TexasCHLforum.com

1. Any business open to the public would not be allowed to prohibit concealed carry by any type of sign unless they could document a specific danger inherent in the environment (e.g. being around an MRI). This would include employers restricting employees from carrying on the job.

2. No more "prohibited places"

Basically, the restrictions would have to be based on something in the physical environment that it would not be safe to have guns around. They could not be restricted based just on someone not liking guns, and/or the false notion that "gun free zones" make people safe.

What I would be willing to give up - a slight increase in training required to get a license. I'm not a fan of allowing just anyone to carry a gun without any type of qualification. The fact that there are qualifications, and that those who meet them are the most law-abiding group in the state, makes it easier to relax the restrictions that are already in place. Besides, if you're going to carry a gun for self defense, part of the shooting qualification should include drawing from a holster (IMO).

mloamiller wrote:1. Any business open to the public would not be allowed to prohibit concealed carry by any type of sign unless they could document a specific danger inherent in the environment (e.g. being around an MRI). This would include employers restricting employees from carrying on the job.

2. No more "prohibited places"

Basically, the restrictions would have to be based on something in the physical environment that it would not be safe to have guns around. They could not be restricted based just on someone not liking guns, and/or the false notion that "gun free zones" make people safe.

What I would be willing to give up - a slight increase in training required to get a license. I'm not a fan of allowing just anyone to carry a gun without any type of qualification. The fact that there are qualifications, and that those who meet them are the most law-abiding group in the state, makes it easier to relax the restrictions that are already in place. Besides, if you're going to carry a gun for self defense, part of the shooting qualification should include drawing from a holster (IMO).

We should just ignore that second amendment that says nothing about qualifiers to keep and bear arms.

anygunanywhere wrote:

mloamiller wrote:1. Any business open to the public would not be allowed to prohibit concealed carry by any type of sign unless they could document a specific danger inherent in the environment (e.g. being around an MRI). This would include employers restricting employees from carrying on the job.

2. No more "prohibited places"

Basically, the restrictions would have to be based on something in the physical environment that it would not be safe to have guns around. They could not be restricted based just on someone not liking guns, and/or the false notion that "gun free zones" make people safe.

What I would be willing to give up - a slight increase in training required to get a license. I'm not a fan of allowing just anyone to carry a gun without any type of qualification. The fact that there are qualifications, and that those who meet them are the most law-abiding group in the state, makes it easier to relax the restrictions that are already in place. Besides, if you're going to carry a gun for self defense, part of the shooting qualification should include drawing from a holster (IMO).

We should just ignore that second amendment that says nothing about qualifiers to keep and bear arms.

Just what your handle says....Anygunanywhere...

anygunanywhere wrote: We should just ignore that second amendment that says nothing about qualifiers to keep and bear arms.

I know what you're saying, and that's a tough one for me. Where do we draw the line, assuming there is a line to be drawn? Do we let kids carry to school, or do we set an age limit? If we set an age limit, we just "infringed" on the right. What about types of guns? Can anyone carry a full-automatic rifle - a true assault rifle - with a suppressor? If not, we just infringed again. Should those who have a lengthy medical history of mental instability be allowed to carry a gun everywhere they go? If not, there's another one. What about a convicted felon who has been in and out of prison for armed robbery, aggravated assault, etc?

It seems to me that when it comes to guns, there needs to be some reasonable infringements in the name of public safety, and I'm OK with that. What I'm not OK with is when those infringements are based strictly on someone's irrational fear and/or personal agenda, and not on any legitimate safety concern.

Just my opinion.

Mloamiller, your reasonable restriction is an infringement to others rights. Your argument is the same as the progs use to restrict all of our freedoms. We don't need no more reasonable restrictions. You can give up all you want. Your decision. I'm not giving up any more. Not one more inch.

mloamiller wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: We should just ignore that second amendment that says nothing about qualifiers to keep and bear arms.

I know what you're saying, and that's a tough one for me. Where do we draw the line, assuming there is a line to be drawn? Do we let kids carry to school, or do we set an age limit? If we set an age limit, we just "infringed" on the right. What about types of guns? Can anyone carry a full-automatic rifle - a true assault rifle - with a suppressor? If not, we just infringed again. Should those who have a lengthy medical history of mental instability be allowed to carry a gun everywhere they go? If not, there's another one. What about a convicted felon who has been in and out of prison for armed robbery, aggravated assault, etc?

It seems to me that when it comes to guns, there needs to be some reasonable infringements in the name of public safety, and I'm OK with that. What I'm not OK with is when those infringements are based strictly on someone's irrational fear and/or personal agenda, and not on any legitimate safety concern.

Just my opinion.

From 1776 to 1934 (National Firearms Act) this country got along with no restrictions. None of the "problems" today are really new. The only part that is new is that most of the population has been disarmed, so they are largely defenseless against evil.

Pawpaw wrote:

mloamiller wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: We should just ignore that second amendment that says nothing about qualifiers to keep and bear arms.

I know what you're saying, and that's a tough one for me. Where do we draw the line, assuming there is a line to be drawn? Do we let kids carry to school, or do we set an age limit? If we set an age limit, we just "infringed" on the right. What about types of guns? Can anyone carry a full-automatic rifle - a true assault rifle - with a suppressor? If not, we just infringed again. Should those who have a lengthy medical history of mental instability be allowed to carry a gun everywhere they go? If not, there's another one. What about a convicted felon who has been in and out of prison for armed robbery, aggravated assault, etc?

It seems to me that when it comes to guns, there needs to be some reasonable infringements in the name of public safety, and I'm OK with that. What I'm not OK with is when those infringements are based strictly on someone's irrational fear and/or personal agenda, and not on any legitimate safety concern.

Just my opinion.

From 1776 to 1934 (National Firearms Act) this country got along with no restrictions. None of the "problems" today are really new. The only part that is new is that most of the population has been disarmed, so they are largely defenseless against evil.

We got by from 1789 to 1934 without any FEDERAL restrictions on firearms, but many states, including Texas had restrictive carry laws for handguns, and various permitting schemes. Only McDonald v. Chicago (2010) incorporated the 2nd amendment on the states, after District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) established it as an individual right...

mloamiller wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: We should just ignore that second amendment that says nothing about qualifiers to keep and bear arms.

I know what you're saying, and that's a tough one for me. Where do we draw the line, assuming there is a line to be drawn? Do we let kids carry to school, or do we set an age limit? If we set an age limit, we just "infringed" on the right. What about types of guns? Can anyone carry a full-automatic rifle - a true assault rifle - with a suppressor? If not, we just infringed again. Should those who have a lengthy medical history of mental instability be allowed to carry a gun everywhere they go? If not, there's another one. What about a convicted felon who has been in and out of prison for armed robbery, aggravated assault, etc?

It seems to me that when it comes to guns, there needs to be some reasonable infringements in the name of public safety, and I'm OK with that. What I'm not OK with is when those infringements are based strictly on someone's irrational fear and/or personal agenda, and not on any legitimate safety concern.

Just my opinion.

Setting a limit on age is not an infringement. Minors don't have the same rights as adults. How many 5 year old children can get a drivers license? Full auto rifles. I personally don't see why someone that can own a semi-auto can't own a full auto. You can buy a full auto tommy gun and get a federal stamp (tax) if you have the money. Why did the government make a date cutoff on full auto? To enable the rich and famous to be able to buy one but not us peons. Mental instability, that's a different story. The problem with restricting them from firearms is that the government has virtually made their caregivers criminal for releasing information. Convicted felons have given up their rights including in many cases the right to vote. Obviously not the right to visit the White House 300+ times as per the recent dirty trick videos revealed.
The real issue in my mind is whether any of these "common sense" restrictions work? I read that minority women are now the biggest purchasers of handguns but what are they doing with them? In many cases they are buying them for their significant other who can not legally own a gun. So who gets hurt by these reasonable laws, normal law abiding people. Is the public safer in Chicago with their gun laws? If you find a gun in NYC and as a good citizen bring it to a police station you are going to jail. Does that make sense?

I would be willing to give up tax dollars being spent to enforce unconstitutional infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, so the justice system has the resources to get a few more rapists and robbers off the streets.

Just to keep it simple: I'm not willing to give up anything.

I'd give up Oprah, Rosie, and Hanoi Jane.

Pawpaw wrote:I'd give up Oprah, Rosie, and Hanoi Jane.

You still watch them?

Pawpaw wrote:I'd give up Oprah, Rosie, and Hanoi Jane.

I gave them up years ago.
--

der Teufel wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:I'd give up Oprah, Rosie, and Hanoi Jane.

I gave them up years ago.
--

Me too, but that's about all I'm willing to give up to drop the restrictions.

I'd really jump on the bandwagon if it meant those three (and a few others) would be forcibly evicted from the country.

parabelum wrote:30 pounds.

Only 30?