TexasCHLforum.com

jimlongley wrote:Actually, as the holder of four different FCC licenses and conversant with all the regulations that pertain, the FCC does regulate free speech of both ordinary citizens and of licensed users. The analogy is apt and stands well alone.

Which license allows them to regulate anything you say that isn't transmitted?

bdickens wrote:People on the internet are also notorious for having bad reading comprehension problems.

People on the internet are also notorious for thinking ad hominem substitutes for a rational argument.

HGWC wrote:

bdickens wrote:People on the internet are also notorious for having bad reading comprehension problems.

People on the internet are also notorious for thinking ad hominem substitutes for a rational argument.

OK guys, it is starting to get pointed. Please discuss civilly or the thread will be locked.

KD5NRH wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Actually, as the holder of four different FCC licenses and conversant with all the regulations that pertain, the FCC does regulate free speech of both ordinary citizens and of licensed users. The analogy is apt and stands well alone.

Which license allows them to regulate anything you say that isn't transmitted?

None of them, but you are probably shaving it a little fine with the "isn't transmitted" I never said or even implied isn't transmitted, the licensee is responsible for the content of the station's transmissions, which can include utterances by "ordinary citizens." as I am sure you, as a licensee, must be aware.

But back on track, whether the analogy is defective or not, nobody is stepping up to be a suitable test case, whether HGWC declares it a sure thing or not, including HGWC.

And while I still think that incorporation is a good thing, I see no reason to expect it to overturn licensing laws in general.

A couple of good articles on where regulation might be headed:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/03/stri ... dment.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content ... essors.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One of the things that irks me the most is when people read into what is written things that aren't there instead of reading what actually is there.

Go back and re-read my previous posts.

Nowhere did I say thet DPS was not taking too long to process CHL applications. What I said is that there were reasons for that and gave examples. I also never said that the problems don't need to be adressed.

Nowhere did I say that Heller allowed for any and all licencing schemes to be Constitutional. Only that Heller left the door open and now the courts are going to have to decide which ones are and are not.

Nowhere did I even advocate for licencing at all. I merely asked what specifically makes Texas' CHL Unconstitutional. If you make the assertion, you have to provide the supporting evidence.

We also have a board member making the blanket statement that, and I quote

...almost all Texas citizens are prohibited from publicly possessing a whole class of the most popular weapons for self-defense. Only after complying with an onerous and expensive set of administrative rules can you even apply to exercise your right....

Almost all Texas Citizens are prohibited from posessing handguns in public? On the contrary! I clearly demonstrated how the law spells out exactly how almost all Texas Citizens can be allowed to posess handguns in public. Not only can Almost all Texas Citizens be eligible for a CHL, Almost all Texas Citizens can tote a handgun around in their cars, in public with no licence whatsoever.

"Onerous and expensive set of administrative rules?" I guess expensive depends on your perspective, but the list of requirements for a CHL is actually quite an easy standard for most people to attain. What is onerous about having to not be a criminal or a nut job and demonstrate a basic level of competence?

I'd also like to have explained to me how it is a "lame excuse" to be unable to complete a task that one does not have the resources for.

"How long are we going to wait on politics and the legislature? When will we challenge these laws in court?" Why wait? You are welcome to get started any time you want.

That is another thing that really irks me, people who complain incessantly about how bad things are but do nothing to fix them.

casingpoint wrote:A couple of good articles on where regulation might be headed:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/03/stri ... dment.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content ... essors.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's definitely where the end challenge will be, and there was disagreement in the Heller ruling as to how the scrutiny should be settled. The incorporation issue though is a winner issue, and the sooner it's declared in the 5th circuit, the better it is for Texas. On the scrutiny issue, it's a ground breaking arena. The state laws haven't been tested. Will licensing survive? Maybe, we don't really know. Will Texas laws and policies on licensing survive? I don't see how they could under any standard.

And another step forward.:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-g ... he-states/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Last paragraph--Incorporation issue to be examined by the Fifth Circuit soon.

casingpoint wrote:And another step forward.:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-g ... he-states/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Last paragraph--Incorporation issue to be examined by the Fifth Circuit soon.

I didn't realize we've already had a conflict on incorporation at the appeals courts. That's very interesting. I wonder which cases are already pending at the 5th and 7th circuits?

jimlongley wrote:
And while I still think that incorporation is a good thing, I see no reason to expect it to overturn licensing laws in general.

If I could go to a DPS office, file a simple application for CHL like you do when you buy a gun, pay a nominal processing fee, and have them do a five minute computerized background check, that by itself might survive a constitutional challenge, especially in all the other states where open carry is unrestricted. Texas is far and away from that. It's not just a licensing process. It's a process that allows the DPS to indefinitely delay and implicitly deny applications for unspecified reasons. In addition, the official reasons for denial I don't think will hold up either. Can a state government deny a fundamental right to a citizen just because they're in default on a student loan? Once the 2nd is incorporated, I doubt it.

HGWC wrote:

jimlongley wrote:
And while I still think that incorporation is a good thing, I see no reason to expect it to overturn licensing laws in general.

If I could go to a DPS office, file a simple application for CHL like you do when you buy a gun, pay a nominal processing fee, and have them do a five minute computerized background check, that by itself might survive a constitutional challenge, especially in all the other states where open carry is unrestricted. Texas is far and away from that. It's not just a licensing process. It's a process that allows the DPS to indefinitely delay and implicitly deny applications for unspecified reasons. In addition, the official reasons for denial I don't think will hold up either. Can a state government deny a fundamental right to a citizen just because they're in default on a student loan? Once the 2nd is incorporated, I doubt it.

Which all means that some of the best candidate states for incorporation are NY, NJ, and IL, not TX.

Why do you say incorporation? I would think the issue for incorporation is the same in any state, and more importantly I was thinking that it would force the incorporation issue in Texas and the 5th circuit. I learned today that there are already two conflicting circuit court opinions and one has already been appealed to the SC as well as others already heading towards the 5th circuit. I guess that answers the bulk of the questions I've been asking. The lawyers in those 5th circuit cases, I've yet to see them, must disagree with the folks here about the constitutionality of Texas weapons laws and the value of challenging them in court. Maybe they're criminal cases. That obviously makes it easier to justify pursuing the case.

HGWC wrote:Why do you say incorporation?

I thought that was the subject of this thread.

HGWC wrote: I would think the issue for incorporation is the same in any state, and more importantly I was thinking that it would force the incorporation issue in Texas and the 5th circuit.

I use NY and IL as two of my examples because I used to live in those states and am very well acquainted with the laws in those places, as well as staying up on issues such as the Chucka Stick thing in NY. Incorporation hardly applies to VT or AK, and you might have trouble making an incorporation case in NM or AZ as well as several others.

The issue is likely to turn on the stringency of the law in question, such as DC's virtual ban on handgun possession. IL has no concealed or open carry except for politically connected hacks who obtain bogus "Private Investigator" credentials, and NY, even considering Chow's apparant ability to obtain a pistol permit for a first gun and an amendment for a second, generally has draconian laws which make it almost impossible for the average law abiding citizen to even own a handgun, much less carry it.

TX's CHL law is not as good a candidate for incorporation as IL, or NY for that matter.

HGWC wrote:I learned today that there are already two conflicting circuit court opinions and one has already been appealed to the SC as well as others already heading towards the 5th circuit.

But you don't know any details about the one supposedly before the 5th, and only just became aware of the Chucka Stick case, which has been in the NY news and blogs for years.

HGWC wrote:I guess that answers the bulk of the questions I've been asking. The lawyers in those 5th circuit cases, I've yet to see them, must disagree with the folks here about the constitutionality of Texas weapons laws and the value of challenging them in court.

Or maybe they are just in it for the money, in either case it would behoove you to have some knowledge of the cases before you assign motivations for appealing them, maybe it's just another death row desperation throw.

BTW, here's Jim Maloney's web site about his long standing case. Here's a guy who has put his money where his mouth is.

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~jmm257/nunchakulaw.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

jimlongley wrote: TX's CHL law is not as good a candidate for incorporation as IL, or NY for that matter.

I don't see why Texas is any worse candidate for an incorporation case than any other state. The Nordyke case got the incorporation ruling even though they lost on the constitutionality issue. I'm not real familiar with California laws, but as I understand, there are a lot of other laws that may have been a better candidate for the constitutionality issue than the gun show ordinance. The law itself didn't matter though. Any claim of unconstitutionality requires that incorporation has to be settled first regardless of the likelihood of succeeding on the constitutionality issue. Prior to these new grounds on incorporation, these state cases would have just been dismissed outright. In the Chicago case, they have a good chance of winning on the constitutionality issue, but I don't believe that has even been considered yet. They're stuck on the incorporation issue. It's the same issue in Texas and every other state regardless of the likelihood that any specific law is unconstitutional or not. Now I did read that the SC would more likely take the 2nd circuit case over the Nordyke case because they could deal with the constitutionality issue. So, in that respect, the constitutionality issue may be important, but my point is that incorporation is a goal in and of itself. I still don't see why that issue would be different for any state regardless of the specific law in question.