Are those situations where one state is required to accept the standards of another state, or are they situations where all states are required to accept the standards set by federal law?
Sure they can, they just can’t take their guns with them if they cannot meet the requirements.
I have consistently talked about training requirements, and while I may have shortened a bit in a spot or two to “0 requirements”,rather than “0 training requirements”, I did not change my meaning.
Possibly, I got that info off a pretty pro gun site, so I certainly wasn’t cherry picking. I just looked up a few states that had no listed training requirements for a CCW.
Digging down into your link, actually at http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.411.htm#411.172, I do find “Sec. 411.188. HANDGUN PROFICIENCY REQUIREMENT.” which does outlay the training requirements for a CCW.
Fair enough.
Would you mind sharing what website you used?
The former.
Sure. Your side loves to refer to “military-style assault weapons” in an effort to conflate highly-regulated assault rifles with popular civilian arms. Other people like to use the term “gun grabber” in an effort to conflate those who support mandatory buybacks with those who are in favor of tighter regulation. Some people are for “states’ rights” when they mean “segregation.” Other people are “racist” when they are actually for states’ rights. And so on.
“When gun advocates call anyone that is looking for a way to make our public spaces safer ‘gun grabbers’, then I can say that they have little interest in a productive conversation” dismisses an argument out of hand because you don’t like the terminology it employs, even though “dismissing someone’s argument because they misuse a word or phrase is not a useful debate tactic.” To be sure, “gun grabber” is provocative and misleading, but so too is conflating automatic and semiautomatic weaponry, and that you meet with a simple “that’s [terminology] really not something that you should be complaining about.”
But I’m derailing your discussion and will bow out here, leaving you the last word, unless you object.
https://www.usacarry.com/texas_concealed_carry_permit_information.html
Though I did find the “6. is not a chemically dependent person;” to be amusing, as we are all dependant on chemicals.
And in your quote there
Is where the federal code outlays minimum requirements for the state reciprocity.If a state doesn’t meet those requirements (which I don’t think is a problem for any states, but I haven’t researched through all of them, so I’m not sure), then the state being visited does not need to honor the reciprocity.
See, I didn’t dismiss an argument out of hand there. The argument at the time was that the “gun grabbers” were using all those forms of terminology that is so objectionable, which is something that I had already responded to. I just point out that I find the term both insulting and inaccurate. As it was already declared that you may dismiss any argument made by someone who calls a weapon designed to fire a large caliber bullet at a high rate of fire over a long range with high accuracy an “assault weapon”, which I think is a perfectly accurate description, because obviously the person who would use that term is willfully ignorant, then yes, I do find those who use disparaging terms for the other side to be often times not the most reasonable of interlocutors.
Yeah, I conveniently clipped the bullshit part of your post that had nothing to do with the questions I had asked of you.
Guns are about force. I find it amusing that you feel you need to resort to force to preserve your right to have force. If it’s so freaking compelling a thing, I would have thought it would be easier to convince people. But that apparently isn’t working, so now you’ll try and get your way thru sheer force, so you can have that force at hand in case someone tries to force you to do something.
Yeah, I find that ironic and amusing and sad and pathetic and I made a point to indicate it.
You have a nice day too.
Not sure what your point is. Are you concerned that the CCRA does not give a federal baseline while the ACIRA does? If so, you’d be wrong. There are federal laws that govern the legality of firearm possession too, and the CCRA applies to “a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm” (along with several other qualifying conditions).
Thanks.
I think I’ve heard of that site… maybe… but I don’t use it personally. If you’re interested I find this website to be helpful and current on most CC issues.
My concern here was that you were using a website that seems pro-gun but is really a front for one of the Bloomberg orgs. I don’t believe that’s the case here. I think this website is just poorly maintained and out of date. Lots of bad, out of date info there including the name used for the permit. It hasn’t been a ‘Concealed Handgun License’ (CHL) for two years now. Instead it’s a ‘License to Carry’ (LTC). Minor perhaps, but still wrong.
All that said, how did you come to the conclusion that TX didn’t have a training requirement based on that page? I can’t find anything that speaks to that. Perhaps I missed it.
I’m honestly not aware of any state that issues a CC permit with no training requirement. Again I don’t count states with constitutional carry as the state doesn’t issue a permit in those cases.
I looked at the requirements for getting a CCW, and noted whether or not there were training requirements. Most states did say that there were requirements, for instance for Ohio, it said
For texas, it had this list
Which did not say much on the training front.
Texas requires training for a CHL.
Sec. 411.188. HANDGUN PROFICIENCY REQUIREMENT. (a) The director by rule shall establish minimum standards for handgun proficiency and shall develop a course to teach handgun proficiency and examinations to measure handgun proficiency. The course to teach handgun proficiency is required for each person who seeks to obtain a license and must contain training sessions divided into two parts. One part of the course must be classroom instruction and the other part must be range instruction and an actual demonstration by the applicant of the applicant’s ability to safely and proficiently use a handgun. An applicant must be able to demonstrate, at a minimum, the degree of proficiency that is required to effectively operate a handgun. The department shall distribute the standards, course requirements, and examinations on request to any qualified handgun instructor or approved online course provider seeking to administer the course or a part of the course as described by Subsection (b).
(b) Only qualified handgun instructors may administer the range instruction part of the handgun proficiency course. A qualified handgun instructor or approved online course provider may administer the classroom instruction part of the handgun proficiency course. The classroom instruction part of the course must include not less than four hours and not more than six hours of instruction on:
(1) the laws that relate to weapons and to the use of deadly force;
(2) handgun use and safety, including use of restraint holsters and methods to ensure the secure carrying of openly carried handguns;
(3) nonviolent dispute resolution; and
(4) proper storage practices for handguns with an emphasis on storage practices that eliminate the possibility of accidental injury to a child.
(c) An approved online course provider shall administer the classroom instruction part of the handgun proficiency course in an online format. A course administered online must include not less than four hours and not more than six hours of instruction.
(d) Except as provided by Subsection (e), only a qualified handgun instructor may administer the proficiency examination to obtain a license. The proficiency examination must include:
(1) a written section on the subjects listed in Subsection (b); and
(2) a physical demonstration of proficiency in the use of one or more handguns and in handgun safety procedures.
Here, in subchapter H:
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/GV/htm/GV.411.htm
Yes. At least, the version under all that obvious hyperbole. Obviously someone who just happened to cross without meaning to should get off. I’m not for opportunistic arrests. But it’s not as if police sit there and search everyone who crosses the border.
It is a good thing that different states can have different laws, so we can see which laws are actually better for our society. It is also good when we find what that is and make a federal law. What is never good is letting the lowest common denominator decide.
The reason for this law is to try and undermine CCW restrictions. It’s just some states trying to control the others on an issue that the actual population is divided about. It’s an end run around democracy.
If drivers’ license laws varied enough from state to state, I’d have a problem with them, too. Fortunately, they largely don’t. They all realize that cars are dangerous and have tests to make sure you know how to use them properly.
This isn’t some law that cuts through some legal tape, like the licensing laws. It is an attempt to reduce the CCW requirements in other states. The red states care about states rights until it means they might be able to control the blue states.
What’s good for the goose…
Generally speaking the police don’t sit there and search everyone that crosses the border. NJ comes as close to that as is possible. They’re on a crusade and they have ruined the lives of many people that committed no crime other than being in possession of a gun in NJ.
I keep hearing that phrase, “lowest common denominator”, but no one uttering it has been able to explain exactly what that is in this case. As you can see from the discussion upstream no one has been able to show us a state that has 0 requirements to obtain a CC permit. So, specifically, what state is the lowest common denominator that you object to?
No, the reason for this law is to prevent instances of otherwise law abiding citizens being turned into criminals for no other reason than they crossed an imaginary line on a map. It has nothing what so ever to do with undermining CCW restrictions. We’ve already established that as fact. Nothing in this law forces any state to change anything they are currently doing with respect to CC in their state.
Again, show me a state that doesn’t have any requirements to obtain a CC permit.
Once again, that’s not true. See above.
There is false equivalence there.
Its like the global warming debate. Fanatics on both sides, ignorance mostly on one side.
You mean dealer showing an Ace.
What casino allows that? And why?
The vast majority of those are kids ages 13-17. Mostly gang related, frequently drug related.
When gun controllers stop proposing stupid ideas like banning guns with bayonet lugs, and start proposing ways to actually make public spaces safer rather than simply “gun free” then perhaps it wouldn’t feel like we’re having a conversation with a brick
Seriously, come up with better ideas and abandon the stupid ones. Right now gun controllers just throw every fucking idea that infringes on gun rights against the wall to see what sticks. This really gives us the impression that they are not actually interested in reducing legal gun ownership as a means to an end but as the end itself.
Two things.
The gun controllers have had every opportunity to pass a national concealed carry permit but they didn’t want to give up the fight in the handful of states that were still limiting the right to concealed carry and they actually like the fact that the mish mosh of state laws is so fucking confusing and unworkable.
The laws they can enforce are things like “don’t carry concealed while you are drinking” “don’t carry concealed while in near a school” “don’t carry concealed while in a bank” etc. not “don’t carry concealed period end of story or go directly to jail”
It seems like you are confusing assault weapons with semiautomatic weapons.
If every state had a shall issue form of concealed carry, this would never have made it to the floor of congress. The problem is that several states have an effective ban on concealed carry. That is gun control.
It depends on whether or not you feel like abortion is homicide. If so then legalized abortion is the most common form of homicide in this country by several orders of magnitude.
Gun rights are specifically enumerated in the constitution, abortion is never even mentioned and yet has become a constitutional right. Hell, we needed a goddam constitutional amendment to end slavery but a woman’s right to choose was established out of whole cloth from the “penumbra” of rights in the constitution.
Concealed carry is enumerated in the Constitution?