TexasCHLforum.com

To placate the citizenry is to subdue them.

I think we can all agree that the carrying of a concealed handgun is a citizen's right. If so, then clearly the process established by the government of Texas in the issuance of the license to its citizens is inherently flawed.

It is flawed because in unnecessarily infringes on a fundamental constitutional right while claiming to promote it.
It is flawed because it essentially requires the citizen to prove he is not a danger to himself and others.
It is flawed because the lawless generally ignore the rule of law, and therefore will obtain and use firearms as they see fit, as it is a foregone conclusion that few convicts or common criminals will submit to this lengthy legal process to obtain the license because most of them believe thay are a law unto themselves. Besides they already know they don't qualify.

Those who meet the State's basic eligibility requirements, complete the training, and pass a preliminary background investigation should be licensed immediately. Then, if some disqualification is subsequently discovered during the more extensive background investigation, the license would be suspended or revoked pursuant to the individual circumstances.

This need not be complicated, but I suspect it is made to be complicated to deter the average citizen from exercising his Second Amendment right. If the process is complicated, lengthy and frustrating most will avoid it.

As much as I hate to admit it, we really are like sheep.

You can carry in your car with no license other than a Driver's License......

You can actually carry on your person (concealed) in your car, with no license other than Driver's License.

The requirement for the Driver's License is to identify yourself as a legal licensed driver in control of the vehicle.

If you don't like the Texas laws and System, then feel free to move North! Maybe, say....D.C.

AEA wrote:You can carry in your car with no license other than a Driver's License......

You can actually carry on your person (concealed) in your car, with no license other than Driver's License.

The requirement for the Driver's License is to identify yourself as a legal licensed driver in control of the vehicle.

If you don't like the Texas laws and System, then feel free to move North! Maybe, say....D.C.

Please see my sig line.

How does that help you while you're eating dinner in that Luby's Cafeteria and some nutjob comes in shooting?

Don't go to Luby's until CHL is received. Simple really.......

ryoung wrote:This need not be complicated, but I suspect it is made to be complicated to deter the average citizen from exercising his Second Amendment right. If the process is complicated, lengthy and frustrating most will avoid it.

The system is flawed, like most systems are. If Texas really wanted to deter the average citizen, then we would not have a shall issue CHL program.

AEA wrote:Don't go to Luby's until CHL is received. Simple really.......

I'm sorry. Did I offend your Texan sensibilities?

Apparently you miss the point of my post. Let me see if I can simplify it. Ostensibly, it is a right of each citizen to keep and bear arms. If so, then where does the State get its authority to restrict the exercise of that right by requiring any citizen to hold a license to bear a handgun outside his homes and cars.

If the state can require me to hold a license to exercise one right, where does it stop? Should I not also require a license to exercise my other rights? Should the state not also issue a license to make it legal to practice one's religion? One could argue that some religion is more dangerous than guns these days.

Simple. Hardly. Simple is the unfettered ability to exercise ones fundamental rights.
Does this make sense to anyone but me?

ryoung wrote:

AEA wrote:Don't go to Luby's until CHL is received. Simple really.......

I'm sorry. Did I offend your Texan sensibilities?
Does this make sense to anyone but me?

I realize that you are new to the forum, but your OP does not break any new ground. AEA's post was an attempt to add a bit of levity to this well worn topic.

Thanks WildBill.......

Guess you just can't have a little fun with some folks........

AEA wrote:If you don't like the Texas laws and System, then feel free to move North! Maybe, say....D.C.

Oh, I think I get it now. This is humor. Hmmm.

Sounds more like an ultimatum to me.

ryoung wrote:Simple. Hardly. Simple is the unfettered ability to exercise ones fundamental rights.
Does this make sense to anyone but me?

Of course it does, and few here would argue it. Most of us realize that we're far down the slipper slope already, but we are making some progress in climbing back up.

Any one, any gun, anywhere should be the Constitutional standard, and no one should have to ask the government's permission. But compared to 15 years ago, we've moved lightyears in the right direction.

KBCraig wrote:

ryoung wrote:Simple. Hardly. Simple is the unfettered ability to exercise ones fundamental rights.
Does this make sense to anyone but me?

Of course it does, and few here would argue it. Most of us realize that we're far down the slipper slope already, but we are making some progress in climbing back up.

Any one, any gun, anywhere should be the Constitutional standard, and no one should have to ask the government's permission. But compared to 15 years ago, we've moved lightyears in the right direction.

My ears were burning.

Anygunanywhere

I guess it's OK if the government requires a ten hour class with a civics test and a $140 application fee (plus background checks, etc.) before someone can vote.

AEA wrote:If you don't like the Texas laws and System, then feel free to move North! Maybe, say....D.C.

I think the cliche is "move to Russia" but I can see how somebody might confuse those two.

KBCraig wrote:Of course it does, and few here would argue it. Most of us realize that we're far down the slipper slope already, but we are making some progress in climbing back up.

Any one, any gun, anywhere should be the Constitutional standard, and no one should have to ask the government's permission. But compared to 15 years ago, we've moved lightyears in the right direction.

Hallelujah. If only I could be so precise and so succinct. It should be seen on bumper stickers and t-shirts everywhere:

Second Amendment: Any One, Any Gun, Anywhere

Yes, we have been steadily moving in the right direction. I am hopeful that the Supremes will settle the issue once and for all when they rule on the DC gun ban. That ruling should be out by next month.

ryoung wrote:

KBCraig wrote: I am hopeful that the Supremes will settle the issue once and for all when they rule on the DC gun ban. That ruling should be out by next month.

The Supreme Court will never settle the issue. They are the biggest obstacle to the proper application of the COTUS and BOR. They already have identified the questions they will answer. The ruling will be so narrow if you turn it sideways it will disappear.

Anygunanyuwhere

The system is broken, yes.

It's less broken here than most places, though.