HB681: Employer Parking Lots Bill

[London]

I'm not aware of any non-criminals who don't qualify.

It's a provision in the legal system that allows for leniency... but a crime was still committed.

I'll raise my hand here. I'm a military veteran who got a bum interference charge from a crooked cop, and a job-protecting prosecutor who wouldn't toss it out. I didn't commit the crime; therefore I am not a criminal, even though I opted for a D/A.

Your refusal to believe only criminals are prosecuted by the legal system is absurd. We'll see how eager to go D/A you are if it's ever your ass in the hot seat.

As far as arguing for licensing is concerned, perhaps you can provide us with historical evidence of its benefits (and the negatives of "Constitutional carry" states) rather than opinion.

 

[London]

D/A requires an admission of guilt - how does that make the guilty party a non-criminal?

Wrong again. My plea was entered as nolo contendere. Also, an innocent person could plead guilty to take the D/A rather than risk a full prosecution.

FWIW, if the affected person chooses, he can attempt to have a conviction or even a D/A expunged

A felony is easier to expunge than a misdemeanor in Texas.

 

[djjoshuad]

I see you have conveniently changed your criteria from "felon, a fugitive, or a wife-beater" to "non-criminal".

Which was my point - the restrictions are much more tighter than just that small set of folks ("felon, a fugitive, or a wife-beater"). Lots of other criminal conduct can prevent obtaining a CHL, even though you can legally buy/own a handgun.

That's not convenience in the least. My original wording was intended to make a point. I qualified that point with a more specific term.

There is not "lots" of criminal conduct that can prevent obtaining a CHL. It requires something more serious than a traffic violation. Even Class B convictions are okay as long as it's not domestic violence (wife beater).

 

[Renegade]

That's not convenience in the least. My original wording was intended to make a point. I qualified that point with a more specific term.

There is not "lots" of criminal conduct that can prevent obtaining a CHL. It requires something more serious than a traffic violation. Even Class B convictions are okay as long as it's not domestic violence (wife beater).

My bad - I meant to write lots of NON criminal conduct can prevent obtaining a CHL, even though you can legally buy/own a handgun.

 

[verge]

I'm not debating open carry itself, just the unlicensed carry of a firearm - concealed or otherwise. However, I do believe that licensing is even more important for open carry than for concealed.

The 2nd amendment grants us the right to keep and bear arms, but it doesn't specify open or concealed. It also doesn't say anything about licensing... we have to extrapolate and modernize. Given today's society and technology, licensing makes sense. It would not have made sense in the 18th century. The founding fathers could not have predicted nor planned for the level of sophistication we currently have. I don't want to get into that argument... but one point is important: Prisoners do not retain the right to bear arms, correct? Nobody ever has a problem with that... however, denying the same criminals that right *after* imprisonment is a problem for a lot of people.

The constitution does not grant the right to carry openly. It also does not require concealment. This is a perfect example of why the current legal structure needs to supplement the laws created almost 250 years ago. We, as a society, need to determine what is best for us today - not what was best for our ancestors a quarter of a millennium ago.

You are right the constitution does not state open carry or concealed. In my opinion, to be correct with the actual constitution it should be legal to carry either open or concealed without licensing restrictions. It would be my personal preference that people carry concealed for the same reason that I prefer people wear shirts and pants in public. There is no overriding reason to show what you have or don't have.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Would not a D/A eventually go away (as far as getting your CHL) just like say, a DUI conviction???

 

[txinvestigator]

Certain class C misdemeanors can make one ineligible for CHL.

Many psychiatric conditions and diagnoses can make one ineligible (those people, are not criminals) People who are delinquent on their child support or taxes collect by a government entity of the state are not eligible. Again, that, in and of itself, does not a criminal make.

 

[London]

The 2nd amendment grants us the right to keep and bear arms, but it doesn't specify open or concealed. It also doesn't say anything about licensing... we have to extrapolate and modernize.

The constitution does not grant the right to carry openly.

Ah, the good old, "Implied powers" argument so favored by the Federalists. It sort of falls apart when you read the following, though:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[txinvestigator]

Would not a D/A eventually go away (as far as getting your CHL) just like say, a DUI???

For misdemeanors after 5 years, and for MOST felonies never. Some felonies that were deferred only restrict a person for 10 years.

 

[djjoshuad]

Wrong again. My plea was entered as nolo contendere. Also, an innocent person could plead guilty to take the D/A rather than risk a full prosecution.

do you know what that translates to? I do. It's "I do not contest this" or, in short - "no contest". A "no contest" plea or a guilty plea is still an admission of guilt. When charged with a crime, anything other than a "not guilty" plea indicates an admission of guilt. Like it or not, that's the case. AND that's why "no contest" pleas that result in a D/A are still grounds for CHL denial.

In TX, if you are charged with a class A misdemeanor or higher and you choose not to fight that charge... you are giving up your right to carry a handgun in public. In my opinion, rightfully so.

 

[txinvestigator]

That's not convenience in the least. My original wording was intended to make a point. I qualified that point with a more specific term.

There is not "lots" of criminal conduct that can prevent obtaining a CHL. It requires something more serious than a traffic violation. Even Class B convictions are okay as long as it's not domestic violence (wife beater).

Class Bs and As, as well as some class C's make on inelgible for 5 years from the date of conviction.

 

[djjoshuad]

Certain class C misdemeanors can make one ineligible for CHL.

Many psychiatric conditions and diagnoses can make one ineligible (those people, are not criminals) People who are delinquent on their child support or taxes collect by a government entity of the state are not eligible. Again, that, in and of itself, does not a criminal make.

I respectfully disagree. Failing to fulfill a financial obligation *is* a crime. Even still, they took out the part about student loans... so some people get off the hook there.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

For misdemeanors after 5 years, and for MOST felonies never. Some felonies that were deferred only restrict a person for 10 years.

Ah, I did not realize that one could be eligible for D/A if they commit a Felony.......I figured only for misdemeanors.
Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[djjoshuad]

Class Bs and As, as well as some class C's make on inelgible for 5 years from the date of conviction.

Correct, I intended to say C instead of B. But as far as I know, there are no non-violent class C convictions that would make one ineligible.

 

[txinvestigator]

I respectfully disagree. Failing to fulfill a financial obligation *is* a crime. Even still, they took out the part about student loans... so some people get off the hook there.

A person can be denied without ever even have been CHARGED with a crime. Your disagreement is void.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Correct, I intended to say C instead of B. But as far as I know, there are no non-violent class C convictions that would make one ineligible.

DUI

ETA: for 5 yrs.

 

[Renegade]

do you know what that translates to? I do. It's "I do not contest this" or, in short - "no contest". A "no contest" plea or a guilty plea is still an admission of guilt

No it does not translate to that, it means exactly what it says.

 

[Renegade]

I respectfully disagree. Failing to fulfill a financial obligation *is* a crime.

You continue to be wrong. It is a civil contract issue.

 

[txinvestigator]

Correct, I intended to say C instead of B. But as far as I know, there are no non-violent class C convictions that would make one ineligible.

All class B and A, violent or not, make one ineligible. Violations of disorderly conduct, even non-violent ones, makes one ineligible.

 

[djjoshuad]

Ah, the good old, "Implied powers" argument so favored by the Federalists. It sort of falls apart when you read the following, though:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

right... and this can be interpreted in many, many ways. It has to be *clarified* and made appropriate for today.

As a point of discussion, if the constitution also said that the "right of people to own other people should never be infringed", would you not want it altered?