HB 195 411.207 (A) amendment a MUST!

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 17787
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: HB 195 411.207 (A) amendment a MUST!

#16

Post by Charles L. Cotton »

JSThane wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
mr1337 wrote:I fail to understand how people who believe in the 2nd Amendment accept conditions that severely infringe on some people's right to bear arms.
What makes you think anyone "accepts conditions . . . [?]"

Chas.
Accepting while disagreeing with and wanting overturned.

Or, to put it another way, I "accept" the requirement that I obtain a CHL in order to conceal-carry, while being adamantly opposed to any license, registration, permission slip, or any other requirement that infringes upon my or anyone else's Constitutional right.

Yes, this includes any and all CHL requirements. I firmly believe that ANY requirement, other than "not convicted and in jail," is a Constitutional violation. However, I have had a CHL of one state or another since I turned 21, because I'm not "Threeper" enough to try "fighting the man" all on my lonesome, and I'm not willing to make a valiant, yet failed, solo stand.

As for all the fuss and worry over how OC should be licensed, so as to not "worry" people or "freak out" businesses, I think I may just go openly carrying tomorrow around town. It's New Mexico, hardly a bastion of conservative thought in comparison to Texas, with far more dedicated dyed-in-the-wool liberals. Yet, I can carry a gun all day, in plain view, and with one solitary exception, I am pretty well welcome in any store in town. No one freaks out.
No offense, but I wasn't asking you. I want to know what mr1337 means by his statement that clearly implies something far different that what you describe.

Chas.

JSThane
Banned
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 12:07 pm

Re: HB 195 411.207 (A) amendment a MUST!

#17

Post by JSThane »

Charles L. Cotton wrote: No offense, but I wasn't asking you. I want to know what mr1337 means by his statement that clearly implies something far different that what you describe.

Chas.
None taken. I have a sometimes unfortunate penchant for going off on my own little rants, usually inspired by some side thing someone else said. :tiphat:

I guess my point was, compromise, while never palatable for either side, is sometimes necessary when reclaiming our rights, especially when they've been compromised away for decades. I certainly don't -want- licensed carry - I want the whole thing - but as a stepping stone back from where we've been, it's better than the status quo. I do understand where the mindset of "all or nothing" comes from though, and that's mainly where my side-line bit came from. So, no offense intended, nor taken.
Locked

Return to “2015 Legislative Session”