Texas HB 47 - Page 16

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 dldeuce I hope people realize that this has never been true. Even since 1871, we have always been able to travel with ...

Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 61213141516
Results 226 to 228 of 228
Like Tree73Likes

Thread: Texas HB 47

  1. #226
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,910
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    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.
    Having lived here for about 40 years I know that somehow your understanding of the pre-1995 situation is quite flawed.
    At no time since I've been here--ca. 1975ish was it permissible to carry a handgun except to and from your home and business
    by the most direct route without stopping; to or from the range again by the most direct route without stopping, UNLESS
    you were traveling OVERNIGHT and OUTSIDE the county of your residence. Those were the terms of the old travel law
    as interpreted by numerous TX judges; and plenty of folks got convicted. I had a cop tell me why he really didn't like
    that old travel law. He basically stated that whether or not you got arrested was partly a matter of how and you
    interacted at the side of the road, as the law was 'ambiguous.' So, the first fix to the problem was to allow concealed
    carry. The legislature in its wisdom determined that there would be a training requirement. As Farronwolf already pointed
    out the present carry law is an extension of the castle doctrine but also a needed modification and clarification of the
    travel law. Now, there is no need to worry about going someplace by the most direct route and you can stop for a Big Mac
    as long as it stays in the car. IT wasn't like that before.

    Going back to your first few words above. "We have always been able to travel with firearms," that is literally true but you
    left out the qualifiers, overnight, out of county of your residence, by the most direct route, no stopping.
    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


  2. #227
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Having lived here for about 40 years I know that somehow your understanding of the pre-1995 situation is quite flawed.
    At no time since I've been here--ca. 1975ish was it permissible to carry a handgun except to and from your home and business
    by the most direct route without stopping; to or from the range again by the most direct route without stopping, UNLESS
    you were traveling OVERNIGHT and OUTSIDE the county of your residence. Those were the terms of the old travel law
    as interpreted by numerous TX judges; and plenty of folks got convicted. I had a cop tell me why he really didn't like
    that old travel law. He basically stated that whether or not you got arrested was partly a matter of how and you
    interacted at the side of the road, as the law was 'ambiguous.' So, the first fix to the problem was to allow concealed
    carry. The legislature in its wisdom determined that there would be a training requirement. As Farronwolf already pointed
    out the present carry law is an extension of the castle doctrine but also a needed modification and clarification of the
    travel law. Now, there is no need to worry about going someplace by the most direct route and you can stop for a Big Mac
    as long as it stays in the car. IT wasn't like that before.

    Going back to your first few words above. "We have always been able to travel with firearms," that is literally true but you
    left out the qualifiers, overnight, out of county of your residence, by the most direct route, no stopping.
    It wasn't me that needed a history lesson on travelling. What I said was literally true, what Farronwolf said was absolutely false and misleading, and what you've done, again, is to completely evade the argument.

  3. #228
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    847
    Quote 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 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.
    I looked back through this thread to see if I had missed any arguments made by our nanny state advocates. Here's one I missed. So we have a few hundred thousand people that have had their crime incidents tracked over 16 years. There's two things every person on this list has in common. One, before they were added to the list, they had zero Class A or B misdemeanors, zero felonies, and not so much as even a delinquent tax bill recorded against them for five year prior to making the list. Two, they all went through the infamous training course.

    And the results? After the training, the crime rate amongst this group goes up with an infinite slope. It's a divide by zero singularity. We had a zero crime rate before, and the strong government interest was to reduce that. What a surprise! Sure hope to be there to hear that "rational basis" argument in front of a judge.

    Now, I think I've responded to every argument all of you have made point by point. I've responded to your rebuttals to my rebuttals. Yet looking back through this thread you have all evaded almost every point I've made. I wonder why that is?

Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 61213141516

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.