TexasCHLforum.com

Police Chief, is not an elected office. They are appointed. Why are the city managers, mayors, and city councils, allowing their police chiefs to engage in political issues, under the authority of their office? If they want to debate an issue as private citizens, that is one thing, but to use their office, and more than likely city funded vehicles, and hotel accommodations, seems to me to be a conflict of interest. They do not speak for their citizens, they are hired to serve their citizens. They cannot pass laws, only enforce the laws passed by the legislature. If I lived in any of the cities, who's police chief was in Austin as part of this protest movement, I would be demanding a full accounting of the costs involved, and an explanatiion of the necessity for them to be there. JMHO

Jusme wrote:Police Chief, is not an elected office. They are appointed. Why are the city managers, mayors, and city councils, allowing their police chiefs to engage in political issues, under the authority of their office? If they want to debate an issue as private citizens, that is one thing, but to use their office, and more than likely city funded vehicles, and hotel accommodations, seems to me to be a conflict of interest. They do not speak for their citizens, they are hired to serve their citizens. They cannot pass laws, only enforce the laws passed by the legislature. If I lived in any of the cities, who's police chief was in Austin as part of this protest movement, I would be demanding a full accounting of the costs involved, and an explanatiion of the necessity for them to be there. JMHO

The city managers, mayors and city councils probably approve of what their chiefs are doing and agree with their anti-2A stance.

bblhd672 wrote:

Jusme wrote:Police Chief, is not an elected office. They are appointed. Why are the city managers, mayors, and city councils, allowing their police chiefs to engage in political issues, under the authority of their office? If they want to debate an issue as private citizens, that is one thing, but to use their office, and more than likely city funded vehicles, and hotel accommodations, seems to me to be a conflict of interest. They do not speak for their citizens, they are hired to serve their citizens. They cannot pass laws, only enforce the laws passed by the legislature. If I lived in any of the cities, who's police chief was in Austin as part of this protest movement, I would be demanding a full accounting of the costs involved, and an explanatiion of the necessity for them to be there. JMHO

The city managers, mayors and city councils probably approve of what their chiefs are doing and agree with their anti-2A stance.

That may be true, but those are elected positions, and they are not protesting. They are using tax payer money to be involved in a political protest. If front line LEO went down there to protest something, they would be fired.

Didn't Art Acevedo originate in communist Cuba?

Unlicensed = MPA or ...?

Abraham wrote:Unlicensed = MPA or ...?

No. The qualifications for unlicensed carry in the bill are significantly more strict than those for MPA from what I see.

apostate wrote:

Abraham wrote:Unlicensed = MPA or ...?

No. The qualifications for unlicensed carry in the bill are significantly more strict than those for MPA from what I see.

That has or is changing with amendments.

twomillenium wrote:Didn't Art Acevedo originate in communist Cuba?

I'm sure you're asking that facetiously, but just to cover the bases, Acevedo is from California, which explains a lot.

I'm not at all surprised that acewhatever is against gun carry. Thats one joker that should have stayed where he came from.

Ruark wrote:

twomillenium wrote:Didn't Art Acevedo originate in communist Cuba?

I'm sure you're asking that facetiously, but just to cover the bases, Acevedo is from California, which explains a lot.

His bio claims to be Cuban born and came to the US in 1968.

Well, I'm not for unlicensed carry for the following reason:

When I took my CHL class a long time ago, there was a woman in the class that could NOT handle a firearm. She struggled to load, fire, and couldn't hit the target half the time. She clearly had no business trying qualify for a CHL.

So, I can imagine that if unlicensed carry passes, there would be some people that would go buy a gun and not learn how to use it which puts themselves in danger as well as you and me. With required licensing, at least of those idiots are weeded out.

Caliber wrote:Well, I'm not for unlicensed carry for the following reason:

When I took my CHL class a long time ago, there was a woman in the class that could NOT handle a firearm. She struggled to load, fire, and couldn't hit the target half the time. She clearly had no business trying qualify for a CHL.

So, I can imagine that if unlicensed carry passes, there would be some people that would go buy a gun and not learn how to use it which puts themselves in danger as well as you and me. With required licensing, at least of those idiots are weeded out.

These same people are allowed to carry unlicensed under the MPA. These same people are allowed to carry long guns unlicensed since forever.

Caliber wrote:Well, I'm not for unlicensed carry for the following reason:

When I took my CHL class a long time ago, there was a woman in the class that could NOT handle a firearm. She struggled to load, fire, and couldn't hit the target half the time. She clearly had no business trying qualify for a CHL.

So, I can imagine that if unlicensed carry passes, there would be some people that would go buy a gun and not learn how to use it which puts themselves in danger as well as you and me. With required licensing, at least of those idiots are weeded out.

Those "idiots' have the same Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as anyone else. They "should" take the responsibility to be properly trained with firearms, but it should not be mandated by the government. No other Constitutional right, requires, proving that you know how to exercise it properly.

Additionally, what makes one think that the LTC course will train someone to properly handle a handgun. If you don't already know by the time you get there, the shooting test isn't going to "learn" you....

ScottDLS wrote:

Additionally, what makes one think that the LTC course will train someone to properly handle a handgun. If you don't already know by the time you get there, the shooting test isn't going to "learn" you....

While I am on your side. The argument is not that it will "learn" them but that the instructor can fail them.

Though when I took my course the same type of person was passed so its not like that idea is working real well.