HB681: Employer Parking Lots Bill

[matefrio]

And here on the forums: http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/...apons/21264-texas-gun-legislation-2011-a.html

 

[Renegade]

I don't understand the argument that it should be for non-CHL holders as well.

Because NON-CHL holders can lawfully carry handguns in their cars. They should not be denied the same protection as CHL holders.

As long as you're not a felon, a fugitive, or a wife-beater, getting a CHL is just a matter of doing some paperwork and sitting in a classroom for a day.

WRONG.

 

[matefrio]

 

[TexasRedneck]

Well, you have 2 options - an ability for SOME to carry, or for none.

Your choice.

Which would YOU opt for?

 

[Renegade]

Well, you have 2 options - an ability for SOME to carry, or for none.

Your choice.

Which would YOU opt for?

We are talking about the parking lots bill, not the open carry bill.

Nobody's carry rights are at risk.

 

[djjoshuad]

WRONG.

I see that you have used all caps... but that doesn't really do anything for your argument. why is that wrong?

 

[Renegade]

I see that you have used all caps... but that doesn't really do anything for your argument. why is that wrong?

I wasn't arguing, I was stating a fact.

To answer your question - Because you are wrong if you think getting a CHL only requires "you're not a felon, a fugitive, or a wife-beater, getting a CHL is just a matter of doing some paperwork and sitting in a classroom for a day."

Lots of folks can't afford the cost of around $250, and lots of folks can legally own a gun but cannot meet the CHL requirements to carry it.

 

[TexasRedneck]

We are talking about the parking lots bill, not the open carry bill.

Nobody's carry rights are at risk.

I repeat my question - maybe you need to have things stated more plainly...

SOMe can carry within certain parking lots, or NONE can.

You can choose one of the two.

Your choice?

 

[djjoshuad]

I wasn't arguing, I was stating a fact.

To answer your question - Because you are wrong if you think getting a CHL only requires "you're not a felon, a fugitive, or a wife-beater, getting a CHL is just a matter of doing some paperwork and sitting in a classroom for a day."

Lots of folks can't afford the cost of around $250, and lots of folks can legally own a gun but cannot meet the CHL requirements to carry it.

You were not stating a fact, you were countering a statement I made with a statement of your own. That - by definition - is arguing.

Texas has provisions for indigent people that cuts the cost of obtaining a CHL down significantly. The cost of purchasing and owning an average handgun exceeds the cost to get licensed to carry it... how many people *really* can't afford $250 for the right to carry, yet can afford to own, maintain, and practice shooting at least one gun?

To your other point, who are these "lots of folks" who don't meet CHL requirements? I am intimately familiar with the restrictions that TX places on CHL holders... I'm not aware of any non-criminals who don't qualify.

 

[Renegade]

I repeat my question - maybe you need to have things stated more plainly...

SOMe can carry within certain parking lots, or NONE can.

You can choose one of the two.

Your choice?

Maybe you do not understand. This has nothing to do with carrying or choices.

My comments were my own observation that the bill having a lot of "fail" in it. Where "fail" is defined as things not desirable for pro-gunners.

edited.

 

[Renegade]

To your other point, who are these "lots of folks" who don't meet CHL requirements? I am intimately familiar with the restrictions that TX places on CHL holders... I'm not aware of any non-criminals who don't qualify.

Thousands and thousands. Many are on this forum, for example, someone with no convictions of any kind but did a D/A would be an example.

I do not think you are really all that familiar with the restrictions if you have to ask for examples. This issue is well documented for over a decade now.

 

[verge]

I don't think this bill has any *fail* in it. It prohibits companies from punishing employees for carrying a weapon *in their vehicle on company grounds*, as long as they are CHL holders. It's progress.

I don't understand the argument that it should be for non-CHL holders as well. I *really* don't understand the desire for unlicensed open carry... Why is there such resistance to licensing? As long as you're not a felon, a fugitive, or a wife-beater, getting a CHL is just a matter of doing some paperwork and sitting in a classroom for a day.

I used to think exactly like you are. Why do we want or need open carry? I find open carry unnecessary and to some people and in some circumstances even slightly offensive. In my opinion a good percentage of open carry enthusiasts do so for the same reasons that people drive Ferrari's, wear audacious jewelry and generally make spectacles of themselves. Those reason may be making up for some other shortcoming, keeping up with the Joneses or simply vanity but then that is what our constitution protects. If an atheist wants to tattoo "G** IS A F***ING MYTH" on his forehead for no other reason that to prove he can that is offensive to me. However, the fact is the constitution protects his right to do so. By not supporting open carry, we are walking away from a right recognized by the constitution. I suggest we do that at our own peril.

Notice I did not say the constitution granted our rights as they are granted by our creator the constitution simply recognizes them as such and protects them from meddling by our government.

Just to make sure I am clear, I support this as a step in the right direction but our work for the right to bear arms in Texas is not complete.

 

[djjoshuad]

opting for D/A does not make one less of a criminal. It's a provision in the legal system that allows for leniency... but a crime was still committed. I said that I wasn't aware of "non-criminals" that were ineligible for CHL. D/A requires an admission of guilt - how does that make the guilty party a non-criminal?

Some rights are not extended to those who choose to break the law in a significant way. Currently, this is one of them. I completely understand that the affected might not like that... but it's part of the punishment.

FWIW, if the affected person chooses, he can attempt to have a conviction or even a D/A expunged. Currently, that is the only way a criminal can regain the right to carry.

 

[Renegade]

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

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.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Maybe you do not understand. This has nothing to do with carrying or choices.

My comments were my own observation that the bill having a lot of "fail" in it. Where "fail" is defined as things not desirable for pro-gunners.

edited.

....so what is your point? Or is this just to whine and bitch? The bill is what the bill is. Could it be better? Sure. Could it be worse? Easily.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

I hate to be so ignorant, but what is the definition of "D/A" that is being used here??

 

[Renegade]

....so what is your point? Or is this just to whine and bitch? The bill is what the bill is. Could it be better? Sure. Could it be worse? Easily.

Same point as always - observe and comment on pending legislation. That is kinda what we do here on the Internet since we cannot actually vote on legislation.

 

[djjoshuad]

I used to think exactly like you are. Why do we want or need open carry? I find open carry unnecessary and to some people and in some circumstances even slightly offensive. In my opinion a good percentage of open carry enthusiasts do so for the same reasons that people drive Ferrari's, wear audacious jewelry and generally make spectacles of themselves. Those reason may be making up for some other shortcoming, keeping up with the Joneses or simply vanity but then that is what our constitution protects. If an atheist wants to tattoo "G** IS A F***ING MYTH" on his forehead for no other reason that to prove he can that is offensive to me. However, the fact is the constitution protects his right to do so. By not supporting open carry, we are walking away from a right recognized by the constitution. I suggest we do that at our own peril.

Notice I did not say the constitution granted our rights as they are granted by our creator the constitution simply recognizes them as such and protects them from meddling by our government.

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.

 

[Renegade]

I hate to be so ignorant, but what is the definition of "D/A" that is being used here??

Deferred Adjudication.

One of the beefs people have is D/A is treated like a conviction for CHL purposes, even though the person was not convicted of anything.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Deferred Adjudication.

One of the beefs people have is D/A is treated like a conviction for CHL purposes, even though the person was not convicted of anything.

Thank you....