Texas HB 47

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by farronwolf

I didn't say that. You are implying that.

The problem is that the state mandates a certain amount of training, and is possibly going to cut the time available for their mandated traing by 60% or more.

If the state should remove the mandated training or not is a whole other argument. Some here seem to get the two confused. That discussion should take place in the 2A portion of this forum and has nothing to do with my original post or the intent of this thread. Several of the members have hijacked the original thread and tried to turn it into that debate for the sake of arguing I believe.

---

What you said in the OP is "I am not so sure I agree with this proposed legislation." You don't agree with reducing the mandatory training requirement to only four hours. Then you asked for our opinions, and usually, that includes a discussion of the opinion stated in the OP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jemsaal

There's a difference between constitutional carry and concealed carry, at least there is in my state. Right now, I constitutional carry. I am getting ready however, to take the concealed carry training course mandated in Arizona if I want a concealed weapons license. It allows me to enter more places, and also gives me the right to carry in other states that recognize reciprocity.

---

There is no difference in Texas if you want to carry a handgun. We'd be having a different conversation if Texas 46.02 had been repealed, and there was only a law regulating concealed handguns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Yes. But, and there is a big one---
WA has no training requirement (unless something has changed recently). I have BIL who has had his
license for about a decade or more. He is totally and utterly unfamiliar with very many aspects of handgun
laws and use of force laws which are almost universal across the states. He would be better off if he had some
training. I wish for his sake he had some training.

OT, but this part irritates me, he with no training has a license TX accepts, but WA won't accept a TX license
which is way harder to get than the one WA issues. Just another example of the irrational crazy quilt of gun laws
and reciprocity problems across our country.

---

I completely agree. I had my permit in a week, before I even had my gun (I was trying rental guns at the range). I chose to get training...and that is ongoing. I spent hrs on my own learning the laws and then...and I think this is important....participating with other gun owners, in person and online...and learning what those laws actually meant and what gun safety actually was. No class or training can replace that. If you are not committed, interested, engaged, then hrs shooting at paper and 'learning' laws that you have little frame of reference for understanding (until you hear it many times, in many scenarios, from others or in books, etc)....means little.

I took my committment seriously. But you cant force that on people, nor can you force them to take their 1A rights or any others seriously. All can be abused, but that doesnt mean the rest of us should be punished for individual's acts. If there are true abuses, then 'individuals' should be punished.

Edit: many people in this country grow up with guns and learn alot of this sort of thing that way. Again....waste of time to force training on them that is meant for...beginners? Home owners that occasionally want to carry? Urban people? Rural people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dldeuce

What you said in the OP is "I am not so sure I agree with this proposed legislation." You don't agree with reducing the mandatory training requirement to only four hours. Then you asked for our opinions, and usually, that includes a discussion of the opinion stated in the OP.

---

Yes, that includes discussion about the amount of time required for training. NOT, whether training should or should not be mandated.

If HB 47 proposed to remove all training requirements then we could discuss what you want to discuss. But that isn't the case and isn't the topic of this thread. If you want to discuss removing requirements all together, you might want to start your own thread, in the 2A section of the forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by farronwolf

Yes, that includes discussion about the amount of time required for training. NOT, whether training should or should not be mandated.

If HB 47 proposed to remove all training requirements then we could discuss what you want to discuss. But that isn't the case and isn't the topic of this thread. If you want to discuss removing requirements all together, you might want to start your own thread, in the 2A section of the forum.

---

You are correct sir and I will amend my opinion for this thread. Given the option of 4 hours or 10 then I would say four. Ten is a joke IMO. Since my son will get his CHL when he hits 21 I figure he will lose only 4 hours of his life during a worthless class instead of 10.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9MMare

So how does TX compare with the states with no requirements? Like WA? Like PA? Like VT? And there are others.

---

I don't know. If you are interested in that answer, spend some time and look up the statistics. I would be curious to know the results, but I am not going to do it for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by farronwolf

I don't know. If you are interested in that answer, spend some time and look up the statistics. I would be curious to know the results, but I am not going to do it for you.

---

You were the one stating that TX permit holders had a very good record compared to 'other populations'... Hard to claim that if you cant compare it to any other states. That was my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by suntzu

You are correct sir and I will amend my opinion for this thread. Given the option of 4 hours or 10 then I would say four. Ten is a joke IMO. Since my son will get his CHL when he hits 21 I figure he will lose only 4 hours of his life during a worthless class instead of 10.

---

One other thing that may or may not interest you is the following proposed legislation. I don't really want to start another thread about it, because I don't think it will bet passed. But basically, non resident permits from other states will be invalid one an individual becomes a resident of Texas.

Quote:

---

83R1715 JSC-D

By: Burnam H.B. No. 383


A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the recognition and validity of a license to carry a
concealed handgun issued by another state.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 411.173, Government Code, is amended by
adding Subsection (b-1) to read as follows:
(b-1) Notwithstanding Subsection (b), a person's license to
carry a concealed handgun issued by another state may not be
recognized and is not valid in this state if the person has
established a domicile in this state. For purposes of this
subsection, "domicile" has the meaning assigned by Section 522.003,
Transportation Code.
SECTION 2. This Act takes effect September 1, 2013.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 9MMare

You were the one stating that TX permit holders had a very good record compared to 'other populations'... Hard to claim that if you cant compare it to any other states. That was my point.

---

You didn't read my post correctly then. I didn't say other CHL holders from other states. I was referring to the rest of the people in this state who don't have their CHL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by farronwolf

One other thing that may or may not interest you is the following proposed legislation. I don't really want to start another thread about it, because I don't think it will bet passed. But basically, non resident permits from other states will be invalid one an individual becomes a resident of Texas.

---

How would that affect my son? He has never had a CHL or equivalent

I didn't say that it would affect your son, I said it may or may not interest you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hopyard

Yes. But, and there is a big one---
WA has no training requirement (unless something has changed recently). I have BIL who has had his
license for about a decade or more. He is totally and utterly unfamiliar with very many aspects of handgun
laws and use of force laws which are almost universal across the states. He would be better off if he had some
training. I wish for his sake he had some training.

OT, but this part irritates me, he with no training has a license TX accepts, but WA won't accept a TX license
which is way harder to get than the one WA issues. Just another example of the irrational crazy quilt of gun laws
and reciprocity problems across our country.

---

Yep, same here. This is where the crunch is - for those of us who take state's rights seriously, this is the exact result of states rights. An unequal patchwork of laws across the nation. The answer however, is a much stronger federal govt., something I'm willing to have either.

I have often wondered why the "Full faith and credit" clause doesn't apply to CCL's. It applies to marriage licenses, driver's licenses, etc. Somehow though, it doesn't apply to professional licenses. Interesting. So, is a CCL a professional license, or a license for the general public? I really wonder what this line of arguing would accomplish in the federal court system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by farronwolf

You didn't read my post correctly then. I didn't say other CHL holders from other states. I was referring to the rest of the people in this state who don't have their CHL.

---

What other populations within the state would you compare them to? Besides criminals? How is it segmented?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by farronwolf

I didn't say that it would affect your son, I said it may or may not interest you.

---

Thanks for the info...I was confused since you replied to a post in which I was referrring to my son getting a liscense...guess I need more coffee. Don't know why it would interest me but thanks again.

Jemsaal, I hope you meant to say "something I'm not willing to have" when refering to a stronger federal gov.

Sucks to have the mind work faster than the fingers. :embarassed: