TexasCHLforum.com

nightmare69 wrote:I personally believe that a state requiring a permit to carry is taking away a right and selling it back to you at a premier price. I know a few who cannot justify paying $100 for the class, $140 for the application fee, $10 for the fingerprints, to obtain a CHL.

Let's break that down. First, you don't have to pay $100 for a class. I see much cheaper classes advertised frequently and if you really keep your ear to the ground some organizations will even sponsor free or greatly reduced fees for classes. Very easy to find classes at $60. Add the other $150, your total is $210. That is less than 82¢ a week for the first 5 years and after that it's only 29¢ a week.
So the cost to protect yourself and your family the first 5 years comes out to about 12¢ a day. Calculate the daily cost over 10 years and you're down to less than 8¢ a day. If you can justify a stick of chewing gum every day, you can justify a CHL.

jmra wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:I personally believe that a state requiring a permit to carry is taking away a right and selling it back to you at a premier price. I know a few who cannot justify paying $100 for the class, $140 for the application fee, $10 for the fingerprints, to obtain a CHL.

Let's break that down. First, you don't have to pay $100 for a class. I see much cheaper classes advertised frequently and if you really keep your ear to the ground some organizations will even sponsor free or greatly reduced fees for classes. Very easy to find classes at $60. Add the other $150, your total is $210. That is less than 82¢ a week for the first 5 years and after that it's only 29¢ a week.
So the cost to protect yourself and your family the first 5 years comes out to about 12¢ a day. Calculate the daily cost over 10 years and you're down to less than 8¢ a day. If you can justify a stick of chewing gum every day, you can justify a CHL.

Cheapest class I've ever seen in my area was $85 for a short time at a new gun range. $100 is the norm for my AO.

It took 3 months for my G/F and I to save the money for her to go through the process. In fact, we just sent off her online app, paid the $155 for application, debit card fee, and fingerprints. For us, its expensive.

I've always found it interesting that it's usually the same people who find a "constitutional right to an abortion" in a document that says nothing about it, have a hard time understanding a clear statement in the same document about "shall not be infringed." Unfortunately, it just proves that "constitutional" has little to do with the actual document, and more about what the current group in power wants it to say.

Below is an excerpt from the recent PLEDGE IN SOLIDARITY TO DEFEND MARRIAGE. I mention it here not to distract from the topic, but because the same principles stated below apply to the topic at hand.

Neither the United States Supreme Court nor any court has authority to redefine marriage and thereby weaken both the family and society. Unlike the Legislative Branch that has the power of the purse and the Executive Branch which has the figurative power of the sword, the Judicial Branch has neither. It must depend upon the Executive Branch for the enforcement of its decisions.
As the Supreme Court acknowledged in the 1992 decision of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, its power rests solely upon the legitimacy of its decisions in the eyes of the people. If the decisions of the Court are not based on the Constitution and reason, and especially if they are contrary to the natural created order, then the people will lose confidence in the Court as an objective arbiter of the law. If the people lose respect for the Court, the Court’s authority will be diminished.
The Supreme Court was wrong when it denied Dred Scott his rights and said, “blacks are inferior human beings.” And the Court was wrong when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in Buck v. Bell, “three generations of imbeciles are enough,” thus upholding Virginia’s eugenics law that permitted forced sterilization. Shamefully, that decision was cited during the Nuremburg trials to support the Nazi eugenic holocaust.
In these earlier cases, the definition of “human” was at issue. Now the definition of “marriage” is at issue. The Constitution does not grant a right to redefine marriage — which is nonsensical since marriage intrinsically involves a man and a woman. Nor does the Constitution prohibit states from affirming the natural created order of male and female joined together in marriage.

If the Supreme Court can be "wrong", what does that say about the constitutionality of the thing they are wrong about? Does it mean that something is unconstitutional but legal, or that something is constitutional but illegal? It seems that constitutionality does not always equate to legality.

Guess I don't look for a meaning for something that just is not there.
Infringe= Limit
Shall not be: that ones a little more difficult.... You would have to ask a Constitutional Scholar like our President on that one. He understands it no doubt but would redefine it in favor of licencing(limiting), I'm pretty sure.
Of course he would much prefer if he could remove the word "not"
I would also take a wild guess that most judges understand it. It just doesn't fit there view.
Come to think of it, I need to ask my 10 yr old grandson what the meaning of "shall not be" is. He's pretty smart..
..

jmra wrote: Let's break that down. First, you don't have to pay $100 for a class. I see much cheaper classes advertised frequently and if you really keep your ear to the ground some organizations will even sponsor free or greatly reduced fees for classes. Very easy to find classes at $60. Add the other $150, your total is $210. That is less than 82¢ a week for the first 5 years and after that it's only 29¢ a week.
So the cost to protect yourself and your family the first 5 years comes out to about 12¢ a day. Calculate the daily cost over 10 years and you're down to less than 8¢ a day. If you can justify a stick of chewing gum every day, you can justify a CHL.

For me, the question of whether it's constitutional to charge a fee to "grant" a right was settled in 1966 when the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to charge a poll tax to "grant" the right to vote.

maintenanceguy wrote:

jmra wrote: Let's break that down. First, you don't have to pay $100 for a class. I see much cheaper classes advertised frequently and if you really keep your ear to the ground some organizations will even sponsor free or greatly reduced fees for classes. Very easy to find classes at $60. Add the other $150, your total is $210. That is less than 82¢ a week for the first 5 years and after that it's only 29¢ a week.
So the cost to protect yourself and your family the first 5 years comes out to about 12¢ a day. Calculate the daily cost over 10 years and you're down to less than 8¢ a day. If you can justify a stick of chewing gum every day, you can justify a CHL.

For me, the question of whether it's constitutional to charge a fee to "grant" a right was settled in 1966 when the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to charge a poll tax to "grant" the right to vote.

Very well. Forgo the license and let us know how that works out for you.

nightmare69 wrote:

jmra wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:I personally believe that a state requiring a permit to carry is taking away a right and selling it back to you at a premier price. I know a few who cannot justify paying $100 for the class, $140 for the application fee, $10 for the fingerprints, to obtain a CHL.

Let's break that down. First, you don't have to pay $100 for a class. I see much cheaper classes advertised frequently and if you really keep your ear to the ground some organizations will even sponsor free or greatly reduced fees for classes. Very easy to find classes at $60. Add the other $150, your total is $210. That is less than 82¢ a week for the first 5 years and after that it's only 29¢ a week.
So the cost to protect yourself and your family the first 5 years comes out to about 12¢ a day. Calculate the daily cost over 10 years and you're down to less than 8¢ a day. If you can justify a stick of chewing gum every day, you can justify a CHL.

Cheapest class I've ever seen in my area was $85 for a short time at a new gun range. $100 is the norm for my AO.

It took 3 months for my G/F and I to save the money for her to go through the process. In fact, we just sent off her online app, paid the $155 for application, debit card fee, and fingerprints. For us, its expensive.

But yet you bought a sig when you could have bought a Glock for half what you paid for the sig. We all have priorities and we usually find a way to fund our priorities.
The very first link that popped up when I googled CHL classes in DFW was $59 or 2 for $100.
http://chltx.com/#2585

The 2nd Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed".

Infringement means "A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract, or right."
Keep means "a term meaning to hold, to maintain, to support, to retain in possession and to take care of."
Bear means "To support, sustain, or carry; to give rise to", or to produce, something else as an incident or auxiliary."
Shall means "As used in statutes and similar instruments, this word is generally imperative or mandatory; but it may be construed as merely permissive or directory, (as equivalent to "may,") to carry out the legislative intention and In cases where no right or benefit to any one depends on its being taken in the imperative sense, and where no public or private right is impaired by its interpretation in the other sense."

So long as the government does not break into or encroach upon your right to keep or bear arms, any action they take would be constitutional by legal definition. No right is absolute. All rights must be balanced against the rights of others.

For example, you have the right to freedom of speech, but you do not have the right to trespass on my property. Therefore you have no freedom of speech on my property. This comes up quite frequently in internet discussion groups and blogs, where people constantly complain about being censored on private fora.

Similarly, you would no right to keep or bear arms on my private property. This is why the legislature cannot mandate that businesses and private universities allow carry in their establishments. However, they can, and have, required that businesses post their desire to prevent your carry in a specific manner.

You have freedom of speech, but you do not have the right to endanger other people with your speech. Thus the famous dicta that you cannot yell fire in a crowded theatre.

Similarly, you have the right to keep and bear arms, but you may not do so in a manner that is threatening to or endangers other people. The question is obviously raised, who decides what is threatening to or endangers other people? The answer is the people do, through their representatives. So, if you want "constitutional carry" (or more accurately unlicensed carry), you must convince the people that it will not endanger them or threaten them in some way.

jmra wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:

jmra wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:I personally believe that a state requiring a permit to carry is taking away a right and selling it back to you at a premier price. I know a few who cannot justify paying $100 for the class, $140 for the application fee, $10 for the fingerprints, to obtain a CHL.

Let's break that down. First, you don't have to pay $100 for a class. I see much cheaper classes advertised frequently and if you really keep your ear to the ground some organizations will even sponsor free or greatly reduced fees for classes. Very easy to find classes at $60. Add the other $150, your total is $210. That is less than 82¢ a week for the first 5 years and after that it's only 29¢ a week.
So the cost to protect yourself and your family the first 5 years comes out to about 12¢ a day. Calculate the daily cost over 10 years and you're down to less than 8¢ a day. If you can justify a stick of chewing gum every day, you can justify a CHL.

Cheapest class I've ever seen in my area was $85 for a short time at a new gun range. $100 is the norm for my AO.

It took 3 months for my G/F and I to save the money for her to go through the process. In fact, we just sent off her online app, paid the $155 for application, debit card fee, and fingerprints. For us, its expensive.

But yet you bought a sig when you could have bought a Glock for half what you paid for the sig. We all have priorities and we usually find a way to fund our priorities.
The very first link that popped up when I googled CHL classes in DFW was $59 or 2 for $100.
http://chltx.com/#2585

Im about 180 miles from Dallas. Just saying $250 is expensive but we saved and jumped through the hoops.

baldeagle wrote: So long as the government does not break into or encroach upon your right to keep or bear arms, any action they take would be constitutional by legal definition. No right is absolute. All rights must be balanced against the rights of others.
...
Similarly, you have the right to keep and bear arms, but you may not do so in a manner that is threatening to or endangers other people. The question is obviously raised, who decides what is threatening to or endangers other people? The answer is the people do, through their representatives. So, if you want "constitutional carry" (or more accurately unlicensed carry), you must convince the people that it will not endanger them or threaten them in some way.

In general, I agree with the statements above, but I think the last sentence contradicts them. Yes, our rights are limited by the impact they have on the rights of others (unless the "others" are conservative, heterosexual Christians, but that's a different thread). However, we shouldn't have to prove that our exercising our rights will not endanger or threaten others. The reverse should be true - those who want to limit our rights should be required to prove that our excising those rights will adversely impact the rights of others. So in the context of this thread, has it been proven that constitutional (unlicensed) carry is a threat to others? I don't think so.

As it has been said many times in many ways, it isn't the carrying of a gun that threatens others, it's the intent and motivation of the one carrying it, and no law or license is going to impact that.

maintenanceguy wrote:

jmra wrote: Let's break that down. First, you don't have to pay $100 for a class. I see much cheaper classes advertised frequently and if you really keep your ear to the ground some organizations will even sponsor free or greatly reduced fees for classes. Very easy to find classes at $60. Add the other $150, your total is $210. That is less than 82¢ a week for the first 5 years and after that it's only 29¢ a week.
So the cost to protect yourself and your family the first 5 years comes out to about 12¢ a day. Calculate the daily cost over 10 years and you're down to less than 8¢ a day. If you can justify a stick of chewing gum every day, you can justify a CHL.

For me, the question of whether it's constitutional to charge a fee to "grant" a right was settled in 1966 when the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to charge a poll tax to "grant" the right to vote.

It wasn't settled because the two things are just not legally the same. Among other reasons it isn't as clear as you want to make it the reason for the ruling in 1966 in Harper vs Virginia board of Elections was not that it unconstitutional per se but that because it was equal protection violation.

jmra wrote:

maintenanceguy wrote:

jmra wrote: Let's break that down. First, you don't have to pay $100 for a class. I see much cheaper classes advertised frequently and if you really keep your ear to the ground some organizations will even sponsor free or greatly reduced fees for classes. Very easy to find classes at $60. Add the other $150, your total is $210. That is less than 82¢ a week for the first 5 years and after that it's only 29¢ a week.
So the cost to protect yourself and your family the first 5 years comes out to about 12¢ a day. Calculate the daily cost over 10 years and you're down to less than 8¢ a day. If you can justify a stick of chewing gum every day, you can justify a CHL.

For me, the question of whether it's constitutional to charge a fee to "grant" a right was settled in 1966 when the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to charge a poll tax to "grant" the right to vote.

Very well. Forgo the license and let us know how that works out for you.

It works fine in lots of places. States that allow open carry without a license include: Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, South Dakota, Vermont, Kentucky, Virginia, Delaware, and Pennsylvania. There may be others. Several of these also allow concealed carry without a license. It works fine.

maintenanceguy wrote:

jmra wrote:

maintenanceguy wrote:

jmra wrote: Let's break that down. First, you don't have to pay $100 for a class. I see much cheaper classes advertised frequently and if you really keep your ear to the ground some organizations will even sponsor free or greatly reduced fees for classes. Very easy to find classes at $60. Add the other $150, your total is $210. That is less than 82¢ a week for the first 5 years and after that it's only 29¢ a week.
So the cost to protect yourself and your family the first 5 years comes out to about 12¢ a day. Calculate the daily cost over 10 years and you're down to less than 8¢ a day. If you can justify a stick of chewing gum every day, you can justify a CHL.

For me, the question of whether it's constitutional to charge a fee to "grant" a right was settled in 1966 when the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to charge a poll tax to "grant" the right to vote.

Very well. Forgo the license and let us know how that works out for you.

It works fine in lots of places. States that allow open carry without a license include: Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, South Dakota, Vermont, Kentucky, Virginia, Delaware, and Pennsylvania. There may be others.

It works fine if you live in one of those states. If not, it doesn't.

mloamiller wrote:

baldeagle wrote: So long as the government does not break into or encroach upon your right to keep or bear arms, any action they take would be constitutional by legal definition. No right is absolute. All rights must be balanced against the rights of others.
...
Similarly, you have the right to keep and bear arms, but you may not do so in a manner that is threatening to or endangers other people. The question is obviously raised, who decides what is threatening to or endangers other people? The answer is the people do, through their representatives. So, if you want "constitutional carry" (or more accurately unlicensed carry), you must convince the people that it will not endanger them or threaten them in some way.

In general, I agree with the statements above, but I think the last sentence contradicts them. Yes, our rights are limited by the impact they have on the rights of others (unless the "others" are conservative, heterosexual Christians, but that's a different thread). However, we shouldn't have to prove that our exercising our rights will not endanger or threaten others. The reverse should be true - those who want to limit our rights should be required to prove that our excising those rights will adversely impact the rights of others. So in the context of this thread, has it been proven that constitutional (unlicensed) carry is a threat to others? I don't think so.

As it has been said many times in many ways, it isn't the carrying of a gun that threatens others, it's the intent and motivation of the one carrying it, and no law or license is going to impact that.

Perhaps I wasn't eloquent enough. What i was trying to say is that, within the context of our rights, restrictions on those rights are determined by the people through their representatives. That's why "assault" weapons were banned for a while but are not banned now. That's why concealed carry was once illegal but is now the norm.

Whatever our rights might be, the people will decide what restrictions there are on those rights, right or wrong, constitutional or not. Obviously, if one believes that open unlicensed carry should be legal, then one must convince enough of the people that their representatives will make it so. Some states have done that. Others have not. But constitutional carry is a misnomer adopted by the unlicensed carry proponents in an obvious effort to claim righteousness for their position. Carry is constitutional. Licensed or unlicensed is a matter for the people to decide. If it were not so, we would have unlicensed carry now nationwide.

IOW, however ineloquent I may be, the battle is in the legislature, not the courts, and those who desire unlicensed carry must fight that battle to win it.