Just took the CHL class

[MR Redneck]

So what do you do? Not carry outside of your home or car to teach the state a lesson? Or do you carry unlawfully? One who does the second becomes a part of the problem.

I dont agree with that. Even if he " Unlafully carries", he is not a problem. He's just breaking Texas Law. I'll do it in a heartbeat if I thought it was necessary.
He only becomes a problem when he chooses to commit a crime while Unlawfully Carrying. I actually feel the same way he does. The only license I will persue is the Utah license because I, like him, refuse to pay the state for a right I had at birth.
It might sound like nonsence to you, but its something a lot of us agree with. There are a lot of people who carry guns without CHL and I dont see them as a problem. I know several people that do it everyday. Some old, some young.
The CHL law is one of those laws that I couldnt blame anyone for breaking. I wouldnt care if the entire population carried without a CHL.
Just because the state would consider someone to be in violation of the law doesnt make them a criminal. Anyone who chooses to defend themself is making the right choice in my book.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

I dont agree with that. Even if he " Unlafully carries", he is not a problem. He's just breaking Texas Law. I'll do it in a heartbeat if I thought it was necessary.
He only becomes a problem when he chooses to commit a crime while Unlawfully Carrying."

You're ALREADY committing a crime.

I actually feel the same way he does. The only license I will persue is the Utah license because I, like him, refuse to pay the state for a right I had at birth.

So you'll pay another state and take an inferior class for a right you had at birth?

It might sound like nonsence to you, but its something a lot of us agree with. There are a lot of people who carry guns without CHL and I dont see them as a problem. I know several people that do it everyday. Some old, some young.

Yep. It does. I understand your sentiment, but your quiet protest may land you in jail.

The CHL law is one of those laws that I couldnt blame anyone for breaking. I wouldnt care if the entire population carried without a CHL.
Just because the state would consider someone to be in violation of the law doesnt make them a criminal. Anyone who chooses to defend themself is making the right choice in my book.

By your logic, one would argue that it's perfectly ok for illegal aliens to come to the U.S., as long as the don't "commit a crime." Of course, we're going to ignore the crime of crossing the border illegally, because they don't agree with it; it's a right they had at birth, because Mexico claimed Texas as their own a long time ago.

If you don't agree with the Texas CHL Laws, there are other ways to protest.

 

[txinvestigator]

I dont agree with that. Even if he " Unlafully carries", he is not a problem.

Yes he is. He is a gun owner breaking the law, which adds fuel to the arguments of the Antis.

This self-rightous attitude that some have that since they don't like the law then, by God, they ain't gotta follow it, significantly harms the movement towards better gun laws.

He only becomes a problem when he chooses to commit a crime while Unlawfully Carrying.

Say what? Go back and read that. A person is only a problem if they commit a crime while committing ANOTHER crime???????

The only license I will persue is the Utah license because I, like him, refuse to pay the state for a right I had at birth.

That is 100% contradictory, unless you mistakenly believe that Utah requires no fee for a "right you had at birth". And regarding that "right at birth", so......5 year olds should legally carry? I mean, if it is an UNRESTRICTED right you have "at birth"........

It might sound like nonsence to you, but its something a lot of us agree with.

Why do you do that? Why do you include others who do not spek for themselves to make your argements?

There are a lot of people who carry guns without CHL and I dont see them as a problem. I know several people that do it everyday. Some old, some young.

And everyone one of them a criminal, and a problem.

The CHL law is one of those laws that I couldnt blame anyone for breaking. I wouldnt care if the entire population carried without a CHL.
Just because the state would consider someone to be in violation of the law doesnt make them a criminal.

Of course it does. The very definition of criminal is one who committs a crime(s).

Anyone who chooses to defend themself is making the right choice in my book.

When did this change for a carry issue to a self-defense issue?

 

[txinvestigator]

I suspect this was years ago before laws were changed to protect the victims.

Why?

Anyone can hire an attorney if they choose to. But is is irresponsible for a CHL instructor to tell his students they will face $10,000 in legal bills if they use deadly force to stop a home invasion.

I dunno.............I would never make a Grand Jury appearance without the consultation of an attorney. Prior to the GJ, you are also likely to have interviews with LE investigators, the DA, etc. I would not do that without representation either.

 

[Bithabus]

Why?

After "Castle Doctrine" was adopted I don't see how a homeowner could realistically lose a civil suit against a burglar/home invader, unless the shoot was bad.

I dunno.............I would never make a Grand Jury appearance without the consultation of an attorney. Prior to the GJ, you are also likely to have interviews with LE investigators, the DA, etc. I would not do that without representation either.

Fair enough.

 

[txinvestigator]

After "Castle Doctrine" was adopted I don't see how a homeowner could realistically lose a civil suit against a burglar/home invader, unless the shoot was bad.

I get your point. However, the Castle Doctrine only changed the civil code to give immunity IF you were justified under the penal code. Unfortunately, the civil court will decide if you met the code. A no-bill, and even an acquittal at a criminal trial does not mean a person was justified.

Since civil courts are a "preponderance of the evidence", I can see a different ruling in one of those. That said, I have not reviewed any civil cases compared to the criminal case to support such a belief.

 

[Bithabus]

I get your point. However, the Castle Doctrine only changed the civil code to give immunity IF you were justified under the penal code. Unfortunately, the civil court will decide if you met the code. A no-bill, and even an acquittal at a criminal trial does not mean a person was justified.

Since civil courts are a "preponderance of the evidence", I can see a different ruling in one of those. That said, I have not reviewed any civil cases compared to the criminal case to support such a belief.

Same standards of justification will apply though. If it's a good shoot the jury should never have to consider whether there is a preponderance of evidence.

 

[tweek]

I really don't see what the big deal is. If you pull your hog leg out and law enforcement gets involved it is time you to call an attorney. It doesnt matter if Osama Bin Laden kicked down your door and was holding a gun to your kid's head and you got it all on video. You call an Fing attorney. The police officer who is investigating the incident is not your buddy. He is doing his job, but he is also human. He might not think citizens ought to be doing what he sees as police business. It might just happen that you have a pinko DA that decides you murdered this poor misunderstood person.

You may well be morally right. But the legal system has nothing to do with morals. It can be twisted and manipulated a million different ways. Unless you yourself are an attorney you are way out of your depth. In fact in such a case an attorney would call another attorney to represent him. Or her.

As for consititional carry here: hell yeah. But one thing at a time. Lets get past November and then get organized to help make it happen.

However, having taken the class and heard what I heard I really think people would be smart to attend before they start carrying a gat around. And as mentioned in some other thread I mght have started: training is really important for this stuff. I'm already ashamed of how bad most dear hunters shoot, I can only imagine how bad CHL shooters really shoot when the chips are down.

 

[jsimmons]

Think your life in danger is never a justification for using deadly force. It may be how you "felt", but it is not your justification. The penal code is specific. Really? The guy falls to the ground after two shots you gonna keep shooting?

First, if the guy comes busting through the door, my life *is* in danger. Second, if he's movin', I'm shootin'.

So what do you do? Not carry outside of your home or car to teach the state a lesson? Or do you carry unlawfully? One who does the second becomes a part of the problem.

There's nothing against the law about carrying in my car. I'm not trying to teach the state anything. Lastly, I'm not breaking the law, because it's my Constitutionally protected right to keep *and* bear, regardless of what the state of Texas thinks about it.

I took the CHL class thinking I'd get a license. After I started filling out the paperwork, I saw the absurdity of begging the state to only partially restore a right I was born with. I think everyone should take a class so that they're aware of the ramifications of using a gun to protect themselves, but I don't necessarily think it should be forced upon us, or that we should have to buy our rights back.

Y'all can hang out here and argue semantics and shrug your shoulders and say, "Welp, them's the laws", but I'm honestly sick of hearin' it. Instead of doing something about it, everyone's goin' belly up and just takin it, and paying for the privilege of taking it.

 

[mtaylor]

Y'all can hang out here and argue semantics and shrug your shoulders and say, "Welp, them's the laws", but I'm honestly sick of hearin' it. Instead of doing something about it, everyone's goin' belly up and just takin it, and paying for the privilege of taking it.

Not me. I'm gonna vote.

 

[MR Redneck]

I understand that unlawfull carring is still breaking the law. The point I was trying to make is a person who chooses to do so isnt committing a crime against me.
I a person chooses to have a gun on them for any reason other than committing a crime, their not offending me.

 

[navyguy]

The police officer who is investigating the incident is not your buddy. He is doing his job, but he is also human. He might not think citizens ought to be doing what he sees as police business. I

That could be the case, but I have talked with a lot of officers (my company does work for two city PDs) and to a man all I've had the discussion with are supportive of CHL. Not to say all are, but to stereotype police with that mind set is disingenuous. What they don't like is "cowboys" flashing guns and thinking they are equal with the police in the streets. They'll bust those types in a New York minute. But if you carry responsibly, and only draw when it isappropriate (99% or some large majority of people that carry will never be faced with that) you will be supported. Investigated and questioned, sure but I don'[t think railroaded.

 

[randmplumbingllc]

Another eye openner was the numbers involved and how really crappy hand guns actually are. 85% of people with gun shots survive. WFT? Shooting a perp in the forehead with a handgun is unlikily to give satisfactory results? You've got to be kidding me. Same with the lower parts of the face and pelvic girdle. Geez.

The idea of having a pistol round hit the target in the forehead, have it pierce the skin but then just follow the contour of the skull around to the backside of the head is a bit funny. In a sick sort of way. You know that is going to hurt. Unfortunately if the perp is all hopped up on mountain dew he is going to seriously kick your ass for doing that to him.

You are using the WRONG handgun



I promise the perp ain't gonna kick no ones ass EVER again if one of the rounds from this hits him in the forehead !

 

[jsimmons]

Not me. I'm gonna vote.

So am I, but look where that's getting us. Legislators that are afraid to put their money where their foot is (in thier mouth). They don't care about their constituents, and lobby groups like the TSRA and NRA are dickin' around because they "want to go slow". At this rate, I'll be dead before anything moves on open carry in Texas. We need to do more than just vote. I think nothing short of an en masse rally with 10's of thousands of gun owners on the capitol steps in Austin will convey what we want from the legislature. If that's not possible, most state representatives have offices in their districts. There's nothing keeping that same 10's of thousands from showing up at those offices for the same purpose.

The OpenCarry.org people are rasing mioney for a billboard/taxi ad campaign, and I'm fully intending on contributing $100 to it (they're just shy of $3000 right now). After the election, it would behove everyone to not only write letters, but organize a highly visible demonstration at their district representative's offices in support of restoring open/constitutional carry to all Texans.

It's time for the rhetoric and the hemmin' and hawing to come to a freakin' end.

 

[KAK]

Yes sir it should be easy. I just can sit through all the talking part. Hearing all those laws a what if's kinda gets on my nerves.
You gotta remember, I dont like the CHL and dont think anyone should have to have one. All I think people should have is enough sence to practice and be responsible.
FYI, im fixin to get me a Utah CCW. Its only 4 hours and cheap!

Where can I get one of those? I also have heard that they are faster.

 

[TaoJones]

I think an out of state license is a good idea. I got mine in Virginia for $30. No class needed because I was in the Navy. I'm still kicking around the idea of getting my Texas CHL anyway now that I'm home. The Utah license is recognized by more states than the Texas or Virginia CHL.

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

...because the last thing you want to do when carrying a gun in Texas is learn about Texas law.

 

[txinvestigator]

...because the last thing you want to do when carrying a gun in Texas is learn about Texas law.

QFT.

 

[XinTX]

So am I, but look where that's getting us. Legislators that are afraid to put their money where their foot is (in thier mouth). They don't care about their constituents, and lobby groups like the TSRA and NRA are dickin' around because they "want to go slow". At this rate, I'll be dead before anything moves on open carry in Texas. We need to do more than just vote. I think nothing short of an en masse rally with 10's of thousands of gun owners on the capitol steps in Austin will convey what we want from the legislature. If that's not possible, most state representatives have offices in their districts. There's nothing keeping that same 10's of thousands from showing up at those offices for the same purpose.

Look at the way the motorcycle mandatory helmet law was changed. A lot of folks coordinated and started at their party levels. After the primary, the parties meet to decide on their platform. It didn't take that many to get the helmet issue on the party platform. Just a few folks in each district. THAT should be the place to start. Enough people (spread across the state) can have a much bigger impact there. It was a (relatively) small number of people that got a law changed. It didn't take a big chunk of money either.

 

[txinvestigator]

Look at the way the motorcycle mandatory helmet law was changed. A lot of folks coordinated and started at their party levels. After the primary, the parties meet to decide on their platform. It didn't take that many to get the helmet issue on the party platform. Just a few folks in each district. THAT should be the place to start. Enough people (spread across the state) can have a much bigger impact there. It was a (relatively) small number of people that got a law changed. It didn't take a big chunk of money either.

To what was the MC helmet law changed? What is the law now?