The Houston Chronicle
Already a gun-friendly state, Texas is taking steps to be even cozier for concealed handgun license holders.
Reduced training requirements for new applicants and easier options for renewal for more than 580,000 current license holders are among more than 1,000 new laws passed by the Legislature this year, many of which take effect on Sunday.
Guns — where, when and how Texans would have the right to carry them — was a session-long point of debate for lawmakers.
Texas passed its concealed handgun license law in 1995, and since then has required applicants to undergo 10 to 15 hours training minimum. That standard included classroom and shooting range instruction. But instructors said they really don't need that much time, and lawmakers cut the training requirements in half.
Starting Sunday, applicants for a concealed handgun license will be required to take four to six hours of classroom instruction before heading to the shooting range.
Sen. Donna Campbell, R-New Braunfels, said she introduced the bill hoping that reducing the number of training hours would encourage more people to apply for concealed handgun licenses.
Other changes taking effect Sunday will allow license holders to renew online and provide easier access to obtaining fingerprints for applications. Also, license holders will be certified to carry a revolver or semi-automatic pistol, regardless of what type of gun they used in class.
License holders also will be allowed to keep weapons in their car if they drive on a college campus, but campus buildings still remain among the places off-limits to concealed handguns.
This is an example of firearms laws changing in accordance with the wishes of the voters.
ReplyDeleteSure. Because you shouldn't have to, you know, actually SHOW proficiency with a weapon before carrying it around. That's just crazy talk.
ReplyDeleteUmm, lesser son of Odin, did you not notice that they still have to go to the range and show shooting proficiency? All they're cutting is some of the classroom time in which they go over the self defense laws and instructions on how to deal with police over and over again. Tennessee requires 8 hours (or did when I got my permit) and there was lots of repetition in the course. I can't imagine 15 hours of that--especially since the legal review is usually the part the law makes them repeat rather than the reinforcement of basic safety rules.
DeleteActually, although I feel the direction of the changes is wrong, I don't think they're a big deal, really.
DeleteTo translate Mikeb, he feels that it's a bad idea to make things easier on good citizens, but he doesn't have a reason to support that feeling.
DeleteI certainly do have a reason. It's because almost all guns used in crime come from you good guys. That, in addition to how many of you good guys who suddenly turn out to be hidden criminals or out-and-out criminals, I feel the loosening of gun laws, however little, is the wrong direction.
DeleteOh, well...
DeleteSo does that mean that while you don't think suppressors should be banned, you would oppose any attempt to make them more available? And you would support any attempts to make them completely illegal? Because at least that would be "a step in the right direction"?
DeleteThis isn't some silly little "gotcha." Your words were that ANY loosening of gun laws, however minor, is the wrong direction, so it would seem that you want to keep every bit of red tape we have and add layers and layers more.
Yet we're supposedly wrong when we say that you'd be happy with piling on so many regulations that most people don't bother buying guns.
Yeah, wrong direction, but no big deal. Is that too complicated for you, Mr. Gotcha?
DeleteThanks for the clarification.
DeleteThis fits with your old position on .50 calibers--that banning them was no big deal.
Now you've evolved into thinking it's a big deal. This shows that in 4 or more years you may "evolve" until a suppressor ban is a big deal, a hunting rifle ban, a .22 ban; a complete ban, etc.
All it takes is a little "evolution" and some movement in "the right direction" instead of the "wrong" one.
Texas makes the right to vote harder, and the right to carry a gun easier. I wonder why they discriminate between rights?
ReplyDeleteIf you want to push them to be consistently for liberty, More power to ya!
DeleteIf you want to push for a flip in the inconsistency or consistency against liberty, go to blazes.
Anon,
DeleteYou make an excellent point. I agree that we shouldn't discriminate against either one. We should immediately remove those onerous voting laws and to make it fair, implement constitutional carry.
Nice, go to hell!
ReplyDeleteIf you are more concerned for the right to own a gun, than the right to vote, you go to hell.
And what about those of us who support both rights? Of course, getting a birth certificate is so much harder than qualifying for a concealed carry license...
DeleteWow, so your question wasn't supposed to be, "I wonder why they discriminate between rights?" but, "I wonder why they don't flip their discrimination?"
DeleteWell, thanks for clarifying that you don't truly care about liberties like you seemed to be claiming, but rather care about trashing some and promoting others.
BTW, is this really Jim?
"Of course, getting a birth certificate is so much harder than qualifying for a concealed carry license..."
DeleteIn Arizona it certainly is, Arkansas too as soon as you get Constitutional Carry approved.
The voting requirements now require a special photo-ID. The birth certificate is what many of the people affected by this always used. Now that's not good enough.
You get a birth certificate and then go to the DMV for a photo ID. There's nothing special about it, and since it's not a driver's license, there are no tests, and it costs around $10.
DeleteBy contrast, guns bought from dealers require a background check and a photo ID. Several of the slave states require some kind of license. Even bought privately, the gun itself costs hundreds of dollars, and you have to find a seller that you can trust. That's easier at a gun show, but those have admission prices.
But see, I oppose silly restrictions on both rights.