Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Texas CHL Application

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Laveen, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    432

    Post imported post

    Since I may someday return to Texas from Arizona, I was looking at the Texas CHL Application process. I noticed some questions on the application that didn't seem(at least to me) to have anything to do with carrying a concealed handgun. The questions pertain to being behind in child support payments, defaulting on Educational Loans or owing the state some tax money. Does anyone else think this is odd for a handgun permit, or is it just me because we don't have anything like that on the Arizona application.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Houston, ,
    Posts
    47

    Post imported post

    It's just their way of letting you know that in Texas, the right to bear arms is conditional/qualified right, and not a natural right.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    glock37 wrote:
    It's just their way of letting you know that in Texas, the right to bear arms is conditional/qualified right, and not a natural right.


  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    Texas will not allow you to have any license/permit if you owe backchild support payments etc. Doctors, engineers, nurses can all lose their licenses if payments are not kept current.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    300

    Post imported post

    Texas uses the licensing system to help enforce these areas of the law. Anyone delinquent in paying child support, education loans, state sales taxes or any other state regulated financial matter is not allowed to acquire any type of license, professional or otherwise, from the state until the delinquent status has been brought current. This is not just a CHL thing, it is attached to every type of license the state issues.

    Doc

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Laveen, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    432

    Post imported post

    Assuming the Sup Crt comes back and rules that the 2nd amendment is indeed an individual right to keep and BEAR arms, wouldn't it be possible to argue that if someone is not eligible for a concealed carry license, that they should be able to open carry in Texas. It doesn't say ".... shall not be infringed unless you owe school loans, back taxes or child support payments".....

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    I believe the authority concerning the BEARING of arms isgiven to each state.

    In Texas I can carry into a food establishment that serves alcohol and be legal. However, if the establishment derives 51% or more of their income from alcohol sales, theyare classified as a bar andthus illegal toenter with a handgun. I know some states do not allow carrying into ANY establishment that serves alcohol. Other states require OPEN carry in alcohol establishments.

    If the SCOTUS is in favor of gun owners rights, I don't believe it will get involved in the where/when of the bearing of arms. It will have an effectwhere ownership of guns is restricted.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    The constitution only limits the federal government. It originally applied no limits to the states. However, the 14th amendment is thought by some to have changed that. That is what the ACLU uses to keep a city from putting up 10 Commandments monuments. If the 14th amendment makes the 2nd amendment apply to the states then any federal, state, county, or city laws against the bearing of arms in unconstitutional. If the 14th didn't make all the limits apply to the states, counties and cites then Texas could make Southern Baptist the state religion and it would be legal under the federal constitution. Most of those groups want to ban guns saying the 2nd doesn't apply and they want to ban religion saying the 14th makes the 1st apply to the states. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

    The DC ban is different because DC is under federal control. They are not a state with the authority to control firearms. The 2nd absolutely applies there. However, judges seem to have a hard time understanding clear english in the amendments and rule whatever they think their friends will approve of, or whatever they think is right. If the 2nd amendment was followed by the courts there would be NO federal weapon laws. You could own an F16 and a tomahawk missile if you could afford them.



  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    300

    Post imported post

    Notso wrote:
    Assuming the Sup Crt comes back and rules that the 2nd amendment is indeed an individual right to keep and BEAR arms, wouldn't it be possible to argue that if someone is not eligible for a concealed carry license, that they should be able to open carry in Texas. It doesn't say ".... shall not be infringed unless you owe school loans, back taxes or child support payments".....
    Actually not. The right to bear arms does not say a state cannot regulate it, it simply says they cannot prohibit the possession of arms. The DC issue is actually one of over-stretching their authority. DC not only prohibits the possession of handguns in the district (other than those grandfathered prior to 1975), it requires that firearms be secured in the home in a manner that effectively disarms the individual by making the firearm unaccessible in an emergency or time of need. The courts ruled that the DC law was too restrictive and thus violated 2A. This is the issue SCOTUS is considering in this case, not whether a state can regulate how and where one can possess a firearm. As for open carry in Texas, if Texas were to legalize OC, then yes, a person would qualify even if they were not eligible for a license due to a non-criminal reason. However, if Texas were to legalize OC, it would most likely be in the form of dropping the concealment requirement for licensed individuals. This would allow the state to not only keep collecting revenue on the practice, but would allow for background checks on those who carry, so in short, it really won't matter.

    Doc

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    Very valid points.

    Texas allows the open carry of long arms, but that's not something you could do without being arrested. Walk around a city carrying a shotgun, and you're in for a legal problem. It only takes one person to feel "alarmed" or feel "threatened" by the person carrying the long gun. One 911 call, and you're off to jail.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    300

    Post imported post

    Fatherof9 wrote:
    The constitution only limits the federal government. It originally applied no limits to the states. However, the 14th amendment is thought by some to have changed that. That is what the ACLU uses to keep a city from putting up 10 Commandments monuments. If the 14th amendment makes the 2nd amendment apply to the states then any federal, state, county, or city laws against the bearing of arms in unconstitutional. If the 14th didn't make all the limits apply to the states, counties and cites then Texas could make Southern Baptist the state religion and it would be legal under the federal constitution. Most of those groups want to ban guns saying the 2nd doesn't apply and they want to ban religion saying the 14th makes the 1st apply to the states. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

    The DC ban is different because DC is under federal control. They are not a state with the authority to control firearms. The 2nd absolutely applies there. However, judges seem to have a hard time understanding clear english in the amendments and rule whatever they think their friends will approve of, or whatever they think is right. If the 2nd amendment was followed by the courts there would be NO federal weapon laws. You could own an F16 and a tomahawk missile if you could afford them.

    This is not entirely true. While the district is not a state and is in fact governed directly by congress, the city ofWashington DC is a home rule city and as such possesses all the rights and privileges of any other home rule city in its ability to make laws pertinent to its jurisdictional control. What that means is that unless congress expressly allows for an action, the city can legally restrict it. The constitution of the US applies to all areas of the US, whether a state or federal territory.

    In the case of gun possession, there is no federal law that allows one to carry a weapon and the feds leave that to each state to regulate. The 2A merely allows for ownership and possession, but does not restrict a states right to regulate where, when and how. As long as there is not an outright ban or restrictions so severe that they serve the same purpose, than regulation is legal.

    In the case of DC, congress has discussed passing a law to prohibit DC from banning the possession within reason, however, they have always stopped short out of concern that by regulating DC it would open the door for regulating the states as well.

    The case before SCOTUS merely addresses the extreme length that the DC law goes and even if they uphold the law it will not prevent the city of DC from writing a less stringent version that prevents the carry outside the home, nor will it change the way states or cities regulate them other than to prevent them from effectively banning ownership/possession completely.

    Doc

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    300

    Post imported post

    Republican wrote:
    Very valid points.

    Texas allows the open carry of long arms, but that's not something you could do without being arrested. Walk around a city carrying a shotgun, and you're in for a legal problem. It only takes one person to feel "alarmed" or feel "threatened" by the person carrying the long gun. One 911 call, and you're off to jail.
    This is true as it stands currently, however,a recent appellate court ruling in Texas (which will certainly go to the Texas SC before it is over) ruled that the simple complaint by a third person does not in itself constitute a violation of disorderly conduct (which is the charge in such a case). If this ruling holds up, then OC of legal firearms will be defensible.

    Doc

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    14

    Post imported post

    Go to any rural in Texas and you'll still see shotguns and rifles in the racks of pickups. I've even done it in larger cities. I'm just not financially ready for the legal bills that would follow if I took the long gun out and walked around a city with it. Small towns, where everyone knows one another, would notpresent aproblem to walking around with a long gun.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    300

    Post imported post

    Republican wrote:
    Go to any rural in Texas and you'll still see shotguns and rifles in the racks of pickups. I've even done it in larger cities. I'm just not financially ready for the legal bills that would follow if I took the long gun out and walked around a city with it. Small towns, where everyone knows one another, would notpresent aproblem to walking around with a long gun.
    Very true. I grew up in rural west Texas and back then it was common place to see vehicles with windowgun racks full of guns, however, these days a gun will not last long in a rackbefore someonesteals it. As for therecent courtruling pertaining todisorderly conduct for carrying an otherwise legal weapon, which I spoke of above, even if it is upheld it will take years to get it through to LEO's and DA's that it is not a prosecutable act. Many will be ignorant to the change due to lack of training or exposure, while others will simply oppose the change and choose to defy it out of sheer abstinence. Either way, it will take years to be effective enough to stop one from being arrested and having to defend their actions. Like you said, if you are not financially ready to stand your ground, it would not be advisable.

    Doc

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •