TexasCHLforum.com

In searching for legal constructs against the typical licensing requirements for concealed carry of handguns, this popped up on the monitor. I have not read it out to the end of the links, but on the face of it, it is interesting and may be especially pertinent to Texas, which does not permit open carry. Of course, this is just some guy on the web posting his own opinion, so take it for what you think it's worth. But this individual does seem to go a little father and a little deeper than the average ranter you run into.

http://www.mega.nu/ccwappeal.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, I kind of agree in principle, but this is one of the points I'm willing to be a little flexible on in practice. (Not that my opinion affects reality in any way.) In my libertarian, less-government mind, I believe you should be able to carry whatever you want, wherever you want and not need permission from the state to do so. State law should not be able to supersede the 2nd in any case.

However, in this day and age, it is very difficult for law enforcement to differentiate good guys from bad guys. One solution would be that we issue felons Bad Guy Cards (BGC) and then make it a law that they have to carry them and present them whenever asked for ID and then tell the LEO what weapons they are carrying and where. Problem is that bad guys often don't seem to comply with the law and they would probably forget and leave their BGCs at home and still carry their weapons and forget to ID themselves as bad guys.

So... from an administrative perspective, it's easier to issue the Good Guy Cards (CHL) and it seems the good guys are not nearly as forgetful about carrying their cards.

android wrote:So... from an administrative perspective, it's easier to issue the Good Guy Cards (CHL) and it seems the good guys are not nearly as forgetful about carrying their cards.

I'm still waiting for my good guy badge!!

I have no problems with Felons carrying firearms.

If these people are so bad and cannot be trusted, they need to be removed from the system via execution or imprisonment.

Also, if everyone carried a firearm, then the first couple of times someone did something stupid in public with it, it'd most likely be the last time they ever did something stupid.

austinrealtor wrote:

android wrote:So... from an administrative perspective, it's easier to issue the Good Guy Cards (CHL) and it seems the good guys are not nearly as forgetful about carrying their cards.

I'm still waiting for my good guy badge!!

CHL badges ???.

flb_78 wrote:I have no problems with Felons carrying firearms.

If these people are so bad and cannot be trusted, they need to be removed from the system via execution or imprisonment.

Also, if everyone carried a firearm, then the first couple of times someone did something stupid in public with it, it'd most likely be the last time they ever did something stupid.

I could not agree more. If a person cannot be trusted with a gun it is because they cannot be trusted not to take another persons rights. So, the gun is not the issue but instead the convicts ability to live in society and be trusted not to use violence or the threat of violence. If they cannot they need to be either locked up permanently or dead. As it is now we restrict their rights to own a gun but not their ability to commit violence. Because of that the innocent public, to include LEOs, are forced to defend themselves and society from these violent people. Because of this the criminal is often seriously injured or killed, possibly suffering terribly, when a life imprisonment or a humane death in a controlled environment would have protected society as well as allow time for the criminal to prepare for his/her death.

Is the current system working? No. How is it better to have a system where punishment is not the goal? We punish rebellious children to insure they do the right thing so why do we not do the same for those adults who refuse to obey the laws and respect the rights of others? Our system is based on reform and it doesn't work. It has also caused laws to be enacted to control the behavior of those who do not follow law.

If violent criminals are removed from society we have no need for gun laws at all. We don't have laws that add punishment to a person who harms or kills someone because they use metal pipes so why do we have to have gun control? The people injured or killed with the pipe are still injured or dead just as if they were shot.

It is time our laws are reformed to punish and permanently take the violent people out of society and stop punishing the majority that are innocent. Gun control is not about guns. It is about control. That is why our governments always fight to keep the system as it is.

Android, I gotta ask, are you an Aggie?

Agree to a certain extent that if a felon cannot be trusted with a gun, then he/she can't be trusted to live outside the cell anyway. BUT ... I think the ban on felons possessing guns serves two distinct purposes:

1. It is a lifelong punishment for criminals who society deems are not required to serve life-long incarceration. As such, it is another deterrent to crime ... you won't just get locked up for a few years, you'll also lose some rights for life. Agree or disagree, I think this is one of the compelling arguments for keeping the no guns for felons status quo. The fine line between a "right" and a "privilege" can be debated, but I like the fact that as a law-abiding citizen my whole life I enjoy more rights/privileges than someone who once committed extreme acts of crime (a felony). For committing a felony, there should be some life-long repercusions even after you've been "rehabilitated".

2. It also gives LEO an easy "gotcha" to put some of these punks back behind bars after they've been released without being fully "rehabilitated". Anyone with half a brain can work the penal system, get early parole, and be right back out on the streets planning their next crime. By making gun possession by felons illegal, you give the police something relatively minor to "catch" these repeat offenders before they actually commit their next felony. This is a huge benefit to LEOs trying to stop organized gang activity. Most of these gang-bangers, when they get out, go right back to "the life", which is a hard life to live without a firearm. So by taking away their right to own a firearm, you possibly make some of them think twice about entering that life in the first place (doubtful) or at least about re-entering it (also, a stretch, but some validity to that possibility). And even if the "deterrent" nature of no-guns-for-felons doesn't work, at least the police have the grounds to arrest these punks again if they're found with a gun in their possession.

I have a very low tolerance for "rehabilitated" felons. If they truly want to change their ways and live life on the straight and narrow like the rest of us, great. But they should be held to a higher standard. They've already demonstrated their propensity for not following the law, why should they return to society to enjoy all the same rights as a law-abiding citizens who has never committed a felony? Is this analogous to some life-long "scarlett letter"? Certainly, but if you don't want to wear the scarlett letter, then don't committ the felony in the first place.

austinrealtor wrote:...but if you don't want to wear the scarlett letter, then don't committ the felony in the first place.

My wife is fond of saying, "If you didn't want to go to Chicago, why did you get on the train?"

While the SCOTUS reached no conclusion in Heller regarding concealed carry laws, concealed carry is mentioned frequently throughout the opinion, and the Court quoted favorably from the post Civil War treatise of J. Kent Commentaries on American Law (1873), to wit:

"...it has been a subject of grave discussion, in some of the state courts, whether a statute prohibiting persons, when not on a journey, or as travellers, from wearing or carrying concealed weapons, be constitutional. There has been a great difference of opinion on the question."

It ain't over 'til it's over. And it ain't even got of the ground yet. All those states, raking in all that dough, turning a right into a privilege...one of these days the entire scheme is going to hit a brick wall.