Texas HB 47 - Page 9

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 Hopyard If these issues were simple we wouldn't have 50 states each having 50 different sets of laws; we'd have 50 states ...

Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 228
Like Tree73Likes

Thread: Texas HB 47

  1. #121
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    If these issues were simple we wouldn't have 50 states each having 50 different sets of laws; we'd have 50 states with laws on CHL that were similar to each other. There is no one answer other than no license requirements at all. Our elected officials
    in about 47 of the 50 states have seen fit to not go that route. They represent the entire population, not necessarily the interests of the concealed carry community. Sometimes these are not consistent with each other. That's life in a free country.
    I dont think it's simple at all. However if we had REAL facts about effectiveness, we could make attempts to focus on safety and real (if any) public concerns. And it seems the 'public' is out to further restrict our rights.

    And just because we have certain requirements and restrictions doesnt mean they are Constitutional. WIth the proper information, we could work more effectively to get things changed.

    Again I still dont understand how states can undermine a very plainly stated 'right to bear' arms. That doesnt mean just on your property...that seems to be 'own.' We need to continually challenge the courts.
    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)


  2. #122
    Senior Member Array Jemsaal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    az
    Posts
    748
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    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.
    Shame there's not a smiley here. Yeah, that's exactly what I meant. Something I'm NOT willing to have either.

    I have a great compromise on the "mandatory training" issue.

    JWCC 1.A. ( Jemsaal's World Criminal code, Article 1, paragraph A):

    All citizens will take a handgun training class before they reach the age of majority. Within three months of reaching age of majority all citizens will register for the Selective Service and be issued the standard Army sidearm to be carried until they age out of the Selective Service System. At that time, the sidearm may be bought at market value.
    .1 A different sidearm may be substituted for the Selective Service System sidearm, provided it is the same or larger caliber and equals or exceeds capacity of the military sidearm.

    .2 Crimes committed with this sidearm will label you as criminally stupid.

    EDIT: HEY! There IS a smiley! Why didn't I see that?

  3. #123
    Member Array LawyerDagget's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    65
    I'm a Texas CHL instructor. I don't have a problem with HB 47. I believe 10 hours is too long. I can teach the material in 4 hours. I'm happy to stay longer and do additional mateerial. The vast majority of students want the bare minimum, which is unfortunate, they don't know what they don't know. I believe it is true that many Texas instructors are upset with this because they are afraid they won't be able to charge as much $$ if it is a 4 hour class.
    jrclen and suntzu like this.

  4. #124
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,886
    It certainly isn't about the money, as my fees will remain the same if this passes. Like I stated before it is about having to teach the same required materials in 40% of the time now allowed.
    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

  5. #125
    Member Array XD40inTX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    It's always amazing to me to come onto this pro gun rights forum and see so many posters advocate for more onerous government regulation. I shouldn't need 10 hours of mandatory training to understand a whole gaggle of dangerously complex laws before I can get permission from the government to exercise one of my most fundamental rights.
    Understanding that "gaggle of dangerously complex laws" is more for your protection than the public's. A CHL holder very much needs to know when he can pull the trigger and still sleep in his bed that night, not in a jail cell.

    I took the original 10-hour course in 2003 and have now taken two renewal classes. My feeling is that the 10-hour course in necessary, and the renewal classes always average more than the mandated 4-hour minimum because of the questions and discussions.

    I'll contact my representative and senator and urge them to vote against this proposal.
    Hopyard likes this.
    If you would enslave a people, first you must disarm them.

    ~ Adolf Hitler
    ~ Mein Kampf

  6. #126
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40inTX View Post
    Understanding that "gaggle of dangerously complex laws" is more for your protection than the public's. A CHL holder very much needs to know when he can pull the trigger and still sleep in his bed that night, not in a jail cell.

    I took the original 10-hour course in 2003 and have now taken two renewal classes. My feeling is that the 10-hour course in necessary, and the renewal classes always average more than the mandated 4-hour minimum because of the questions and discussions.

    I'll contact my representative and senator and urge them to vote against this proposal.
    See bold: thank you, that is what I wrote in response to Hopyard above.

    And thank you for choosing to ask the govt continue to look out for the further protection of TX state's permit holders.

    In my state where it's not required, we must do it on our own (or be responsible for our own consequences).
    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)

  7. #127
    Member Array jrclen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Central Wisconsin
    Posts
    342
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40inTX View Post
    Understanding that "gaggle of dangerously complex laws" is more for your protection than the public's.
    Should the government then require 10 hours of training before issuing a permission slip to use your "freedom of speech?" There are a gaggle of dangerously complex laws concerning liable, slander, inciting, and other issues.

    How about a 10 hour course before receiving a permission slip to exercise your freedom of religion? Once again there are a gaggle of dangerously complex laws concerning prayer. Where it is allowed and prohibited, where you may display religious icons, and so forth.
    Shall not be infringed means - shall not be infringed.
    Member - NRA
    John

  8. #128
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,982
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40inTX View Post
    Understanding that "gaggle of dangerously complex laws" is more for your protection than the public's. A CHL holder very much needs to know when he can pull the trigger and still sleep in his bed that night, not in a jail cell.

    I took the original 10-hour course in 2003 and have now taken two renewal classes. My feeling is that the 10-hour course in necessary, and the renewal classes always average more than the mandated 4-hour minimum because of the questions and discussions.

    I'll contact my representative and senator and urge them to vote against this proposal.
    If it is for my protection why don't we need a class even own a weapon..you in favor of that? Good grief.....I didn't know if I should laugh or cry....
    Well, since you think it is a good idea...what is your idea about folks that need it immediatly (estranged spouse) for protection? Does the person stayed locked up in their house until a class can be scheduled. What if said person fails the course?
    jrclen likes this.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  9. #129
    Member Array OldGrumpy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    26
    I recently took the class in Texas and we had a lawyer as one of the class attendees. Other class members were trying to get him to file a class action suit over the class length. It was obvious our instructor had only 4 - 5 hours of material that he extended to 10 hours. To me length is not as important as quality of instructor.
    jrclen likes this.

  10. #130
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by XD40inTX View Post
    Understanding that "gaggle of dangerously complex laws" is more for your protection than the public's. A CHL holder very much needs to know when he can pull the trigger and still sleep in his bed that night, not in a jail cell.
    What nonsense. Legislating the mandatory handgun training had nothing to do with protecting the license holder. Let's float this judicial trial balloon. "Chief Justice, the Texas legislature "regulated" .... err .... prohibited twenty five million Texans from exercising their 2A rights to protect them from themselves."

    I'll contact my representative and senator and urge them to vote against this proposal.
    I'm so thankful that I have folks like you looking out for my best interests. You and yours are so much much better at defending me and mine than a silly handgun.
    jrclen likes this.

  11. #131
    Senior Member Array velo99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Native Texan
    Posts
    644
    I think four hours is too short. We are assuming a great responsibility when we carry a gun in public. The decision to take another life is not one to be taken lightly. I have noticed that many of us here have religious convictions. I personally would not want to be found guilty by God for making the wrong decision when I could have studied longer and made the correct decision. It seems at times like this the obtusity is astounding by some of the comments I have seen. We are willing to spend thousands of dollars on advanced training but balk at a state required 10 hour class. Doesn't seem to make a lot if sense to me.
    We have different gifts,according to the grace given to each of us.

  12. #132
    VIP Member Array 9MMare's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Outside Seattle, WA
    Posts
    3,309
    Quote Originally Posted by velo99 View Post
    I think four hours is too short. We are assuming a great responsibility when we carry a gun in public. The decision to take another life is not one to be taken lightly. I have noticed that many of us here have religious convictions. I personally would not want to be found guilty by God for making the wrong decision when I could have studied longer and made the correct decision. It seems at times like this the obtusity is astounding by some of the comments I have seen. We are willing to spend thousands of dollars on advanced training but balk at a state required 10 hour class. Doesn't seem to make a lot if sense to me.
    If you feel that way, why would it require a mandatory class to make you do so (I dont think it would). And if someone didnt feel that responsibilty and committment, no class could make them feel that way.

    Again, please look at my signature.
    jrclen likes this.
    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)

  13. #133
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by velo99 View Post
    I think four hours is too short. We are assuming a great responsibility when we carry a gun in public. The decision to take another life is not one to be taken lightly. I have noticed that many of us here have religious convictions.
    That's just such utter nonsense. A woman that's being mugged at knife point doesn't have a great responsibility to society. She doesn't have a great responsibility to the scumbag that's threatening to kill her. She has a great responsibility to herself and her family and loved ones to survive. All you have a great responsibility for is to leave her alone.

    You act as if as soon as she carries a gun out in public she'll suddenly have a wild uncontrollable urge to run up and down the streets shooting everyone. That she's got some great responsibility to control herself. That society has some great responsibility to sit her down and tell her like a little psychotic child that she just can't shoot people any time she wants.

    I personally would not want to be found guilty by God for making the wrong decision when I could have studied longer and made the correct decision.
    So, you need a government program to teach you morals and common decency not to murder people? You need laws to keep you from doing that?

    It seems at times like this the obtusity is astounding by some of the comments I have seen.
    You've got that right.

    We are willing to spend thousands of dollars on advanced training but balk at a state required 10 hour class. Doesn't seem to make a lot if sense to me.
    If you want to spend thousands of dollars on training, go right ahead. Just don't presume everyone else is so stupid, irresponsible, and immoral that they need you to force them to get it.
    jrclen likes this.

  14. #134
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    847
    I think fundamentally we have a disagreement over the nature of law abiding citizens in a civilized society. Some people believe that if ordinary law abiding citizens have instant access to a firearm there will be blood in the streets, whether they have those guns at home or in public. That's just simply irrational. We have well established data that proves undeniably just the opposite. For example, in Texas we have detailed crime statistics on those with the CHL license. They've been posted in this thread. Crime, any crime, by this group of people is virtually non-existent since 1995. That's hundreds of thousands of people tracked for 16 years.

    What rational argument can anyone make that those stats would change if we eliminated the training requirement altogether? There is no rational argument. It's not the training. It's the nature of moral decent people in a civilized society. If you look at national gun murder data, the problem is in the inner cities of a handful of major metropolitan areas. It's where the liberal progressive and racist Democratic policies have devastated society and you no longer have a civilized society. The politics have corrupted the moral backbone of society. No amount of gun laws or gun training is going to change that.

    You're never going to get immoral irresponsible people to follow laws. No amount of government mandated training is going to fix that problem, and if the government were to mandate training, gun training sure wouldn't be the place to start. All you can do as a society to fix that immediate problem is to allow everyone else the freedom to defend themselves from these scumbags. That's exactly what we should expect the legislature to do. They need to respect our 2nd Amendment rights. They need to repeal this unconstitutional 46.02 law, and they then need to clean up a lot of the onerous requirements for CHL.

    If you want to do something about the violent crime that happens in public, encourage more people to carry firearms in public. We already have laws making violence a crime. The threat of going to jail or sitting on death row for 15 years isn't working. Let's give the criminals some training. Let's give them some mandatory training right on the spot of the crime by shooting them dead. Our legislature could fix this right now, and that's exactly what we should expect them to do.
    9MMare likes this.

  15. #135
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,056
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    We have well established data that proves undeniably just the opposite. For example, in Texas we have detailed crime statistics on those with the CHL license. They've been posted in this thread. Crime, any crime, by this group of people is virtually non-existent since 1995. That's hundreds of thousands of people tracked for 16 years.

    What rational argument can anyone make that those stats would change if we eliminated the training requirement altogether? There is no rational argument. It's not the training. It's the nature of moral decent people in a civilized society. If you look at national gun murder data, the problem is in the inner cities of a handful of major metropolitan areas.
    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.

    Not all states have the statistical requirement, most don't. So it is hard to sort out if we benefit in comparison to say, WA, or PA,
    neither of which has a training requirement. That is I think a real and open question.

    I know that personally I learned a great deal at my first CHL class; I had my eyes opened to many things which simply never
    crossed my mind. Subsequently I have participated in threads here in which I've had to go back to the handbook and dig out the black letter law to make my point.

    Now to the range test--- The number and variety of pistol designs and the relative complexity of them one to another almost
    demands a range test; and maybe more-- demonstrated knowledge of your own weapon's controls. Pistols especially are not
    mechanically simple as knives are. Since the main purpose of pistol ownership is self defense, its a pretty good idea
    to make sure those who would carry for that purpose don't drop their mag when they think they are releasing a thumb safety.
    Or frankly, making certain that they even know they need to rack the slide to fire the thing.

    All of that said, doing it for the third time recently was a bit annoying. The range test for someone like myself who
    likes to get in there and shoot now and again, is almost comedic. But, it does demonstrate that I can still follow
    instructions and if at my advanced age I were senile and not fully competent to carry, at least someone would notice.
    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

Page 9 of 16 FirstFirst ... 5678910111213 ... LastLast

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.