TexasCHLforum.com

I have a question, and I'd like to keep the scope of the discussion more on the side of philosophy and belief rather than practice and tactics.

First... CHL is limited. By that I mean the restrictions are HARDER than simply the ability to buy a handgun. Do you favor opening the restriction to basically allow anyone who can PURCHASE a handgun to be able to obtain a CHL? Further, if you believe that, do you go a step further and believe that anyone who can purchase and own a handgun should be allowed to concealed carry without a permit?

Second... Open carry. Do you support the initiative to make open carry legal? I'm NOT NOT NOT asking if you personally would eschew concealed carry in favor of open, I'm just asking if you support the initiative to make open carry legal or if you're against it.

Please tell me why and why not to all of the above.

1) CHL: NO. I do recommend more Regulations and Certifications, like a yearly marksmanship and safe handling exam. A refresh on the laws or newly introduced laws, etc...
2) Open Carry: I believe that accidental exposure of your handgun should be legal. if Open Carry is legal, than it should be with the same restrictions and licensing as of CHL.

I don't believe a CHL should be required for anyone to be able to carry concealed or openly.

Beiruty wrote:1) CHL: NO. I do recommend more Regulations and Certifications, like a yearly marksmanship and safe handling exam. A refresh on the laws or newly introduced laws, etc...
2) Open Carry: I believe that accidental exposure of your handgun should be legal. if Open Carry is legal, than it should be with the same restrictions and licensing as of CHL.

you happen to have a brother named Frankie?

flb_78 wrote:

Beiruty wrote:1) CHL: NO. I do recommend more Regulations and Certifications, like a yearly marksmanship and safe handling exam. A refresh on the laws or newly introduced laws, etc...
2) Open Carry: I believe that accidental exposure of your handgun should be legal. if Open Carry is legal, than it should be with the same restrictions and licensing as of CHL.

you happen to have a brother named Frankie?

The second amendment says nothing about any qualifications or training.

Beiruty, what other rights are you going to give up so you can purchase more government licenses?

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:

flb_78 wrote:

Beiruty wrote:1) CHL: NO. I do recommend more Regulations and Certifications, like a yearly marksmanship and safe handling exam. A refresh on the laws or newly introduced laws, etc...
2) Open Carry: I believe that accidental exposure of your handgun should be legal. if Open Carry is legal, than it should be with the same restrictions and licensing as of CHL.

you happen to have a brother named Frankie?

The second amendment says nothing about any qualifications or training.

Beiruty, what other rights are you going to give up so you can purchase more government license

Anygunanywhere

If the 2nd goes then so do all of the others.

flb_78 wrote:

Beiruty wrote:1) CHL: NO. I do recommend more Regulations and Certifications, like a yearly marksmanship and safe handling exam. A refresh on the laws or newly introduced laws, etc...
2) Open Carry: I believe that accidental exposure of your handgun should be legal. if Open Carry is legal, than it should be with the same restrictions and licensing as of CHL.

you happen to have a brother named Frankie?

I am not mocking Beiruty....but honestly, the "Frankie" thing was my very first thought too.

I think it is a good idea for CHLs to keep up with changing laws, to practice (when able) and to seek out additional information on the subject, BUT.......I do not want to see this "mandated".

Of course, I am for an Open Carry option.

I find his positions ironic when you read his signature or tagline or whatever you call it at the bottom on one's post.

I like the motto: "Live Free or Die!" Ah! I don't live anymore in NH. However, living in TX is not that bad either!

Morgan wrote:I have a question, and I'd like to keep the scope of the discussion more on the side of philosophy and belief rather than practice and tactics.

First... CHL is limited. By that I mean the restrictions are HARDER than simply the ability to buy a handgun. Do you favor opening the restriction to basically allow anyone who can PURCHASE a handgun to be able to obtain a CHL? Further, if you believe that, do you go a step further and believe that anyone who can purchase and own a handgun should be allowed to concealed carry without a permit?

Second... Open carry. Do you support the initiative to make open carry legal? I'm NOT NOT NOT asking if you personally would eschew concealed carry in favor of open, I'm just asking if you support the initiative to make open carry legal or if you're against it.

Please tell me why and why not to all of the above.

First - Vermont style carry is my personal goal.

Second - See first.

A CHL is the state GRANTING YOU PERMISSION to exrcise your Second Amendment rights.

I have a CHL because I do not want to lose other rights by getting arrested, and I do not have enough money to be a test case.

James Madison: "A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789.


Personally, I think the current Texas situation is pretty good although I feel my personal right to carry should take precedent over the private property right of a business person but the law is not in our favor there. Overall, I think CHL should be regulated to not allow anyone to carry for we shouldn't have to worry about fellow CHL'ers but the bad guys out there.

Although I'm sure our founding fathers would agree with open carry and would not be against it I prefer this to not be an option although I wouldn't stand against it either. My personal philosophy is to be discreet in all things that I do. E.g. to do good without looking for praise, to set someone straight who has wronged me (but in private), and to protect myself and others but not draw attention to it.

flb_78 wrote:I don't believe a CHL should be required for anyone to be able to carry concealed or openly.

This is the way I feel, too. Did not know we needed to take test and pay for the right to abide by our own Constitution. It always amazes me that some many so called 2nd Amendment people favor government over site and restrictions to a Constitutional right.

Why regulations are needed?
Proposition #1: No restrictions what so ever ==>
1) Criminals and convicted felons will request the right to exercise their constitutional rights to own and carry.
2) Mentally institutionalized "actors" will claim the same right.
Proposition #2: No training what so ever ==>
1) CHL actor will shoot innocent civilian when he intent was to stop a threat at 10 yrds. Why this happened? No required training and said actor did have any training whatsoever.
Proposition #3: No refresh course for recently introduced laws.
2) CHL actor acted on his belief that last year and obsolete laws are still in effect. he committed an offense and he wanted to claim ignorance which is a no excuse in the view of the law.

I do not understand why people are against "common sense" regulations when said regulations do enhance the value of CHL.

I think if we have a right we need to protect the right and enhance the value of said right.

Beiruty wrote:Why regulations are needed?
Proposition #1: No restrictions what so ever ==>
1) Criminals and convicted felons will request the right to exercise their constitutional rights to own and carry.
2) Mentally institutionalized "actors" will claim the same right.
Proposition #2: No training what so ever ==>
1) CHL actor will shoot innocent civilian when he intent was to stop a threat at 10 yrds. Why this happened? No required training and said actor did have any training whatsoever.
Proposition #3: No refresh course for recently introduced laws.
2) CHL actor acted on his belief that last year and obsolete laws are still in effect. he committed an offense and he wanted to claim ignorance which is a no excuse in the view of the law.

I do not understand why people are against "common sense" regulations when said regulations do enhance the value of CHL.

I think if we have a right we need to protect the right and enhance the value of said right.

Prop #1-1 Laws against criminals possesing firearms can exist and still allow us to enjoy total freedom to own and carry firearms.

Prop #1-2 Same as above. Besides do you really think that the government should define what is a mental illness????

Prop #2-1 Your insistence on training will not prevent this. LEO shoot bystanders often.

Prop #3 -1 With freedom to carry unimpeded as the second amendment states, this is irrelevant. Besides, you can't legislate stupid away.

If you want to discuss "reasonable restrictions" and "common sense" gun laws you really are in for some heated debate here, my friend.

We don't need no stinking reasonable restrictions or common sense gun laws. They do nothing to enhance the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. I find them offensive and demeaning to me as a citizen. Subjects need them.

I really do think you are a rerun of Frankie-the-Yankee. This is just an observation.

Do a search.

Anygunanywhere

woohoo!!!

MP5 vending machines in airports!!!

Beiruty wrote:Why regulations are needed?
Proposition #1: No restrictions what so ever ==>
1) Criminals and convicted felons will request the right to exercise their constitutional rights to own and carry.
2) Mentally institutionalized "actors" will claim the same right.
Proposition #2: No training what so ever ==>
1) CHL actor will shoot innocent civilian when he intent was to stop a threat at 10 yrds. Why this happened? No required training and said actor did have any training whatsoever.
Proposition #3: No refresh course for recently introduced laws.
2) CHL actor acted on his belief that last year and obsolete laws are still in effect. he committed an offense and he wanted to claim ignorance which is a no excuse in the view of the law.

I do not understand why people are against "common sense" regulations when said regulations do enhance the value of CHL.

I think if we have a right we need to protect the right and enhance the value of said right.

Proposition #1. so what? should G.Gordan Liddy and Martha Stewart not be allowed to own guns because of their "crimes"? If criminals are so bad, then they should be in prison, not walking around.

Proposition #2. Happens to the best trained folks. This would fall under the law of responsibility. One would held accountable for their actions.

Proposition #3. If there were no silly CHL laws, then there would be no need for training. Once again it would come down to one being held responsible for their actions.