I don’t think Texas is as conservative as think it is.
But that's become the problem with all of the US. Our media and political parties have caused many to polarize to the lunatic fringe of the far left and far right, when the majority of us probably land somewhere in between. I'd be willing to bet the majority of Americans would classify themselves as socially moderate and fiscally conservative. But yet, neither party seems to propose legislation that plays between the 40 yard lines. That's what's created our inability to be able to legislate anything and instead resort to legislative actions. Each group looks for the chance for an advantage to then stick their thumb in the eye of their opponent with legislation that's in the extreme. Then leaving that legislation open for retribution and reversal if the pendulum ever swings in the other direction.
That's been my argument that the current TX CHL process (that IMO) was played between those 40 yard lines. It the past years in TX, we've allowed public carry of long guns, we've passed the castle doctrine that extends your "castle" to include your vehicle. We've passed concealed carry with a CHL and then we passed open carry with a CHL. Why not leave it with that? To paraphrase the words and thoughts of Ronald Reagan, "I'd rather get most of what I want, then go off the cliff with my flag flying and getting noting." The CHL appeased the concerns of the other side and the current concerns the sheriff's association and others have of "Constitutional Carry". I don't buy the argument that TX law enforcement approves of constitutional carry. In fact, after continued research, it looks like the sheriffs association and many other TX law enforcement agencies keep asking for more amendments so they can give constitutional carry their tepid approval. Quite frankly, those amendments which include prohibitions for those with certain prior misdemeanors, put back in place many of the restrictions of the previously haggled CHL legislation.
The existing CHL had some added benefits, it required firearm training, proficiency training, fire arms storage training, de-escalation training and review of the laws that pertain to the use of deadly force. What's wrong with that? We ask that same training (and more) of our law enforcement officials. As established by SCOTUS rulings, rights are not absolute and have some restrictions and caveats. Aren't many of this same group advocating for voter ID laws? How is this much different? You want someone to show their qualified to vote, but the same preface doesn't apply to someone showing their basic ability to handle a firearm safely while walking amongst us in public?
If we keep fighting our battles on the extremes, we'll always have extreme battles to fight. It seems like we already had this battle won, but decided to poke the other side in the eye and then wonder why they want to fight (or resurrect this battle in a future fight).
I'm done posting on this thread.
