Tx did not have CHLthen ?

[chiefglocker]

Just to refresh your memory watch this vid.

Suzanna Gratia-Hupp: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For

It seems tt Suzanna's father was a true sheep dog. He went to fight off the shooter bare hand.

 

[West Texas]

Nope, we didn't...but this is one reason that we do now, though the teeth were taken out of the bill when they allowed places of business to post that we couldn't carry. This is the story that I think of when I start to walk in some place that has a sign posted...

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

Just to refresh your memory watch this vid.

Suzanna Gratia-Hupp: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For

It seems tt Suzanna's father was a true sheep dog. He went to fight off the shooter bare hand.

I had a gentleman in my class a couple of years ago who was a neighbor of Suzanna. He says that while she's an impressive lady and such, the story of the Luby's shooting and her parents' "heroism" has been finessed a bit over the years.

 

[West Texas]

I had a gentleman in my class a couple of years ago who was a neighbor of Suzanna. He says that while she's an impressive lady and such, the story of the Luby's shooting and her parents' "heroism" has been finessed a bit over the years.

I've heard that as well...but the story overall is still valid, had there been one or two people there that were armed, it would have saved lives...

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

I've heard that as well...but the story overall is still valid, had there been one or two people there that were armed, it would have saved lives...

No disagreement. I'm not trying to disparage Ms. Hupp at all. I'm just noting that the story may have evolved a bit over the years. The point hasn't changed, however.

 

[West Texas]

No disagreement. I'm not trying to disparage Ms. Hupp at all. I'm just noting that the story may have evolved a bit over the years. The point hasn't changed, however.

No disagreement here, either...

The lawmakers in Austin allowing the teeth to be taken out was a bad move...there are some places that I think it was a wise choice, but not many. I think that any business that doesn't see the value in having me help protect their employees deosn't really need my business!

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

No disagreement here, either...

The lawmakers in Austin allowing the teeth to be taken out was a bad move...there are some places that I think it was a wise choice, but not many. I think that any business that doesn't see the value in having me help protect their employees deosn't really need my business!

I assume you're talking about Section 30.06. This, in my opinion, doesn't take the teeth out of anything. Section 30.06 (which is primarily aimed at private property, not just businesses), is a mechanism through which a private property owner can determine whether or not visitors may carry a concealed handgun on their property. It supports private property rights, but in doing so, it requires a consistent and uniform method of notification. The requirements define a sign which is so big and unsightly, most business owners would opt not to compromise their decor. Because of the rigid requirements for written notification (the sign, in particular), most property owners fail to meet the requirements of "effective notification" under Section 30.06, and the CHL holder is free to ignore the non-compliant sign.

Very few businesses choose to post 30.06. Many of those which do are obvious. Others are simply misguided. Your job is to vote with your feet and your dollars. I choose not to spend my hard-earned dollars at businesses that post 30.06, but I fully support the right of misguided property owners to exercise their rights under the statute.

 

[West Texas]

I assume you're talking about Section 30.06. This, in my opinion, doesn't take the teeth out of anything. Section 30.06 (which is primarily aimed at private property, not just businesses), is a mechanism through which a private property owner can determine whether or not visitors may carry a concealed handgun on their property. It supports private property rights, but in doing so, it requires a consistent and uniform method of notification. The requirements define a sign which is so big and unsightly, most business owners would opt not to compromise their decor. Because of the rigid requirements for written notification (the sign, in particular), most property owners fail to meet the requirements of "effective notification" under Section 30.06, and the CHL holder is free to ignore the non-compliant sign.

Very few businesses choose to post 30.06. Many of those which do are obvious. Others are simply misguided. Your job is to vote with your feet and your dollars. I choose not to spend my hard-earned dollars at businesses that post 30.06, but I fully support the right of misguided property owners to exercise their rights under the statute.

Absolutly!

 

[Adionik]

No disagreement here, either...

The lawmakers in Austin allowing the teeth to be taken out was a bad move...there are some places that I think it was a wise choice, but not many. I think that any business that doesn't see the value in having me help protect their employees deosn't really need my business!

With all the technicalities of laws these days...i'm kind of scared to think of my CHL as a way of protecting others. I have it to defend myself and family.

Granted, if someone were to bust into a restaurant with a shotgun....i'm sure i'd get involved. But I wouldn't want the mentality of helping to protect employees or anything like that. I do respect your stance on it.

 

[West Texas]

With all the technicalities of laws these days...i'm kind of scared to think of my CHL as a way of protecting others. I have it to defend myself and family.

Granted, if someone were to bust into a restaurant with a shotgun....i'm sure i'd get involved. But I wouldn't want the mentality of helping to protect employees or anything like that. I do respect your stance on it.

in a self defense situation like happened in that Luby's, there were only two sides, the guy with the gun killing people, and EVERYONE ELSE IN THE PLACE...

In THAT kind of situation would you take his life to save everyone else, or just sit there and let him shoot until he came to you or your family and THEN draw and fire? You have a right not to get involved to a point, but if you are in a situation where you can PERVENT serious bodily injury or death to yourself and or others, you should be prepared to step in....liability be damned.

I had rather stand before a jury and explain what happened than stand before a family and explain why I didn't stop what was happening to their loved one.

 

[pheet17]

I had a gentleman in my class a couple of years ago who was a neighbor of Suzanna. He says that while she's an impressive lady and such, the story of the Luby's shooting and her parents' "heroism" has been finessed a bit over the years.

I was in one of your classes where you played this video. While the story may have been finessed a bit by others, all you have to do is listen to her especially the last minute or so. If that doesn't motivate someone who is on the fence about gun rights and the 2nd amendment nothing will. Until it happens to them.

 

[MR Redneck]

Just to refresh your memory watch this vid.

Suzanna Gratia-Hupp: What the Second Amendment is REALLY For

It seems tt Suzanna's father was a true sheep dog. He went to fight off the shooter bare hand.

Im often called a law breaker by people form other site who dont agree with my opinion that we shouldnt be required to have a lisence to defend ourselfs. That video has once again givin me the compassion to keep doing my work. Im fighting for Texans, im fighting for our basic rights. Website can ban me, people with chl's can call me a law breaker. The simple truth is I refuse to become an Elitist!!! I dont havea CHL, nor will I ever. I do support those who have CHL's as much as I support those who dont! The CHL is a wast of material in my opinion. Your drivers lisence describes your entire criminal history, I see no need for extra proof!
At the time of the events in this video, Texas hanguns laws were very restrictive. On January 1, 1996 GW Bush put into effect the CHL law. Blood in the streets, the critics called it. GW responded by saying he trust his fellow Texans. The event caused the crime rate to drop all over Texas. The CHL lisence didnt cause that. The armed citizen is the only thing responsible. Remember, prior to Bush signing this law into effect, Texans could not carry a concealed handgun. Bush put us in the right direction. Less regulation means less crime and the ability to defeat it!!!!atriot:

 

[DoubleActionCHL]

I was in one of your classes where you played this video. While the story may have been finessed a bit by others, all you have to do is listen to her especially the last minute or so. If that doesn't motivate someone who is on the fence about gun rights and the 2nd amendment nothing will. Until it happens to them.

No doubt. It is a moving story and the point is made with or without the exaggerations. I show this video in my classes, and I mean no disrespect to Ms. Hupp. I believe it's a valuable teaching tool.

 

[Adionik]

in a self defense situation like happened in that Luby's, there were only two sides, the guy with the gun killing people, and EVERYONE ELSE IN THE PLACE...

In THAT kind of situation would you take his life to save everyone else, or just sit there and let him shoot until he came to you or your family and THEN draw and fire? You have a right not to get involved to a point, but if you are in a situation where you can PERVENT serious bodily injury or death to yourself and or others, you should be prepared to step in....liability be damned.

I had rather stand before a jury and explain what happened than stand before a family and explain why I didn't stop what was happening to their loved one.

Well, in that situation or any potential massacre i'd stop him...or die trying.

That Lubys massacre gives me nightmares sometime. I can't imagine having actually been there and surviving it...

 

[border bandit]

"The event caused the crime rate to drop all over Texas. The CHL lisence didnt cause it"
Mr Redneck ..If the thought of people carrying a handgun (with TX CHL) on their person didnt stop the gremlins and drop the crime rate; please inform us of what did??? They all just decided to be law abing citizens because it was Jan 1st 1996.. What a stretch

 

[MR Redneck]

"The event caused the crime rate to drop all over Texas. The CHL lisence didnt cause it"
Mr Redneck ..If the thought of people carrying a handgun (with TX CHL) on their person didnt stop the gremlins and drop the crime rate; please inform us of what did??? They all just decided to be law abing citizens because it was Jan 1st 1996.. What a stretch

Guess I left something out or maybe you misunderstood me.
The reason I dont think the CHL lowered the crime rate is because I feel the armed citizen is responsible. The CHL is just a card, its nothing but a title. Now, the armed citizen is a force not to be recond. To make myself clear, the armed citizen is the reason the crime rate dropped in Texas. Im thankful to Bush for granting Texans this right because he has prooven that his fellow Texans are the best defence against crime. His critics said " There will be blood in the streets". Well, they were wrong.
Althow I dont agree with Texans needing a CHL, I think it was a step in the right direction. I feel the best policy for the armed citizen is Constitutional Carry. Why regulate the honest citizens while the criminals run free?
To be very clear, go around with nothing but your CHL card and see if you can fend off an armed criminal with it. Its the guns criminals fear, not the card. Well, unless your me of course, I dont carry handguns.