Home› Main Category› Personal Defense
Varmintmist
Posts: 8,305 Senior Member
On the TX carry thread
Varmintmist
Posts: 8,305 Senior Member
I asked why have a permit that keeps CCW out of bars and why is it important to have a state run "training" program.
I got into a argument with a OH (just got ccw) resident who said that PA (dont know how long CCW, I have had one for 25+ years) was going to change their permit system so OH would recognize the permit. I told him that in no uncertain terms that PA was not going to change. His next "argument" was they should.
I asked him why?
So the first question is what proof is there from any of the gun friendly states that you are required to act like a adult, and are allowed to carry into a bar, that legal permit holders are shooting up pubs?
Question 2 is why should the state get to tax you, and disqualify you from getting a permit on the grounds you are a bad shot?
I got into a argument with a OH (just got ccw) resident who said that PA (dont know how long CCW, I have had one for 25+ years) was going to change their permit system so OH would recognize the permit. I told him that in no uncertain terms that PA was not going to change. His next "argument" was they should.
I asked him why?
So the first question is what proof is there from any of the gun friendly states that you are required to act like a adult, and are allowed to carry into a bar, that legal permit holders are shooting up pubs?
Question 2 is why should the state get to tax you, and disqualify you from getting a permit on the grounds you are a bad shot?
It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
Replies
People are not dying in the streets from flying lead or shooting each other in bars (any more than they used to).
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
You're exactly right on that, varmint. You've simply restated what we all know: Sensible and generally law abiding people are not going to go out and commit heinous gun crimes just because they have guns or can carry them, concealed or in view or however.
Criminals commit gun crimes because, hey, it's what they do -- they're crooks and thugs. It wouldn't matter a whit if there were zero gun laws and anyone could own and carry a firearm all the time or if guns were generally banned (like they are in NYC or Chicago). Thugs will continue to commit gun crimes and law abiding people will not, regardless of the gun laws.
In answer to your original post, I agree that it would be better if there were no restrictions at all and that the 2nd Amendment were truly in effect everywhere. Let's be honest -- I carried a sidearm for years before concealed carry laws. Sometimes it would be in the glovebox or under the seat, sometimes it would be on my person.
So when Texas had their new CHL law, I was one of the first persons at the door getting my permit. I was actually in the very first class taught at my "home" pistol range, and the instructor admitted that he was mostly winging it (he however did a great job).
I would rather there be no real laws against carrying, and that there would of course simply be very strict and severe laws for illegal firearm use. It's of course ridiculous to have laws against law abiding weapons use but that's simply a part of our civilized society and we have to put up with the inconvenience of abiding with whatever laws our state has.
Here in Texas it means that you generally can't carry without a license and although the CHL is pretty easy to get and not too expensive (maybe 100 bucks total), it's still a hassle.
And I chafe at not being allowed to carry concealed in a tavern although I generally understand the spirit of that law. However, as I said, law abiding people are simply not going to be getting involved in an illegal gun use incident anyway, even if they've had a beer (being drunk is of course another thing entirely).
But I gotta take it as it comes. I still love Texas for its general freedoms and that we've got a totally Republican (and mostly conservative) state government. And I hate snow, ha ha.
Good thread -- thanks!
It isnt just TX that imposes high fees or puts barriers on CCW.
I keep hearing of all the people who are going to die if "we" dont train and "we" don't vette (can only have if you have $$$? I vette you can't come up with a hundred bucks for the permit and another 200 for our manditory training run by the cousin of the governor?) Where is the proof that any of it does any good, OR lack of it does any harm?
I actually called a OH radio station that kept telling their listners that PA was going to change to a mandatory training system so that OH would recognize our permit then PA weould provide receprocity. Complete bru haha.
Okay... 1. Why have a permit that keeps CHL carriers out of a pub? Because the Texas law is flawed is the only reply I can offer. I personally disagree with the ban, so I'm in agreement with you on that point.
2. There is of course zero proof that responsible gun owners (permit or not) shoot up bars. Thugs do this, not responsible gun owners. And of course you already know this.
3. There is a certain logic about CHL in that the state also requires you to show that you're at least a modestly capable driver who passes both a driving and written test for you to get a driver's license. And so, it does make a bit of common sense that a similar sort of written and shooting test that parallels the driving test requirements.
I can of course understand this, even though you and I both also agree that the 2nd Amendment guarantees free and unimpeded weapons possession. But let's face it -- in our somewhat balanced society, it's been a tenet of our system that there is also a balance between individual freedoms and group situations. For example, we all know the statement that "freedom of speech does not give us the right to cry 'fire' in a crowded theater." And so there are limits on the 2ndA because those are balanced with other rights. Which is why we can't wear a sidearm when boarding a plane.
So, if we compare driving a vehicle with carrying a concealed firearm, then the concept of a license is understandable. Some may think this is an intrusion to the 2ndA but the courts have ruled otherwise. It's what it is, "the law" and that's how it is.
Incidentally, the $100 I mentioned is the rough estimate of the total fee you pay, including the license ($70) and the class fee, which is mandated at 30 bucks or so. In other words, you do NOT have to attend a separate class of any type to learn to shoot. Just like you (if you're an adult) you don't need to attend a driving class prior to your driver's license exam. All you have to do is pass the exam, same as the carry license. No prior gun training is required, so long as you pass the written and shooting exam w. a 70% score. And I can tell you, the shooting test is a snap. All my shooting pals were totally embarrased if they didn't get 100% on both the written and shooting test (and yeah, I got all of 'em right and hit the bull most of my shots, essentially a perfect score -- not bragging, because you'd really need to be inept or nearly blind to fail.
Hey -- who mandated that in Pennsylvania, you should have to go to a state run liquor store to by a bottle of bourbon? Laws are restrictive all over, some reasonable, some not. How to deal with this: Lobby your representative or campaign to elect a different rep who will change the law to your liking. I don't think that the Texas gun laws are necessarily "bad or good" but that's what they are, until they get changed.
Its proven that taking a driving test and training makes for safer drivers, so your analogy falls flat. You just stated that the requirement is a joke at this time, so the state knows its useless.
I keep seeing this from gun owners in states who are just getting CCW, and it makes as much sense as when a anti says it. "Its a common sense gun law."
And it's something that I can also say is genuine: I DID learn some things in my CHL class. Not on gun handling, but on general conflict resolution and simple info regarding what does and does not constitute legal gun "brandshing" or when to and when not to pull the weapon (I was right told in the class that if you pull a gun, you should be ready to shoot, and that if you're not legally "okay" to shoot, then you should not pull the gun in the first place, stuff like that.) Of course I knew this but not all the attendees did. So yes, a CHL class DOES help ensure that the license holders do have a modest understanding of the responsibility of carrying a firearm, and that they can at least load and aim and shoot with modest success. Which is exactly the same as a driver's license.
Not that I disagree with you about the existence of a license anyway. But it is what it is. Hey, I lived in Pittsburgh for 3 years so I know what it's like to live in Penn. And between snow and salt on the roads rusting out your car body and state income tax and state liquor stores and total lack of good TexMex? I'll take Texas, thank you. C'mon down! ha ha
p.s. I hate snow.
The goal, for most folks that I know personally, would be Constitutional carry. In fact, most of them pretend that we already have it, and they aren't getting locked up. When you get outside of the big cities, people mostly take care of their own business. :tooth:
Texas is of course a mixed bag re. gun laws, because there are large amounts of urban liberals matched against the more conservative rural and suburban folks. I myself once lived in the Shelia Jackson Lee district! Eeek! And we're beset with a 100% liberal mayor who at least is honest and genuinely tries to do the right thing (which is pretty okay). But liberal she is.
It's my personal observation (and this is skewed because I generally hang around with conservative-minded or at least individually-minded people and not fawning liberals) that urban folks also tend to look out for themselves and are no more reliant upon gummint than the rural folks. Just because a guy works in an office on the 14th floor doesn't mean that he's any more beholden to gummint than a farmer or rancher.
Folks I know here, right smack in the middle of a big city, are also pretty much minded to take care of their own. That might only mean having a decent and clean front yard and not being a jerk to neighbors but it is essentially the same as someone living on a farm.
A. It is a proven fact that driver training cuts down on accidents. (ref last post)
B. There is no proof that CHL training has ever cut down on accidents anywhere. Please post any stats that non gateway states have a higher level of unlawful shootings by permited/legal carriers.
So, the analogy fails.
The post is about those states who are new to CCW requiring training and even gun owners being OK with "common sense gun laws" that are only common sense if you believe anti gun groups, not reality. I was trying to wrap my head around how that is a good thing.
GA has never had a training period. I see this as a money maker for those states who do, and has been said, an entree' to gun control laws. I remember in NC when carry laws became general, gun owners were so thankful they could at last carry a handgun, they accepted the training rule without much opposition. I'm opposed to it. NC had a vehicle inspection law when I lived up there, may still have, and it was an invitation to corruption. Give an inspector $20 and you'd pass.
I don't like open carry, but reluctantly support it. It's law in GA. I think it hurts firearms owners because it makes others uneasy, and "others" make up the majority of those who make laws. The only non-LEO I've seen who openly carried was an ass, so maybe I'm prejudiced. I don't think it solves many problems, either.
I understand your objection to ANY licensing for carrying, in contrast to the 2A right to own as interpreted as a right to carry w/o permit needed.
All I said was that the Tx law is what it is: the law. I don't agree with it but I'm not gonna move to the land of Democrat control, state liquor stores, state income tax, and snow snow snow just because. Getting my CHL was a bit of a nuisance, especially since I was among the very first batch of applicants and even the exam folks weren't too sure how to process things. But it was also a little fun, especially w. the shooting test, where my pal and I (we attended together) scored a perfect 100 and nobody else did.
Regarding driver's exams lowering accident rates, I don't know whether there are any real studies or stats on that, but let's look at it this way: how would you expect a driver to know that you cannot pass a stopped schoolbus that's flashing red lights otherwise? Mental telepathy? Osmosis? There are a few simple basics of traffic rules that the exam tests for and I admit that they aren't that much, but can you imagine the education or cognition level of someone who cannot pass a simple multiple choice exam on driving by 70% or demonstrate to the instruction that they can steer and drive around a few blocks but cannot even do that? There are endless goofy stories about idiots who fail their simple driving tests. At least it may help guarantee a minimal result.
I view OCing in the same light as the recreational use of narcotics.
I don't think that it should be against the law......however, the people who do it on any sort of regular basis are complete morons.
Concur, and they do more harm than good for the rest of us in terms of the sheeple.
NRA Endowment Member
Not so much. My objection is to gun owners who tout the govt interference with a gateway is a wonderful needed thing when there is zero stats to back it up. My main problem is with OH. TX recognizes a PA permit even though we dont test. OH does not. I can jump in the truck with my 45 in a holster and be legal to at least OK as long as I go south through WV.
again?????? You do know who pays your taxes dont you? You do. In a severance tax set up like TX the cost is spread out over the population in goods and services. FYI PA doesnt have a severance tax and PA started the oil business and have more NG then TX and is the leading high grade hardwood producer in the world. There is no tax on sandstone, limestone, clay or coal here. We just got a Dem gov. because the last R gov raised taxes, still have R senate and house, have for years, and we dont claim Sheila Jackson Lee. You pay a mixed beverage tax, from the rates, I think I can keep paying for the flood damage from 100 years past because at least I dont pay tax on a cup of ice.
You sure you want to play or just stick with the question at hand?
And there you go. It is a nuisance to exercise your rights. But it is a common sense gun law so its OK to tell everyone that they should do it. So you can fail a test that is put in front of your rights taught by a political appointee. Nut its OK, its a common sense gun law.
There are stats on that and hunters safety courses. If there were no stats or studies a kid getting his lic would not get a break on his insurance because they took drivers training in HS.
Thats why the analogy fails. There are no stats proving that a person taking a CCW test is any safer than one who is not. Its just a common sense gun law.
If a state has a law the residents don't like, they have the option of voting out those who enacted it. If it bothers enough people, should not be hard.
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, German writer and politician
http://www.pafoa.org/law/carrying-firearms/concealed-carry/non-residents/
Oh, well, heck, I'm movin' back to the land of snow asap!
Dude, you know full well that I've been playing around a bit here re. Penn. I know you're proud of your state, and that's fine. I lived in Picksbuug (as it was often pronounced there) and as soon as I moved to Texas my overall income went up significantly. But hey.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/documents/CHLFeeSchedule.pdf
Outrageous! There should never, ever, be a government fee attached to the exercise of any constitutional right, including bearing arms. We don't tax churches, and we don't levy poll taxes. Voter registration is free. There is no charge for publishing a book. It's time for Texans to Remember the Alamo and Remember Goliad. If Governor Abbott and the legislature can't stomach constitutional carry, the CCW permits should at least be free.
Since OH decided to recognise PA permits, yours is good here.
I guess I'll have to do some research here.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
With crap happening like in Ferguson Mo. and Baltimore MD, I want to be carrying legal again.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
I'd recommend that you renew, just in case. I did mine online and it was easy, new CHL came in about 2-3 weeks.
One thing you both missed is that the 2A isn't the same as your privilege to drive, it's about your RIGHT TO KEEP AN BEAR ARMS. And carrying them is part of that right.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
I agree. But my point was that any right or privilege is always balanced against the rights or privileges of others. Compare this right to bear arms with the right to free speech, and Holmes' comment about that right having limits. You've got the right to free speech in the Constitution, but if you go to, say, a movie theater and stand up and begin making a loud speech about how to make a nice stew, you'll soon be tossed. So that Constitutional right has it limits as well, just as the right to carry.
Thanks for the info for snake's help. Too bad his CHL renewal time has expired. Maybe he can apply under some sort of "old geezer" rule? ha ha -- if I can do it anybody can!
And yeah, I read the new bill. It essentially deletes the word "concealed" from "concealed carry" but is otherwise the same, including needing a CHL.
Thanks both of you. I called DPS in Austin yesterday and chose the menu item for callback since they said estimated time to speak to an agent was 52 minutes. I think they need some more Phone answerers. Anyway, I chose a call back and they never called me back. I called a place in Victoria that gives classes. They told me that if your CHL expires before you reapply you have to do it as a new app. I thought that was BS. Then he told me the total price for class and New CHL was $250. I almost choked. I ask him how much the class costs and he said $100. I said well they tell me being a senior the actual CHL is only $70 for a new applicant. That didn't add up.
But I think he supplies ammo and the whole 9 yards. I don't need that as I have plenty of 45 ammo. It is true that Texas is a gun friendly state, but some of our laws don't reflect it. We are gun friendly from the stand point that as a culture we love guns. But sometimes in the past our legislators have been a bit anal in their view of the second amendment, and also some have secumbed to money from special interest, like entities that put on classes. And also for license fees. They have chosen to make the CHL a source of revenue. As Horselips said in his post, it is a right. and you don't put a price on a right. Leave revenue raising to taxes and traffic tickets, but free the Second Amendment.
Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.