Citizens who pretend that their RIGHTS are derived from government , or determined by statute, or license have none.
When government revokes your CHL where does your right to keep & bear arms in defense of your person reside ?
Before you were issued a CHL did you carry a rifle or shotgun with you while on your rounds in order to exercise the right cited in Article I sec. 23 ?
Why do you[ or do you] claim to actually possess the right to keep and bear arms in defense of your person - if you hold the unconstitutional statutes in higher regard than the constitution that authorizes the legislature to enact statutes at all ?
By what contorted, and strained logic can anyone conclude that the framers of the Texas Constitution intended to protect the right to keep & bear arms in defense of one's person inthe primary clause of a section 23 - and then authorize the legislature to deny that same right in the secondary clause ?Ridiculous.
We were all grateful to the legislature and Governor Bush for enacting the CHL provision into the law in 1995. I recall feeling quite proud the first time I walked out of the house, and got in my vehiclewearing my handgun "legally" for the first time.
Once I was issued the CHL , I too became consumed with concern that I might have have the license suspended, or revoked for some other infraction of State law. So the issuance of the CHL made all the licensees "model citizens" - lest they lose the PRIVILEGE of "legally" bearing arms for the purpose of righteous self defense.
Once you are licensedto wear that handgun, you are no longer exercising your right to keep & bear arms in defense of your person. BEFORE Texas issued you that license - that's when you were exercising that right !
Don't be so proud of your "privileges" that you relinquish your RIGHTS.