TexasCHLforum.com

I guess I'm in the minority here but I think the right to keep and bear arms is actually a right. Like voting.

Getting a concealed handgun license should be as difficult and as expensive as getting a voter card.

seamusTX wrote:The change that Charles is referring to is Texas ceasing to honor non-resident licenses, the way that Colorado has done.

- Jim

Then again, if having the Utah license rules stand, and violent crime is reduced, and no more crimes are evident than with Texas type rules, wouldn't it make sense to honor those permits? Wouldn't it get us closer to the 2A right the forefathers intended?
Just wondering.
We're judging a law based on something that hasn't happened yet....

O6nop wrote:Then again, if having the Utah license rules stand, and violent crime is reduced, and no more crimes are evident than with Texas type rules, wouldn't it make sense to honor those permits?

I was with you right up until "make sense."

If the actions of the legislature made sense, they would look at the experience of states like Alaska, Vermont, and New Hampshire, which do not require licenses at all, and other states that allow open carry without a license.

Legislators generally want to control what people do. Some don't, but most do. That's why they run for the legislature. They also don't like to admit that they were or are wrong.

Texas has the most stringent requirements of the shall-issue states. If Texas residents are making an end-run around those requirements by getting non-resident licenses from other states, eventually it is going to rub some legislators the wrong way.

- Jim

I gotta go with the CHL being the equal to a Voter Registration Card =NO FEE.

Alaska, Vermont, etc. are Light years ahead of Texas and ITS WORKING JUST FINE!!. Certainly Texans should be just as equal as the citizens in those other states.

There use to be Poll Taxes and 'tests' to be allowed to vote which the Supreme Court/Laws eliminated. The RIGHT of The 2nd Ammendment certainly should be the same-NO infringing period.

Texas requirements are FAR too expensive and very discriminatory to low and fixed income Texans.
Zero to $140 State Fee - DEPENDING ON WHO YOU ARE! - is TOTALLY INSULTING and Embarrassing as a Texas Law.

50 rounds thru a piece of paper makes NO ONE a '007'.(eliminate the shooting altogether,again ref: Alaska, Vermont, etc.) .
10 hrs of class is FAR too long. The Paperwork and long waits are a absolute disgrace. (you can buy a pistol OR get a Credit Card in a few minutes or few days and BOTH will check your background!)

Concealed carry HAS Proven to work and Reduced crime where it is available, WITH OR WITHOUT a plastic card. SO WHY BURDEN THE GOOD GUYS?

Be thankful Good Citizens are carrying-helps us ALL, men, women, children and the USA.

My CHL instructor told us that the State Leg is going to handle this..

joe817 wrote:A side question: are there any states that do NOT require a driving test in order to get a driver's license from that state?

Texas doesn't if you pass a defensive driver's course (and since the last session if you are over 18). Written test is all that is required then.

srothstein wrote:

joe817 wrote:A side question: are there any states that do NOT require a driving test in order to get a driver's license from that state?

Texas doesn't if you pass a defensive driver's course (and since the last session if you are over 18). Written test is all that is required then.

You also don't need a driving test (behind-the-wheel) if you're coming from another state and have a (valid?) DL from that state.

srothstein wrote:

joe817 wrote:A side question: are there any states that do NOT require a driving test in order to get a driver's license from that state?

Texas doesn't if you pass a defensive driver's course (and since the last session if you are over 18). Written test is all that is required then.

Can you explain the part I put in bold? What session?

chabouk wrote:

srothstein wrote:Texas doesn't if you pass a defensive driver's course (and since the last session if you are over 18). Written test is all that is required then.

Can you explain the part I put in bold? What session?

I believe that srothstein is referring HB 2730 which is the DPS’s Sunset Legislation, and many of the DPS-related bills last session were included in HB 2730. Notable traffic and criminal laws that go into effect on Sept. 1, 2009:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_s ... 081109.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Steve, if I'm in error, my apologies and please correct me.

Just my opinion.

I feel a little better knowing that other people with a CHL have some knowledge of how to use it, when not to, and can put most of the rounds where they intend to.

VoiceofReason wrote:Just my opinion.

I feel a little better knowing that other people with a CHL have some knowledge of how to use it, when not to, and can put most of the rounds where they intend to.

So basically you believe the second amendment only applies to a select segment of the population? Of which the qualifications just happen to include you? I see now. Thanks...I was confused about what the RKBA was really all about.

I happen to believe that the RKBA is applicable to all the people. Not just a chosen few. My fear is that if I go along with the chosen few thinking because I am one of them, I may eventually cease to be one of the chosen few.

VoiceofReason wrote:Just my opinion.

I feel a little better knowing that other people with a CHL have some knowledge of how to use it, when not to, and can put most of the rounds where they intend to.

You are indeed a Voice of Reason, and I hasten to tell you that you are not alone. While I am sure you need no consolation, when I see words immediately put in you mouth like you got here, I will offer same anyway. I do wish we could change your word "most" to "all," but that would be asking too much.
And, should it not be obvious, I admire your courage in stepping into the lion pit.

Jim

VoiceofReason wrote:I feel a little better knowing that other people with a CHL have some knowledge of how to use it, when not to, and can put most of the rounds where they intend to.

I feel kind of the same way about voting, religion, sex, cars, the internet.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:Just my opinion.

I feel a little better knowing that other people with a CHL have some knowledge of how to use it, when not to, and can put most of the rounds where they intend to.

So basically you believe the second amendment only applies to a select segment of the population? Of which the qualifications just happen to include you? I see now. Thanks...I was confused about what the RKBA was really all about.

I happen to believe that the RKBA is applicable to all the people. Not just a chosen few. My fear is that if I go along with the chosen few thinking because I am one of them, I may eventually cease to be one of the chosen few.

I don’t believe I said anything about the second amendmentright to own a firearm, just those with a CHL.
I feel a little better that a person with a Texas CHL is a little less likely to shoot my wife by accident when protecting themselves against a criminal.

VoiceofReason wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:Just my opinion.

I feel a little better knowing that other people with a CHL have some knowledge of how to use it, when not to, and can put most of the rounds where they intend to.

So basically you believe the second amendment only applies to a select segment of the population? Of which the qualifications just happen to include you? I see now. Thanks...I was confused about what the RKBA was really all about.

I happen to believe that the RKBA is applicable to all the people. Not just a chosen few. My fear is that if I go along with the chosen few thinking because I am one of them, I may eventually cease to be one of the chosen few.

I don’t believe I said anything about the second amendmentright to own a firearm, just those with a CHL.
I feel a little better that a person with a Texas CHL is a little less likely to shoot my wife by accident when protecting themselves against a criminal.

The second amendment does not specify in what manner one must exercise their RKBA. Requiring a CHL is in itself a violation of our second amendment right. Requiring a shooting test just compounds the violation. The second amendment also does not specify that one must be a good shot to exercise this right.

Are there any statistics to show that requiring a shooting test decreases the odds that your wife will catch a stray bullet from a CHL holder? If there were any validity in this thinking at all, I would imagine the states that don't require a shooting test, would show a higher incidence of accidental shootings by CHLers than Texas. I don't feel the shooting test in question is any indication of how good a shot someone is going to be in a self defense situation. I personally watched a gal pass the shooting test who had never fired a pistol before and could not load the hand gun her brother loaned her to take the test. I promise you, if that woman ever starts firing in self defense, not only will she shoot your wife, she will shoot me, you, God, the ceiling, the floor, the left and right waiters....and maybe even herself before she ever hits the intended target.