TexasCHLforum.com

dicion wrote:I'm pretty sure stevie was saying that he saw a rumor being spread somewhere that this was true.

It is not true. There is no such bill that allows CHL suspension during an emergency.
After all, isn't that when you're probably going to actually need it?

Exactly my point.

The first question was aimed at "Why would someone/anyone think this was a good idea, since an emergency is when it obviously is most needed? Did I overlook some type of emergency that a firearm would exacerbate?" (the answer is as you pointed out), and the second thought was more along the lines of "Who benefits by spreading this disinformation?"

When I see alleged legislation or claims about legislation that don't match up to what I know, I tend to think in terms of who would benefit by that misinformation. I know that's probably thinking sideways, but I tend to be a bit suspicious when claims like these are made.

Purplehood wrote:I know that the NRA fought the City of New Orleans and won on this very issue. I would imagine that they would challenge this also. Does it actually exist?

I dunno, but I thought TX had already passed a law that specifically prohibited the confiscation of firearms during an emergency, so this is a LITTLE bit different (the "mere" pre-emption of "bear" instead of "keep & bear").

stevie_d_64 wrote:Saw a good one this morning...

Apparently there is a subtle change to the law that gives authority to suspend our CHL's, basically taking away our right to carry a firearm during an "declared emergency"...

Poor people...If they'd just stay here for all the straight info...The mis-information machine would not have many to fool...

Y'know, stevie, the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw this was "What sort of 'declared emergency' would benefit by disarming law abiding citizens?" and I couldn't think of one.


The second thing was "Katrina."