Texas HB 47 - Page 11

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 farronwolf I never said any of that, so don't try to put words into my mouth. If you want to debate, debate, ...

Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 228
Like Tree73Likes

Thread: Texas HB 47

  1. #151
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    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.
    You did stereotype and insult all Texans by calling them lazy. You are advocating gun control, and your reasoning is the same nanny state mentality as what has always been used to justify gun control.


  2. #152
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by suntzu View Post
    I have been guilty of this before....:

    Attachment 66641
    I would just like to see more justification for these things. Some of the arguments are too much in line with the anti-gun people. That *We, the People," cannot be trusted with firearms.

    Just IMO, I think that many gun owners and carriers feel like they are special, or better than others...more responsible, more capable, willing to save themselves and others, etc. and to not fight for rules/regulations/training that set us apart from the general public (or sheep as they like to call them)....just makes us one of them.

    Sorry, but the ideal is for ANYONE to be able to own and carry anywhere....I dont think it's all that special at all. Nor is it really about safety. If we were worried about safety and rules/laws MAKING us safer, there would be alot more restictions around driving cars.

    Because as much as people seem to think there's something special about carrying around a lethal weapon every day....almost EVERY adult American is driving one everyday. And that aint special, 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)

  3. #153
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    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.
    This driving analogy is so tired and so old, and no matter how many times it's rebutted, you guys will never give it up huh? Driving is not the palladium of liberty. It's not a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights. It doesn't say in the Constitution that the right to drive "shall not be infringed." Driving a car is a complicated skill that requires thousands of life or death decisions for every mile driven. Carrying a handgun in your pocket requires no skill and almost never requires a life or death decision in a lifetime, short of the basic safety rules that can be handed out on a business card. Give it up. It's a bad, irrational analogy.

  4. #154
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by 9MMare View Post
    That *We, the People," cannot be trusted with firearms.
    You've got that right. They won't come right out and say it, but that's exactly what they're saying. Four hours isn't enough. Fifteen hours isn't enough. Training every five years isn't enough. The gun range training isn't enough. It's not enough, because training will never address the complaint they have against our Constitution and the free society our republic is intended to create.

  5. #155
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,804
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    You did stereotype and insult all Texans by calling them lazy. You are advocating gun control, and your reasoning is the same nanny state mentality as what has always been used to justify gun control.
    Again, you are wrong. I did agree with the other poster that said most people are lazy in that they only will do a minimum, not singling out Texans. But you are wrong that I am advocating gun control.

    Do yourself a favor and go back and read my previous posts and you will find what my objection to this Bill might possibly be. If you can't understand what I posted, I will put it in more simple language or spell it out line by line.

    Simply throwing verbal tantrums and screaming "shall not infringe" over and over is little more than my 9 yr old did when he was 2. You claim to be up on the Heller decision, read this section repeatedly until you get it.

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
    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

  6. #156
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Again, you are wrong. I did agree with the other poster that said most people are lazy in that they only will do a minimum, not singling out Texans. But you are wrong that I am advocating gun control.
    You stereotyped and denigrated all Texans while advocating the mandatory training that was put in place because of a presumption that Texans are ignorant, irresponsible and likely would be killing people left and right filling the streets with blood without it.

    Do yourself a favor and go back and read my previous posts and you will find what my objection to this Bill might possibly be. If you can't understand what I posted, I will put it in more simple language or spell it out line by line.
    I don't care why you support it. It's a gun control law, and you are opposing an effort to ease the impact of that gun control law.

    Simply throwing verbal tantrums and screaming "shall not infringe" over and over is little more than my 9 yr old did when he was 2. You claim to be up on the Heller decision, read this section repeatedly until you get it.
    Ad homenim isn't going change what you and many others have said in this thread.

  7. #157
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

    Your quote from Heller doesn't help you in the slightest. Not in Texas, because 46.02 prohibits on it's face any possession of handguns, and the only test of 46.02 has been cases like State v Duke that totally rest on the Cruickshank and Slaughterhouse cases that were directly undermined by Heller and McDonald. There is absolutely no indication in Heller that the onerous CHL laws on top of 46.02 will ever survive. By holding that the 2A is an individual right to self defense including handguns with rational basis defenses excluded, Heller indicates just the opposite. You're arguing a weak "rational" basis defense of the mandated training. That's all you've got, and the Heller court has made it clear that won't cut it.

  8. #158
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,804
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    You stereotyped and denigrated all Texans while advocating the mandatory training that was put in place because of a presumption that Texans are ignorant, irresponsible and likely would be killing people left and right filling the streets with blood without it.

    I don't care why you support it. It's a gun control law, and you are opposing an effort to ease the impact of that gun control law.

    Ad homenim isn't going change what you and many others have said in this thread.
    See, you just don't comprehend it do you?

    My opposition is to requiring me to instruct the same required materials in a fraction of the time previously required and get the same results out of those I instruct.

    If you want to change the Texas Constitution, I suggest you write an amendment to it and send it to your representative. Short of that, we will continue to deal with laws regarding concealed carry, and the inability to openly carry handguns. The proposed HB 47, has nothing to do with what you are so insistant on arguing about.

    I know, I am wasting my time trying to get that through to you, but it is kind of amusing.
    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

  9. #159
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    See, you just don't comprehend it do you?

    My opposition is to requiring me to instruct the same required materials in a fraction of the time previously required and get the same results out of those I instruct.
    So, then what is the ultimate impact of CHL holders not receiving all the training you think they should receive? Are you saying you oppose it for a purely administrative point of view?

    If you want to change the Texas Constitution, I suggest you write an amendment to it and send it to your representative. Short of that, we will continue to deal with laws regarding concealed carry, and the inability to openly carry handguns. The proposed HB 47, has nothing to do with what you are so insistant on arguing about.
    I don't have to change the Texas constitution. The Texas constitution was already modified specifically to repeal the original 1871 law that 46.02 is derived from. Even if the Texas Constitution does allow the legislature to prohibit public possession of firearms, which it doesn't, the US Constitution doesn't allow states to do that, as confirmed just recently by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

  10. #160
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,804
    Again, you fail to understand. I don't set the rules on what CHL holders are required to recieve for training. The legislature does. I simply have to follow the rules for what they require me to do to sign off on the CHL 100 saying they passed all the requirements the state put forth.

    Tell you what. You hold your breath until open carry is allowed in all 50 states, and I will start to hold my breath when it is allowed, we will see which one turns blue first.

    Have any doubts on who I am putting my money on.
    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

  11. #161
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Again, you fail to understand. I don't set the rules on what CHL holders are required to recieve for training. The legislature does. I simply have to follow the rules for what they require me to do to sign off on the CHL 100 saying they passed all the requirements the state put forth.

    Tell you what. You hold your breath until open carry is allowed in all 50 states, and I will start to hold my breath when it is allowed, we will see which one turns blue first.

    Have any doubts on who I am putting my money on.
    So you're not going to answer my question as to your opinion of the ultimate impact of CHL holders not getting the training you think they need?

  12. #162
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,804
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    So you're not going to answer my question as to your opinion of the ultimate impact of CHL holders not getting the training you think they need?
    Really, are you that ? It isn't training I think they need, it is training which is mandated by the legislature. How many times does that have to be pointed out to you.
    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

  13. #163
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Really, are you that ? It isn't training I think they need, it is training which is mandated by the legislature. How many times does that have to be pointed out to you.
    You said:

    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.
    This is the result you expect. I think it's fair to assume that you oppose that result. Why do you oppose Texans carrying under CHL who are not as well prepared or well versed in these laws?

  14. #164
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Really, are you that ? It isn't training I think they need, it is training which is mandated by the legislature. How many times does that have to be pointed out to you.
    So instead if clarifying whether or not you believe it is effective, or Constitutional, or appropriate, you fall back on....it's what the govt demands?

    Paycheck or preference to accept the govt's restrictions on ou rights without question?
    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. #165
    Member Array Hcrtex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Dallas
    Posts
    59
    I don't agree with the changes either, and feel the current requirements should be minimum, since so many new and non trained shooters are being graduated. Have had a CHL for ten years and don't like being in a class all day, but I always pick up something new.

Page 11 of 16 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast

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 hb 47 pass
,
did texas hb 47 pass
,
did texas hb 47 pass?
,
hb 47 texas
,
house bill 47 texas
,
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.