imported post
carlson1 wrote:
I am in Texas. It is my belief that my CHL is against my God giving rights. I should need NO CLASS; NO CERTIFICATION, etc. . . to defend myself and my family.
K. I'm in Texas too. It's my belief that, should SHTF, my focus should be on whether theBG is pointed in my direction and not whether the threeGGs in the area can hit the broad side of a barn, or whether I'm being "flanked" by aGG who has notaffirmedhis target. Friendly fire isn't. The fact you have a CHL which requires qualification before issuance/renewal means that, as much as I can be assured of anything else in such a situation, I can be assured that you will firstaffirm your target and second willhit the target. Regardless of the fact that it does reduce your liberty,a person untrained ingun handling can easily be as dangerous to the public as a psychopath/sociopath.
Now, before I get flambe'd, that's popular opinion, not just my own, andthus following popular opinion, the Statecan requireproficiency for carry, but they cannot force you the gun ownerto spend money on a class nor can they charge more than is necessary to cover processing costs.Currently the $200-odd you spend to acquire certification is asignificant monetary hurdle, and the course is a time hurdle. If you can passa written and range test with self-study, similar to a written andpractical driving test practiced for at home, you thenpay what it costs the State to process your records.Combined with shall-issue licensingthat no longer has prohibitivemonetary or time requirementsand a license being valid for concealed AND open carry, a person so inclined can receivea carry permiteither atno cost or at a cost that presents no hurdle totheir ability to carry (let's say just for sake of argument the course and license can be had for the same cost as a DL license fee: $24 in Texas), and can then carry whatever they want wherever they want however they want,once they prove proficiency.
If you saythe state has no powerto require proficiency, I categorically disagree. You have the right to choose counsel via the 5th Amendment; the law can and does require by law thatwhoever you choose to represent you, if not yourself,must be a member of the bar in your state and by his membership has proved competence in his field.Your autonomy in modern America, and therefore your liberty (a basic human right), are dependent on owning and operating a motor vehicle. One could say you have a right therefore to own and operate a vehicle. It progresses that you have the responsibility to operate it safely, and the state can and does make that responsibility law by requiring proficiency via a driving test before issuing a driver's license. Your driver's license implies you have demonstrated you know how to drive safely; whether you do or not is up to you and is enforced by penalties and liabilityfor failure to obey the laws. Proficiency can be present without a license, but should drivers on public roadsnot need a license because they CAN drive safely without having gone through the process? Most would say no. Your CHL is exactly the same: it implies you have demonstrated you know when and how to use a gun effectively and as safely as can be expected; whether you do or not is alsoup to you and alsoenforced by penalties and liability for failure to obey the laws. Proficiency with a weapon can be present without a license, but should those who carry publicly not need a license because they CAN carry safely without one? I hold that the answer is still no. What I find wrong is not that a carry permit is a hurdle, but that it is a prohibitive hurdle for many who have either insufficient time or money to go through the process.
I have not yet seen any convincing argument that, because the RKBA is enumerated while the right to own and operate a vehicle is unenumerated, it is somehow stronger or less subject to regulation. If you argue that licensing firearm carriers is unconstitutional, then you must, by the text of the 9th Amendment ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny
or disparage others retained by the people") argue that driver's licenses are unconstitutional because they regulate a basic human right; the right to freely travel and the right to own and make use ofproperty, which are universal rights and protected by the 9th Amendment. As this unenumerated right carries no
less weight than an enumerated one, it should be no
more subject to regulation. If on the other hand you agree to driver's licenses, it holds in reverse as well, but there should be no hurdle other than a standardlevel of knowledge and skill.