• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

If open carry passes, should you have to get a license to carry? Hit the poll please

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Concealed licenses used to be a method for insuring only 'reputable people' carried a weapon in the same shady manner as criminals and not openly as honest citizens did. What would be the reasoning behind not requiring one to have a license to openly carry a long gun but yet require a license to openly carry a hand gun?

In Georgia you're required to have a license to carry openly or concealed. I don't agree with it, nor do I see the point. A person carrying a weapon may not be detained for the sole purpose of investigating whether such person has a weapons carry license and the penalty for not having one's license on one's person is a mere 'wrist slap' of $10 (the same as not having a driving license in possession if one produces a license in court).
 
Last edited:

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Concealed licenses used to be a method for insuring only 'reputable people' carried a weapon in the same shady manner as criminals and not openly as honest citizens did. What would be the reasoning behind not requiring one to have a license to openly carry a long gun but yet require a license to openly carry a hand gun?

In Georgia you're required to have a license to carry openly or concealed. I don't agree with it, nor do I see the point. A person carrying a weapon may not be detained for the sole purpose of investigating whether such person has a weapons carry license and the penalty for not having one's license on one's person is a mere 'wrist slap' of $10 (the same as not having a driving license in possession if one produces a license in court).

Well... I could take a guess as the reasoning. $$$$$$$$$$$. Of course we all knew that instructors made a lot of money on CHLs in Texas (edit: say a CHL instructor does 2 classes a month, charges $100/person, 30 people/class, and is booked 3 months in advance, you do the math...) but recently I've seen talk that leads me to believe it has been a very 'profitable' program for the state itself...

These polls are as useful as one's voting.

But I hit it anyways !

lol, thanks!
 
Last edited:

Rusty Young Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2013
Messages
1,548
Location
Árida Zona
Voted (no, a Right should not require a fee and permission from anyone).

Don't know how it can be so difficult to understand: criminals WILL find a way to get their hands on __________* in order to commit a second crime (the first being the wielding of a weapon with intent to commit said crime).

*Fill in the blank: gun/knife/kitchen knife/baseball bat/hammer/shovel/pipe/wrench/sharp stick/sharp piece of steel/large rock/brick/etc.


For instance, a man in Glendale recently had his home burglarized, and the thieves stole several firearms. Backpage link with photos of the scumbags:
http://tucson.backpage.com/SportsEq...zed-guns-stolen-lots-of-pics-of-them/30724074

Something tells me these guys couldn't care less about permits, waiting periods, or background checks...
Sorry to kind of hijack the thread, but just trying to get the word out about this in case the guys are seen in Texas (the prevailing theory in AZ is that they likely took the guns to Kalifornia).:(
 
Last edited:

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Voted (no, a Right should not require a fee and permission from anyone).

Don't know how it can be so difficult to understand: criminals WILL find a way to get their hands on __________* in order to commit a second crime (the first being the wielding of a weapon with intent to commit said crime).

*Fill in the blank: gun/knife/kitchen knife/baseball bat/hammer/shovel/pipe/wrench/sharp stick/sharp piece of steel/large rock/brick/etc.


For instance, a man in Glendale recently had his home burglarized, and the thieves stole several firearms. Backpage link with photos of the scumbags:
http://tucson.backpage.com/SportsEq...zed-guns-stolen-lots-of-pics-of-them/30724074

Something tells me these guys couldn't care less about permits, waiting periods, or background checks...
Sorry to kind of hijack the thread, but just trying to get the word out about this in case the guys are seen in Texas (the prevailing theory in AZ is that they likely took the guns to Kalifornia).:(

You don't think they went and ran background checks on themselves and obtained carry permits before they broke in and stole the firearms? Surely they would have, there are laws on the books you know, which I'm sure they've read...
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
NO

" Those things which are considered as INALIENABLE RIGHTS which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege" Cite- City of Chicago v Collins 51, NE. 907,910

" A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms of its possession, impose conditions which require THE ABANDONMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS" Cite - Frost Trucking Co. v Railroad Commission 271 US 583,589 (1924) also Terral v Burke Construction Company 257,US 529, 532 (1922)

While I am not a citizen of the great State of Texas, I am a citizen that firmly believes that the requiring of a license to exercise a Natural right or rights granted under the Federal Constitution is nothing short of thievery by the police state and its lawmakers.

My .02

Regards

CCJ
 

tedwitt

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
30
Location
Magnolia, Texas, USA
Should you need a license to open carry?

As I've asked before, do these polls really matter? Don't know. Please vote anyway. Takes 2 seconds.

http://kfyo.com/if-open-carry-passes-in-texas-should-texans-have-to-get-a-license-to-carry-poll/

When I voted, about 82% say no, about 15% yes and about 2% not sure.

Personally I think you should need a CHL or something equal to a CHL, Each person should be cleared same as we did for CHL. I wouldn't want a crack head or other felon walking around with a sidearm. I know, they can do it now with it concealed, BUT, would they do it open carry?
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
Personally I think you should need a CHL or something equal to a CHL, Each person should be cleared same as we did for CHL. I wouldn't want a crack head or other felon walking around with a sidearm. I know, they can do it now with it concealed, BUT, would they do it open carry?

I wouldn't want a crack head or perhaps not even a felon walking around with a sidearm, either, but I ask myself two questions when presented this. First, does this desire of mine justify my setting a prohibition or other such restriction or requirement on other's rights? Secondly, for the sake of discussion, assuming I am justified in using this force against fellow man to enforce a prohibition or licensing requirement, would this be effective to prevent the condition I desire to not exist?

Personally I believe the answer is no to both questions.
 

Fallschirjmäger

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
3,823
Location
Cumming, Georgia, USA
Personally I think you should need a CHL or something equal to a CHL, Each person should be cleared same as we did for CHL. I wouldn't want a crack head or other felon walking around with a sidearm. I know, they can do it now with it concealed, BUT, would they do it open carry?
Cleared?
So, you want background investigations to make sure 'only the right people' are granted the privilege of exercising the right to be armed?

Should this same background investigation be required of those wishing to openly carry rifles, as that is at this time, unregulated in Texas?

A license would do nothing to prevent 'some crackhead' from carrying. He'd still be a crackhead, he'd still be a prohibited person and it would still be illegal regardless of licensing.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Personally I think you should need a CHL or something equal to a CHL, Each person should be cleared same as we did for CHL. I wouldn't want a crack head or other felon walking around with a sidearm. I know, they can do it now with it concealed, BUT, would they do it open carry?

Its called a birth certificate .. if you are alive and free one does not need a permission slip or any type of clearing process.

Crack heads and felons included.
 
Last edited:

ron73440

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
474
Location
Suffolk VA
Personally I think you should need a CHL or something equal to a CHL, Each person should be cleared same as we did for CHL. I wouldn't want a crack head or other felon walking around with a sidearm. I know, they can do it now with it concealed, BUT, would they do it open carry?

So you choose trying to control others over freedom.

About the crackhead or felon, what's the difference how they carry?

You admit they don't follow the useless laws now, but to stop them from OC'ing you are willing to impose cost and time requirement on other people.

Why, just to make you feel better?

Freedom is awesome.
 
Top