Texas HB 47 - Page 10

Texas HB 47

This is a discussion on Texas HB 47 within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Hopyard If you look at the stats, you'll see that there are some crimes, almost always gun crimes, where the rate is ...

Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 228
Like Tree73Likes

Thread: Texas HB 47

  1. #136
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    If you look at the stats, you'll see that there are some crimes, almost always gun crimes, where the rate is higher among
    license holders than the general population. I'd guess that these were in most cases offenses such as 51 sign violations, 30.06
    sign violations, intentional display violations, and yes, there are always a few assaults with a deadly weapon or murder convictions.
    How many in 16 years? Is it enough to prohibit 25 million people from exercising their 2A rights?

    My concern with your viewpoint is that we don't know if these rates would be much higher without the training. Certainly without the training I know I would not have known about the 51 and the 30.06 signs. Just learning that was important and justifies some level of education about our laws before one carries concealed.
    My concern is that what you're proposing is a weak irrational basis for prohibiting 25 million people from exercising their most fundamental right. In the 7th Circuit Illinois case, the judges made that point. The data shows that prohibiting guns doesn't further a government interest at all. The court found that the state's argument, a mere "view" to prevent crime, doesn't even live up to a rational basis standard. In your argument, you admit you don't know what impact the mandated training is having. You admit you have no tangible and rational basis for mandating the training. It just makes you feel good. Even if you had a rational basis, the Heller case has held that this isn't enough to deny even one person their 2A rights.

    Let's be honest. The scheme of onerous, expensive, and time consuming requirements, including mandated training, serves only two purposes. One, the main purpose is to prohibit citizens from exercising their 2A rights. That's what 46.02 does on it's face. Possession is prohibited, and the legislature clearly intends on continuing with this 150 year tradition. Two, the intent was to appease a small minority of the most vocal citizens that want to prohibit the government from overstepping it's constitutional authority. This doesn't have anything to do with training. The government interest is to prohibit the public from exercising their 2A rights. My concern is that you and so many other gun owners support them in doing that.

    So it is hard to sort out if we benefit in comparison to say, WA, or PA,neither of which has a training requirement. That is I think a real and open question.
    So in other words, you have no rational basis to defend denying 25Million the palladium of all fundamental rights based upon training?

    Now to the range test--- The number and variety of pistol designs and the relative complexity of them one to another almost
    demands a range test; and maybe more-- demonstrated knowledge of your own weapon's controls. Pistols especially are not
    mechanically simple as knives are. Since the main purpose of pistol ownership is self defense, its a pretty good idea
    to make sure those who would carry for that purpose don't drop their mag when they think they are releasing a thumb safety.
    Or frankly, making certain that they even know they need to rack the slide to fire the thing.
    Let's float another trial judicial balloon. "Chief Justice, yes, Texas requires no training for citizens who may choose to carry AR-15s or semi-auto 12Ga shotguns. The training is only required for handguns because ..... because..... err..... aaaah....because handguns are complicated ... or something."

    All of that said, doing it for the third time recently was a bit annoying. The range test for someone like myself who
    likes to get in there and shoot now and again, is almost comedic. But, it does demonstrate that I can still follow
    instructions and if at my advanced age I were senile and not fully competent to carry, at least someone would notice.
    And because it's annoying, expensive, time consuming, and even admittedly comedic, lots of folks don't renew their CHL, which again, is the primary intent.
    9MMare likes this.


  2. #137
    Member Array Bear67's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Greater Texas
    Posts
    172
    As I understand HB 47 and yes I have read it all the way through, it is 4 hours of instruction plus range qualification. Therefore you are not losing 40% of your classroom time. In my experience with initial classes and renewal classes is that 4 hours will be adequate. I think that more Texans will apply for a CHL and take classes and pay their fees to DPS if it is reduced to 4 hours.

    I support HB 47 and I have notified my representative and Texas house leadership. TSRA and NRA are both behind this legislation and I appreciate their efforts and support.
    OldGrumpy likes this.

  3. #138
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,071
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    And because it's annoying, expensive, time consuming, and even admittedly comedic, lots of folks don't renew their CHL, which again, is the primary intent.
    Lots of the above objections could be easily fixed if DPS produced an on-line training program which anyone with computer
    access (nowadays almost everyone) could do in their own time and at their own speed; then go to someplace like the
    DL stations for a written test. Only need for appearing in person is to verify the ID of the test taker and prevent cheating.

    The range test remains in MY opinion of value at least for first timers. Maybe for real old timers too. As with DLs, some of us old boys shouldn't be carrying after a certain point and I am thankful I am not at that point or near it.

    The TX Leg. is certainly welcome to try AZ's methods and see if they work here. I wouldn't write a letter in opposition.

    But since they want training, they might as well make it a tad more than the very perfunctory stuff that might get squeezed into
    4 hours.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  4. #139
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,886
    Quote Originally Posted by Bear67 View Post
    As I understand HB 47 and yes I have read it all the way through, it is 4 hours of instruction plus range qualification. Therefore you are not losing 40% of your classroom time. In my experience with initial classes and renewal classes is that 4 hours will be adequate. I think that more Texans will apply for a CHL and take classes and pay their fees to DPS if it is reduced to 4 hours.

    I support HB 47 and I have notified my representative and Texas house leadership. TSRA and NRA are both behind this legislation and I appreciate their efforts and support.
    Currently the requirement is minimum 10 hrs of class and range time. Maximum of 15 hrs class and range time. If the range portion is 1 - 1.5 hrs, which it usually takes, that leaves between 8.5 and 13.5 hours for class. So, you are in fact loosing between 53 and 70 % of your class time.

    Passage of HB 47, may result in more Texans getting their CHL, but it will also result in more Texans carrying under CHL who are no as well prepared or well versed in the laws related to carry and use of force, ect.

    Another poster correctly pointed out that most folks are pretty lazy and only want to do minimum requirements, with little or no training or study afterwards. I will tell you this, the worst scores I get on our written tests are from renewals that only attend the 1/2 day portion of the class, because they aren't there when we cover anything besides prohibited places and use of force. So, no, they haven't taken it upon themselves to keep current on information.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  5. #140
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    If you look at the stats, you'll see that there are some crimes, almost always gun crimes, where the rate is higher among
    license holders than the general population. I'd guess that these were in most cases offenses such as 51 sign violations, 30.06
    sign violations, intentional display violations, and yes, there are always a few assaults with a deadly weapon or murder convictions. My concern with your viewpoint is that we don't know if these rates would be much higher without the training. Certainly without the training I know I would not have known about the 51 and the 30.06 signs. Just learning that was important and justifies some level of education about our laws before one carries concealed.

    Not all states have the statistical requirement, most don't. So it is hard to sort out if we benefit in comparison to say, WA, or PA,neither of which has a training requirement. That is I think a real and open question.

    .
    Well we certainly dont see any noticeable difference. And I'm sure each state could indeed pull those statistics that Farronwolf provided. Of course they track that stuff. I have seen no degree of permit holders in this state brought to light in the media when there are gun crimes or accidents.

    Unless of course you mean the cop here who left his gun in the car, alone, with his 2 small children and only one was alive when he came back out. Training and knowing the laws? IMO, the responsible ARE responsible. (And anyone can make a mistake). Mandating training IMO is just 'feel good' legislation.

    Encouraging training, providing those resources, promoting them, *including* ALL in the gun community and not berating 'liberals' and Democrats in events and forums, etc rather than criticizing....those are all positive things we can do IMO.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  6. #141
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Lots of the above objections could be easily fixed if DPS produced an on-line training program which anyone with computer
    access (nowadays almost everyone) could do in their own time and at their own speed; then go to someplace like the
    DL stations for a written test. Only need for appearing in person is to verify the ID of the test taker and prevent cheating.

    The range test remains in MY opinion of value at least for first timers. Maybe for real old timers too. As with DLs, some of us old boys shouldn't be carrying after a certain point and I am thankful I am not at that point or near it.

    The TX Leg. is certainly welcome to try AZ's methods and see if they work here. I wouldn't write a letter in opposition.

    But since they want training, they might as well make it a tad more than the very perfunctory stuff that might get squeezed into
    4 hours.
    So, once again you are going to avoid dealing with the fact that you and others here are making exactly the same irrational arguments for gun control that the anti-gun lobby is making nationally. It's the same irrational argument to ban assault rifles, 30 round magazines, national gun registrations, etc etc etc. You appear to believe, just exactly like the anti-gun lobby, that a "rational basis" argument, in fact a mere "view" or popular whim, is all that's required to deny millions of people their 2nd Amendment rights. You agree with the minority opinion in Heller.

    I remember having many many arguments here with "pro gun rights" folks during the McDonald case. They vehemently argued that the 2nd Amendment, of course as interpreted by the Heller case, shouldn't be applied to the states via the 14th Amendment. They knew exactly what that would mean. They knew that almost all gun control laws were at the state level and that, despite the dicta in Heller, all of these laws would for the first time face an intermediate or strict scrutiny challenge against the 2nd Amendment. They knew that eventually, virtually none of these laws would survive that test.

    The gun banners have lost. The SCOTUS held in the Heller case that a rational basis wasn't enough to deny even one person their most fundamental right to keep and bear. A "view" or popular whim of the majority isn't enough, and that's all we have here folks. We need to stand up to the legislature and demand they serve us by respecting our rights. They could do it this legislative session by May of this year. If we can't overcome the anti-gun lobby, the "pro gun rights" lobby and the mob of the majority, then we need to go to court, and we'll all get a big chuckle when the court ridicules the arguments we're seeing here in this thread. That will be all the state has to offer, and we'll win.

    There's no saving 46.02 and all this nonsense of CHL laws. They are eventually going to fall.

  7. #142
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post

    I know that personally I learned a great deal at my first CHL class; I had my eyes opened to many things which simply never
    crossed my mind. Subsequently I have participated in threads here in which I've had to go back to the handbook and dig out the black letter law to make my point.

    .
    So did I, range AND laws. I was there on my own.

    I still train altho I have no requirement for renewal. I discuss and gain better understanding of the laws every time I sign into a gun forum. (There's no way in Heck I or anyone else really understands the laws in a classroom until they are put into context in genuine situations, discussion, or deeper consideration).

    You cant really MAKE someone get something out of those things if they dont care. And because we live in a free society, we dont get to dictate who owns and carries guns (except to a small extent, with felons, etc. The states that are more restrictive are outside of the Const. IMO).
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  8. #143
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Lots of the above objections could be easily fixed if DPS produced an on-line training program which anyone with computer
    access (nowadays almost everyone) could do in their own time and at their own speed; then go to someplace like the
    DL stations for a written test. Only need for appearing in person is to verify the ID of the test taker and prevent cheating.

    The range test remains in MY opinion of value at least for first timers. Maybe for real old timers too. As with DLs, some of us old boys shouldn't be carrying after a certain point and I am thankful I am not at that point or near it.

    .
    I like your online test idea.

    OTOH, just how many people do you think go out and buy a gun and dont bother to go and shoot it? I'm sure there are a few...but really?????? And probably half of those would pick revolvers....

    Once again, why are we mandating restrictions (yes, I see them as restrictions to carrying a firearm) for a minority?

    Anyone with a brain would willingly learn to use the gun. Anyone without...well making them shoot it in a class for a day wont grow them a brain.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  9. #144
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Passage of HB 47, may result in more Texans getting their CHL, but it will also result in more Texans carrying under CHL who are no as well prepared or well versed in the laws related to carry and use of force, ect.
    Yet you admit that lots of folks that are carrying with a CHL currently are not well versed in the laws after five years and even after an additional four hours of training. That would make for an interesting argument in front of a judge. Let's skip that for a minute though, and we'll leave your bare assertion on the table, and let's move on to your actual argument. If this law is passed, then there's going to be blood on the streets right? It's going to be like the wild wild west right? I think I recall that argument from the Brady camp quite a bit back in 1995.

    Another poster correctly pointed out that most folks are pretty lazy
    Nice! You too. Not surprised. Let's not forget Texans are stupid too, and ignorant, irresponsible, and prone to running down the street shooting people. Good thing we have the government and smart folks like yourself to look out for us all.

  10. #145
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post

    Anyone with a brain would willingly learn to use the gun. Anyone without...well making them shoot it in a class for a day wont grow them a brain.
    We also know that anyone with a brain, with absolutely no training, and even with absolutely no bullets can merely draw a handgun and use it as an effective deterrent against violent crime.

    Texas denies almost all of it's citizens that right.

  11. #146
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,886
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    Yet you admit that lots of folks that are carrying with a CHL currently are not well versed in the laws after five years and even after an additional four hours of training. That would make for an interesting argument in front of a judge. Let's skip that for a minute though, and we'll leave your bare assertion on the table, and let's move on to your actual argument. If this law is passed, then there's going to be blood on the streets right? It's going to be like the wild wild west right? I think I recall that argument from the Brady camp quite a bit back in 1995.



    Nice! You too. Not surprised. Let's not forget Texans are stupid too, and ignorant, irresponsible, and prone to running down the street shooting people. Good thing we have the government and smart folks like yourself to look out for us all.
    I never said any of that, so don't try to put words into my mouth. If you want to debate, debate, stop spewing nonsense that no one ever said. Slow down and read what is actually written.
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  12. #147
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,071
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    Training and knowing the laws? IMO, the responsible ARE responsible..
    So we can do away with HS Driver Ed because training and knowing the driving laws are individual and parental
    responsibility and anyone can do it (teach their kids to drive) on their own?

    We live in a practical world. (Maybe I'm going to make that a new signature line, bye to John A.) In a practical
    world training should provide a safety benefit. Therefore, if it isn't doing that now it should go, or better yet, be revamped so that there is a demonstrable public safety benefit from the training.

    I think training is even more important nowadays than in decades past. Kids just don't get the routine exposure to guns as they grow up the way they did half a century and more ago.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  13. #148
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    So we can do away with HS Driver Ed because training and knowing the driving laws are individual and parental
    responsibility and anyone can do it (teach their kids to drive) on their own?

    We live in a practical world. (Maybe I'm going to make that a new signature line, bye to John A.) In a practical
    world training should provide a safety benefit. Therefore, if it isn't doing that now it should go, or better yet, be revamped so that there is a demonstrable public safety benefit from the training.

    I think training is even more important nowadays than in decades past. Kids just don't get the routine exposure to guns as they grow up the way they did half a century and more ago.
    Driving is not a right, for one thing.

    Also, a car is something most people will use every single day, interacting with hundreds of other people doing exactly the same thing. They are engaging in that activity along with others doing the same AND pedestrians. Permit holders are not engaging in shooting activity everyday in public. One is active, one is passive.

    If someone doesnt want to get the training and then have the privilege of driving, that's their decision.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  14. #149
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    So we can do away with HS Driver Ed because training and knowing the driving laws are individual and parental
    responsibility and anyone can do it (teach their kids to drive) on their own?


    .
    My father did teach me to drive. I studied the driving laws in HS. There was no requirement mandated that I pay for a specific amount of training on the laws OR driving or any training at all when I took my driving test. I just had to pass it.

    And yes, I think that competancy for such a publicly interactive activity is in the public's best interests.
    Fortune favors the bold.

    Freedom doesn't mean safe, it means free.

    The thing about "defense" is that it has practically nothing to do with guns. (As passed on by CCW9MM)

  15. #150
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,982
    I have been guilty of this before....:

    horse2.gif
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

Page 10 of 16 FirstFirst ... 67891011121314 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

bill hb 47 texas
,
did texas hb 47 pass
,
did texas hb 47 pass?
,
hb 47 texas
,
house bill 47 texas
,
texas chl hb 47
,
texas h.b. 47
,

texas hb 47

,
texas hb 47 status
,
texas hb47
,

texas house bill 47

,
tx hb 47
Click on a term to search for related topics.