TexasCHLforum.com

Russell wrote:Is it really necessary to restrict carrying a stun gun without a license?

What does everyone here think about this bill?

IMO-it's wasted time on the floor that other more meaningful bills could use.
JL

Yay, just what we need, more laws against the possession of objects. Last time I checked we already had laws against the misuse of stun guns on people.

So, I'm confused ... who exactly wanted this bill to go to the senate in the first place?

Is there a Mothers Against Stun Gun Violence group out there pushing for new Stun Gun regulation?

This is a horrible idea on so very many levels. Stun guns have been mostly unregulated for a couple of decades now with very little real world consequence. Why is there suddenly a "public interest" in prohibiting their possesion and licensing their carry? It's just silliness, to me.

Let the legislature waste time on some other rubbish rather than argue about how best to criminalize more inanimate objects and take away more of my options for a force escalation (without more licensing, fees, classes ect.).

HKUSP45C wrote: Why is there suddenly a "public interest" in prohibiting their possesion and licensing their carry?

(without more licensing, fees, classes ect.).

I think your latter comment clearly answers that.
Sounds like a tax to me, without the lawmakers calling it that.
JL

Darwood wrote:Yay, just what we need, more laws against the possession of objects. Last time I checked we already had laws against the misuse of stun guns on people.

This problem grows almost every legislative session.

Chas.

Russell wrote:What does everyone here think about this bill?

Rubbish.

The highest law in the land says our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
A stun gun law would be just one more on a long list of infringements.

On the other hand . . .
Officer: Why did you shoot the scumbag bad guy twice in the chest and once in the head rather than using some less than lethal force?
Me: Um, because stun guns are illegal.

They're not "less THAN lethal" anymore, they're just "less lethal" which only means that people die when shot by them at a rate lower than firearms. If you shoot 1000 people with firearms and 300 die, and you shoot 1000 with stun guns and 3 die, that means they're "less lethal."