Terrorists

[Pitbull11]

It's a commonly-accepted-as-fact myth that TX is exceedingly pro-gun. Texans as a rule certainly may be, but the laws they live under are not. I have no idea what Stench is referring to as far as, "....eventhough you can now carry without a permit," because not only is that not true while carrying concealed, when TX's new law goes into effect next month (January 1, 2016) making open carry legal, OC'ers will still be required to have a concealed carry permission slip to be in compliance with the revised carry law. As per usual, Stenchgun doesn't know what he's talking about.

TX permits are exceedingly expensive, making it next to impossible for the unemployed, under-employed, fixed income or other economically-challenged citizens to exercise their rights under both the TX and federal Constitutions.

If that Country and Western concert were taking place at Gilley's of Dallas for inustance, anyone carrying would be in violation of the law by carrying in an establishment that derives 51% or more of its revenue from the sale of alcohol, regardless of whether or not they consume any alcohol while there.

TX is a must-notify state.

Private "No Guns" signs carry the force of law.

The waiting period for getting a permission slip varies by a factor of three between 60 and 180 days from receipt of the application.

Criminal record restrictions far exceed federal standards to include some levels of misdemeanors.

Eligible applicants have to live in TX for six months before eligible to obtain a permission slip.

The are several GFZs by virtue of the type of establishment one is allowed to enter while carrying. These include any place of worship, any governmental entity meeting or gathering, any collegiate or professional sporting event, any amusement parks, anyplace designated as a polling location on election days and any racetrack.

TX has done a fine public relations job of making itself appear rabidly pro-gun and/or pro-carry, but it's a phony facade, as are most states that have similar reputations. Are people allowed to carry after jumping through some pretty expensive and time-consuming hoops? Yes. Do more people in TX manage to jump through those hoops and carry on a regular basis than in other states with reputations for being highly restrictive towards guns and carry? Probably, but to me it's kind of like voting for the lesser of two evils - you're still knowingly voting for evil no matter which you perceive to be the "lesser." TX just barely falls into the "pro-gun" realm of reality comparatively-speaking as far as I'm concerned. My state (AL) is only slightly better, but the point is that the overwhelming majority of all 50 states have egregious violations of the 2nd Amendment written into their carry laws, and people should recognize that fact by only holding the best ones up as reliably on the pro side when making such references.

Blues

I live in Texas, carry concealed without a Texas CCW permit. But I have a Florida non resident CCW and a Nevada non-resident CCW both accepted by Texas. Just because you live in Texas does not mean you must carry a Texas CCW as long as you have a reciprocal state permit.

 

[DavidWhite]

I live in Texas, carry concealed without a Texas CCW permit. But I have a Florida non resident CCW and a Nevada non-resident CCW both accepted by Texas. Just because you live in Texas does not mean you must carry a Texas CCW as long as you have a reciprocal state permit.

So basically this....
Link Removed

Ah.... No thanks.

 

[BluesStringer]

My point was not Texas.

I know, but just as you used Texas to make the point you were making, I likewise followed on the same state to counter the point you were making. Gun "friendly" states, constitutionally-speaking, can be counted on one hand, and neither TX, AL or VA are among them according to the way I analyze the subject.

My point is that an area that has an armed population, as does my state (Virginia), you are less likely to have an attack, with the exception of GFZ's, and even there, there may be some that are still carrying.

I abhor GFZs and am not questioning your assessment for any other reason than to try to disseminate the most accurate information possible. I'm originally from CA, and I'll guarantee ya that the population there is heavily armed, albeit with more difficulty and expense than in many other states. The part of your statement I put in bold is incorrect though, as-proved by CA having more guns than any other state in the nation (~33 million) and an attack happening there just ~48 hours ago.

The applicable metric you're looking for isn't whether or not the population is armed, because every state's poplulations are adequately armed to fend off nearly any conventional threat. The metric you're looking for is whether or not the jurisdiction they live in is supportive of them using their weapons for self defense as-determined by the way(s) their use of force laws are written. To my way of thinking, TX and CA are both egregiously deficient when using that metric, as well as all but five (or six if you count AR, which I personally don't) states that maintain real constitutional carry, have strong SYG/Castle Doctrine laws, and both law enforcement and courts keep well within the lines of the use of force laws generally-speaking.

My point that I obviously failed to make well-understood, was/is that it is government, not the "allowing" of citizens to be armed, that determines whether or not terrorists (or any other violent criminals for that matter) have any real reason to feel insecure in plying their evil on unsuspecting people. The more laws on the books that either restrict or delay access to guns, or attempt to micro-manage too many possible scenarios where citizens would be legally justified in pulling their triggers, the lower the probability of real reasons a terrorist or other criminal will go elsewhere to ply their trade becomes. Constitutional carry being the rarest of legal environments concerning gun issues renders the other 44 or 45 states basically only varying degrees of unacceptable to those, like me, who are literalists or originalists when it comes to the Constitution generally, or the 2nd Amendment specifically.

It took $50 and 28 waiting days to get my permit.

It takes me $20 bucks and renewal is issued on the spot (same day) if I go to the Sheriff's Office to do it. The only time it has taken longer than same-day has been the first time for each of the three counties I've lived in over the last 23 years of residency in AL, and it's never taken more than a week. That leaves 20 renewals that took no more than 10 minutes to complete.

Virginia is a good state for CCW.

By that standard, VA is nowhere near as "good" as Alabama, but I still count AL among the unacceptable states for the reasons previously mentioned. Obviously, now that I know a little bit about VA's laws, I likewise count it among the same group.

Sometimes you have to reread a post to try to understand what the point is. It was not,for gods sake, Texas.

Indeed. I hope you understand that that is just as true for the post of mine that you took as only applying to Texas.

Blues

 

[BluesStringer]

I live in Texas, carry concealed without a Texas CCW permit. But I have a Florida non resident CCW and a Nevada non-resident CCW both accepted by Texas. Just because you live in Texas does not mean you must carry a Texas CCW as long as you have a reciprocal state permit.

I've only ever heard of one state where a reciprocal permission slip has been ruled in court as being compliant with state law for residents of that state. It was one of the Carolinas, I think it was North, but could be mistaken about that. In any case, if TX is the same it still doesn't counter my point, as whatever out-of-state permission slip you're carrying under in TX, you are still bound by TX carry laws, so that all the restrictions on place and manner of carry still apply to you. If your out-of-state permit(s) are from states that don't require that you notify cops that you're carrying early in the interaction, doesn't matter, TX law does require it, just as a for-instance. All but the cost considerations that I mentioned above still apply to you, and none of the carry laws from FL or NV apply in TX, including the 1,000 foot rule for school zones that are exempted for home-state permit holders, and that's a biggie if the local cops want to nail someone with a federal offense.

Otherwise, I would suggest that you research the law and make sure that reciprocity agreements apply for residents of TX. It's a very rare circumstance that they do, hence why the case I referred to above had to be decided in court. As I recall, someone was charged with non-compliance of the concealed carry/permit laws for relying on an out-of-state permit long after establishing residency. They then challenged the wording of the law in court with the DA and/or AG opposing the challenge vigorously, and the defendant won. He didn't win because the legislature intended the law to read the way it did, but because it was sloppy in its wording. At least that's how I remember the story from maybe a year (+/-) ago. Maybe someone from whichever state that story was out of will fill in whatever blanks I'm misremembering.

Blues

 

[Pitbull11]

I've only ever heard of one state where a reciprocal permission slip has been ruled in court as being compliant with state law for residents of that state. It was one of the Carolinas, I think it was North, but could be mistaken about that. In any case, if TX is the same it still doesn't counter my point, as whatever out-of-state permission slip you're carrying under in TX, you are still bound by TX carry laws, so that all the restrictions on place and manner of carry still apply to you. If your out-of-state permit(s) are from states that don't require that you notify cops that you're carrying early in the interaction, doesn't matter, TX law does require it, just as a for-instance. All but the cost considerations that I mentioned above still apply to you, and none of the carry laws from FL or NV apply in TX, including the 1,000 foot rule for school zones that are exempted for home-state permit holders, and that's a biggie if the local cops want to nail someone with a federal offense.

Otherwise, I would suggest that you research the law and make sure that reciprocity agreements apply for residents of TX. It's a very rare circumstance that they do, hence why the case I referred to above had to be decided in court. As I recall, someone was charged with non-compliance of the concealed carry/permit laws for relying on an out-of-state permit long after establishing residency. They then challenged the wording of the law in court with the DA and/or AG opposing the challenge vigorously, and the defendant won. He didn't win because the legislature intended the law to read the way it did, but because it was sloppy in its wording. At least that's how I remember the story from maybe a year (+/-) ago. Maybe someone from whichever state that story was out of will fill in whatever blanks I'm misremembering.

Blues

Texas is a very gun friendly state in my opinion. I've been told by LEO's that as long as your permit is recognized by Texas it's good for carry in Texas, resident or non resident. Now can I believe the Leo, the gun dealers, the law as I read it that states my permit is good in Texas and does not make any statement excluding Texas residents? Or then stating if you are a Texas resident you must have a current Texas permit and other recognized non resident permits will not cover a Texas resident?? I know you mean well but one guy on the internet stating that in another state he thinks he remembers is just internet bull ****.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Texas is a very gun friendly state in my opinion.

Texas is in the top 10 most restrictive states regarding what it takes to get a CHL/CHL disqualifiers and the areas that are prohibited.

 

[Pitbull11]

Texas is in the top 10 most restrictive states regarding what it takes to get a CHL/CHL disqualifiers and the areas that are prohibited.

Just re-read all the rules. I could qualify but it might be tough for some others. I understand that a majority of members feel base on the second adm there should be no rules. Got to admit compared to many other states Texas is tough. Problem I see is that the bad guys won't ever follow any rules and the good guys follow the rules which means additional rules put us good guys at a disadvantage.

 

[BluesStringer]

I've been told by LEO's that as long as your permit is recognized by Texas it's good for carry in Texas, resident or non resident.

That is true as long as the non-resident is really a non-resident. Assuming your real, legal residency status is limited only to Texas, you would not be able to comply with the second requirement for applicants to the Texas DPS Administrative Code governing CHL applications and eligibility, which states:

(2) Driver license number. An applicant shall provide a valid driver license number or identification certificate number issued by the department or by the issuing agency in the state of residence for non-resident applicants. Non-resident applicants and license holders must submit color photocopies of the front and back of their valid driver license or identification card issued by the appropriate state agency in their home state.

Now can I believe the Leo, the gun dealers, the law as I read it that states my permit is good in Texas and does not make any statement excluding Texas residents?

All I said is that you should do your own research and make sure you fully understand the law you say you have read. Quite obviously, if you really did read the law, you did not fully understand it.

And just to be clear, the quote from DPS that I cited above was simply the first thing I came across that would disqualify you from carrying an out of state permit as a substitute for a TX permit if your legal residency is TX. I would guess there are other disqualifiers within the law too, but I've already done more of your homework for you than should be necessary, as all I was trying to do was alert you to the possibility that either someone has steered you wrong, or you misunderstood what you've read on the subject, or both. The link I provided for you in the citation will prevent any further need by anyone to do your research for you - if you only use it.

Or then stating if you are a Texas resident you must have a current Texas permit and other recognized non resident permits will not cover a Texas resident?? I know you mean well but one guy on the internet stating that in another state he thinks he remembers is just internet bull ****.

Gee, you mad bro?

Maybe now you can answer the question with double-question-marks for yourself.

You are right to be skeptical of anything said on the internet. I don't take that personally at all. Skepticism is healthy, but stubbornly holding onto false premises without checking for yourself to see if they're true could land your rude ass in jail, or worse. Thank me. I'm welcome.

Just re-read all the rules. I could qualify but it might be tough for some others. I understand that a majority of members feel base on the second adm there should be no rules. Got to admit compared to many other states Texas is tough.

So people who advise you to check the rules out for yourself are really promulgating that "there should be no rules?" Is there a possibility that you've misunderstood more than just the law that you read?

Problem I see is that the bad guys won't ever follow any rules and the good guys follow the rules which means additional rules put us good guys at a disadvantage.

Gee, ya think?

But here's the problem with the above quote; Depending on how long you've been a resident of TX (more than six months?) and neglected to get a TX permission slip, you may well not qualify as a "good guy" anymore. You may be a bonafide law-breaker who believed all the BS that LEOs, gun store employees and your own lyin' eyes told you. Sorry convict, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Now go do your own homework before the above actually comes true.

Blues

 

[kwc]

I don't know the 100% full answer regarding TX residents carrying within the state with a license or permit from a recognized or reciprocal state. However, the rule quoted above (Section 6.12(2)) does not definitively answer this question. It merely states that APPLICANTS must provide their driver's license number or a copy of their out-of-state driver's license. This section simply defines the application contents.

There may be other statutes, court decisions (like the McKown decision in PA), or administrative code references that address this issue, but IMHO the cited section isn't it.

Yes, reading the statutes is critical, but it's also important to read them in the right context.


,

 

[Pitbull11]

I don't know the 100% full answer regarding TX residents carrying within the state with a license or permit from a recognized or reciprocal state. However, the rule quoted above (Section 6.12(2)) does not definitively answer this question. It merely states that APPLICANTS must provide their driver's license number or a copy of their out-of-state driver's license. This section simply defines the application contents.

There may be other statutes, court decisions (like the McKown decision in PA), or administrative code references that address this issue, but IMHO the cited section isn't it.

Yes, reading the statutes is critical, but it's also important to read them in the right context.


,

Agree Blues is taking this out of context. This has nothing to do with carrying concealed by a Texas resident with a reciprocal CCW from another state. Again another example of Internet legal opinions.

 

[BluesStringer]

I don't know the 100% full answer regarding TX residents carrying within the state with a license or permit from a recognized or reciprocal state. However, the rule quoted above (Section 6.12(2)) does not definitively answer this question. It merely states that APPLICANTS must provide their driver's license number or a copy of their out-of-state driver's license. This section simply defines the application contents.

There may be other statutes, court decisions (like the McKown decision in PA), or administrative code references that address this issue, but IMHO the cited section isn't it.

Yes, reading the statutes is critical, but it's also important to read them in the right context.


,

Agree Blues is taking this out of context. This has nothing to do with carrying concealed by a Texas resident with a reciprocal CCW from another state. Again another example of Internet legal opinions.

You guys are ridiculously obtuse. Everywhere within the relevant sections of Title 37, Part 1, which defines TX DPS authorities and obligations, is the requirement that anyone carrying a concealed weapon be licensed to do so. Part of getting a license requires that you apply for one under the auspices of the section of Code that I cited. If you can't show a driver's license or state ID showing your in-state address issued "by the department" (DPS itself for the reading-challenged), or a driver's license or state ID "by the issuing agency in the state of residence for non-resident applicants," then you don't qualify to carry a concealed weapon in the state of TX because you don't even qualify to apply for one.

Now, dual residency is certainly a possibility that may mitigate (or complicate, as the case may be) some or all of those considerations, but that's not what Pitbull11 said were his circumstances. He said he had non-resident permits from FL and NV, so it would logically follow that he's not a resident of either state.

Look, I don't give a crap whether you go get a TX permission slip or not. Like I've said three times now, all I (originally) very gently suggested was that you do your own research and make sure you understand what you're reading.

Instead, you call the suggestion "bull****" and now say it's actually a "legal opinion" in response to someone actually giving a legal opinion about what I said. And still you stubbornly refuse to do your own research.

And when it gets right down to brass tacks in this thread, the argument started because two people wanted to hold up Texas as a shining beacon of human freedom where terrorists fear to tread. TX is neither a fear-inducing environment for terrorists, nor a shining beacon of freedom. It's among the worst states for freedom as-regards gun issues, which means it's a shining beacon inviting terrorists to come there, at least to the extent that one believes that fewer armed citizens equates to a more target-rich environment for terrorists/criminals, which I do believe.

Why people get defensive about the states they live in being criticized for their piss-poor compliance with the 2A when the truth is told that all but five (maybe six) states usurp our 2A rights routinely and with impunity, and have for many decades, is quite well beyond my ability to comprehend. It's like your bragging about being enslaved by the state of _________________ (fill in the blank). Heck, put Alabama in the blank. Doesn't matter a wit to me, because that statement would be the unqualified truth for all the states that don't have real constitutional carry, of which Alabama, Texas, Virginia and no less than 41 other states are among. The requirement for the permission slip itself is one of those usurpations, no matter which state it is issued from.

Blues

 

[kwc]

You guys are ridiculously obtuse. Everywhere within the relevant sections of Title 37, Part 1, which defines TX DPS authorities and obligations, is the requirement that anyone carrying a concealed weapon be licensed to do so. Part of getting a license requires that you apply for one under the auspices of the section of Code that I cited.
Blues

Yes, carrying a firearm in TX requires licensing under the act--either one issued by TX (resident/nonresident) or one recognized by the state.

The section cited, as I pointed out, only applies to someone wanting to obtain a license issued by the state of TX. It requires residents to provide their driver's license, and nonresidents to provide theirs. Without it, an application is incomplete.

By your logic, if Title 37, Part 1 and Section 6.12(2) that you cited requires residents to obtain a CHL from TX, then it also requires nonresidents to get one, too. Both are mentioned in 6.12(2).

Yet TX allows those with licenses from 42 states to carry in TX. How can this be???! It's called reciprocity and recognition, and there are other sections in the TX code that make provision for this.

I still can't find anything prohibiting TX residents from carrying on a license from another state. It may exist, but no one, including you, has demonstrated otherwise. Furthermore, your apparent need to ridicule (calling us "obtuse") significantly undermines the strength of your argument. If you can't formulate a good argument, then you throw insults.

But back on topic (sort of), I'll agree--TX (where I've lived for a few years and visit periodically) isn't the model to follow. It's much better than my current state of IL, but still lacking.

 

[Pitbull11]

You guys are ridiculously obtuse. Everywhere within the relevant sections of Title 37, Part 1, which defines TX DPS authorities and obligations, is the requirement that anyone carrying a concealed weapon be licensed to do so. Part of getting a license requires that you apply for one under the auspices of the section of Code that I cited. If you can't show a driver's license or state ID showing your in-state address issued "by the department" (DPS itself for the reading-challenged), or a driver's license or state ID "by the issuing agency in the state of residence for non-resident applicants," then you don't qualify to carry a concealed weapon in the state of TX because you don't even qualify to apply for one.

Now, dual residency is certainly a possibility that may mitigate (or complicate, as the case may be) some or all of those considerations, but that's not what Pitbull11 said were his circumstances. He said he had non-resident permits from FL and NV, so it would logically follow that he's not a resident of either state.

Look, I don't give a crap whether you go get a TX permission slip or not. Like I've said three times now, all I (originally) very gently suggested was that you do your own research and make sure you understand what you're reading.

Instead, you call the suggestion "bull****" and now say it's actually a "legal opinion" in response to someone actually giving a legal opinion about what I said. And still you stubbornly refuse to do your own research.

And when it gets right down to brass tacks in this thread, the argument started because two people wanted to hold up Texas as a shining beacon of human freedom where terrorists fear to tread. TX is neither a fear-inducing environment for terrorists, nor a shining beacon of freedom. It's among the worst states for freedom as-regards gun issues, which means it's a shining beacon inviting terrorists to come there, at least to the extent that one believes that fewer armed citizens equates to a more target-rich environment for terrorists/criminals, which I do believe.

Why people get defensive about the states they live in being criticized for their piss-poor compliance with the 2A when the truth is told that all but five (maybe six) states usurp our 2A rights routinely and with impunity, and have for many decades, is quite well beyond my ability to comprehend. It's like your bragging about being enslaved by the state of _________________ (fill in the blank). Heck, put Alabama in the blank. Doesn't matter a wit to me, because that statement would be the unqualified truth for all the states that don't have real constitutional carry, of which Alabama, Texas, Virginia and no less than 41 other states are among. The requirement for the permission slip itself is one of those usurpations, no matter which state it is issued from.

Blues

Thanks for the input and concern, I've now read and re read the Texas laws addressing this issue and like Kwc can't find anything that states it is not legal for a Texas resident to legally carry concealed in Texas with a reciprocal states permit like Florida or Nevada. I've confirmed this with my local Texas police in Georgetown Texas. I've also verified this with a Texas CHL instructor. The instructor did say that if I got a Texas CHL that it would make it legal to carry concealed within 1000 feet of a School. I can see where you could be stopped on a road and also be within 1000 ft. Of a school without realizing. I will get a Texas permit within the next year since I do plan to continue to live in Texas and it will be fun to take the class.

 

[Ringo]

:dance3: ARIZONA... No license required. :dance3:​

 

[SR9]

Let me see? There are 72 people employed in the Department of Homeland Security that are on the "No-Fly List". There are about 55 people in key positions in the Obama Administration that are Muslim. Obama and all of the Democrats Candidates wants to take away or guns. Looks to me like we are in a position to be taken over by a deadly enemy and they already have their a lot of their key people ready to take charge. Does anybody out there understand what is at stake in this upcoming election. We are about 410 days away from a Islamic takeover. Except one thing, we have many millions of guns and ammo. But do we have the guts?

 

[BluesStringer]

:dance3: ARIZONA... No license required. :dance3:​

One of the five. Good choice, my fellow CA refugee!

AZ was actually my first choice when we decided it was time to move from where we'd been for the last 14 years (Madison, AL). My wife, however, nixed every home/piece of property I found within our price-range because of the ever-present desert. So I started showing her properties up in and around Flagstaff, but didn't filter my searches to exclude winter scenes, and the first pic she saw with snow on the ground, that was it, AZ was out.

I love where we moved to. It's far enough out in the country that for the last 9 months since moving here, I haven't seen but one cop on my road, and go to town so infrequently that I bet I haven't seen any more than 20 in the whole time we've been here. For almost all intents and purposes, I really don't need to keep my permit up to date here anymore. I open carry anyway, which does not require a permission slip, but the permit does make OC less dangerous (re: cops) anywhere near a school, and I ride my motorcycle a lot pretty much wherever the front wheel takes me, and never really know when I might find myself in a school zone, so I keep it up. But I resent the imposition by government on my so-called "right" to keep and bear, and will never understand why telling the same truth I tell about my own home state concerning other states, that their governments are populated by usurping tyrants, would make people defensive.

Now that I have the bike, I really wish I had lobbied harder for AZ with the ol' lady. No helmet law there, no permission slip requirement, and plenty of wide open country where both freedoms can be enjoyed with little reason to fear being hassled for exercising them. Oh, and just to make sure there's some on-topic content, not a lot of terrorists there stinkin' up the place either!

Blues

 

[Stengun]

Howdy,

Holy Batcrap!!

A bunch of people on the 'Net arguing about the gun laws and regulations in a state where none of them live, and where most have never been to is beyond reason especially since several of the people that are participating in the argument do NOT own guns.

Paul

 

[hogwylde]

Unfortunately when they do attack again, and I believe they eventually will, they will not have a couple hundred people walking down the street with guns shooting our cities up. They will use some kind of explosive device, another plane, or whatever so having armed citizens will not make a difference but I hope I am wrong.

 

[Ringo]

Unfortunately when they do attack again, and I believe they eventually will, they will not have a couple hundred people walking down the street with guns shooting our cities up. They will use some kind of explosive device, another plane, or whatever so having armed citizens will not make a difference but I hope I am wrong.

One way or another they'll get the job done. They're not afraid to die, to them dying is a bonus. In fact, looking forward to death makes them even more dangerous.

 

[vernsimpson]

One way or another they'll get the job done. They're not afraid to die, to them dying is a bonus. In fact, looking forward to death makes them even more dangerous.

Very true! But what makes them even more dangerous is the fact that our "wonderful and caring" gubment refuses to call them for what they are. An example would be if influenza was sweeping across the USA and they were calling it the "common" cold!!

Failing to identify any problem ONLY makes it worse.