Decisions Decisions

[Bitterclinger]

I'm an old-school Texan who would no more think of going out un-armed than of going out naked, but I've always been of the opinion that CHL was just another form of gun registration. Why take the trouble and risk to do something I already have a right to do? BUT, the Black Friday deal where a CCL holder here in San Antonio was able to stop an assault (and make national news) by brandishing his pistol really got me thinking about getting a CCL. The fact that the man was not charged made me think about what could happen to me if I were in a similar situation.

I'm still thinking.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Welcome to the Forum. I understand your thought process, but you do not yet have a "right" to carry a handgun in Texas. Regardless how the constitution reads, that right won't exist until the Supreme Court agrees with our position. (A court in the Second Circuit has ruled that Heller does not apply to carrying a handgun, only possession.) Until then, you are guilty of at least a Class A Misdemeanor and possibly a felony depending upon where you carry your handgun. If you get a felony conviction, it won't matter what the Supreme Court ultimately decides, because you will have a lifetime bar against possession of firearms.

Chas.

[68blackbird]

I'm an old-school Texan who would no more think of going out un-armed than of going out naked, but I've always been of the opinion that CHL was just another form of gun registration. Why take the trouble and risk to do something I already have a right to do? BUT, the Black Friday deal where a CCL holder here in San Antonio was able to stop an assault (and make national news) by brandishing his pistol really got me thinking about getting a CCL. The fact that the man was not charged made me think about what could happen to me if I were in a similar situation.

I'm still thinking.

Though your feelings are understood, the reality is, in order to "play the game" we really need to get more folks to play as the rules are written. Anytime someone does an illegal or bad deed with a gun, it gives the anti-gun folks more "ammunition" for their cause. The more people that get the proper paperwork, education, & training, the better off we all are. Even if someone has been around guns "all their life", "been shooting since knee-high to a grasshopper" ect, it doesn't necessarily make them ready to carry a firearm in public. A licensed, educated CHL holder who practices, is better suited to handle a "bad" situation, than someone who is not. I do not have any facts to back this up, just seems like common sense to me. So, the more CHL holders = fewer "bad incidents" = less ammo for anti-gun folks = the better we all are, just my 2¢....or maybe 5¢. Kel

[nightmare]

I'm an old-school Texan who would no more think of going out un-armed than of going out naked, but I've always been of the opinion that CHL was just another form of gun registration. Why take the trouble and risk to do something I already have a right to do?

You only have that right in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming. Texans haven't had that right for 150 years, so you must be really old-school.

[Bitterclinger]

Welcome to the Forum. I understand your thought process, but you do not yet have a "right" to carry a handgun in Texas. Regardless how the constitution reads, that right won't exist until the Supreme Court agrees with our position. (A court in the Second Circuit has ruled that Heller does not apply to carrying a handgun, only possession.) Until then, you are guilty of at least a Class A Misdemeanor and possibly a felony depending upon where you carry your handgun. If you get a felony conviction, it won't matter what the Supreme Court ultimately decides, because you will have a lifetime bar against possession of firearms.

Chas.

Thanks for the input Mr. Cotton. My dad taught me it's like underwear, wear it and make sure it's clean, but you don't talk about it or show it off, and if anybody asks you about it, tell them it's none of their business.

Being a strict constitutionalist, I take the view that our rights are granted by God and "unalienable." But, that said, If the god-less government catches me in what they have erroneously determined to be a crime, then *I* have yet another problem that God may or may not get me out of.

I guess if they decide to go through the CCL regestry to round us up, I'd still be in pretty hot water.

I'm leaning yes.

[Sangiovese]

Add my voice into the others that both understand and sympathize with your point of view, and yet still recommend going through the process and complying with the current laws. We're making steps in the right direction by working within the system (thanks largely to the efforts of people like Mr. Cotton). As long as we are making progress, it just seems better to work within the system. There is no need to take a tremendous personal risk (your freedom) to make a stand on principles if the change that you are advocating can be made without the risk.

And welcome to the forum!

[TexasCajun]

Welcome aboard!!! Yes, it does seem kind of silly to have to get permission to do something that was included pretty high-up in the document that is the basis of our laws But look at it this way. With an 8-10 hour course, the instructor is bound to hit on something that either you didn't know, didn't think of beforehand, or just plain find interesting. Ultimately, I enjoyed my CHL class so much that I'm now becoming a regular on here because here is where I get to discuss & sometimes debate all the finer points of my new state-given right. If you can qualify for the plasitc, go ahead and do it!

[filmtex]

I'm going to keep an eye on this discussion since the Illinois decision today. I'll be most interested in Mr. Cotton's response especially as it refers to Heller.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'm going to keep an eye on this discussion since the Illinois decision today. I'll be most interested in Mr. Cotton's response especially as it refers to Heller.

I haven't seen the opinion, but it's obviously great for our side. From the media reports, it doesn't deal with unlicensed carrying. I also don't have the 2nd Circuit opinion that went the other way on carrying, but now we have a split in the circuits making it more likely the Supreme Court will hear a "carrying" case.

Chas.

[1s1k52]

My point may be very small, but thought I would add some things in because I have only been carrying for two years. Meaning I am still new so maybe can help a newbie out. For me, the course was more than just getting legal to carry in public. It gave me knowledge of the laws or at least a basis of (could use some brushing up I am sure). I also had to qualify with my handgun. I understand to most this isn't a big deal to most. However, I wasn't quite sure how easy it would be so I forced myself to practice. A lot of people carry guns or have them but never fire them so maybe it would get you practicing if you do not already. The biggest thing for me was getting my CHL covered all aspects of carrying legally. What I mean is we do have a law that legally allows us to carry a loaded firearm while driving in Texas. If your pulled over, from what I have heard, the situation goes a lot smoother with a CHL vs without one. I look at it as car insurance and a drivers license. Yeah I can drive without both. Should something happen, my fault or not, I think they are both good to keep current and on me at all times. I personally can't see myself without one now.

[Bitterclinger]

I guess this indicates a slow-burn on my understanding of (and concern about) Constitutional Law. I've come to think of myself as a classical Federalist (state's rights/10th Amendment kind of guy.) My rediscovered identity as a "Texan First" led me to dust off my copy of the Texas Constitution. I haven't looked at it since that mandatory class in college. Document wise, it's still the hot mess I remember, but it's pretty clear on the whole arms bearing thing...

Article 1, Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

So, I live in a state that has the legal authority to prohibit me from carrying a concealed slingshot, or allow me to open carry an RPG. If the feds wanted to make sure I could or couldn't carry something, they'd have to take it up with the Texas Legislature.

Suddenly, I'm all cozy with my decision to get a TXCHL.

[Bitterclinger]

... and on a grammar note, if it wasn't for that last comma, Texas couldn't regulate my wearing of arms unless they could prove I had a view to prevent crime.