TexasCHLforum.com

AJSully421 wrote:I have read the bill. Let me ask a stupid question:

How can a drop leg holster that hangs off of a belt not be encompassed as a "Belt Holster"?

Could we request a amendment to include other types of holsters? Or just say "Carried in a holster"?

Why request an amendment and get legislators wasting time deliberating on the definition of a holster? That sounds like you're playing right into the hands of Democrats that want to endlessly debate the bill for the sake of delaying it into remission.

I would imagine that, so long as the holster is _attached_ to your belt, or around your chest and/or shoulders, you're within the law, because that's what the law currently says.

Sure, you might be arrested if somebody gets uppity with your shiny new Safariland drop-leg holster, but it IS attached to your belt. Then again, it won't be me paying the lawyers to beat that rap

OldCannon wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:I have read the bill. Let me ask a stupid question:

How can a drop leg holster that hangs off of a belt not be encompassed as a "Belt Holster"?

Could we request a amendment to include other types of holsters? Or just say "Carried in a holster"?

Why request an amendment and get legislators wasting time deliberating on the definition of a holster? That sounds like you're playing right into the hands of Democrats that want to endlessly debate the bill for the sake of delaying it into remission.

I would imagine that, so long as the holster is _attached_ to your belt, or around your chest and/or shoulders, you're within the law, because that's what the law currently says.

Sure, you might be arrested if somebody gets uppity with your shiny new Safariland drop-leg holster, but it IS attached to your belt. Then again, it won't be me paying the lawyers to beat that rap

That is how I see it.

Good point about not messing up the process.

MeMelYup wrote:I cannot understand why Grisham continues to try and incite discention between groupes.

The only believable explanation is that they're shills for some anti-gun group.

Dave2 wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:I cannot understand why Grisham continues to try and incite discention between groupes.

The only believable explanation is that they're shills for some anti-gun group.

Not if you think about the group he represents. A large portion of the OCT population are those without CHLs. He is, therefore, only going to support bills that benefit his populace. In the same way that many on this forum oppose legislation expanding gun rights for only a subgroup of CHLs (removal of off limits areas for only legislators for example), they oppose legislation like licensed open carry because it doesn't benefit the majority of their members.

CJD wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:I cannot understand why Grisham continues to try and incite discention between groupes.

The only believable explanation is that they're shills for some anti-gun group.

Not if you think about the group he represents. A large portion of the OCT population are those without CHLs. He is, therefore, only going to support bills that benefit his populace. In the same way that many on this forum oppose legislation expanding gun rights for only a subgroup of CHLs (removal of off limits areas for only legislators for example), they oppose legislation like licensed open carry because it doesn't benefit the majority of their members.

Not trying to argue at all but why don't they just get a CHL if that's the case ? Classroom time is nothing and the expense is very minimal , they have spent more money and time driving around tormenting the police and government officials .

chuck j wrote:

CJD wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:I cannot understand why Grisham continues to try and incite discention between groupes.

The only believable explanation is that they're shills for some anti-gun group.

Not if you think about the group he represents. A large portion of the OCT population are those without CHLs. He is, therefore, only going to support bills that benefit his populace. In the same way that many on this forum oppose legislation expanding gun rights for only a subgroup of CHLs (removal of off limits areas for only legislators for example), they oppose legislation like licensed open carry because it doesn't benefit the majority of their members.

Not trying to argue at all but why don't they just get a CHL if that's the case ? Classroom time is nothing and the expense is very minimal , they have spent more money and time driving around tormenting the police and government officials .

For some of them, the expense is more than minimal. For most, it's out of principle: one should not have to pay for a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Otherwise, it's a privilege not a right. Would you pay $200 for a free speech license? $200 for a no troops quartered in my home license? For a no search without a warrant license? Only those with a no search without a warrant license require a warrant to be searched, all others you may search at will.

CJD wrote:

chuck j wrote:

CJD wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:I cannot understand why Grisham continues to try and incite discention between groupes.

The only believable explanation is that they're shills for some anti-gun group.

Not if you think about the group he represents. A large portion of the OCT population are those without CHLs. He is, therefore, only going to support bills that benefit his populace. In the same way that many on this forum oppose legislation expanding gun rights for only a subgroup of CHLs (removal of off limits areas for only legislators for example), they oppose legislation like licensed open carry because it doesn't benefit the majority of their members.

Not trying to argue at all but why don't they just get a CHL if that's the case ? Classroom time is nothing and the expense is very minimal , they have spent more money and time driving around tormenting the police and government officials .

For some of them, the expense is more than minimal. For most, it's out of principle: one should not have to pay for a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Otherwise, it's a privilege not a right. Would you pay $200 for a free speech license? $200 for a no troops quartered in my home license? For a no search without a warrant license? Only those with a no search without a warrant license require a warrant to be searched, all others you may search at will.

Do you think their plan is working ?

chuck j wrote:

CJD wrote:

chuck j wrote:

CJD wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:I cannot understand why Grisham continues to try and incite discention between groupes.

The only believable explanation is that they're shills for some anti-gun group.

Not if you think about the group he represents. A large portion of the OCT population are those without CHLs. He is, therefore, only going to support bills that benefit his populace. In the same way that many on this forum oppose legislation expanding gun rights for only a subgroup of CHLs (removal of off limits areas for only legislators for example), they oppose legislation like licensed open carry because it doesn't benefit the majority of their members.

Not trying to argue at all but why don't they just get a CHL if that's the case ? Classroom time is nothing and the expense is very minimal , they have spent more money and time driving around tormenting the police and government officials .

For some of them, the expense is more than minimal. For most, it's out of principle: one should not have to pay for a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Otherwise, it's a privilege not a right. Would you pay $200 for a free speech license? $200 for a no troops quartered in my home license? For a no search without a warrant license? Only those with a no search without a warrant license require a warrant to be searched, all others you may search at will.

Do you think their plan is working ?

Too early to tell I think.

CJD wrote:

chuck j wrote:

CJD wrote:

chuck j wrote:

CJD wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:I cannot understand why Grisham continues to try and incite discention between groupes.

The only believable explanation is that they're shills for some anti-gun group.

Not if you think about the group he represents. A large portion of the OCT population are those without CHLs. He is, therefore, only going to support bills that benefit his populace. In the same way that many on this forum oppose legislation expanding gun rights for only a subgroup of CHLs (removal of off limits areas for only legislators for example), they oppose legislation like licensed open carry because it doesn't benefit the majority of their members.

Not trying to argue at all but why don't they just get a CHL if that's the case ? Classroom time is nothing and the expense is very minimal , they have spent more money and time driving around tormenting the police and government officials .

For some of them, the expense is more than minimal. For most, it's out of principle: one should not have to pay for a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Otherwise, it's a privilege not a right. Would you pay $200 for a free speech license? $200 for a no troops quartered in my home license? For a no search without a warrant license? Only those with a no search without a warrant license require a warrant to be searched, all others you may search at will.

Do you think their plan is working ?

Too early to tell I think.

One thing's for sure... they aren't making any friends with the way they are choosing to go about it.

CJD wrote: For some of them, the expense is more than minimal. For most, it's out of principle: one should not have to pay for a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Otherwise, it's a privilege not a right. Would you pay $200 for a free speech license? $200 for a no troops quartered in my home license? For a no search without a warrant license? Only those with a no search without a warrant license require a warrant to be searched, all others you may search at will.

I agree. That's how I read it too. But that's not how the courts have ruled on it, so we're stuck with it.

CJD wrote: For some of them, the expense is more than minimal.

Texas offers highly discounted fees if you are financially unable to pay. Now, if you just "dont want to pay," that's a different matter.

For most, it's out of principle: one should not have to pay for a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Otherwise, it's a privilege not a right. Would you pay $200 for a free speech license? $200 for a no troops quartered in my home license? For a no search without a warrant license? Only those with a no search without a warrant license require a warrant to be searched, all others you may search at will.

They're interesting arguments, but the reality is that rights are not "unlimited." To think such a thing is a simple denial of what a right actually is. States are given the power to determine how to support the basic rights we're given, and federal courts can (and will) work for (or against) states to restrict(or expand) the scope of those rights. We have a legislative system in Texas that can help people expand the scope of rights we currently have. It is interesting to note how one group that seeks to expand rights (let's just call it the TSRA/NRA coalition, if you want to give it a name) has worked in positive ways with legislators, even with those opposed to expanding carry rights, to extend the rights of people that the state has _already certified_ are law-abiding citizens. The House and Senate bills have several sponsors and supporters. Contrast that with the group that seeks to eliminate all prohibitions (let's call it the "Open Carry Coalition"), who has (luckily) managed to find somebody to wrote a bill and (unluckily, if you will) gain almost no sponsors, has repeatedly threatened legislators, even ones that agree with the spirit of their bills, has taken deliberate steps to use intimidation tactics in public places and with police to "get their way", and has even gone so far now to claim that anybody that doesn't side with them is treasonous.

It becomes pretty obvious to anybody WITH A SINGLE SHRED OF COMMON SENSE that, as the saying goes, swinging a skunk around in church is not how you get the congregation to sing your favorite hymn.

OldCannon wrote:

CJD wrote: For some of them, the expense is more than minimal.

Texas offers highly discounted fees if you are financially unable to pay. Now, if you just "dont want to pay," that's a different matter.

.

Be that as it may, all the objective data certainly suggests an income disparity between CHL holders and non-holders in TX.

Here's one study from 2010:
http://www.texastribune.org/2010/10/03/ ... n-permits/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TXBO wrote:

OldCannon wrote:

CJD wrote: For some of them, the expense is more than minimal.

Texas offers highly discounted fees if you are financially unable to pay. Now, if you just "dont want to pay," that's a different matter.

.

Be that as it may, all the objective data certainly suggests an income disparity between CHL holders and non-holders in TX.

Here's one study from 2010:
http://www.texastribune.org/2010/10/03/ ... n-permits/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, I've heard, but not verified, that we have one of the most expensive licensing programs in the country.

The state fee for the CHL application is $70 if you're below the Federal poverty line. There's a lot of people who are above that line that still can't afford it. Heck, there's a lot of people under that line that still can't afford $70 for the application. Remember, you gotta pay for the class too, which is usually between $60-$100 depending on the instructor.

If we can't get rid of the whole fee for a CHL, I would like to see it lowered to a more reasonable level. Some states charge less than $20 for a CCW permit. Ideally, I'd like to see it at that level.

While I agree that not all rights are absolute, I do not agree with having burdensome license requirements to exercise those rights. Paying over $200 to get a CHL (application fee, class, fingerprinting) is pretty burdensome if you ask me. All to exercise a right that is guaranteed to you by the US Constitution.

As my signature suggests, it's my opinion that licensing is when the government takes away your right to do something and sells it back to you. However, what sets me (and most everyone here) apart from a lot of OCT/OCTC people is that even though we see it as an infringement, we follow the law and push our legislature to fix the laws because we believe in the system. It's the system that got us here, and it's the system that will get us out.

mr1337 wrote:The state fee for the CHL application is $70 if you're below the Federal poverty line. There's a lot of people who are above that line that still can't afford it. Heck, there's a lot of people under that line that still can't afford $70 for the application. Remember, you gotta pay for the class too, which is usually between $60-$100 depending on the instructor.

If we can't get rid of the whole fee for a CHL, I would like to see it lowered to a more reasonable level. Some states charge less than $20 for a CCW permit. Ideally, I'd like to see it at that level.

....

The fee schedule alone is intriguing.

Regular Joe $140
Indigent $70 but...
An active judge making six figures only $25

Senior citizen $70...
Unless you are retired judge $25

Makes no sense.