Changing Texas gun laws

[gdanaher]

Some people believe that the right to keep and bear arms should be infringed, and only the police and military should be allowed to carry in certain places. There's a word for those people but it's against forum rules to say it out loud.

There are reasons why not everyone can legally buy a gun from a dealer. Not everyone needs a gun or should be able to buy one: A lot of convicted felons can tend to be dangerous even without a gun, but it can tip the boat, and crossobows just aren't that handy to carry. Some people are not mentally prepared, especially if they are off their meds, and then there is the occasional idiot that makes headlines. So yes, some of us think that some folk's rights to carry SHOULD be infringed, because for the rest of us, those few are dangerous.

[Cobra Medic]

There must somehow be some reason for this, and given their high intellect, wisdom, and knowledge, they must have done this for good cause.

It's exactly the same reason for Chicago gun laws.

I wish the people who love gun control would up and move to Chicago. They would be happier living in a gun control paradise and Texans would be happier not having our rights violated.

EVERYBODY WINS!

[anygunanywhere]

It appears that your elected officials in Austin have chosen to write state legislation which distinguishes the rights of sworn peace officers from those who hold concealed handgun licenses, or visa versa. There must somehow be some reason for this, and given their high intellect, wisdom, and knowledge, they must have done this for good cause. If that reasoning doesn't work, remember that these laws were created and later reviewed by Republican legislatures and Republican governors. Does anyone think that CHL holders would have greater flexibility had these legislatures been predominantly Democratic?

The second amendment infringement started soon after the nation was formed and has progressed through many itterations including reconstruction after the war of northern agression.

To state that our current limitations on concealed carry are the full responsibility of recent legislative sessions is to ignore history.

In most instances, second amendment restrictions have occurred at the federal level and have been pushed on the states.

Are you an individual who subscribes to the theory that we as free men must be burdened with reasonable restrictions and common sense gun laws in order to keep us in line?

Anygunanywhere

[anygunanywhere]

Some people believe that the right to keep and bear arms should be infringed, and only the police and military should be allowed to carry in certain places. There's a word for those people but it's against forum rules to say it out loud.

There are reasons why not everyone can legally buy a gun from a dealer. Not everyone needs a gun or should be able to buy one: A lot of convicted felons can tend to be dangerous even without a gun, but it can tip the boat, and crossobows just aren't that handy to carry. Some people are not mentally prepared, especially if they are off their meds, and then there is the occasional idiot that makes headlines. So yes, some of us think that some folk's rights to carry SHOULD be infringed, because for the rest of us, those few are dangerous.

Just because someone is a past felon does not remove their right to defend themselves. There are a few ex-felons I know whom I would trust with a firearm much more than most of the elected officials ruling us now.

Anygunanywhere

[gdanaher]

So, are you saying you have no problem with a convicted bank robber buying and carrying a gun into a bank because he is exercising his constitutional right?

[apostate]

You haven't provided enough information for me to answer the question. If he's rehabilitated himself, he's no greater danger to society than anyone else. If he has not, and he's still a danger to society, I have a big problem with letting him out of prison in the first place.

[74novaman]

I've noticed when someone doesn't have solid reasoning for a position they hold, they tend to resort to "what if" scenarios to attack anything counter to their feelings and beliefs.

To play the little what if game though, I'll throw this out there: If a former criminal can't be entrusted with basic constitutional rights because they're so dangerous....why are they out on the streets in the first place?

[gdanaher]

I've noticed when someone doesn't have solid reasoning for a position they hold, they tend to resort to "what if" scenarios to attack anything counter to their feelings and beliefs.

To play the little what if game though, I'll throw this out there: If a former criminal can't be entrusted with basic constitutional rights because they're so dangerous....why are they out on the streets in the first place?

Because the penal system was such a financial drain on society that the criminal was released well in advance of when he should have been, thus expecting the community to provide the balance of his rehab. Sorry if I disagree with your liberal approach. Forgive and forget, turn the other cheek usually doesn't work for me. Yes, there are exceptions, but if a criminal uses the Internet to commit a crime, part of the agreement to let him go free is to stay away from the Internet. Well, one would hope anyway. In this context, there is nothing magical about firearms. If a criminal used such a weapon to commit a crime and does 20 years, it is inconceivable that society would permit him to legally purchase one. We aren't talking about innocent people being released, or pardons from the governor. Just my opinion.

[74novaman]

You missed the point and took off on a rant, but I'm not going to continue debating "what ifs" to the further derailment of this thread.

To the OP, I'd like to reiterate what I said on page 1:

The TSRA and NRA are both excellent organizations to join to support gun rights in Texas. This forum is also an excellent resource when the Texas congress is in session, as the administrator Charles is very plugged into Texas politics, and will even provide contact info for congresscritters who need to hear from pro gun Texas folks during session. In addition, researching candidates stances on the 2nd amendment and supporting pro 2A candidates with money/volunteer time during primary season is an excellent way to further improve Texas gun laws.

[gringo pistolero]

So, are you saying you have no problem with a convicted bank robber buying and carrying a gun into a bank because he is exercising his constitutional right?

That's your argument why law abiding citizens who have a CHL shouldn't be able to carry the same places off duty cops can? Because you think we're the same as convicted bank robbers.

I only have one answer that doesn't violate forum rules and it's clicking this link. [Moderator's note: The link was removed because it was an underhanded trick to make Members think it was a link to a thread. Instead, it was a link that would have added another Member to your "Foes List" and you would not have seen that Member's posts. This is the first time a Member has ever done something like this, but from now on, it will be automatic banning.]

[C-dub]

Some people believe that the right to keep and bear arms should be infringed, and only the police and military should be allowed to carry in certain places. There's a word for those people but it's against forum rules to say it out loud.

I'll say it. They are WRONG!

[C-dub]

I won't say everywhere but someone with a CHL should be legal to carry everywhere an off duty LEO can carry.

If the state gave to chl holders the same rights to arrest and other police powers as leo's, then I would agree. In that absence, chl is a few steps behind a leo, does not have to answer to the same standard, and hence should not have the same flexibility.

What about retired LEOs and LEOSA? Retired LEOs are no longer held to the same standards or have the same authority that their active brethren have, but they can still carry anywhere that an actively serving LEO can. So why do they get rights that the rest of us don't? Because they once had a job which they no longer have?

If that's your argument, then LEOSA should not apply to retired LEOs......but it does.....so CHLs should be able to carry anywhere that a retired LEO can carry under LEOSA.

Beat that.

I didn't know that. That bites. I'd say we gotta get that fixed, but all that would happen is they would probably take away the retired LEOs rights.

[anygunanywhere]

So, are you saying you have no problem with a convicted bank robber buying and carrying a gun into a bank because he is exercising his constitutional right?

No, I don't because.....

You haven't provided enough information for me to answer the question. If he's rehabilitated himself, he's no greater danger to society than anyone else. If he has not, and he's still a danger to society, I have a big problem with letting him out of prison in the first place.

This.

Why will you not answer all of the questions posed to you, Mr. Danaher?

Exactly how many reasonable restrictions and common sense gun laws do you think are allowed to infringe on other's second amendment rights?

Anygunanywhere

[gdanaher]

So, are you saying you have no problem with a convicted bank robber buying and carrying a gun into a bank because he is exercising his constitutional right?

No, I don't because.....

You haven't provided enough information for me to answer the question. If he's rehabilitated himself, he's no greater danger to society than anyone else. If he has not, and he's still a danger to society, I have a big problem with letting him out of prison in the first place.

My position is that they don't keep them in long enough as it is, because such a high percentage of parolees wind up reoffending. If you truly believe it is acceptable to give gun ownership rights to a convicted felon who used guns to commit crimes, then there is no basis for a discussion.

[Charles L. Cotton]

So, are you saying you have no problem with a convicted bank robber buying and carrying a gun into a bank because he is exercising his constitutional right?

That's your argument why law abiding citizens who have a CHL shouldn't be able to carry the same places off duty cops can? Because you think we're the same as convicted bank robbers.

I only have one answer that doesn't violate forum rules and it's clicking this link. [Moderator's note: The link was removed because it was an underhanded trick to make Members think it was a link to a thread. Instead, it was a link that would have added another Member to your "Foes List" and you would not have seen that Member's posts. This is the first time a Member has ever done something like this, but from now on, it will be automatic banning.]

Don't every pull this stunt again! For those who may have thought this was a link to a thread, as did I, this was a link to add another Member to your "Foe List."

I don't appreciate this one little bit.

Chas.