8 ms·

I'm pleasantly surprised by the feedback on this so far. As a CHL holder in Texas, I think this law makes sense. Having taken the training, which I think shoul

I'm pleasantly surprised by the feedback on this so far. As a CHL holder in Texas, I think this law makes sense. Having taken the training, which I think should be a prerequisite for gun ownership IMO, my threshold for when I would brandish my weapon is insanely high now. Mainly, the course emphasized the huge impact after the situation ends. You may be the one who's dead, as heroic acts rarely end picture-perfect. You'll have killed another person, with a family who's life is wrecked as a result. You'll likely lose tons of money fighting the court cases that'll surely emerge. Before, I was brought up with the southern notion that stealing a TV warranted shooting on sight. Having actually talked through scenarios, taken classes, and prepared for the unforeseen possibilities, I'd rather avoid using a weapon unless a death is imminent.

gonzo 11y ago
> which I think should be a prerequisite for gun ownership IMO only the Second Amendment stops you, and people like you. > my threshold for when I would brandish my weapon is insanely high now. only... Texas is about to pass Open Carry.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Brandishing and open carry are entirely different things. Take the class!
  - gonzo 11y ago
    I took the class, when you were still in high school. thanks.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      And? Still confusing Open Carry with Brandishing? Explain please.
      - gonzo 11y ago
        Brandishing is intentional failure to conceal. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm Texas Penal Code Chapter 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place. Open Carry is intentional failure to conceal. The "Open Carry" bill would literally strike the following from Texas Penal Code Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a)A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not: (1)on the person’s own premises, or premises under the person’s control, or with permission of the premises owner; or (2)inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person’s control. As well as the text in 46.035 (cited above), and several other places in the TPL. Reference: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/pdf/HB00195I.pdf http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/pdf/HB00... Senate bill is here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/pdf/SB00017I.pdf#navpanes=0 http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/pdf/SB00...
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  Actually, I don't see how the 2nd amendment is incompatible with a training requirement. It specifies the need for a well regulated militia, and I disagree that a training requirement constitutes an infringement. It's funny how 2nd Amendment boosters seem to have no problem denying gun privileges to ex-felons and the like, even though the Constitution makes no such restriction and there's no question taht even people locked up in prison have first amendment rights. I remember being at a legal symposum a few years ago where a lawyer cheekily offered a paper arguing that 2nd amendment rights must extend to illegal aliens, which was met with consternation from some of the more 'patriotic' types.
  - joshuapants 11y ago
    > even though the Constitution makes no such restriction Please don't try to pontificate about the Constitution if you have no idea what it actually says. The fifth amendment indicates that you can be deprived of liberty after due process of law. That is to say, after you get convicted of a felony, you may have certain rights restricted.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      That's a curious reading. Its about due process, and loss of life, liberty or property is forbidden without due process. I guess you can read that to mean loss of liberty is allowed for criminals. Did they mean temporary incarceration, or lifetime loss of ALL liberties? Its not clear to me. Sigh.
      - joshuapants 11y ago
        It's really not a curious reading at all; the due process clauses in the fifth and fourteenth amendments are the basis for the constitutionality of laws that deprive felons of certain rights. > Did they mean temporary incarceration, or lifetime loss of ALL liberties? Possibly either, but it's entirely possible to have those liberties restored by court order.
- bsder 11y ago
  Personally, I'd rather have open carry than concealed. If you are open carrying, I can simply leave your presence. Or I can request that you leave if I am a store owner, etc. The reason why the NRA supports concealed carry is so that non-carriers can't call people out.
  - Ntrails 11y ago
    Are you allowed to refuse service to legally carried firearms? Can a library, or a bookstore, or a barber have a "no guns" rule? What about a bar (because frankly if spaghetti westerns have taught me anything it's that guns and alcohol make for interesting situations).
    - CHY872 11y ago
      You're generally allowed to refuse service for any reason you want, provided it's not specifically outlawed (for example, if you run a hotel you can't refuse service on grounds of race).
      - Ntrails 11y ago
        Indeed, for example in the UK it'd be race/gender/religion as things you cannot discriminate against. However in my experience Americans say things like "interfering with the rights guaranteed by the constitution" so I wondered if that argument held for something similar to anti-discrimination
    - ericclemmons 11y ago
      I learned that Texas Code 30.06 [1] allows a business to place a prominently displayed sign not allowing even CHL holders from bringing guns onto the premise. Whereas, without that sign, CHL holders would be allowed to carry weapons, but non-CHL holders would not. (Of course, there are exceptions to places of worship, fairs, etc.) [1]: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/7/30/30.06 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/7/30/30.06
      - 11y ago
ucho 11y ago
> I'm pleasantly surprised by the feedback on this so far. Why are you surprised? If gun carry is allowed and common then any gun-free zone (expect few well guarded places like court rooms) is completely insane.

gonzo 11y ago

> which I think should be a prerequisite for gun ownership IMO only the Second Amendment stops you, and people like you. > my threshold for when I would brandish my weapon is insanely high now. only... Texas is about to pass Open Carry.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Brandishing and open carry are entirely different things. Take the class!
- gonzo 11y ago
  I took the class, when you were still in high school. thanks.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    And? Still confusing Open Carry with Brandishing? Explain please.
    - gonzo 11y ago
      Brandishing is intentional failure to conceal. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm Texas Penal Code Chapter 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place. Open Carry is intentional failure to conceal. The "Open Carry" bill would literally strike the following from Texas Penal Code Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a)A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not: (1)on the person’s own premises, or premises under the person’s control, or with permission of the premises owner; or (2)inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person’s control. As well as the text in 46.035 (cited above), and several other places in the TPL. Reference: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/pdf/HB00195I.pdf http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/pdf/HB00... Senate bill is here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/pdf/SB00017I.pdf#navpanes=0 http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/pdf/SB00...
anigbrowl 11y ago
Actually, I don't see how the 2nd amendment is incompatible with a training requirement. It specifies the need for a well regulated militia, and I disagree that a training requirement constitutes an infringement. It's funny how 2nd Amendment boosters seem to have no problem denying gun privileges to ex-felons and the like, even though the Constitution makes no such restriction and there's no question taht even people locked up in prison have first amendment rights. I remember being at a legal symposum a few years ago where a lawyer cheekily offered a paper arguing that 2nd amendment rights must extend to illegal aliens, which was met with consternation from some of the more 'patriotic' types.
- joshuapants 11y ago
  > even though the Constitution makes no such restriction Please don't try to pontificate about the Constitution if you have no idea what it actually says. The fifth amendment indicates that you can be deprived of liberty after due process of law. That is to say, after you get convicted of a felony, you may have certain rights restricted.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    That's a curious reading. Its about due process, and loss of life, liberty or property is forbidden without due process. I guess you can read that to mean loss of liberty is allowed for criminals. Did they mean temporary incarceration, or lifetime loss of ALL liberties? Its not clear to me. Sigh.
    - joshuapants 11y ago
      It's really not a curious reading at all; the due process clauses in the fifth and fourteenth amendments are the basis for the constitutionality of laws that deprive felons of certain rights. > Did they mean temporary incarceration, or lifetime loss of ALL liberties? Possibly either, but it's entirely possible to have those liberties restored by court order.
bsder 11y ago
Personally, I'd rather have open carry than concealed. If you are open carrying, I can simply leave your presence. Or I can request that you leave if I am a store owner, etc. The reason why the NRA supports concealed carry is so that non-carriers can't call people out.
- Ntrails 11y ago
  Are you allowed to refuse service to legally carried firearms? Can a library, or a bookstore, or a barber have a "no guns" rule? What about a bar (because frankly if spaghetti westerns have taught me anything it's that guns and alcohol make for interesting situations).
  - CHY872 11y ago
    You're generally allowed to refuse service for any reason you want, provided it's not specifically outlawed (for example, if you run a hotel you can't refuse service on grounds of race).
    - Ntrails 11y ago
      Indeed, for example in the UK it'd be race/gender/religion as things you cannot discriminate against. However in my experience Americans say things like "interfering with the rights guaranteed by the constitution" so I wondered if that argument held for something similar to anti-discrimination
  - ericclemmons 11y ago
    I learned that Texas Code 30.06 [1] allows a business to place a prominently displayed sign not allowing even CHL holders from bringing guns onto the premise. Whereas, without that sign, CHL holders would be allowed to carry weapons, but non-CHL holders would not. (Of course, there are exceptions to places of worship, fairs, etc.) [1]: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/7/30/30.06 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/7/30/30.06
    - 11y ago

ucho 11y ago

> I'm pleasantly surprised by the feedback on this so far. Why are you surprised? If gun carry is allowed and common then any gun-free zone (expect few well guarded places like court rooms) is completely insane.