Page 3 of 5

Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:08 pm
by stevie_d_64
seamusTX wrote:
stevie_d_64 wrote:Creating law where some classes of citizens are allowed to carry in situations where others of equal qualifications and status are not, just because of a uniform, in this case, is something I do not agree with...
I agree. Someone who is in the military has no particular training in carrying a weapon in the civilian environment. A person who is "active duty military" could be a communications technician or medical personnel who hasn't touched a weapon since basic training.

When the CHL was first debated, people were afraid that CHL holders would "go off" in certain situations, so we got all the prohibited places in 46.035. I think the 12-year history of CHL holders now shows that they are unnecessary. (Does anyone honestly think a CHL holder is going to try to spring a prisoner from jail?)

- Jim
Well not to toot my own horn...

When I was in the fleet...I out shot everyone on the ship, and became the "long gun" on board at that time...Made for interesting high-cover watches in ports where we might not have been looked upon with a great amount of affection...

I was not a Gunners Mate, nor someone who had been given special training...I just had a good knack for shooting accurately, and had good sense...

That has pretty much changed now... :lol:

But I was just a radar operator...Thats all...

Maybe being from Texas had something to do with it??? ;-)

Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:51 pm
by CWOOD
seeker_two wrote:Cut the CHL application fee by 75% for all persons..... :grin:
Actually, over time the fees are not that bad now.

The initial $140 was a bit steep for me at the time, but that only works out to $35 per year

Renewals at half price, $70 for five years is only $14 per year.

My next renewal will only be $7 per year. I guess that tells you something about me.

After that Initial fee, it is not too bad really.

Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:55 pm
by AEA
My renewal is at 7.00 per year this time but that is because I am a Veteran.
The next renewal I will be at the same place you are now (**GRIN**) and wondering if it will go down again to 3.50 per year?

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:44 pm
by seeker_two
CWOOD wrote:
seeker_two wrote:Cut the CHL application fee by 75% for all persons..... :grin:
Actually, over time the fees are not that bad now.

The initial $140 was a bit steep for me at the time, but that only works out to $35 per year

Renewals at half price, $70 for five years is only $14 per year.

My next renewal will only be $7 per year. I guess that tells you something about me.

After that Initial fee, it is not too bad really.
Good for you....but for some people, $140 is real money. And I don't believe that someone should be denied a Constitutional right just because they can't cut another check to Austin (who spends our taxes SO well..... :roll: )

Posted: Tue Oct 30, 2007 6:20 pm
by stevie_d_64
seeker_two wrote:
CWOOD wrote:
seeker_two wrote:Cut the CHL application fee by 75% for all persons..... :grin:
Actually, over time the fees are not that bad now.

The initial $140 was a bit steep for me at the time, but that only works out to $35 per year

Renewals at half price, $70 for five years is only $14 per year.

My next renewal will only be $7 per year. I guess that tells you something about me.

After that Initial fee, it is not too bad really.
Good for you....but for some people, $140 is real money. And I don't believe that someone should be denied a Constitutional right just because they can't cut another check to Austin (who spends our taxes SO well..... :roll: )
Irony and sarcasm will get you far here! ;-)

Re: Wait 'til next year

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:36 pm
by ShootingStar
Ammend the Texas State and Federal laws prohibiting the confiscation of firearms during a disaster to make it a felony to do so; for all parties involved in the confiscation. Those who give the orders as well as those who carry them out. As it stands now, in a disaster, they could take your guns and just say "sue me". Manwhile, you wuld be without any protection like what happened in New Orleans. As far as I know the city still hasn't given all of the people's guns back. Even though a judge told them to.

Make it a seperate crime to fire or bring any charges against any LEO who refuses to follow such an order and force his department to pay the cost of his legal defense OR a his Lawyer if he decides to sue whoever fired him for not following such an order. Put in protections of the LEOs brave enough to stand up for what's right. I sure would hate to be in their shoes when someone gave me an order to do something I knew would prevent people from defending themselves.

With most laws governing what governmental entities can and can't do, there usually isn't a penalty for them when they violate the law. Since most people don't have the money to sue for their rights, this would prevent what I consider paying to get your rights back in court.

-ss

Re: Wait 'til next year

Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:42 pm
by tomneal
I thought the Katrina gun confiscation law passed in Texas in 2007

There was only one item from our wish list that did not pass was the parking lot bill.

(Packing at college didn't get brought up until the session was half over.)

The national Katrina gun confiscation law came up but I don't remember that we won.

Re: Wait 'til next year

Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 4:44 pm
by tomneal
My goal is:
CHL Holders can pack anywhere Texas Law Enforcement Officers can pack.


You mentioned some of the steps along the way.

Re: Wait 'til next year

Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:40 pm
by RKirby
tomneal wrote:My goal is:
CHL Holders can pack anywhere Texas Law Enforcement Officers can pack.
:iagree:

Can't be stated any better than that! :thumbs2:

Re: Wait 'til next year

Posted: Sun Jan 13, 2008 8:19 pm
by frankie_the_yankee
Russell wrote: Next, it would be removal of the prohibition against carrying at a 51% posted location as long as the actor is not drinking alcohol AT ALL, and a professional sporting event (that one is just ridiculous)
As long as they also pass a law that says LEO's can't drink AT ALL when carrying in a 51% establishment, that would be OK with me. Right now, LEO's can drink in 51% establishments, or anywhere alse where drinking is allowed, to their heart's content. Even to the point of getting intoxicated while carrying. (As TXI pointed out once, there is no law currently prohibiting LEO's from getting intoxicated while carrying. The current law only applies to CHL's.)

Under your proposal, if I wanted to drink while carrying, I could just go to a restaurant of course, (not posted 51%)where it is perfectly legal to drink while carrying right now (and presumably would remain so since you didn't mention changing it), provided one does not become intoxicated or under the influence. I would regard that as a minor inconvenience, since most of my "public drinking" such as it is, consists of a glass of wine or a beer with a meal. I very seldom visit 51% places.

But it would seem strange that I could enjoy a drink at a restaurant but not at a 51% place.

Re: Wait 'til next year

Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2008 6:16 am
by numist
frankie_the_yankee wrote:
Russell wrote: Next, it would be removal of the prohibition against carrying at a 51% posted location as long as the actor is not drinking alcohol AT ALL, and a professional sporting event (that one is just ridiculous)
As long as they also pass a law that says LEO's can't drink AT ALL when carrying in a 51% establishment, that would be OK with me. Right now, LEO's can drink in 51% establishments, or anywhere alse where drinking is allowed, to their heart's content. Even to the point of getting intoxicated while carrying. (As TXI pointed out once, there is no law currently prohibiting LEO's from getting intoxicated while carrying. The current law only applies to CHL's.)
This might be a reason not to let LEO (or anyone else) drink while packing:

Monday, Jan 14, 2008
Posted on Sun, Jan. 13, 2008
2 Dallas cops fired over singer gun case

The Associated Press
Two city police officers accused of holding country music singer Steve Holy and a friend at gunpoint during a home game of foosball have been fired.
Officers Randy Anderson, 25, and Paul Loughridge, 48, each face a misdemeanor charge of deadly conduct in connection with the Dec. 27 allegation. If convicted, they could face a year in jail and a fine of up to $4,000.

"Their behavior that night is disturbing and not consistent with how we expect our Dallas police officers to perform," said Police Chief David Kunkle, who fired the men Friday.

Holy and his friend said they met the two officers at a bar, then went to Holy's house to play foosball in his garage.

According to police reports, Anderson began questioning the identity of Holy, whose songs include "Brand New Girlfriend."

Holy and his friend told police that Anderson and Loughridge pointed their guns at them and told them to get on the ground. Before the officers left, the report says, Anderson told Holy that he'd kill him if he said anything about the incident.

Holy declined to comment on the firings. "I have a lot to say when it's time to say it," he said.

However, his lawyer, Toby Shook, said the firings were "a no-brainer on Chief Kunkle's part."

"It's clear that everyone who has looked at the facts of the case have found these two officers aren't credible," Shook said. "They're the ones that got fired. They're the ones that fled the scene that night; the victims called 911 right away."

Loughridge questioned the weight given the 911 call. "After listening to the 911 tapes, the level of credibility given these two gentlemen is astounding, and in fact, it's actually scary," he said.

Anderson had no comment except that he said he agreed with Loughridge.

On the 911 recording, the operator sounded frustrated by an inability to get information from Holy, who told her several times that he's a recording artist.

When she tried to ask Holy if the two officers left together, he answered: "He put a gun to our heads."

"OK, you told me that at least five or six times," she said. "I have that. I understand that."

Shook has acknowledged that his client had been drinking, but said the confusion heard on the 911 call came from the shock of the experience.

Re: Wait 'til next year

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:32 am
by frankie_the_yankee
This might be a reason not to let LEO (or anyone else) drink while packing:
All I see there is a reason to fire two irresponsible cops. If the allegations are true, I wouldn't want those guys on the street with badges and guns whether they had been drinking or not.

I do not see where their behavior, as alleged, is in any way typical of people who have had one drink and/or are not intoxicated.

I went out to eat tonight with my sister who is visiting from Florida. I had a bottle of Corona along with what proved to be a very nice steak. All the time my Para Carry 6.45 LDA was tucked in at its customary 3 o'clock position.

I didn't have any problems.

Re: Wait 'til next year

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 3:59 am
by numist
frankie_the_yankee wrote:
This might be a reason not to let LEO (or anyone else) drink while packing:
All I see there is a reason to fire two irresponsible cops. If the allegations are true, I wouldn't want those guys on the street with badges and guns whether they had been drinking or not.

I do not see where their behavior, as alleged, is in any way typical of people who have had one drink and/or are not intoxicated.

I went out to eat tonight with my sister who is visiting from Florida. I had a bottle of Corona along with what proved to be a very nice steak. All the time my Para Carry 6.45 LDA was tucked in at its customary 3 o'clock position.

I didn't have any problems.
I'm sure that some people hold there liquor (beer, wine, whatever) better than others. I've always been of the opinion that weapons and alcohol go together like a match in a fireworks stand.

Re: CHL

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:24 pm
by Liko81
USMC-COL wrote:I'd like to see the CHL cover ALL legal weapons such as legal knives as defined by state law (less than 5.5" blade). There are jurisdictions within TX that prohibit any knife that locks - such as San Antonio.

The CHL could be similar to Florida's CWFL (concealed weapons and firearms license). In FL if you have a CWFL you can carry any weapon not otherwise prohibited by law.
Basically you want state pre-emption; except as specifically prescribed by state law, no local jurisdiction's weapons laws could override the State statute. I agree; I think it's a great thing to have, and it's a good first step towards OC of all types of weapons.