CHL Article in Express-News Sunday 3 Oct

[Red78]

Saw this online today (Saturday), thought I'd pass it on. Here's the lead in to the article that will be in Sunday's paper....

When Texas lawmakers approved the state’s concealed handgun statute 15 years ago, they promised it would help law-abiding Texans defend themselves from criminals. But in a pattern that’s playing out in San Antonio and other major cities in Texas, residents in low-income neighborhoods aren’t taking advantage of the concealed-carry law as often as residents living in wealthier, more conservative areas. Our investigation also found a huge spike in permits after Barack Obama was elected president. Story written in partnership with the Texas Tribune.

 

[Greg_TX]

It may be an over-generalization, but this is probably due in part because many people living in low income areas can't qualify for a CHL. And it isn't without reason that many suburbanites feel the need to have a gun in the house or carry one with them. Take Sugar Land for example; it's a relatively affluent Houston suburb full of expensive homes and 'safe' neighborhoods, yet there have been many home invasions - including cases where people are robbed at gunpoint in their own driveways. Crime can happen anywhere, no area is immune. Affluent areas are attractive to thieves because there's nice stuff to steal.

Not having read the article, I'm still pretty sure the argument will be that it's somehow unfair that suburbanites have been taking more advantage of the CHL laws than those poor inner-city folks. By calling these "wealthier, more conservative areas" and bringing up the Obama election, there's bound to be a political slant to the story.

 

[Wolfwood]

well even if that is the case, they could just make it less expensive.

 

[Greg_TX]

I was thinking more in terms of which areas would have a larger percentage of the population able to pass the required background checks.

 

[txinvestigator]

well even if that is the case, they could just make it less expensive.

Indigent people pay half.

 

[Greg_TX]

The Dallas Morning News has an article on this as well:
Concealed handgun permits on rise in Dallas-area suburbs | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Latest News

DPS stats:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/demoreportscy09.htm

 

[M. Sage]

well even if that is the case, they could just make it less expensive.

Or just eliminate the need for a CHL entirely. Go Constitutional Carry - open or concealed are both OK, no license required.

It don't get any cheaper, fairer or freer than free.

 

[Texas1911]

I was about to say ... it would suffice that they don't have $1000 extra sitting around for a carry rig and license.

 

[Bithabus]

In my experience poor people are usually ignorant of the law. I bet most of these people living in bad neighborhoods, even if they could pass the check, don't know CHL is a possibility.

 

[West Texas]

This makes a good case for open carry for anyone that can lawfully own a handgun, then maybe some type of step-up license process followed by a CHL as we now know it.

Then there is always the simple approach. inform people of their rights to keep and bear arms in the first place.

However, I would be willing to bet that if you looked at the makeup of the areas they are talking about in San Antonio that there will be a very high percentage of those living there who aren't citizens in the first place, or are somehow not eligible to own/have a firearm in the firwst place.

 

[jsimmons]

Reasons you can't get a CHL:

0) Can't pass the background check

1) Can't afford the fees

2) Not a US citizen

One or more of these things probably apply to most "low income" individuals. The simple answer is to allow constitutional carry. That way, everybody that can legally purchase a firearm can carry one, open or concealed. Arizona is blazing the trail - Texas should follow it.

 

[Buck Nekkid]

After reading the article, I still don't know what the author's point was. Mostly it was a penetrating glimpse into the obvious. If you can afford a concealable handgun and afford the training and afford the license then you more than likely don't live in inner loopland. That being said, I wonder how many Southsiders and Westsiders carry without a permit due to cost?

 

[Renegade]

Or just eliminate the need for a CHL entirely.

No thanks. I like bypassing NICS and having Reciprocity.

 

[Red78]

Here's a link to the article

Gun permits tied to wealth and politics

They pretty much state the obvious, but try to sensationalize it.

 

[M. Sage]

This makes a good case for open carry for anyone that can lawfully own a handgun, then maybe some type of step-up license process followed by a CHL as we now know it.

Then there is always the simple approach. inform people of their rights to keep and bear arms in the first place.

However, I would be willing to bet that if you looked at the makeup of the areas they are talking about in San Antonio that there will be a very high percentage of those living there who aren't citizens in the first place, or are somehow not eligible to own/have a firearm in the firwst place.

Why the hell would I go through the crap of getting a CHL if I could just open carry? Why bother making people to get a license to carry in a different way?

Reasons you can't get a CHL:

0) Can't pass the background check

1) Can't afford the fees

2) Not a US citizen

One or more of these things probably apply to most "low income" individuals. The simple answer is to allow constitutional carry. That way, everybody that can legally purchase a firearm can carry one, open or concealed. Arizona is blazing the trail - Texas should follow it.

IIRC, non-citizens can actually get a CHL.

No thanks. I like bypassing NICS and having Reciprocity.

For reciprocity, you just do what Alaska did and issue permits at request. The NICS check isn't a big deal. Oh no, it's another ten minutes... maybe. And again, you can just do a background check and issue licenses at request. After having lived in CA where there's a ten day wait (and they mean the full ten days - 240 hours or you don't go home with it), ten minutes is easy. Filling out the damn 4473 takes more time, and you can't skip that step.

 

[majormadmax]

IIRC, non-citizens can actually get a CHL.

You "IIRC" correct, I have a friend who is a Canadian military officer stationed here in Texas who was allowed to get his CHL (he also has a Texas drivers license)...

 

[SIG_Fiend]

Hell, I met a guy once that had previously renounced his US citizenship. He was a Vietnam draft dodger. He had since moved back, and he did in fact have a CHL (don't understand that one). Though, since he had renounced his citizenship, he had to state so on the 4473 which meant that I could not legally sell him a gun as far as dealer sales go. The annoying thing is this dude was pretty nonchalant about the whole ordeal and talked about it as if it was no big deal.

 

[San Antone RR]

The annoying thing is this dude was pretty nonchalant about the whole ordeal and talked about it as if it was no big deal.

I look at my time in the Army with pride and it would seem you look at it similarly. Others like this guy don't give a shit and should be back wherever it was convenient to become a citizen back in the '60's.

 

[MR Redneck]

Wow!
Another thread about people having to pay the state for their right to defend themself..
I even seen a comment about the " CHL" safety training..
I even saw another comment about poor people.
Reguardless of anyones opinion, I cant bring myself to agree with the need for anyone to pay the state for their right to defend themself.
CHL classes dont teach people how to be a good shooter.
I have never had any gun training in my life, and I will bet my gun that Im a better marksman than anyone who just took a CHL class..
And nope, I dont have a CHL either!

People shouldnt have to pay the State for their safety.

 

[Mic]

I'm going to go on a limb and say that it doesn't really hurt my feelings that larger percentages of urban poor aren't carrying.

I know, that probably makes me an elitist or "something"ist in some peoples eyes.