Texas HB 47

[suntzu]

Duece
Not everyone possesses your level of expertise. I studied the regs before I went to the class. I read a book and prepared myself as well as I could & still managed to learn more specifics during the class.
I do feel a class should be mandatory so that everyone is at least exposed to the laws & show a minimum of gun handling proficiency. Discussion of constitutional rights are an opinionated subject in some cases. The SCOTUS generally rules in the correct.manner. I don't know exactly how to explain my thoughts on 2A in relation to concealed carry. The right to SD in the home should be infallible. Carrying in public is another matter involving people other than those you're responsible for. That's where I see the need for a minimum amount of training.

OK....so you say we need mandatory training so we know the laws in ouor state and don't hurt anyone right? First of all i don't give a hoot what the law is AT the time I feel my life is in imminent danger and their is a disparity of force. Second:with your logic we need to either have the same standards for all states and the same qualifications and lisccening or you need to get a permit in evry state you visit with your firearm. Don't tell me I am ridiculus. If you beleive that a class is needed for TX then if you were to visit state X you should have to take a test to make sure you know the laws for that state and while you are at it they should put a qualification range at the border so they can test you on your proficiency with a firearm. If you do not pass the test or qualification then guess you can't and should not carry in that state even if they have reciprocity.

If you think this is ridiculus then I submit that it is ridiculus to think that mandatory training is needed for Texas alone.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[dldeuce]

I do feel a class should be mandatory so that everyone is at least exposed to the laws & show a minimum of gun handling proficiency.

We already knew you felt that way. Why not respond to the irrationality in your position that we've pointed out?

The right to SD in the home should be infallible. Carrying in public is another matter involving people other than those you're responsible for.

Keep and bear are guaranteed equally. Neither shall be infringed.

[dldeuce]

You certainly didn't learn anything about ego states during your CHL class did you, or which one is most effective means of communication.

This is what you call ad homenim. It doesn't do much to bolster your plea to emotion or false dilemma.

[dldeuce]

No need to guess. Like it or not the second they step out of their car with gun on their person they have committed
a crime--with few exceptions limited to going to and from their place of business/home, as per the old Travel law.

Like it or not, if you want to conceal carry in TX, and do it legally, you need a CHL. Car carry is no substitute.

Play stupid games and win stupid prizes.

You're evading the argument Hopyard. Texas doesn't require training for open carry of long guns. They never have. They don't require training for the millions of gun owners who use their guns to defend their homes. In Houston alone, there are almost daily incidents of home and business owners doing that. Anyone can carry in a car without training, where gun owners encounter the public just as much as if they went anywhere else in public. The fear of road rage incidents by CHL carriers was a substantial part of the debate on the CHL laws all over the country. How is it rational to only require mandatory training for this small class of gun owners? Why have you evaded this point I've been making throughout this thread?

[suntzu]

No offense to anyone and singling anyone out but I honestly feel that there is a group of CC'ers in TX and elsewhere that think they are "special" because of having a permit. This is from statements that allude that CCer's are better than the rest of the population etc... etc.. etc... CC'ers are no better than my dad, mom, sisters, BIL, and a host of other folks I know that could get a permit and pass a background check but choose not too. I said that before, you can't use the stat that CC'ers are the pinnacleof the population when you compare that to folks that can not get a permit.

The honest fact is IT IS NOT HARD to get a permit and to pass the stupid test. How many folks actually fail the qual and the written test? Seriously,......just get rid of the stupid infringement.

BTW: I am headed out to the golf course with FIL and haven't played in 2 years, so look out if you hear someone yelling FOUR!

[9MMare]

No offense to anyone and singling anyone out but I honestly feel that there is a group of CC'ers in TX and elsewhere that think they are "special" because of having a permit. This is from statements that allude that CCer's are better than the rest of the population etc... etc.. etc...!

I get this impression often too, and not just about TX.

I've mentioned it a few times, esp in the threads about showing your permit/informing during a traffic stop when not legally required. Like it's some special club and we're all on the same side fighting evil.

[mastercapt]

Wherther I agree or not with the hours, I do like the "required" training and re-training.
Training and pre-qual requirements is what the states looked at when reciprical permits were to be recognized.
Get real world here and not politics.
Lets say a state required a 15 hour course, with live-fire instruction and actually hitting a targret at 25'.
Another state merely rubber-stamps thru an application based on a background check, fingerprinting and payment of the fees,
The first state has a problem identifying the second as having sufficient training........
Lets not argue this point; it actually happened in recip licensing....
I wish other states required something for requal. ( Florida does not. Even if its a review of the laws and safely demonstrate loading, firing, and unloading a weapon. Aas is now, many people buy the gun, get a permit, and it sits in their dresser drawer, or car glove box. A few yeras from now, are the skills learned still there???

In Florida, you are required a 2 hour course, unless you can show previous firearms exposure. I was a tournament skeet and trap shooter, and have trophies. This, and/or my NY state hunting license or the NY state pistol permit would have qualified me, however, I still went thru the course. You can never get too much training/education
JMHO and $.02
back to the original question. I thing the original time periods were sufficient. I think the additional time is political. The lawmakers are saying to the non-gun citizenery (if thers such a thing in TX), "look what we are doing to keep you safe" And the sheeple agree...

[Hopyard]

So now you're suggesting that a person should just be willing to die to comply with these laws? Do you think a person is morally obliged to die rather than violate this precious law? .

If you are old enough to have read newspapers for awhile, you know that it is not uncommon for someone to engage in a justified
shooting but still be charged with a gun crime- or some other crime related to the incident. CHL or car carry is your choice if you live here. Do it right, don't do it, or hope nothing ever happens that puts you in jail.

Yes, in your example you may have saved your life but you also committed a crime with which you can be charged. Depending
on the circumstances you may or may not be prosecuted. Further, whether or not you are prosecuted on the gun charge
may affect a Grand Jury's perception of whether or not a self defense shooting was justified. People are people and emotions
come into play. IF there is room for subjective analysis some will say he broke one law, why should we believe his story about the incident?

Our legislature did what they did. Laws don't have to make sense and frequently don't. (That's not my judgment on this law but acceptance of your view that to you the law makes no sense.) Laws come from compromises which
more often than not leave no one happy. I'm not going to bang my head against a wall and cry about this minor
issue in the grand scheme of life.

[9MMare]

Wherther I agree or not with the hours, I do like the "required" training and re-training.
Training and pre-qual requirements is what the states looked at when reciprical permits were to be recognized.
Get real world here and not politics. Lets say a state required a 15 hour course, with live-fire instruction and actually hitting a targret at 25'.
Another state merely rubber-stamps thru an application based on a background check, fingerprinting and payment of the fees,
The first state has a problem identifying the second as having sufficient training........
Lets not argue this point; it actually happened in recip licensing....
I wish other states required something for requal. ( Florida does not. Even if its a review of the laws and safely demonstrate loading, firing, and unloading a weapon. Aas is now, many people buy the gun, get a permit, and it sits in their dresser drawer, or car glove box. A few yeras from now, are the skills learned still there???

In Florida, you are required a 2 hour course, unless you can show previous firearms exposure. I was a tournament skeet and trap shooter, and have trophies. This, and/or my NY state hunting license or the NY state pistol permit would have qualified me, however, I still went thru the course. You can never get too much training/education
JMHO and $.02
back to the original question. I thing the original time periods were sufficient. I think the additional time is political. The lawmakers are saying to the non-gun citizenery (if thers such a thing in TX), "look what we are doing to keep you safe" And the sheeple agree...

There is a big difference IMO between politics and Consitutional Rights.

As for reciprocity....if we are going to be REAL, then it's the laws IMO that are a bigger block than training.

At this time, the laws for carry in each state vary so much that no one could reasonably be expected to know them all. And the states, as far as I've seen, are not remotely interested in having the same laws pertaining to cc. Not to mention that when it comes to states' rights, there's no reason that they should (altho it seems it would be a good idea on this topic).

Training? There is NO level that anyone can claim makes someone 'safer' than another and no one will ever agree. It is likely that every person that buys a gun gets *some* practice or training with it. In our society...a free society...we cant protect against every idiot. But at the same time, the basic assumption of safe permit holders in public (an assumption that is proven, mandatory training or not, by the fact that most states allow cc and are not looking to change that)....seems to imply that the states COULD agree on a no training requirement (again....there is no evidence that the mandatory training makes any difference.)

But anyway, I see the hurdle of differing laws the bigger deterrant to reciprocity.

[dldeuce]

If you are old enough to have read newspapers for awhile, you know that it is not uncommon for someone to engage in a justified
shooting but still be charged with a gun crime- or some other crime related to the incident. CHL or car carry is your choice if you live here. Do it right, don't do it, or hope nothing ever happens that puts you in jail.

Yes, in your example you may have saved your life but you also committed a crime with which you can be charged. Depending
on the circumstances you may or may not be prosecuted. Further, whether or not you are prosecuted on the gun charge
may affect a Grand Jury's perception of whether or not a self defense shooting was justified. People are people and emotions
come into play. IF there is room for subjective analysis some will say he broke one law, why should we believe his story about the incident?

Our legislature did what they did. Laws don't have to make sense and frequently don't. (That's not my judgment on this law but acceptance of your view that to you the law makes no sense.) Laws come from compromises which
more often than not leave no one happy. I'm not going to bang my head against a wall and cry about this minor
issue in the grand scheme of life.

So again, you are going to entirely evade the argument I just made, and that you've evaded throughout, that the same section 9 laws apply to everyone regardless of the means they use to defend themselves. To buttress your evasion, is that ad hominem there suggesting I'm crying and banging my head against the wall? Is that all you guys have to offer now? If so, I think we're probably done here.

Why can't you just admit it? There's no rational basis for mandating the training, only for CHL holders, and we should all oppose these laws starting with support to reduce the training?

[farronwolf]

I hope people realize that prior to Sept. 1, 2007, it was not clear whether or not one could carry a gun in their car under the "travel" premise. Effective Sept. 1, 2007, the automobile was specifically listed as a place that one could "reasonably" defend against unlawful, entrance into their home, vehicle, or place of business, or the attempt to remove them from their home vehicle or place of business. Prior to this, the vehicle was not listed as a place that was by law "reasonable" to defend in the same mannor as your home or business. Hence the "castle doctrine" which was already on the books prior to 2007, was extended to the automobile. The same time, it was by law indicated that anyone who is not prohibited could carry a loaded handgun in their vehicle if it was concealed. Vehicles were being treated the same as your home or busines and became part of your "castle".

So, prior to 2007, Texans were only able to defend without training or knowledge of the laws, their home and business. 2007 vehicles were included with no training or knowledge of any laws. At this same time Texas implemented language which stated no one was required to retreat (stand your ground) when having to use force or deadly force as long as you weren't commiting a crime (btw unlawful carry of a concealed handgun outside of the home, vehicle or place of business is a crime still), didn't provoke the individual, ect. If you were in your "castle" you could defend yourself and it would be considered reasonable. That is pretty straight forward.

In 1995, when the CHL laws came into place, people who chose to go through the required training and proficiency could then extend their ability to defend themselves with deadly force/concealed handgun outside of their castle against the things that are listed in the statutes, or choose to defend a third party against the same actions. The training provided them the knowledge to know what they could and could not defend against with deadly force while outside their "castle", since after receiving their CHL they were no longer limited to using their handgun in their home or business, and after 1997, in their vehicle for self defense.

Like has been pointed out, once you step outside your vehicle with the gun you are carrying legally in your vehicle, you have left your "castle" and are now breaking the law, and do not have a justification for using deadly force to protect yourself.

Like it or not, that is the way the law reads. We have to live with it, until such laws are put in place that changes the way things are.

[9MMare]

I hope people realize that prior to Sept. 1, 2007, it was not clear whether or not one could carry a gun in their car under the "travel" premise. Effective Sept. 1, 2007, the automobile was specifically listed as a place that one could "reasonably" defend against unlawful, entrance into their home, vehicle, or place of business, or the attempt to remove them from their home vehicle or place of business. Prior to this, the vehicle was not listed as a place that was by law "reasonable" to defend in the same mannor as your home or business. Hence the "castle doctrine" which was already on the books prior to 2007, was extended to the automobile. The same time, it was by law indicated that anyone who is not prohibited could carry a loaded handgun in their vehicle if it was concealed. Vehicles were being treated the same as your home or busines and became part of your "castle".

So, prior to 2007, Texans were only able to defend without training or knowledge of the laws, their home and business. 2007 vehicles were included with no training or knowledge of any laws. At this same time Texas implemented language which stated no one was required to retreat (stand your ground) when having to use force or deadly force as long as you weren't commiting a crime (btw unlawful carry of a concealed handgun outside of the home, vehicle or place of business is a crime still), didn't provoke the individual, ect. If you were in your "castle" you could defend yourself and it would be considered reasonable. That is pretty straight forward.

In 1995, when the CHL laws came into place, people who chose to go through the required training and proficiency could then extend their ability to defend themselves with deadly force/concealed handgun outside of their castle against the things that are listed in the statutes, or choose to defend a third party against the same actions. The training provided them the knowledge to know what they could and could not defend against with deadly force while outside their "castle", since after receiving their CHL they were no longer limited to using their handgun in their home or business, and after 1997, in their vehicle for self defense.

Like has been pointed out, once you step outside your vehicle with the gun you are carrying legally in your vehicle, you have left your "castle" and are now breaking the law, and do not have a justification for using deadly force to protect yourself.

Like it or not, that is the way the law reads. We have to live with it, until such laws are put in place that changes the way things are.

I dont get it. WHat prevented Texans from knowing the laws or being trained? SOmething PREVENTED them doing so?

Or the laws were so poorly and contradictorily written that no one could understand them and they had not been challenged in the courts to fix them?

So you just settle for crap laws? They tried that here in Seattle, to pass a law that was against the state consitution, and a lawyer got up and broke the law so it could be challenged in court. And Seattle lost. Granted...it was done in an educated and legally-thought out manner AND the police were informed before he did it.

If the laws *cant be followed* and people just sit back and accept that? That's ok? Does that even make sense? Try explaining, thru lawyers, to your legislature what the costs will be when those cases ARE challenged after real life incidents and the state loses. Show them the bottom dollar.

[d2jlking]

There should be no training requirement at all. Why should a citizen have to pay the state to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right? Who determines how much and what kind of training? "Shall not be infringed". We as Americans are so ready to accept limitations and restrictions on our freedoms. Sad.

[dldeuce]

So, prior to 2007, Texans were only able to defend without training or knowledge of the laws, their home and business.

Like has been pointed out, once you step outside your vehicle with the gun you are carrying legally in your vehicle, you have left your "castle" and are now breaking the law, and do not have a justification for using deadly force to protect yourself.

I hope people realize that this has never been true. Even since 1871, we have always been able to travel with firearms. There have always been numerous other exceptions as well, both statutory and judicial, to the 46.02 law. I hope everyone also realizes that this is just one more evasion of the point I've been making. Since 1836, and even long before, people in Texas have always been able to travel freely and interact with the public while carrying firearms, either concealed or openly. Only since 1995 and only for this small class of citizens has the legislature ever mandated training.

No one has been able to offer even a rational basis for this discriminatory barrier put up against the citizen's 2A rights. We also know that despite the Texas Constitution's "view to prevent crime" clause, The SCOTUS has already held that a rational basis is not enough to infringe on even one citizen's 2A rights. The 46.02 is an ancient law that has denied tens of millions of citizens' rights for well over a century. The SCOTUS has held that the state will have to at least meet an intermediate scrutiny or even a strict scrutiny standard. Carrying commonly owned firearms in public has already been ruled at the appellate level as part of that basic 2A right. No "view" or whim or mere popular idea of politicians and the majority will ever live up to that standard especially when that grand idea can't even be shown to reduce crime at all.

[dldeuce]

So you just settle for crap laws? They tried that here in Seattle, to pass a law that was against the state consitution, and a lawyer got up and broke the law so it could be challenged in court. And Seattle lost. Granted...it was done in an educated and legally-thought out manner AND the police were informed before he did it.

Yes, just like in Illinois where their laws read an awful lot like 46.02, they lost. Unfortunately, the leaders championing Texas gun owner's rights, including one NRA board member, make a lot of arguments just like these folks here. They are much more concerned with what's the best deal we can negotiate with the legislature and the mob they represent than actually fighting for our individual rights. A minority of even just one does not stand a chance for justice in the legislature. That's why we have the judiciary, but like I said. Unfortunately, the people in a position to lead and raise the kind of funds it takes to put up a real challenge in the courts sound a lot like the folks here.