TexasCHLforum.com

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Beiruty wrote:mere carrying of firearms in the public for non-felons should not be a crime. Case closed.

No actually. Entering a restaurant with a rifle at the low ready should be.

i would be willing to bet that if OC for handguns passes you won't have these idiots running around with their AR's and AK's....the only reason they do it now is because it's legal and handguns are not....why would anybody want to carry a rifle slung on their back when they can carry a much lighter sidearm on their hip?

GlockDude26 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Beiruty wrote:mere carrying of firearms in the public for non-felons should not be a crime. Case closed.

No actually. Entering a restaurant with a rifle at the low ready should be.

i would be willing to bet that if OC for handguns passes you won't have these idiots running around with their AR's and AK's....the only reason they do it now is because it's legal and handguns are not....why would anybody want to carry a rifle slung on their back when they can carry a much lighter sidearm on their hip?

They won't stop because the only OC that has a chance of passing is licensed OC and they can't get the License.

jmra wrote:

GlockDude26 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Beiruty wrote:mere carrying of firearms in the public for non-felons should not be a crime. Case closed.

No actually. Entering a restaurant with a rifle at the low ready should be.

i would be willing to bet that if OC for handguns passes you won't have these idiots running around with their AR's and AK's....the only reason they do it now is because it's legal and handguns are not....why would anybody want to carry a rifle slung on their back when they can carry a much lighter sidearm on their hip?

They won't stop because the only OC that has a chance of passing is licensed OC and they can't get the License.

They have already started. "Why should I need to pay a tax and get a license to carry openly, when it's a right?"

Saw that on my facebooks this morning.

While they are right, politics is a messy beast, and if licensed open carry is what we can get, its better than nothing. We can fight for unlicensed later on, once licensed proves to be a no brainer.

I'm also not an idiot and understand the idea of compromise.

I don't believe the current Right to Bear Arms (long guns) in Texas is going away so people will always have the right to Bear Arms. If this somehow morphs into a license requirement for Long Guns we have a really big problem...

nitrogen wrote:

jmra wrote:

GlockDude26 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Beiruty wrote:mere carrying of firearms in the public for non-felons should not be a crime. Case closed.

No actually. Entering a restaurant with a rifle at the low ready should be.

i would be willing to bet that if OC for handguns passes you won't have these idiots running around with their AR's and AK's....the only reason they do it now is because it's legal and handguns are not....why would anybody want to carry a rifle slung on their back when they can carry a much lighter sidearm on their hip?

They won't stop because the only OC that has a chance of passing is licensed OC and they can't get the License.

They have already started. "Why should I need to pay a tax and get a license to carry openly, when it's a right?"
[ Image ]
Saw that on my facebooks this morning.

While they are right, politics is a messy beast, and if licensed open carry is what we can get, its better than nothing. We can fight for unlicensed later on, once licensed proves to be a no brainer.

I'm also not an idiot and understand the idea of compromise.

It's interesting how this argument has morphed over the last year or so. They used to argue "1st Amendment License," then it switched to a tax. Both arguments are faulty.

1. One must be registered to vote, so is one's Voter Registration Card a license?
2. First Amendment protects and guarantees a free press, yet publishers of newspapers and magazines must have various business licenses (varies by state), so is that taxing a constitutional right?

I understand the strained argument, but it's more hyperbole than fact and such contentions only appeal to a very limited audience, like preaching to the choir. The rest of the population just roll their eyes and think "gun nut." That doesn't help the Second Amendment cause.

To me, the far better argument is to remove the fee, because the background check and processing is done in the interest of public safety. Therefore, the public should cover the cost. It's the same concept as tax supported police, fire, ambulance protections, DPS weigh stations, 911 service and countless other public safety services. (I also think that the only people that should be disqualified for a CHL are those who are prohibited by state or federal law from possessing firearms, but that's another topic.)

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: To me, the far better argument is to remove the fee, because the background check and processing is done in the interest of public safety. Therefore, the public should cover the cost. It's the same concept as tax supported police, fire, ambulance protections, DPS weigh stations, 911 service and countless other public safety services. (I also think that the only people that should be disqualified for a CHL are those who are prohibited by state or federal law from possessing firearms, but that's another topic.)

That argument makes perfect sense to me. But to draw that conclusion out, ff general taxpayers should fund anything that supports public safety, shouldn't they cover things like vehicle inspections, driver's education, etc? Or are those things different because they're not rights?

My practical preference - especially when pushing things through the government - would to self fund, IE - charge a fee. It might be slightly more palatable to the general public if they know that they're tax dollars aren't covering it. And I'm tired of things being pushed through without a source of actual funding. And it does make create an argument - a valid one - about how we're essentially "taxing" constitution rights.

I too, am conflicted about requiring a fee for what is explicitly laid out as a constitutional right.... I'm also practical and understand that unlicensed, unchecked carry of firearms isn't going to be a political reality in Texas.

Personally, I don't mind paying a fee for something that not everyone uses.

I'd prefer granting waivers for anyone near the "poverty line" for the fees, and maybe even giving some vouchers for training (say $75 toward a $150 class or something)

In govt, we give away too much stuff, and I like reinforcing the idea that things have costs, even if you're "poor". But that's just me.


To answer the original question, though: I would probably open carry while riding my motorcycle, only because it's a lot easier and a lot less HOT when it's 100 degrees out.

The article said:

They said a man approached them and asked for a cigarette. Talk eventually turned to the victim's new purchase, before the robber pulled his own gun from his waistband and said, "I like your gun, give it to me," according to police.

The victim handed over his gun and the suspect ran away.

I would have complied.......muzzle end first.....and that is where the transaction would have stopped. Note that the thief—armed with TWO guns, and leaving the victim and his friend defenseless—RAN AWAY. The thief may have been an opportunist, but victim was an idiot......unless his gun was unloaded, in which case he was a retarded idiot.

GlockDude26 wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

Beiruty wrote:mere carrying of firearms in the public for non-felons should not be a crime. Case closed.

No actually. Entering a restaurant with a rifle at the low ready should be.

i would be willing to bet that if OC for handguns passes you won't have these idiots running around with their AR's and AK's....the only reason they do it now is because it's legal and handguns are not....why would anybody want to carry a rifle slung on their back when they can carry a much lighter sidearm on their hip?

Because slung long guns are more obvious than holstered handguns, and what some of them appear to want the most is attention. Long gun OC just seems to be their preferred method to get it.

cb1000rider wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: To me, the far better argument is to remove the fee, because the background check and processing is done in the interest of public safety. Therefore, the public should cover the cost. It's the same concept as tax supported police, fire, ambulance protections, DPS weigh stations, 911 service and countless other public safety services. (I also think that the only people that should be disqualified for a CHL are those who are prohibited by state or federal law from possessing firearms, but that's another topic.)

That argument makes perfect sense to me. But to draw that conclusion out, ff general taxpayers should fund anything that supports public safety, shouldn't they cover things like vehicle inspections, driver's education, etc? Or are those things different because they're not rights?

That's exactly the argument I would make to avoid the issue of having the government/taxpayers pay everything that is related to public safety. People who weren't around when poll taxes were charged (I remember them only as a child), think they were designed solely to keep minorities from voting. That's not true at all, at least not in Texas. The "tax" or fee was so low it didn't keep anyone from voting. The money was used to support voting machines and other expenses of an election. I agree with poll taxes being struck down, but on the grounds that fees related to a citizen exercising a constitutional right should be borne by the taxpayer, not the individual exercising the right.

Another fallacy in arguing that the CHL license fee is a tax, is that taxes are not set amounts, but are calculated based upon income, purchases (sales tax), etc. Set amounts like CHL licenses, automobile license tags, building permits, etc. are fees, not taxes. They like to use the word "tax" because it produces a stronger emotional response. The tactic is just as dishonest as when anti-gunners and media refer to someone under age 21 (or 18) as a "child."

Chas.