Dont leave shit out Mate.Make optional the license, background check, class and shooting test of the CHL and let everyone carry under current CHL laws if they can legally possess a firearm but also with the less restrictive traveling\other exemptions. And I do think 30.06 signs should sill be posted if you'd want to.
As for police stops, You don't need a CHL now to conceal in your home, place of business and car, on the way to the range etc so how would this be any different than stopping someone who can legally own a gun and is carrying legally but without a license?
I have no opinion on FA being available to those who can legally buy firearms. For most carrying one would be more liability than its worth....KAK, with age and experience you will probably come to see that.I also think that citizens should be able to buy a NEW full auto firearms. Not old prebans that cost an arm and a leg. I would totally be carrying a glock 18.
I have no opinion on FA being available to those who can legally buy firearms. For most carrying one would be more liability than its worth....KAK, with age and experience you will probably come to see that.
As for police stops, You don't need a CHL now to conceal in your home, place of business and car, on the way to the range etc so how would this be any different than stopping someone who can legally own a gun and is carrying legally but without a license?
The question is impossible to answer. No one has a crystal ball. However, I predict this thread becomes one of the arguments for what you call constitutional carry, wit a few rants thrown in for good measure. lol
If one were carrying openly; would a LEO be able to detain you simply to determine your "legal status to ". If not, how would that "legally able to posses" be enforced.
Also, I am just throwing out questions and thoughts. I am not expressing an opinion, yet.
WOW.
I'm impressed boys! This thread has remained civil. Maybe it's because Alan banned half of the crowd that used to go off in every thread.
If one were carrying openly; would a LEO be able to detain you simply to determine your "legal status to ". If not, how would that "legally able to posses" be enforced.
How would you have this accomplished? Eliminate 46.02 of the Penal Code? Are you OK with the current state and federal restrictions on "possession"?
I assume you want no licensing. So could a Peace Officer then stop you and run a background if he observed you carrying a handgun? How exactly would the "legally able to posses a firearm" be enforced?
I have no opinion on FA being available to those who can legally buy firearms. For most carrying one would be more liability than its worth....KAK, with age and experience you will probably come to see that.
So could a Peace Officer then stop you and run a background if he observed you carrying a handgun? How exactly would the "legally able to posses a firearm" be enforced?
I am not fine with the current limitations but I accept them with the exception of the vawa limitations that raise a misdemeanor to essentially a felony.
The constitution should be amended to allow open and or concealed carry of a firearm or knife or sword. Hell, through a switchblade in there. The only prohibited weapons should be nuclear bombs and nerve gas.
This pretty much eradicates 46.
Mandatory training and licensing with fees and all as a condition to carry is about as constitutional as a poll tax.
I also think that citizens should be able to buy a NEW full auto firearms. Not old prebans that cost an arm and a leg. I would totally be carrying a glock 18.
Dude, read my post.. You even quoted it...I said "let everyone carry under current CHL laws if they can legally possess a firearm but also with the less restrictive traveling\other exemptions."Dont leave shit out Mate.
Lets not forget you dont need a CHL to carry while traveling. You dont need a CHL to carry while in rout to a gun range. You dont need a CHL while your engauged in a "gun" sporting event.
If one were carrying openly; would a LEO be able to detain you simply to determine your "legal status to ". If not, how would that "legally able to posses" be enforced.
Also, I am just throwing out questions and thoughts. I am not expressing an opinion, yet.
I am not IN law enforcement. And why make this personal? I am ONLY asking questions. Good Grief. BTW, I am around armed people pretty much every day.Well let's say convicted felons would be out, but then are you afraid to be around armed people if so then why be in law enforcement
Yes, I am, but nowhere in this thread have I been "literal" at all.you are a very intelligent man but your to literal
You think really wrong and are not paying attention. Again, we are discussing ideas, but thanks for trying to make this personal.and I think you are afraid of an armed public
you still wouldn't have to do away with chapter 46 of the penal code just a little rewrite of it I used to teach it I know it well my self it wouldn't take much work, infact less than fighting it
Nope. It's none of their damned business. It would not constitute p.c. In any shape or form.