TexasCHLforum.com

First, I have to say that I agree with Charles that it will be one big bad bloody fight to get OC passed in Texas, and we had better not have any other bills we want passed that year, and maybe for the next two or four years. I also think we would need to wait until after a quiet year to start on it. I am basing this on the way the media is covering the shootings of burglars now after the castle doctrine law (which did not even apply to most of them).

But, I do disagree with the predictions for the reaction of the people. First, I don't see a lot of people switching to OC real soon, so there will not be a mass uproar right away. It will be kind of a swell coming in both. I also see that the average person who would panic or call in would only do it once, and then even spread the word to others not to panic or that the police will not do anything. In this respect, I see it more as an education issue than anything else. We would need to be prepared with a media blitz ad campaign when the law passes, then a swell of it over the summer until maybe December of the year before we start dropping it back down.

I see it as a real possibility if we use some common sense in our tactics. We would need to start small and work up to what we want. We are on a roll right now with several small steps in the right direction, so lets keep doing it that way. Each time we get a law passed and there is no real downside, it makes it a little easier to get the next small step.

So, I propose to table the OC movement for a few years, and let's work on the current restrictions instead first. I like the idea of starting by putting in a definition of schools (and I would start by including all public and private elementary and secondary schools). After that, I would get a law through saying adult employees with CHLS, then adult employees period. Then add in parents, and then remove the school restrictions.

My next wish, which might come at the same time, would be to clean up the 30.06 posting laws. Clarify the law requiring hospitals to post (or remove it entirely), then make a penalty for invalid postings in governmental institutions.

And I do want a mandatory signature law where a Chief Law Enforcement Officer must sign the class III paperwork unless there is a disqualifier or he can give a reason that could be appealed through the court system.

My end goal is the removal of Chapter 46 from the Penal Code completely, and I just hope I live long enough to see freedom restored to the US.

txinvestigator wrote:So to be real, what CURRENT laws are unjust, and how does one decide, who decides, and what if I am the ONLY one who thinks it is unjust?

Well there are a few that I could think of, like not wearing a seat belt or a motorcycle helmet. Those are acts which it is not morally wrong to do, just illegal. Of course, I think that both are examples of stupid acts also, btu I don't think the law is proper.

How about bigamy? It is perfectly moral in some religions, just illegal. I think it is an unconstitutional establishment of religion also. And of course, it comes with its own punihsment - two mothers-in-law.

The legal theory being discussed is whether or not an act is malum prohibitum or malum in se. An act that is malum in se is one which is bad or evil in and of itself. A good example of this is murder. An act that is malum prohibitum is bad only because it is illegal. The above are, in my opinion, examples of this. For the movie buffs, this was covered in "Legally Blonde" when she was asked if she would prefer a client that was guilty of an act that was malum prohibitum or malum in se. Of course, her answer was that she would prefer an innocent client.