[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Permitless Concealed Carry in Texas (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 3/30/2008 1:42:19 PM EDT
|
What would be your opinion of changing the law so that any person who could legally purchase a handgun would be able to carry that gun in Texas without a permit? What would be the chances of getting that passed by the legislature? We already have it in vehicles and bad guys carry their guns without having permits so what are we really stopping by having a CHL? On the other hand, if you just let any idiot who's never been in trouble (or hasn't been caught yet) go around with a gun when he hasn't been instructed on firearms safety and when he hasn't been informed of the laws governing the use of deadly force in Texas then you could be cooking up a lot of problems. What do y'all say? |
| Im against it. There should be some sort of weapon qualification. Lots of people that are able to legally purchase a firearms cant shoot worth a shit. And I dont wanna get hit cause some dumbass cant shoot at his intended target. Im all for lifetime licenses and defenitly a cheaper fee but no regulation whatsoever is never, never gonna happen. |
|
Why shouldn't a law-abiding person with no criminal history be allowed to carry a weapon wherever they want? For those of you who preach for education and training, let me ask you this: Do you think prospective parents should be required to take a parenting class prior to having kids? Does a law-abiding idiot with a pistol present a larger or smaller threat to society than the same idiot reproducing and contaminating the gene pool? Just food for thought... |
Personally, I think parenting training is a really good idea, and probably should be taught in school. The younger the person is, the more training they need. I do not think it should be a law. The question about a law abiding idiot with a firearm. Well, usually a person that reproduces and contaminates the gene pool, does it for quite a few generations. |
When I renewed my CHL a few months ago, my target was the only one I saw there with less than an 8" group on it. Some were just barely keeping shots on the silhouette. I didn't even really use the sights and still tore a ragged hole out of the target about 2" in diameter---with a gun I haven't shot in a couple years  . As far as letting anyone and everyone carry without a CHL...I'm torn. If we lived in a society that didn't need warning labels such as "do not take internally" or "not for internal use" on stuff like Preparation H(and you know that warning got there because some moron ate it), I'd be all for it. Unfortunately we don't and the lowest common denominator will somehow always screw it up for the rest. |
+1 |
Sarah Brady would use exactly the same logic in arguing that only "qualified" people should be allowed to OWN guns - let alone carry them. No government - federal, state or municipal - has any business deciding who is "qualified" to keep or bear arms. Period. |
I'm for it, but I also think there should be some sort of weapons qualification. Since these two desires are in opposition, I'll have to say I don't know. Judging by the targets and gun handling at my CHL class, some people are more of a threat to themselves armed. 
|
So it's fine for people to OWN guns, but they should need a permit from the government in order to actually USE them? How about requiring a permit from your local sheriff in order to buy ammo? Or a license from the BATFE to obtain the bolt or FCG for a firearm you've already purchased? What about all the folks who obtained their firearms as gifts from their parents, grandparents, etc. - Should we confiscate all of those guns until their current owners can prove that they're "qualified" to use them safely? |
I feel the same way. I've seen folks have ground strikes in a CHL class, I've seen people miss the target in a CHL class. On the same token, I've seen Police recruits do the same thing. I don't think it should be mandatory, but believe with every handgun purchase an inexpensive pistol handling class should be very strongly suggested. I see absolutely zero of that now. I'm not worried about people hitting targets when they shoot. Well not really, but the likely hood they shoot at anything past 4yds with a handgun is remote, statistically speaking. The thing that worries me is safe handling of firearms. A lot of peoples only training on firearms has only been what the see on TV or the movies. |
If we had more of a culture of shooting and proper gun handling, noobs would be guided by their peers toward better safety and gun control and we wouldn't even be thinking of the gooberment. I've advised people flat out that they should NOT get their CHL after they revealed to me that they had an anger problem, and I've taken prospective CHL holders to the range to learn to shoot. IMHO, the current CHL system is almost the best compromise between gov control and freedom. I'd like it better if they didn't take our finger prints and made school and bar carry legal. But having the ID card, taking the lousy class, and spending $300 to get it gives a higher sense of responsibility to the average CHL holder that they wouldn't have if our system was unregulated. |
No one has said anything about requring permits to use guns. Use them all you want on your own property. But, just like with driving a car, if you are going to go out in public with a potentialy deady device, you need to be able to demonstrate that you have the knowledge and the skill to be responsible with it. Just like you wouldn't turn a 9 year old kid loose in a car to drive on the freeway, you don't want to let just anyone conceal carry a firearm in public. I personaly wish the CHL classes would encompass more and the testing was harder but I think DPS did a good job of compromising on the 10 hour class. Gringop |
Them little white and gray fellars with the rat tails and pointy teeth. 
|
| anyone can grab a gun, tuck it in your waist and go on about your day, what difference does it make whether or not there is licensing, testing and shooting. all that does is stop law abiding citizens from doing it. people who don't give a damn about the law will carry a gun anyway so i say let them carry... |
Yyyyyyep. |
So, "unqualified" Texans shouldn't be able to carry firearms in their vehicles, because they would be out in public with a potentially deadly device. Nice.  As for keeping firearms at home - Most households contain more than one person. By your logic, shouldn't we be "protecting" other members of the household by "qualifying" every gun owner? Good God, man - Think of the children!!! 
|
No, he's saying that taking a pistol qualification test is like a person going through driver's ed and take a driving test to prove he is qualified to drive a car. |
Correct, Texans are inferior to Alaskans and Vermonters.
|
I understand how you feel. I was once lost too - I grew up in the People's Republic of Maryland where no one but the top democratic party officials can get permits. When I moved to Virginia (a shall-issue state) and got my permit in 45 days, I thought: "-that's easy. TOO easy. It should NOT be that easy to get a permit! I need better training." You see - I confused "requirements" with "responsibilities." In free states, we have adults who are responsible for doing things like getting proper training, wearing seat belts & helmets, etc. And those who fail to be responsible? There are harsh laws to deal with them in cases where nature does not take its course & kill them off early. But in states like Maryland, NO ONE can be trusted with anything, since the citizen is considered a mere child that the State is responsible for and for who the state needs to make laws covering every aspect of their "child's" life. "Round here, we call it the "nanny state" mentality. Bottom line: if you don't trust every law-abiding adult to carry a gun, why would you be in favor of any law abiding adult actually owning a gun? |
Having had to keep a drunk from getting to a gun, there's no way on this earth I would EVER support carry in bars. |
You're ignoring the fact that bystanders WILL get hurt when the lowest denominator prevails. Nothing the state can do will fix a bullet to the spine of a bystander or death by lazy moron. Law abiding doesn't equal responsible, capable, or qualified. I don't like getting fingerprinted, I don't like having to pay the state, and I don't like "needing" a license to exercise a Constitutional right---but I understand why the restrictions are there and that they serve a functional purpose. Hard line extremist attitude = fail. |
So by your logical rational there should be no regulations on firearms. Maybe they should let 10 year olds carry them in there middleschool and people who just get released from federal prison should get a handgun as a parting gift from the jail they were released from. I dont know if your just here to stir up shit but your logic is just that your own dillouted sense of logic. And maybe you heard of the new law that any "qualified" texan can have a firearm in there vehicle. And by "qualified" i mean able to own a handgun. |
|
+1 |
What I'm saying is that there are already more than enough regulations on firearms. We don't need even more layers of bureaucracy to put even more "common-sense restrictions" on every little subset of firearms ownership - Concealed carry, machine guns, Tannerite, silencers, short-barrel rifles, semi-auto shotguns and "street sweepers", "assault weapons", etc., etc., etc. Personally, I've already had it up my eyeballs with "common-sense restrictions". 
|
|
Having taught these classes since the law was first passed I can tell you that I have been asked and continue to be asked some strange things. Not only are some of the question strange, but the thought process behind them are even stranger. Why can't I shoot the kid for toilet papering my trees, it take me hours to clean it up? If someone disrespect me why can't I use deadly force? If he reaches into his pocket, why can't I shoot him? I could go on and on with at least one person in every class. Personally I think its every law abiding Americans right to own a handgun, just as its every Americans right to know the law about using it. As to how well they shoot or what they get themselves involved in, its also their right to get killed making those decisions, I don't loose sleep either way. One lesson I learned early on is don't judge situations or people as you would judge yourself, you can't. Don't assume that because you know the law and have sound judgment that everyone else does. |
|
Tell you one thing - when I first went to get my TX CHL, the instr approached me and asked if I was ex-mil, and would I be interested in being the 2nd RO for the shooting portion - they were one short for some reason. I am extremely strict when it comes to safety, and some of those people on the firing line had absolutely no business being there. They had not even mastered the basics of firearm handling. |
With all due respect, that sounds like it was cut and pasted right out of a Brady Campaign press release. Once again - The same "some folks have no business carrying a gun" argument can (and is) being used by gun-banners in support of imposing strict controls on ALL aspects of gun ownership - or banning gun ownership outright. They even cite the same "we can license motor vehicle drivers" example some of you folks are using. I've seen folks who had no business owing a machine gun - Let's have a license for them! I've seen folks who had no business owing an assault rifle - Let's have a license for them! I've seen folks who had no business owing a silencer - Let's have a license for them! I've seen folks who had no business owing a "high-power" rifle - Let's have a license for them! I've seen folks who had no business owing a repeating shotgun - Let's have a license for them! I've seen folks who had no business owing Tannerite - Let's have a license for them! You can't have it both ways - Either the benefits of having easy access and use of weapons for virtually everyone outweigh the damage done by the occasional bad apple, or they don't. For most of its history, our nation operated on the former belief. Sad to see so many folks now moving away from that belief, under the guise of "sensible restrictions". |
I'm sure 5 year olds with rocket launchers would make for a great America. I'm sure 5 year olds with belt feds would make for a great America I'm sure 5 year olds driving cars would make for a great America I'm sure a 20 year old with the mental capacity of a 10 year old owning and carrying a handgun/NFA weapon would make for a great America It's not simply about "bad apples". It's about morons who are incapable of properly handling a firearm at the least, and at the worst, the same morons killing or maiming some bystander. It's about the people who refuse to learn. I don't find any particular joy in the thought of getting shot because the fool next to me decided to play with his handgun. On the flip side, I suppose we could then have an excuse to eradicate the stupid from society. Like I posted earlier in this thread about warning labels, they got there because someone did it and "didn't know that would happen". Knives come with warning labels such as "warning, object is sharp". 
|
Bystanders are everywhere, including in a moron's home. Like it or not, you're arguing for licensing for ALL firearms ownership. BTW, if you're afraid of us non-licensees, perhaps you should consider shooting at an establishment that excludes us. |
|
I'm for it, but I don't think that it should be a high priority. IMHO, there's a lot of other more important and more realistic things that we should be working on first. Maybe clean up the NFA regs and the CHL prohibited places. FWIW, I bet some of the people that the pro-licensing people are worried about are already packing without a permit because they didn't even know that they needed one. |
|
Just a few short years ago, my vote would have been "I'd be for it, but it will never happen." Things have changed a lot in Texas in not a lot of years, and almost without exception for the better. That's why I voted "I'd be for it and it is a possability." That said, I think permitless *open* carry is actually more do-able, short-term. |
And Vermont..... But when you start talking permitless *open* carry, you can also tack on Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Virginia, Colorado (minus Denver), etc, etc, etc...... Note: I'm not "against" permitless concealed carry at all ; it's just my opinion that because there is more precedent (and not just from sparsely populated states), that in the spirit of incrementalism, our chances are better. |
I am still refusing to get carded, but I agree and would vote/advocate/whatever to extend your privilege(s). Sucks that we have to choose. |
This pretty much sums up my position on it: "More laws can't make us safe from the tragedies that are the inevitable result of freedom, and of living around other people. Life is real, life is uncertain, life is inevitably unsafe. Measures to make it safe at all costs come with dangers of their own." -- Brian Doherty, writing in Reason magazine |
I'm also against warning labels. 
|
Not mutually-exclusive. IIRC , there's another state that retains their xyz program primarily for P&I purposes, even though they technically don't need it anymore. Also, I think the paper actually removes some prohibited locations for the folks who decide to go through the licensing process, so they technically have permitless open carry, but they retain the licensing as both an enhancement (in-state) and as a "favor" to that state's citizens who find themselves out-of-state..... |
I've never met a 5 year old who had their own money, yet alone enough of it to buy a rocket launcher or a fully automatic firearm. By the time kids are old enough to accumulate their own money, they are old enough to be responsible with firearms and such. Unless you support mandatory, draconian testing, there's not much of a way to even approach legally disarming adults with mental impairment. Even with a full stripping of rights for mandatory testing and punishment, some would fall through the cracks. We let the idiots who refuse to learn drive on our streets, a mere privlage, yet you want to strip them of a basic right to bear arms? You would punish EVERYONE because some folks aren't smart enough to avoid drinking drain-o? |
Not trying to pick on ya, but why exactly do you assume everyone in a bar is drunk? I don't drink at all. Why in the world should I be legally disarmed if I go with friends or family to a bar? Why is it a good idea to tell criminals that folks leaving a bar are next to defenseless, no matter their state of intoxication? |