Bill: HB 195
Legislative Session: 84(R)Add to Bill List
Last Action:11/10/2014 H Filed
Caption Version:Introduced
Caption Text:Relating to the carrying of handguns; providing for the open carrying of handguns; removing the requirement that a person who may lawfully possess handguns obtain a Concealed Handgun License in order to carry a handgun lawfully in the state of Texas, and conforming changes.
It’s not a bad start. I sure it’s going to get some revisions if it makes it to the committee table. For the life of me I didn’t find any references to schools or college campuses. Are those covered under a different law? The list of verboten places seems very similar except the mention of schools. Also doesn’t seem to differentiate between open and concealed carry. Wonder what passing this would go to the reciprocity agreements in place?
I’m glad to see that this may actually go through in 2015. I would love to have the option of open or concealed. I would only open carry maybe 5% of the time when in places like theaters or restaurants (extended sitting).
Of course, the argument will come that anti gun businesses will post 30.06 trying to keep legal guns out but I’m fine with that. I’ll spend my money else where.
Reasons I would like to see the current CHL program stay but with option of open carry:
It already went from a Mickey Mouse course to a Minnie Mouse course in 2013. Renewing is online and cost is minimal.
There are people that fire a handgun for the first time during the course. I prefer otherwise but at least it is on a course and not at the local 7/11.
I am with you on most of that list. I would only open carry on my on property (can do anyway) and while hiking in the back country for critter protection. Otherwise, I see no reason to let other people, including BGs, know that I am carrying. And it bothers me a bit that all legal guns owners could carry concealed without the benefit of at least the Minnie course, if not the Mickey course. I see some at the range that make me cringe.
I was simply quoting Leaveammoforme’s post, best to ask him. No doubt he will come back to this thread on his own and answer.
But, AFAIK, the original course was’t very hard and then they simplified it to the current course.
Original initial CHL course was a minimum time of around 8 hours. Went over laws and basic ‘when can I shoot someone’ stuff. Qualification was (and still is) 50 shots divided among 3, 7 and 15 yards. If your shots land somewhere on a B27, You pass! I used the term ‘Mickey Mouse’ because it is comical as a Certification/qualification/proficiency test. Old renewal consisted of half the original class time to catch up on new laws and a shooting re-qual.
In 2013 they cut class time down to minimum of 4 hours. 4 hours shorter than the already too short class. Renewal is now going online clicking a box saying you are current on laws and paying them. More comical than the original hence ‘Minnie Mouse’
The CHL was orginally loosely based on the Texas Commisioned Security Officer (Level III/rent-a-cop) 40 hour course. Shooting qual is exactly the same minus the 12 gauge. The Level III course has had minimum time added while the CHL course was cut in half. Level III has no more authority than a CHL. Level III has to open carry as a job but has no LEO powers.
In my opinion: Most ,if not all, people who decide to carry on their person need more than 4 hours of ‘death by power point’.
Concealed carry holders should be all over this so if they accidentally reveal themselves its not a crime, and they don’t get attacked by police which is what happened here in Cedar Park a few years ago with a good samaritan helping someone with a disabled vehicle.
I agree with your analogy 97%. I will argue that people start talking around 2 years of age. They are critiqued along the way ,by peers and people who have been doing it longer, while learning proper usage. We learn how to get our point or thought across in the proper manner. Speech is refined through grade school, high school and then college. Some people that want to excel at speaking take specific classes for such.
If we ,as a society, still grew up around firearms while being taught proper usage by people who have been doing it longer I would agree 100%. I can disregard someone on the corner holding whatever sign is cool this week. I can not disregard someone who is firing a handgun for the first time provided they actually drew it without shooting themself.
I don’t want any God given rights impeded, however some come with more reponsibility than others.
The problem is the “good idea” comes with a can of worms.
I’ve seen plenty of people “with training”, who “grew up around guns” and every other qualifier who are still fundamentally unsafe with firearms. Hell I have an entire FB page devoted to the subject.
When you have firearms instructors who are fundamentally “unsafe” what possible criteria can we use as a baseline? Does James Yeager “certified” give you any confidence about a person’s safety?
On the other end of the spectrum I’ve seen 12 year olds who are completely safe and competent with firearms simply because they were taught to be responsible people and have been shown basic gun safety.
The reality is, guns are like opinions and voting. There is a cost to those freedoms and often consequences. And by trying to fix it we could easily make it worse.
I think we all want the same thing, people who are responsible and safe when it comes to firearms. Problem is society as a rule isn’t responsible or safe when it comes to anything. This includes cars, cell phones, alcohol, etc.
So what criteria do we require to deem an individual “safe” while at the same time not denying a means of defense to a law abiding “citizen” who may be at immediate risk?
It’s a shame that out of all the “social programs” there isn’t something akin to the CMP but designed to teach responsible handgun use for personal defense. Something that is available to all, but isn’t a qualifier for ownership.
Apparently we are reading Styer’s post differently. I don’t see where he’s advocating any restrictions.
ETA: As far as I’m concerned, if your not currently behind bars, on parole or probation, or confined to an institution you should retain all your rights with as few restrictions or regulations as possible.
I snipped you for space and I agree. JY certified made me laugh & I see your point.
The answer for the criteria needed ,while not being prohibitive, is a good question. Alot of non-shooters are interested in shooting and would go if offered the chance. They don’t know where to start or what to do. Some seek advice while others do not.
I’m not an Instructor but many people have had their first under my supervision. It costs me ammo & my time. I do it for free for anyone that shows an honest interest. Simple basic static stuff while concentrating on safety. I even have an airsoft M9 loaned out that a married couple is suppose to be dry firing daily. Instructors would be swamped by people like us if they offered any kind of free range day. My personal opinion is it is our job to bring others into the fold, teach them Firearms 101 correctly & let them move on from there. Build the base & let them pursue the level they desire.