TexasCHLforum.com

Texans should have no restrictions as long as they are law abiding. The State has the power to regulate the wearing of arms because of our Constitution. That needs to be changed. We need no CHL and no state restrictions. Other states have done fine with this system. I personally feel it is an insult for any elected servant to think they have to regulate my God given rights.

Those who don't learn the law will lose their ability to carry for some time if not forever. That will be the motivation enough for people to learn the law. CHL is an expensive privilege. I want my rights

There is much discussion on CHL carry where LEO's can carry.

Think about this...

How about a CHL should be able to carry anywhere a criminal might carry.

Russ

:edited to add emphasis

I like your idea, but would actually look at it this way:

I think everyday citizens (who aren't prohibited posessors or otherwise committing a felony or certain misdemeanors, etc) should be allowed to open carry in most places, except places with a "30.06" type signage, and other locations prohibited by texas law.

I'd like to see peole that go through the background check to get a CHL to be able to bypass most of these legislative blocks to carrying legally.

But that's just me.

txinvestigator wrote:

LEO's have some different qualifications, but all LEOs in Texas must pass an MMPI (pyschological test).

I don't want other citizens armed on planes I am on. Leave that to the FAMs.


MMPI? Please. I'm an air traffic controller. I had to take the same test. It's a good judge of your ability to give the answers the test-giver wants to hear. Period. As a personality index, it's so over-used (and over-rated) as to be almost worthless these days.

As far as carry on airplanes, chances are there's already citizens carrying with not much more training than the average CHL holder has had...a member of the flight crew.

It's the old "gunfights and blood in the streets" argument. Didn't happen when we started carrying in public, wouldn't happen if we started carrying EVERYWHERE, including when travelling by air. Gov. Perry has the right idea.

I'm with the cajun on this one.

Dan

I also don't like the tiered approach because it implies that the right is granted, and not an inherent right. The right to self-defense is a human right, not something given to us.

I would say change this to:

a CHL should be able to carry wherever the police/business owners/government cannot be held liable when they failed to provide protection.

kw5kw wrote: How about a CHL should be able to carry anywhere a criminal might carry.

Russ

If you want to carry a gun on a plane, I say you should change your profession. I don't want normal folks carrying a gun on a plane, simply because they will not have had the same training and practice that a full time FAM does. I've met a few, and my parents work with them quite a bit, and they are some top-notch operators from my experience. They know what they're doing......

With all respect to many of the folks on here, there is no way that a two-week course every year can prepare a civilian to shoot on sight, accurately, at a moments notice, in confined spaces, while maintaining a tactical mindset ready to subdue an unknown quantity of bad guys. I was in the military, and we trained day in and day out to kill(I was in a combat arms MOS), and there were still a few folks in my unit where I wondered if they could pull the trigger when the time came.

Now, again, I am not trying to say that ALL civilians are as described as above. Yet, as I don't know of a fool-proof way to differentiate them, I don't care to make a mistake and have 1 bad shot hit a fuel line and take a plane down over a misunderstanding. Lets leave it to the professionals. You can always drive/take a bus if you are that worried, but statistically, planes are one of the safest modes of transportation available these days.

cyphur wrote:... I don't care to make a mistake and have 1 bad shot hit a fuel line and take a plane down over a misunderstanding.

One bullet cannot take down a plane unless it goes through both pilots.

Anyway, the airlines will never allow passsengers to carry. They don't even like pilots being armed.

- Jim

One bullet cannot take down a plane unless it goes through both pilots.

When you go through the training to be authorized to fly armed they cover with you the potential for "explosive decompression" which could possibly destroy the aircraft. The odds are that it wouldn't but you never know.

Still if someone is trying to take over the aircraft and crash it, the odds say to take the shot - everyone is guaranteed to be dead if the terrorist gains control.

I believe this is a bad idea all around...

The idea of the Texas CHL was to give "ordinary" citizens the means to carry a concealed handgun within the parameters set forth in the law...

The primary duty was for self-protection first and foremost, Family friends and property was included as well...When you reasonably felt tht deadly force was necessary to stop deadly or dangerous criminal activity against what is noted above...

Purty simple concept...

The idea to create an "enhanced" license for those wishing to expand their "places they can go" parameters, in my opinion, is supporting the creation of some "elite" group within our own community...

I do not believe this is a good direction to go, and one that I believe that creates a rift among us that weakens the Texas CHL law...

I believe we are heading in the right direction, it may not be going as fast as "I" and some others would like it to go, but these restrictions, and the overall law is being tweeked every two years, and has not had a serious setback that has not been addressed or solved during the time the CHL law has been implemented...

I do not support creating a "special" CHL license that has some sort of "enhanced" parameters that allow some to "walk through walls" (for lack of a better idea at this time...) or some other special exemptions or special treatment...

CHL/LEO wrote:

One bullet cannot take down a plane unless it goes through both pilots.

When you go through the training to be authorized to fly armed they cover with you the potential for "explosive decompression" which could possibly destroy the aircraft. The odds are that it wouldn't but you never know.

Since there's no such thing as "explosive decompression" (except in Hollywood), the odds are zero.

Airplanes are full of holes and leak constantly. There is a massive compressor running to keep them pressurized; it's so massive that an entire window could be completely missing, and the aircraft would maintain pressure.

Kevin

KBCraig wrote:

CHL/LEO wrote:

One bullet cannot take down a plane unless it goes through both pilots.

When you go through the training to be authorized to fly armed they cover with you the potential for "explosive decompression" which could possibly destroy the aircraft. The odds are that it wouldn't but you never know.

Since there's no such thing as "explosive decompression" (except in Hollywood), the odds are zero.

Airplanes are full of holes and leak constantly. There is a massive compressor running to keep them pressurized; it's so massive that an entire window could be completely missing, and the aircraft would maintain pressure.

Kevin

True. Also verified by myth busters when they shot out a window of an aircraft cabin that was at pressure.

My take:

LEO's, CHL Holders, Pilots, and the airplane staff should be requred to carry while flying.

Airport car rental places should have guns and holsters available for those that forgot and left their guns at home.

I don't think we should create a second class of CHL. That would also create a "second class citizen".