TexasCHLforum.com

Up for discussion (AKA I wanted to comment but didn't want to hijack the legislation thread.)

Are the Texas CHL requirements too lenient, too strict, or about right?

baldeagle wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:And besides, why NOT issue the license in the meantime? You haven't been convicted of anything.

If you are flipping off drivers or swearing in public, you're probably not fit to be a concealed weapon carrier anyway. The fact that it takes years to resolve them should be a strong incentive to behave yourself in public.

Call me a raving liberal if you want, but I think swearing in public is protected free speech, to the same extent as praying in public, as a similar volume. I don't think someone should be denied their 2A rights for using their 1A rights.

I also don't think movie theater owners should be charged with a crime for showing a movie rated PG/PG-13/R that has profane language, and I don't think they should be denied a CHL.

Am I alone? Have the CHL restrictions become too strict? Alternately, are they too lenient?

juggernaut wrote:Up for discussion (AKA I wanted to comment but didn't want to hijack the legislation thread.)

Are the Texas CHL requirements too lenient, too strict, or about right?

baldeagle wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:And besides, why NOT issue the license in the meantime? You haven't been convicted of anything.

If you are flipping off drivers or swearing in public, you're probably not fit to be a concealed weapon carrier anyway. The fact that it takes years to resolve them should be a strong incentive to behave yourself in public.

Call me a raving liberal if you want, but I think swearing in public is protected free speech, to the same extent as praying in public, as a similar volume. I don't think someone should be denied their 2A rights for using their 1A rights.

I also don't think movie theater owners should be charged with a crime for showing a movie rated PG/PG-13/R that has profane language, and I don't think they should be denied a CHL.

Am I alone? Have the CHL restrictions become too strict? Alternately, are they too lenient?

The question isn't should a misdemeanor disqualify you for a CHL. The question is should swearing in public really be a misdemeanor?

As far as the poll goes, I voted that they're too strict. I don't think a misdemeanor conviction should result in a five year suspension. I think one year is more than enough.

Other. Comments in thread.


Chapter 42 Penal Code needs revising.

Some offenses therein are "serious" others are "in bad taste and offensive", but ....
a ticket and conviction for "music too loud" disqualifying or causing a loss of a CHL for 5 to 7 years?

I mean on the beach with stereo on ...
(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/d ... /PE.42.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I mean I quit doing the "one-way-Jesus sign" in the 1970s when someone thought it was a different gesture and got offended.

C'mon, it needs fixin'


Alternatively, Qualifications/revocation could be limited to certain enumerated offenses contained in Chapter 42 which are actually serious or dangerous, but not for loud music, misunderstood gestures and language (I don't use offensive gestures or language, but my sister misunderstood a word once I said....)

RPB wrote:Other. Comments in thread.


Chapter 42 Penal Code needs revising.

Some offenses therein are "serious" others are "in bad taste and offensive"'

Agreed

I agree. Some crimes shouldn't be crimes in the first place. (Like selling liquor on Sunday. )

I also think there's a difference between violent misdemeanors and non-violent ones, but I don't understand the Lautenberg logic that says hitting a stranger for rooting for the Steelers is more acceptable than hitting a family member. They seem equally bad to me.

I think Texas should eliminate CHL and go to constitutional carry.

jimlongley wrote:I think Texas should eliminate CHL and go to constitutional carry.

What do you consider Constitutional carry? Expand MPA (must conceal, must not be committing any other crime) to pedestrians? Repeal all of chapter 46? Something in between?

What do people think about suspending a CHL before someone is convicted? I think that sounds a lot like guilty until proven innocent.

It's also hard to think of a situation where I would need a CHL more than if I shot a gang member. If I'm charged with a crime, my name and address are public record so it's easy for his homies to find me, and it looks like DPS would suspend my license to make it more difficult for me to defend myself from the other gang members. Where's the logic in that?

Deferred adjudication should NOT count as a conviction. I have multiple permits from other states but can't get one in Texas due to a Deferred charge from 17yrs ago after listening to a lawyer.

I think Texas should eliminate CHL and go to constitutional carry.

Ditto.

IMO, a CHL is nothing more than an unconstitutional self defense tax that does NOTHING to reduce crime, and hinders law abiding citizens from defending themselves.

We can't prevent people from using guns for criminal purposes, and we can't eliminate guns. The only thing we CAN do is allow our citizens to have the tools they need to defend themselves from the crazies in the world, where and when they need them.

IMO, a far more effective approach to reducing violent crime with firearms is to start EXECUTING those who use firearms during violent crimes.

Mixed emotions on this one. I'm all for law abiding citizens' right to carry. I don't think anyone here thinks that a non-law abiding person should be entrusted with a gun. So the question is what defines a law abiding citizen.
I have often heard the statistics about how chl's are X times less likely to commit a crime than the general public. I believe that is true because of the standards that are in place. I also believe that lower standards will have a direct impact on those statistics. Since the latest change in the law It seems we have seen a lot of new members asking about how their convictions will affect their application. I recall one post where a guy had a drug related citation right after sending in his application and wanted to know how it was going to affect his application (he did get his chl btw). Another new chl wanted to know how several unpaid tickets, unpaid child support, and a warrant were going to affect his chl status.
Is it just me or does anyone else think some of this people might not be law abiding citizens. We have made a lot of ground in the last few years. This success is due to a lot of hard working people and those statistics. If those statistics turn south no amount of hard work will be able to undo the damage.
In a perfect world we wouldn't have all this foolishness to carry. Of course in a perfect world we wouldn't need to carry.

Nonviolent misdemeanors should not be disqualifiers.

Heck, many nonviolent felonies shouldn't be disqualifiers, either. (For example - does anyone here think convicted felon Martha Stewart would endanger the public safety if she had a gun? The only thing she was convicted of was lying to investigators . . . when she wasn't even under oath!)

juggernaut wrote:

jimlongley wrote:I think Texas should eliminate CHL and go to constitutional carry.

What do you consider Constitutional carry? Expand MPA (must conceal, must not be committing any other crime) to pedestrians? Repeal all of chapter 46? Something in between?

If you are a law abiding citizen, you can carry under the Second Amendment, no restrictions, no license, open or concealed, "Vermont Style."

jimlongley wrote:

juggernaut wrote:

jimlongley wrote:I think Texas should eliminate CHL and go to constitutional carry.

What do you consider Constitutional carry? Expand MPA (must conceal, must not be committing any other crime) to pedestrians? Repeal all of chapter 46? Something in between?

If you are a law abiding citizen, you can carry under the Second Amendment, no restrictions, no license, open or concealed, "Vermont Style."

Now all you have to do is define law abiding citizen. Never convicted of anything? No traffic tickets? Nothing but misdemeanor convictions? No violent offenses? Any felonies acceptable?

Get's sticky pretty quickly, don't you think?