In Texas, the push is being spearheaded by state representative Jonathan Stickland (R-92nd) via HB 375. The text of HB 375 is clear: “Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, a person who is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm shall not be required to obtain any license to carry a handgun as a condition for carrying a handgun.”

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Davis v. Wechsler , 263 US 22, 24. “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 426, 491; 86 S. Ct. 1603
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no 'rule making' or legislation which would abrogate them."

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105
"No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore."

Who does the federal constitution regulate? Not the people...

The federal government. Meaning the federal government can't make laws prohibiting your right to carry or own fire arms.

Your right to own and carry firearms is not just a 2A right but also a 10A right. Anything not relegated to the federal government is reserved to the states or the people.

In Texas we have constitutional carry.

Texas State Constitution
Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

I believe that there needs to be something in place that requires anyone who wants to carry to be proficient, or at least have a clue, with how to handle a firearm.

When my wife and I went thru the class it was mind-numbing how many in the class had never fired a firearm and frankly it was obvious when we went to the range and they tried to load a fire the weapon.

These are the guys that would be allowed to carry without any oversight? Back in the day our Dad's taught us firearm safety, at least mine taught me. Nowadays most children grow up in a fatherless home with no one there to teach them gun safety and how to shoot. If you have ever been to a public range you will see these guys and girls trying to figure things out of their own pointing their weapon at everyone etc.

And you want to allow them to carry? It is our right to own and bear arms but society is different now. Just like there is now hunters ed there needs to be firearms ed as well before people should be allowed to carry.

And how many of those people didn't pass the test? The CHL shooting test is a pretty big joke. The class I was in rented guns out to people since they didn't own one. Is it scary? Yes. Does someone passing the CHL shooting test make me feel safer? Not really.

Yes, the shooting part is a waste of time. More than likely if you had to shoot it would be from close range.

Even the Dallas police only has like a 25% hit rate when they shoot their weapons.

Not correct information. These are the annual licensing requirements for every peace officer in the state.

(1) handguns - a minimum of 50 rounds, fired at ranges from point-blank to at least 15 yards with at least 20 rounds at or beyond seven yards, including at least one timed reload;
(2) shotguns - a minimum of five rounds of ammunition fired at a range of at least 15 yards;
(3) precision rifles - a minimum of 20 rounds of ammunition fired at a range of at least 100 yards; however, an agency may, in its discretion, allow a range of less than 100 yards but not less than 50 yards if the minimum passing percentage is raised to 90;
(4) patrol rifles - a minimum of 30 rounds of ammunition fired at a range of at least 50 yards, including at least one timed reload; however, an agency may, in its discretion, allow a range of less than 50 yards but not less than 10 yards if the minimum passing percentage is raised to 90;
(5) fully automatic weapons - a minimum of 30 rounds of ammunition fired at ranges from seven to at least 10 yards, including at least one timed reload, with at least 25 rounds fired in full automatic (short bursts of two or three rounds), and at least five rounds fired semi-automatic, if possible with the weapon.
(d) The minimum passing percentage shall be 70 for each firearm.
(e) The executive director may, upon written agency request, waive a peace officer's demonstration of weapons proficiency based on a determination that the requirement causes a hardship.
(f) The effective date of this section is February 1, 2016.

Was always about the fees.The BS part is we pay a tax to be able to use our constitutional right.

Hate to tell you this, but you have no idea how to read the constitution.

Read the preamble to the bill of rights. It states that the limits are for the FEDERAL government.

Only four states do not have a 2A mirror in their state constitution, all 46 others have regulations concerning the keeping and bearing of arms. The only reason why Chicagos hand gun ban was ruled unconstitutional by the SC was that it exceeded the state constitution and completely did away with both keeping and bearing. The Keller decision was ruled on the constitutional provision that Washington DC is FEDERAL territory, they are not a state. If I am wrong, then every state that has CHL is in violation of the constitution and you should file a brief with the SC...you won't get far. Not because of politics, but because I'm right...there is no jurisdiction for the federal government where the regulating of arms does not remove the right to keep and bear.

Too much weight has been given to the federal government that was never intended.

Hate to tell you this, but you have no idea how to read the constitution.

Read the preamble to the bill of rights. It states that the limits are for the FEDERAL government.

Only four states do not have a 2A mirror in their state constitution, all 46 others have regulations concerning the keeping and bearing of arms. The only reason why Chicagos hand gun ban was ruled unconstitutional by the SC was that it exceeded the state constitution and completely did away with both keeping and bearing. The Keller decision was ruled on the constitutional provision that Washington DC is FEDERAL territory, they are not a state. If I am wrong, then every state that has CHL is in violation of the constitution and you should file a brief with the SC...you won't get far. Not because of politics, but because I'm right...there is no jurisdiction for the federal government where the regulating of arms does not remove the right to keep and bear.

Too much weight has been given to the federal government that was never intended.

I am not talking about shooting at the range, I am talking about when they actually have to use their weapon in the field.