January 18th, 2013 08:30 PM
Having lived here for about 40 years I know that somehow your understanding of the pre-1995 situation is quite flawed.
Originally Posted by dldeuce
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.
January 18th, 2013 09:54 PM
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.
Originally Posted by Hopyard
January 18th, 2013 11:00 PM
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.
Originally Posted by Hopyard
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?
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 house bill 47
tx hb 47
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors