Texas gun laws updates

[Lapdog]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

On a related note, I've just bought a 60 round drum magazine for the AR. I keep reading the 100 round drums have feeding problems. Sometimes those white tail won't go down.

I think you're supposed to hit 'em Gnadfly, not just scare the fuck out of 'em.

[oeb11]

Gnadfly - my Beta C mags have been very reliable.

Off brand copies do have a reputation for unreliability.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

Those no gun signs are posted right in front of the door. I feel different then Speedracer - when my mom was in rehab from broken hip we had her in a rehab that a big no gun sign on the front door. My first thought was - fuck. To me, that's just a big invitation to murder people.

And exactly how many people have been murdered in that hospital to date?

Again, I support the right of any establishment to decide for themselves whether or not to ban guns from their property. The people who make the decision do not hate guns. They are making a decision they feel is in the best interests of those it may impact.

My home is a gun free zone. If you visit my home I expect you to adhere to that policy. If you feel uncomfortable entering my home without your gun, sorry.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by oeb11

https://www.gunstocarry.com/concealed-carry-statistics/



CCW Permit Holders Who Break The Law



CCW permit holders according to the statistics are unlikely to break the law. Remember there are over 16.3 million permit holders in the US so any violations are very rare. In fact there are probably no other groups of people in the US who are as law abiding. If we compare concealed carry permit holders to the police we can see just how law abiding they really are. The Police Quarterly conducted a study that showed police committed;

• 703 crimes per year (average from 2005 – 2007)
• 113 of those crimes involved firearms violations

That may be an underestimate when you take into consideration that not every crime committed by the police gets media attention. From 2005 – 2007 there was about 685,464 full time police officers in the US. This allows us to calculate that there was;
103 crimes per hundred thousand officers.
The crime rate for the entire US population was 37 times higher;
3,813 crimes per hundred thousand people
It may be that police crimes do not get reported as much due to fellow officers staying silent. But you cannot ignore the fact that there is a big gap between the police and the general population when it comes to reported crimes. If you look at the following figures you will see that concealed carry permit holders are actually more law abiding than the police.
Florida revoked 11,189 concealed carry permits for violations such as misdemeanors or felonies between 1987 -2017. This works out an annual rate of 10.4 permits revoked per 100,000.
Texas had 148 concealed carry permit holders convicted of a misdemeanor or felony in 2016. This works out to a conviction rate of 12.3 percent per 100,000. When the Texas and Florida data is combined it shows that CCW permit holders are convicted of felonies and misdemeanors at a rate of 2.4 per 100,000. While among police the rate is 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Texas and Florida have some of the highest rates of CCW permit holders but the figures are similar in other states with less permit holders.

In summary CCW permit holders are convicted of crimes at less than a sixth of that for police officers.


Banning guns in the hands of CHLicensees is a remedy in search of a problem. This group does not commit mass shootings, and commits crimes at a far lower level than that of police officers. Banning this law abiding group - which is carefully vetted, has no basis in reality of the propensity of this group to commit gun crimes.

Foolish Laws that do nothing to decrease the problem.
Ya think a mass shooter cares about obtaining a CHL and /or minding the signs which prohibit CHL carriers entering a site???
IMHO - now let's hear the misguided DPST bleats that banning AR-15's will solve all our problems.

I'm not sure who has proposed anything negative against CHL carriers. Everything you posted is 100% correct. I fully support people being able to obtain CHLs if they want them. However, I do not support Constitutional Carry.

[aka Mike Hammer]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

No JB, he said he FELT safer.

He’s not wrong.

Swing and miss.

But was he actually safer? Was anything actually preventing an enraged former co-worker or other person with hate or other severe problems from walking in the front door and committing violent acts upon the occupants?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by aka Mike Hammer

But was he actually safer? Was anything actually preventing an enraged former co-worker or other person with hate or other severe problems from walking in the front door and committing violent acts upon the occupants?

How would you like to be the person having to fire someone who has shown himself to be somewhat violent at times knowing he might be packing? I remember years ago a fellow employee got slightly drunk at lunch and came back into the office and hit his manager. And who knows what the result would have been if he had been carrying a gun.

For as long as I know the office buildings in which I worked were gun free zones. Never a problem. Employees are allowed to keep guns in their cars. So should the policy be changed?

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

How would you like to be the person having to fire someone who has shown himself to be somewhat violent at times knowing he might be packing? I remember years ago a fellow employee got slightly drunk at lunch and came back into the office and hit his manager. And who knows what the result would have been if he had been carrying a gun.

For as long as I know the office buildings in which I worked were gun free zones. Never a problem. Employees are allowed to keep guns in their cars. So should the policy be changed?

Yeah because everyone know you're safe in a gun free zone.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/27440...-prestigiacomo

A gun free zone is like shooting fish in a barrel to a criminal...but that eludes the lefts "feeling" of good intentions.
Laws are for the people that are law abiding...criminal don't obey laws hense the term outlaw.
When tragedies like these happen politicians rush to make more laws...and the law on the books are almost never violated.
New laws don't do anything but make outlaws laugh like gun free zones!!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by bb1961

Yeah because everyone know you're safe in a gun free zone.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/27440...-prestigiacomo

Laws are for the people that are law abiding...criminal don't obey laws hense the term outlaw.
When tragedies like these happen politicians rush to make more laws...and the law on the books are almost never violated.
New laws don't do anything but make outlaws laugh.

Again I say -- there is absolutely no proof that the killers in the mass murders chose the site because it was a gun free zone.

[rexdutchman]

^^^Gee PARKLAND FL GUN FREE ZONE ,, one of many schools shootings ^^^

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

^^^Gee PARKLAND FL GUN FREE ZONE ,, one of many schools shootings ^^^

Are you saying that’s why the shooter chose the school?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Again I say -- there is absolutely no proof that the killers in the mass murders chose the site because it was a gun free zone.

You might want to read the El Paso shooter's manifesto. He clearly stated that he picked a site that wouldn't be even moderately defended.

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Again I say -- there is absolutely no proof that the killers in the mass murders chose the site because it was a gun free zone.

This is what you said:

Before I retired I worked in an office building that was a gun free zone. I felt much safer than had guns been allowed in the building.


This is feel good nonsense...if a criminal had wanted to go in your building and start shooting it would have been like I said...shooting fish in a barrel.
That sign says nothing to criminal but OPEN SEASON with no one to defend themselves.
That "gun free zone"sign is nothing but a false sense of security...period.

[oeb11]

SR - Thank you for a reasoned and civil set of posts.

You are undoubtedly entitled to a gun free zone in your Home!!! I support that right.

Of note- It is illegal for a person with a CHL to drink in a bar while carrying, and even more so to commit an assault - and more so under the influence.

In your example of the employee returning to assault a boss - you are right that he should not be carrying.
CHL holders likely would not have put themselves in that position in the first place - knowing the responsibility and privilege of carrying deadly force. And the consequences.



I think the posters above objecting to gun free zones are clearly interested in the ability to Protect a Defenseless Public against a mentally ill person who assaults with a weapon - and not necessarily a gun.
I think their intention is n the right place. As is yours to not have weapons in a home or work environment. Unfortunately, criminals and mentally ill respond not at all to prohibition signs for weapons.



For the record, I do have a CHL - i do not carry on my person. I view it as a very special responsibility and privilege to hold strictly lawfully. parenthetically - I went through extra training, and have read and reread all Texas laws relevant to weapon carry. I think the CHL courses should be expanded to criteria more like that of a licensed Police officer. IMHO.


SR - would you be more comfortable with CHL carriers armed in your environment if they completed a police officer style training program??
Please consider - not trying to be disrespectful.

[aka Mike Hammer]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

How would you like to be the person having to fire someone who has shown himself to be somewhat violent at times knowing he might be packing? I remember years ago a fellow employee got slightly drunk at lunch and came back into the office and hit his manager. And who knows what the result would have been if he had been carrying a gun.

For as long as I know the office buildings in which I worked were gun free zones. Never a problem. Employees are allowed to keep guns in their cars. So should the policy be changed?

My point isn't that the policy is right or wrong. My point is you shouldn't assume away risk simply because someone wrote a policy. What makes you think that policy is going to stop the person hell-bent on destruction? It's like door locks on cars, they only keep honest people out. Or laws against texting and driving. Driver inattention deaths are as prevalent, perhaps worse than those from DUI. Policy is only words on paper unless it's backed up by action, ESPECIALLY in the "Land of the Free." One could expect a high level of policy acceptance in a hierarchical, more socially tight-knit society like Japan, or even Germany. To expect the same in the USA without some sort of enforcement mechanism, however nominal, is being intentionally blind.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by oeb11

SR - Thank you for a reasoned and civil set of posts.

You are undoubtedly entitled to a gun free zone in your Home!!! I support that right.

Of note- It is illegal for a person with a CHL to drink in a bar while carrying, and even more so to commit an assault - and more so under the influence.

In your example of the employee returning to assault a boss - you are right that he should not be carrying.
CHL holders likely would not have put themselves in that position in the first place - knowing the responsibility and privilege of carrying deadly force. And the consequences.



I think the posters above objecting to gun free zones are clearly interested in the ability to Protect a Defenseless Public against a mentally ill person who assaults with a weapon - and not necessarily a gun.
I think their intention is n the right place. As is yours to not have weapons in a home or work environment. Unfortunately, criminals and mentally ill respond not at all to prohibition signs for weapons.



For the record, I do have a CHL - i do not carry on my person. I view it as a very special responsibility and privilege to hold strictly lawfully. parenthetically - I went through extra training, and have read and reread all Texas laws relevant to weapon carry. I think the CHL courses should be expanded to criteria more like that of a licensed Police officer. IMHO.


SR - would you be more comfortable with CHL carriers armed in your environment if they completed a police officer style training program??
Please consider - not trying to be disrespectful.

That is exactly what I was implying when I said I did not support Constitutional Carry which allows a person to carry without any required instruction on firing the gun, or on laws regarding use of the gun, or on advice on when not to get involved in specific situations.

I have absolutely no problem with you or anyone else carrying a concealed handgun with a CHL after completion of a police officer style training program. Sorry if I did not make that clear.