TexasCHLforum.com

But, if there was one thing I WOULD like to see, it would be that you don't need a CHL to carry.

Agree.

Extend MPA to schools, parking, etc.

No fees, No training, No plastic required. NO WAITING/RENEWING etc.!!!

MUCH BETTER!

MPA IS working great and far and away is much closer to the Constitution.

MPA cost = $ 0.00
CHL cost = outrageous.

------CONSTITUTION CARRY ASAP !!!!------

Blue

I think that the CHL system is adequate, but there are obvious issues...I read about a forum member who had a run in with some LEOs based upon his weapon being spotted DESPITE being okay to have where he was AND being concealed. The accidental/incidental exposure issue probably limits more folks than anything else; simply fear of discovery (and yes, I know, CONCEALED IS CONCEALED). I think if they could simply add a phrase like this "A reasonable effort to comply with the intent of concealment of the handgun shall be a defense to prosecution." would go a long way to addressing the problem and hopefully limit problems to those who just ignored the laws and basically let it hang out there. Then the heat has to be on them to prove you DIDN'T make a reasonable effort to comply, that is, innocent until PROVEN guilty. Yes, other things need fixing/adding like the parking lot issue, but a cleanup of the language would be really nice. A tiered system is simply overkill and unnecessary.

sf340b wrote:"(Not trying to start a Lone Ranger fan club)"


Just trying to get a little closer to the original term of "shall not be infringed".

I thought the additional training would alleviate some of the anti's fears.

I don't think so. They would just tout the fact that we agreed that we were under trained in the first place.

Heartland Patriot wrote:I think that the CHL system is adequate, but there are obvious issues...I read about a forum member who had a run in with some LEOs based upon his weapon being spotted DESPITE being okay to have where he was AND being concealed. The accidental/incidental exposure issue probably limits more folks than anything else; simply fear of discovery (and yes, I know, CONCEALED IS CONCEALED). I think if they could simply add a phrase like this "A reasonable effort to comply with the intent of concealment of the handgun shall be a defense to prosecution." would go a long way to addressing the problem and hopefully limit problems to those who just ignored the laws and basically let it hang out there. Then the heat has to be on them to prove you DIDN'T make a reasonable effort to comply, that is, innocent until PROVEN guilty. Yes, other things need fixing/adding like the parking lot issue, but a cleanup of the language would be really nice. A tiered system is simply overkill and unnecessary.

The current law only applies to intentional failure to conceal, which puts the burden of proof on the prosecution. It don't get any better than that, unless they completely remove the requirement to conceal. IMO, that would be the real value of open carry.

If an unscrupulous LEO decides to arrest you, it doesn't much matter to him what the charge is.

Heartland Patriot wrote:I think if they could simply add a phrase like this "A reasonable effort to comply with the intent of concealment of the handgun shall be a defense to prosecution." would go a long way to addressing the problem

I disagree. The Penal Code (46.035) says "intentionally fails to conceal the handgun." That's a pretty high standard.

The Penal Code (6.03) also says "A person acts intentionally, or with intent, with respect to the nature of his conduct or to a result of his conduct when it is his conscious objective or desire to engage in the conduct or cause the result." Merely being aware the handgun isn't concealed doesn't meet the standard - there must be a "conscious objective or desire" to fail to conceal, and the prosecution is supposed to prove that intent to get a conviction.

The current law only applies to intentional failure to conceal, which puts the burden of proof on the prosecution.

True.

However....

When the wind blows, and a concealed firearm suddenly becomes exposed, and a citizen calls in a "OMG!!! MAN WITH A GUN!!!" call via 911, what happens?

It COULD turn out that an LEO shows up, finds the "suspect", discusses the issue with the suspect, and uses his discretion to determine that the exposure was NOT unlawful, and sends the "suspect" on his way.

OR....

It COULD turn out that the LEO fails to use discretion, and the "suspect" is taken into custody, charged, and forced to fork out hard earned cash to an attorney, and miss work in order to prove their innocence.

So while the burden of proof is indeed on the prosecution, the prosecution loses no sleep or funds as a result of the charge, however, the same can't be said for the citizen.

Keith B wrote:I personally think we are fine just as we are. No need for additional red-tape

But, if there was one thing I WOULD like to see, it would be that you don't need a CHL to carry.

100%

Texas Dan Mosby wrote:

The current law only applies to intentional failure to conceal, which puts the burden of proof on the prosecution.

True.

However....

When the wind blows, and a concealed firearm suddenly becomes exposed, and a citizen calls in a "OMG!!! MAN WITH A GUN!!!" call via 911, what happens?

It COULD turn out that an LEO shows up, finds the "suspect", discusses the issue with the suspect, and uses his discretion to determine that the exposure was NOT unlawful, and sends the "suspect" on his way.

OR....

It COULD turn out that the LEO fails to use discretion, and the "suspect" is taken into custody, charged, and forced to fork out hard earned cash to an attorney, and miss work in order to prove their innocence.

So while the burden of proof is indeed on the prosecution, the prosecution loses no sleep or funds as a result of the charge, however, the same can't be said for the citizen.

The only way to prevent that is to go to open carry.

We should be sized for our Tiara's.

No is my short answer to the OP.

Great logic Hoi Polloi, political savvy is paramount in this discussion.
Also, thanks Purplehood.
Happy Trails! N

CJATE wrote:the only thing I'd like to see an additional rating for would include reducing restrictions.

if i could prove i shoot better then most
more level headed then most
first aid/what ever better then most,,,

I want to carry in a school / vote / bar ect...


if your not going to give me more locations, then i don't want more red tape

agree 100%. Id also like to see the opportunity to legally carry everywhere.

Another vote for no. Texas already has one of the most expensive, most burdensome, and most restrictive of the shall issue licenses. People who believe 2A is a right should be trying to reduce the cost, complexity and restrictions.

fecnik wrote:

CJATE wrote:the only thing I'd like to see an additional rating for would include reducing restrictions.

if i could prove i shoot better then most
more level headed then most
first aid/what ever better then most,,,

I want to carry in a school / vote / bar ect...


if your not going to give me more locations, then i don't want more red tape

agree 100%. Id also like to see the opportunity to legally carry everywhere.

I think extra training is a good thing, but not as a requirement, chl upgrade package, or anything of the sort.

Let people carry, and the people who want more training will find it (though it can be hard and expensive).