TexasCHLforum.com

casingpoint wrote:

CHL holders have proven themselves over nonCHL holders

That may be the case, but the redactors of the Bill of Rights did not make any distinctions between any purported levels of qualification to keep and bear arms. Every man was enabled by his simple being. Works for me. And it will work on campus. The campus carry bill is attempting to drive a round peg into a square hole under the existing prohibition of open carry when combined with the requirement for a concealed handgun license. This will give birth to a legal absurdity should the bill pass. The Legislatures want to gun up, but only with the better gunnies. The less "unqualified" gunnies, despite their right to self defense, can take their chances with the sheep.

Do you support, oppose, or are you neutral on the campus-carry bills?

Chas.

Do you support, oppose, or are you neutral on the campus-carry bills

At this point, I support campus carry bills. Students with guns on campus is nuts. But the whole word has gone nuts, it seems. I don't think you can beat 'em, so you gotta join 'em to survive.

jamullinstx, do you really think a handgun which is constitutional inside a home is suddenly unconstitutional when taken outside until a judge rules otherwise?

We give a little training and a weapon to our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines and send them into harms way. There is no way to tell which of them will shoot their weapon in a useful manner, and who will run or simply freeze in place.
A CHL holder is simply someone that has met some minimum criteria, but has consciously taken it upon him/herself to contribute directly to their own safety and sometimes; directly or indirectly, deliberately or coincidentally, those of others.
I find annoying this constant harping that CHL holders are elitist. A CHL holder is someone that is trying to comply with the laws as they exist at this time. In general, you might find a high percentage of them being activists in regards to trying to improve the laws regarding the use and carrying of firearms.

casingpoint wrote:
At this point, I support campus carry bills. Students with guns on campus is nuts.

So you do support college campus carry for CHL, correct?

It may be nuts for the average college student to carry on campus, but CHL holders are not average college students, they are and have proven to be responsible adults. If fact most of the people who would qualify to carry are vets coming back from Iraq and that other place. They should be able to carry anywhere after what they have done for you and me.

Times change and peoples attitudes change. When I went off to college I had 4 firearms with me. My Win 270, my Rem 552, my Rem Sportsman 12 gauge, and a Colt SAA in 45 LC. Everybody had firearms and we hunted during season and shot beer cans and targets on the weekends.

Casingpoint, if you want onerous, try New Jersey's licencing requirements on for size. That's onerous. Texas' requirements are quite reasonable, IMO.

casingpoint, absolutely! The Heller decision left room for "reasonable restrictions". The SCOTUS merely said that what D.C. was doing was unreasonable. Betting men are weighing in on what the fallout from the Heller decision will be, but it is entirely within the realm of possibility that many of the current restrictions will remain in place.

Now, what I believe is that, it is only possible to WILLFULLY misconstrue the 2nd Amendment. To me it is clear on its face. However, the principle of stare decisis, the plodding nature of the courts, and the political process will mean that only slow chipping away at the current restrictions will be successful. The courts will simply not say, "Oh my God, we've been wrong all along. Citizens must be able to buy fully automatic weapons, carry in schools, etc. How could we have been so stupid?"

I subscribe to the theory fundamental rights are subject to restriction only where they interfere with other rights. It just sounds good. That is by no means the only approach to the Second Amendment. Like you say, it's going to take a long time for the courts to figure things out. And, everybody wants the benefits of future litigation, but nobody wants to go first.

casingpoint,

Great theory to which to subscribe! I guess I can expect to see the headline in tomorrow's Austin American Statesmen, "Texas CHL holder arrested for carrying a concealed firearm in the UT Main building during classes today," with subtitle, "Gun discovered during unplanned restroom break." In the body of the article, said the CHL holder, going by the pseudonym, Casingpoint on the Texas CHL Forum, 'I'm the test case for these unconstitutional laws that the Texas legislature has seen fit to enact. Please contribute to my defense fund.'

Go ahead, put up or shut up. Put yourself in a situation to be the test case, then come back to the choir for preaching. Become a crusader or get a realistic outlook. Your choice.

This is heating up gentlemen. Lets keep it polite & not let it get personal. We dont want to lock it.
Thank you. gents.

Didn't we just have a long discussion about the constitutionality of TX's CHL laws in another thread?

Didn't we just have a long discussion about the constitutionality of TX's CHL laws in another thread?

Five pages worth.
http://texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_Forum ... =7&t=24306" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

casingpoint wrote:

Didn't we just have a long discussion about the constitutionality of TX's CHL laws in another thread?

Five pages worth.
http://texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_Forum ... =7&t=24306" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So why bring it up again, weren't you satisfied with the answers there?

And BTW, did you really mean "redactors"?