White settlement Church shooting

[PondPopper]

What's your thoughts on Constitutional carry?

I think you know that answer to your question but that doesn't mean that I'm AT ALL or have to be comfortable with it....

Some people have NO business behind the steering wheel of a vehicle BUT its their right so they drive and people die..

Some people have NO business having children either but it is their "right" so they do and we, the tax payer, support them and our prisons fill up..

And I could go on and on.. "Rights" is a very tricky word that is IMO very often abused..

[flywise]

Its gets tricky.. Much more demanding qualifications would be a good start..

I believe all should be able to carry but carry RESPONSIBLY!!!! To many are carrying, even licensed to carry, knowing dam good and well they aren't truly ready for that "responsibility" but that little piece of plastic in their wallet has now empowered them to do so, so they do, at he risk of everyone around them getting accidentally shot.....
If anybody truly believes that these very short and basic CHL classes are fully qualifying/preparing every individual that "passes", especially ones with 0 experience, to responsibly carry then your living in denial or you are living a pipe dream..

Does the constitution say people are allowed to bear arms.....if they qualify?
If irresponsible CHL holders are a problem then why dont i see constant news reports about accidental shootings or over zealous CHL holders shooting innocent people on the streets?
Would you rather be in a crowded church or theater with 50 "irresponsible" armed citizens or zero "responsible" armed citizens when the murder walks in?

Your assumptions are ignorant and the data, or lack of it is proof.

[PondPopper]

Does the constitution say people are allowed to bear arms.....if they qualify?
If irresponsible CHL holders are a problem then why dont i see constant news reports about accidental shootings or over zealous CHL holders shooting innocent people on the streets?
Would you rather be in a crowded church or theater with 50 "irresponsible" armed citizens or zero "responsible" armed citizens when the murder walks in?

Your assumptions are ignorant and the data, or lack of it is proof.

You read that into what I said but I'm the ignorant one? Ok. LOL.

If you are comfortable being around untrained, irresponsible, armed citizens then that's your right.. I don't have to be.. That's my right.

You act like carrying around a loaded firearm is not a huge responsibility and should require little to no training at all just because its a persons "right"... Ppfftt. Really?? Now that's the definition of ignorant..

[flywise]

Its gets tricky.. Much more demanding qualifications would be a good start..

I believe all should be able to carry but carry RESPONSIBLY!!!! To many are carrying, even licensed to carry, knowing dam good and well they aren't truly ready for that "responsibility" but that little piece of plastic in their wallet has now empowered them to do so, so they do, at he risk of everyone around them getting accidentally shot.....
If anybody truly believes that these very short and basic CHL classes are fully qualifying/preparing every individual that "passes", especially ones with 0 experience, to responsibly carry then your living in denial or you are living a pipe dream..

Show me the risk?
Your the one saying the constitution is not enough, i need to prove i am worthy.

[Shane]

With rights come responsibility. I definitely agree with that. The risk/reality that some will be irresponsible when given rights is always there. It does suck, but not as much as no one having rights and freedom.

[PondPopper]

Show me the risk?
Your the one saying the constitution is not enough, i need to prove i am worthy.

So you are saying that the written words of the constitution automatically "qualifies" everyone to be able to "safely" and "responsibly" carry a loading firearm around in public places??? You actually believe that??
Dude are you seriously that stupid? I don't think you are.. Surely not..

[PondPopper]

With rights come responsibility. I definitely agree with that. The risk/reality that some will be irresponsible when given rights is always there. It does suck, but not as much as no one having rights and freedom.

Exactly.. Too many take our rights for granted and act irresponsibly and that is wrong. I see it daily.. That's all I'm saying..

[flywise]

So you are saying that the written words of the constitution automatically "qualifies" everyone to be able to "safely" and "responsibly" carry a loading firearm around in public places??? You actually believe that??
Dude are you seriously that stupid? I don't think you are.. Surely not..

It says nothing about safety....nor should it. Its a right to self preservation given by GOD. Why you and people like you have the right to put restrictions on other people because you are worried they MIGHT make a mistake?
Your hypocrisy and conspiracy theories appear to be unlimited.

And stupid is a great description for one of us for sure

[PondPopper]

It says nothing about safety....nor should it. Its a right to self preservation given by GOD. Why you and people like you have the right to put restrictions on other people because you are worried they MIGHT make a mistake?
Your hypocrisy and conspiracy theories appear to be unlimited.

And stupid is a great description for one of us for sure

Ok folks Flywise, and all of his infinite wisdom, says gun safety is now a bunch of overrated nonsense and just a conspiracy theory..
Dang and after all these year of practicing it and teaching it.. What a waste of time that has been.. Stupid me.. LOL.
Carry on fence rider.. Im out..

Oh 1 more thing. I drivers license, or the constitution, doesn't mean a person is qualified to safely and responsibly drive either..

[camoclad]

Our forefathers wanted us all (able body, sound minds) to be engaged in our community and national security, like serving on a jury, voting or God forbid elected office. Seems like we begrudgingly participate in the later and completely ignore the training together part of the community and national security.

God bless these men who laid it on the line voluntarily, the are a shining example of the way forward.

[flywise]

Ok folks Flywise, and all of his infinite wisdom, says gun safety is now a bunch of overrated nonsense and just a conspiracy theory..
Dang and after all these year of practicing it and teaching it.. What a waste of time that has been.. Stupid me.. LOL.
Carry on fence rider.. Im out..

Oh 1 more thing. I drivers license, or the constitution, doesn't mean a person is qualified to safely and responsibly drive either..

Yep, thats exactly what i said good lord your a tool

[bakin7005]

Ok folks Flywise, and all of his infinite wisdom, says gun safety is now a bunch of overrated nonsense and just a conspiracy theory..
Dang and after all these year of practicing it and teaching it.. What a waste of time that has been.. Stupid me.. LOL.
Carry on fence rider.. Im out..

Oh 1 more thing. I drivers license, or the constitution, doesn't mean a person is qualified to safely and responsibly drive either..

Your right...they're plenty of people out there that have no business with a firearm but the founding fathers didn't say "the right to bear arms as long as your properly trained". Why? Because they understood the impact of government oversight and regulations.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[Landrover]

Yes it sure did but it gives us a great example of how clueless some of these guys are..

CH licenses are too easy to obtain, plain and simple.. Its a joke. Saw it first hand. If you have to be shown how to load a pistol you should fail immediately..

Many people, with little to no experience at all, are irresponsibly carrying a firearm these days and they feel like Matt Dillon because they have a "license".. Many cant even tell you how a pistol even works or tell you the components that make up a cartridge... I'm very uncomfortable around these types and I go to church with some..
Nothing worse than someone with little to no firearm experience packing a pistol in a crowded building with one in the pipe.. Spooky..

Place and time for all things.[emoji848] I pray the families can find a ounce of relief after this horrible ordeal.[emoji120]

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Benson]

Exactly. In a gun fight the ten rules mean nothing... don't be stupid and keep your bugger hook off the bang switch and won't be a problem.

That’s it! That’s the bottom line...

[tvc184]

The written law still prohibited carrying firearms in a church prior to SB 535. Whether it was enforced or not, it was still illegal according to state law.

I am only using your post to explain the old and new law.

You were absolutely correct that SB535 removed churches from prohibited locations.

The problem in reading that bill alone is that it cuts out most of the actual Penal Code section and just shows the changed part. If you go to the Penal Code and read the actual law but much further down (very long section) it says that the law prohibiting carry in churches does not apply unless they had a 30.06 sign.

So carrying in a church was only prohibited if the proper signage was posted. If that is true, why even have the law? Any place can prohibit lawful handgun license carry even today with a 30.06 or 30.07 sign.

I had to read it a couple of times to figure this one out back then.....

Any location could prohibit the lawful carry of a handgun even with a handgun license by merely posting the proper signs. Why was at church (and a couple of other places) different and placed under the prohibited places law?

The difference is...... one is a felony and one is a misdemeanor. So if Walmart put out a 30.06 sign and you violated the law, it was (and still is) a misdemeanor. If a church put out a 30.06 sign, it was a felony because of churches being put into the prohibited places section of the law.

What SB535 did was remove churches from the felony section. A church can still ban handguns by putting put out the 30.06 or 30.07 signs and it will still be against the law to carry in a church. Again SB535 didn’t change the requirement for the sign, it just changed the penalty by taking away the felony which is basically what you were correctly stating.

The other change in 2019 was for the private security law. A company acting as Private Security (not police officers) is required to have a state license. Several churches had their own security teams of just church members who were armed. It eventually came into the discussion that these church members were in fact acting like a security company requiring a license even though they may not be getting paid. It was a technicality that made churches possibly violating the law by having unlicensed “security”.

Was volunteering church members carrying handguns in church really the same as an unlicensed security company because they discussed “what if” scenarios?

I have my doubts however the legislature made it a moot point by changing that private security law and essentially exempted churches. I think it was SB2065.

Clear as mud?

2019 did not make church carry legal. It moved it from a felony to a misdemeanor if signs posted. Then we saw the waiving of a private security license for churches.

If anyone really cares at this point....