting "gun control" is: "Oh, sure we need gun control. I know a lot of people I wouldn't trust with a gun." But that's not how we are supposed to live in a society of free men. You hold people accountable for what they do, not what they might do because you or I may not trust them. You are always going to have people who make mistakes and do things without thinking. You hope they learn from it. If they don't, then sooner or later they must face the consequences. But, if somebody is REALLY so dangerous that they shouldn't have a gun...then they probably shouldn't be out of prison or the nuthouse...in fact it's very possible that they shouldn't be walking around breathing.

I am more rather than less in agreement with you...it's a tough sell though.

rotor wrote:Doug, you are a better man than most. I just don't trust kids that couldn't even make it out of high school to be safe with a gun. I understand your reluctance to have state control. Perhaps as mentioned every kid in high school has to take gun safety (that will never happen). The point is that there does need to be some training, either by family or friends or whatever to safely handle a firearm. If I knew that everyone received that training I would have no problem with constitutional carry. The issue then boils down to shall every yahoo regardless of intelligence or experience be able to carry a handgun or should a minimum amount of training be required? I think that the majority of people will conclude that some level of training is required and therefore even though we both agree that this is a constitutional right the legislature is unlikely to pass this without people having some training. At least that's my opinion of the issue.

If we are going there, then there are many things that are more dangerous, which we currently allow those same kids to do. Let's take away their right to vote, to have children, to operate a motor vehicle, and to access the internet. All of those things are more potentially dangerous than having a gun.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

rotor wrote:Doug, you are a better man than most. I just don't trust kids that couldn't even make it out of high school to be safe with a gun. I understand your reluctance to have state control. Perhaps as mentioned every kid in high school has to take gun safety (that will never happen). The point is that there does need to be some training, either by family or friends or whatever to safely handle a firearm. If I knew that everyone received that training I would have no problem with constitutional carry. The issue then boils down to shall every yahoo regardless of intelligence or experience be able to carry a handgun or should a minimum amount of training be required? I think that the majority of people will conclude that some level of training is required and therefore even though we both agree that this is a constitutional right the legislature is unlikely to pass this without people having some training. At least that's my opinion of the issue.

If we are going there, then there are many things that are more dangerous, which we currently allow those same kids to do. Let's take away their right to vote, to have children, to operate a motor vehicle, and to access the internet. All of those things are more potentially dangerous than having a gun.

The legislature has taken away their rights to have a gun or purchase ammo under a certain age. I guess that at age 18 (or 21) they supposedly become intelligent enough to be safe with a gun. As far as voting, I would like to see a test for voting for a lot of people. I bet you would too.

rotor wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

rotor wrote:Doug, you are a better man than most. I just don't trust kids that couldn't even make it out of high school to be safe with a gun. I understand your reluctance to have state control. Perhaps as mentioned every kid in high school has to take gun safety (that will never happen). The point is that there does need to be some training, either by family or friends or whatever to safely handle a firearm. If I knew that everyone received that training I would have no problem with constitutional carry. The issue then boils down to shall every yahoo regardless of intelligence or experience be able to carry a handgun or should a minimum amount of training be required? I think that the majority of people will conclude that some level of training is required and therefore even though we both agree that this is a constitutional right the legislature is unlikely to pass this without people having some training. At least that's my opinion of the issue.

If we are going there, then there are many things that are more dangerous, which we currently allow those same kids to do. Let's take away their right to vote, to have children, to operate a motor vehicle, and to access the internet. All of those things are more potentially dangerous than having a gun.

The legislature has taken away their rights to have a gun or purchase ammo under a certain age. I guess that at age 18 (or 21) they supposedly become intelligent enough to be safe with a gun. As far as voting, I would like to see a test for voting for a lot of people. I bet you would too.

We are definitely in agreement on the voting requirements. At a bare minimum, I think you should know what the position does before you are able to vote on it. I think it would also be great to require that people know the candidates positions before they vote. I am obviously not a fan of "straight ticket" voting.

I want so called constitutional carry. And I think Texas will get there. But this isn't the session. What I don't want is to use pro-2nd amendment political capital pushing a position this session that had no realistic chance of passing but does have high probability to negatively impact what I consider the best bill since the original CHL law more than 20 years ago. And that is reduction in the off limits locations. Full court press on the locations bill this session and full court press on constitutional or unlicensed carry on the first session that has a realistic chance of Passage.

gljjt wrote:I want so called constitutional carry. And I think Texas will get there. But this isn't the session. What I don't want is to use pro-2nd amendment political capital pushing a position this session that had no realistic chance of passing but does have high probability to negatively impact what I consider the best bill since the original CHL law more than 20 years ago. And that is reduction in the off limits locations. Full court press on the locations bill this session and full court press on constitutional or unlicensed carry on the first session that has a realistic chance of Passage.

Holding rallies in Austin will only get a lot of negative coverage from the leftist/progressive press and government officials in that area.

bblhd672 wrote:

gljjt wrote:I want so called constitutional carry. And I think Texas will get there. But this isn't the session. What I don't want is to use pro-2nd amendment political capital pushing a position this session that had no realistic chance of passing but does have high probability to negatively impact what I consider the best bill since the original CHL law more than 20 years ago. And that is reduction in the off limits locations. Full court press on the locations bill this session and full court press on constitutional or unlicensed carry on the first session that has a realistic chance of Passage.

Holding rallies in Austin will only get a lot of negative coverage from the leftist/progressive press and government officials in that area.

I agree. That's why I hope any unlicensed carry bill never makes any headway so that in the latter days of the session all effort and focus can be on getting the locations bill passed. And not on a bill with no chance of passage but may take other bills that would otherwise pass down the drain with it.

If we can get these other good bills through, the ones that have a good chance of passage, constitutional carry can be the flagship bill in a future session.

I think that anyone that caries should have a basic knowledge of how to handle a gun.
you need to take a driving test you should take a firing test. The test is easy for anyone that has a basic fire arms knowledge

tommyg wrote:I think that anyone that caries should have a basic knowledge of how to handle a gun.
you need to take a driving test you should take a firing test. The test is easy for anyone that has a basic fire arms knowledge

I think that anyone that votes should have a basic knowledge of civics and economics.

Alf wrote:

tommyg wrote:I think that anyone that caries should have a basic knowledge of how to handle a gun.
you need to take a driving test you should take a firing test. The test is easy for anyone that has a basic fire arms knowledge

I think that anyone that votes should have a basic knowledge of civics and economics.

Anyone who reproduces should have a basic knowledge of child rearing and a basic level of morals / ethics.

Anyone who speaks should have a basic comprehension of grammar, civility, and common sense.

When we talk about restricting the RKBA, it needs to be in the same vein as restrictions on other rights. Not restrictions on privileges such as driving. Let's make it simple. If you can legally vote, then you can legally carry a gun.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: Anyone who reproduces should have a basic knowledge of child rearing and a basic level of morals / ethics.

Anyone who speaks should have a basic comprehension of grammar, civility, and common sense.

When we talk about restricting the RKBA, it needs to be in the same vein as restrictions on other rights. Not restrictions on privileges such as driving. Let's make it simple. If you can legally vote, then you can legally carry a gun.

While we can take this to the nth degree... Do you need a license and training to carry around a nail gun at a job site with children around? Anyone can buy both ammonia and bleach at Walmart, and surprisingly few people are reported to have killed themselves in a cloud of chlorine gas. And what about the rest of the chemicals at Home Depot? How many contractors were formally trained in the use of Acetone, etc?

Training and licensing restrictions hurt poor and fixed income people the most. Sort of like poll taxes and literacy tests to vote were designed to keep the "riff raff" (ie, blacks and poor white trash) from bringing their unwashed and uneducated views to the ballot box.

Who trained everyone that carried rifles, etc., in the 18th century in the US? People's illiterate fathers?

No offense, but next time you want to feel safer, start with the people that have to start staring at their phones as soon as they've backed out of their driveways. They're going to kill and maim far more people in Texas than people carrying long guns or pistols, trained or not.

Everything that you can do to hurt people with a firearm is a crime whether you are licensed or not. Those are the penalties.