botheyesonyou
Regular Member
There are a few members on this forum who have a very comprehensive view of the current Texas Constitution and Penal Code. I would like to have a respectful conversation regarding the following.
1. If you claim that possessing / wearing arms is a Right, why would you ever get permission (a license) to participate in what you claim is above the regulating authority of the STATE? "I got my CHL to protect my 2A right" is an oxymoron.
2. Going further in making the claim of a Right, why would the focus be to strike part X or Y from the penal code in chapter 46 that pertains to a CHL holder. Again, acceptance of the license is admission to the STATE that you view the subject as a privilege.
We have four states with Constitutional Carry and its passage in Texas would put 99% of the issues on this forum to bed. Some say 'baby steps.' I say study the path four other states have trail blazed. This is a food for thought discussion as its too late for this session.
1. If you claim that possessing / wearing arms is a Right, why would you ever get permission (a license) to participate in what you claim is above the regulating authority of the STATE? "I got my CHL to protect my 2A right" is an oxymoron.
2. Going further in making the claim of a Right, why would the focus be to strike part X or Y from the penal code in chapter 46 that pertains to a CHL holder. Again, acceptance of the license is admission to the STATE that you view the subject as a privilege.
We have four states with Constitutional Carry and its passage in Texas would put 99% of the issues on this forum to bed. Some say 'baby steps.' I say study the path four other states have trail blazed. This is a food for thought discussion as its too late for this session.