Tx Governor Perry Signs ALL Gun Protection Laws!


PDA






robb969
June 21, 2005, 03:45 PM
http://www.governor.state.tx.us/divisions/press/pressreleases/PressRelease.2005-06-17.3619

AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry today signed legislation aimed at clarifying existing firearm laws, enhancing protections for law-abiding gun owners and reducing barriers for gun ownership.

“The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of every law-abiding citizen of our country,” Perry said. “This legislation will clarify existing firearm laws, enhance protections for law abiding gun owners and reduce barriers for gun ownership.”

The bills Gov. Perry has signed include:

House Bill 225 (Driver) which extends the renewal period for a concealed handgun license from four to five years without an increase in renewal fee.
House Bill 322 (Hupp) which reduces all fees for a concealed handgun license for military members and veterans by 50 percent and lowers the age from 21 to 18 for members of the military or veterans to obtain a concealed handgun license.
House Bill 685 (Rose) which exempts military members and veterans from taking the range portion of the concealed handgun licensing process if they had been weapons certified in the military within the past five years prior to application for the license.
House Bill 1483 (Frost) which will expand methods by which applicants for a concealed handgun license may pay the fees to include personal check, cash, and credit card. Currently only cashiers checks and money orders are accepted.
House Bill 823 (Keel) which clarifies the current definition of “traveling” as it relates to someone carrying a firearm. Current law is ambiguous and is interpreted differently by courts and law enforcement.
House Bill 1038 (Isett) which reduces the fee for renewal of a canceled handgun permit for senior citizen by 50 percent. The current renewal fee for a senior citizen is $70 for a four-year renewal period and this bill will reduce that fee to $35 for those 60 years of age or older.
All bills become effective Sept. 1, 2005.


823 is the most impactful, imho

If you enjoyed reading about "Tx Governor Perry Signs ALL Gun Protection Laws!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
duckslayer
June 21, 2005, 03:52 PM
He has been a very gun-friendly governor...if only he were not pushing that Trans-Texas Corridor crap :(

GhostRider66
June 21, 2005, 04:25 PM
Oh no!!! This is the end for sure...Dodge City, blood will run in the streets, machine guns amok....God bless Texas!!! :neener:

HKUSP45C
June 21, 2005, 04:52 PM
823 is the most impactful, imho

Read the text of the law. It merely provides the presumption that you're traveling to a jury if you meet 5 criteria. You can still be arrested and go to trial, the jury is just told they have to presume you're a traveler if you meet the criteria. The presumption is also rebuttable. It's not really, practically, any better than the current law.

Get your CHLs Texans.

MechAg94
June 21, 2005, 05:44 PM
Is there a good summary of 823 somewhere? TSRA's website only had the one sentence summary with no details last I looked.

duckslayer
June 21, 2005, 05:46 PM
you can read the text of the bill here (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/db2www/tlo/billhist/Hmatrix.d2w/report?LEG=79&SESS=R&CHAMBER=H&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=00823&SORT=Asc)

Waffen
June 21, 2005, 05:49 PM
This still probably won't be enought to save him from Streyhorn (Reylander) in the GOP race. With the exception of this he is not that good, although this does change my mind about him quite a bit.

rhubarb
June 21, 2005, 05:56 PM
Read the text of the law.

Existing Texas law:

PENAL CODE
TITLE 10. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH,SAFETY, AND MORALS
CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS
§ 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person
commits an offense if he intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly
carries on or about his person a handgun, illegal knife, or club.

§ 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.
(b) Section 46.02 does not apply to a person who:
(3) is traveling;

The problem has been that “traveling” was not defined in the penal code and was open to interpretation by the courts. HB 823 simply defines “traveling”:


H.B. No. 823
AN ACT
relating to the applicability of the offense of unlawful carrying
of weapons to certain persons and to the consequence of certain
presumptions in the prosecution of a criminal offense.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Section 46.15, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subsection (i) to read as follows:
(i) For purposes of Subsection (b)(3), a person is presumed
to be traveling if the person is:
(1) in a private motor vehicle;
(2) not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other
than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance
regulating traffic;
(3) not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a
firearm;
(4) not a member of a criminal street gang, as defined
by Section 71.01; and
(5) not carrying a handgun in plain view.

...and it goes on with a bunch of legal mumbo-jumbo about presumption and how these presumptions are subject to reasonable doubt by a jury.

I, at first, was happy to read of this bill and followed it through the House and Senate and anxiously awaited its signature. As I thought about it, I realized that it would probably cut into the number of CHLs sought by Texans. It makes sense that if one can carry at home (or any property under one's control) and in one's car, then a CHL isn't as necessary. I agree with HK that we should all go ahead and get a CHL, but I'm still encouraged by this bill's passage. ANY lessening of infringements on our rights are welcome. I'm still waiting for the day I can go about my business with my sidearm in plain view and not need a government permission slip to do so.

rock jock
June 21, 2005, 05:57 PM
Wow! Did you see the witness list for the hearings? The ACLU was testifying IN FAVOR of 823. Has Hades suddenly frozen up solid?

Also, anyone know why all the coppers were against it?

Daniel T
June 21, 2005, 06:09 PM
The text of the bill is here (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=YEHXPDFKRPPS&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=124311&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=2&CQ_SAVE[bill_number]=HB00823HCP&CQ_TLO_DOC_TEXT=YES)

Read the text of the law. It merely provides the presumption that you're traveling to a jury if you meet 5 criteria. You can still be arrested and go to trial, the jury is just told they have to presume you're a traveler if you meet the criteria. The presumption is also rebuttable. It's not really, practically, any better than the current law.

I don't think that's exactly true.

The Texas Penal Code (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/petoc.html)

Specifically, we are looking at Section 46. Basically, it is illegal in Texas (barring a CHL) to carry a handgun. There are exceptions that are outlined in the "NONAPPLICABILITY" section (46.15), and one of these is "traveling". Note that traveling is NOT an Affirmative Defense, which would require you to prove in a trial that you were traveling, it is an exception that makes the law non-applicable. HB 823 further clarifies "traveling" to mean "in a private motor vehicle". Since the laws against carrying a handgun (sections (46.02 and 46.03) are non-applicable, you should never be arrested for carrying a handgun in your car unless you are otherwise prohibited.

I'm not sure the reason for the verbage about the jury in the new law, maybe one of our Texas LEOs could add their input?

EDIT: others are faster on the draw than I. :)

Daniel T
June 21, 2005, 06:15 PM
rock jock:

Wow! Did you see the witness list for the hearings? The ACLU was testifying IN FAVOR of 823. Has Hades suddenly frozen up solid?

The Texas branch of the ACLU is pretty decent at recognizing the 2nd as a civil right. The individual state segements of national groups do not have to fall in lock-step with the national agenda. For instance, when I adopt an animal, I happily give money to the local Humane Society, but would never give a dime to the HSUS.

El Tejon
June 21, 2005, 06:21 PM
Hooray for Tejas! :cool:

Standing Wolf
June 21, 2005, 07:08 PM
Well done, Texans!

davec
June 21, 2005, 07:10 PM
I guess everybody is equal under the law except for old people and military members and veterans who are more equal then others.

duckslayer
June 21, 2005, 07:15 PM
The part about the jury is basically instructions for the jury to decide if you are a gang member, if the LEO decides you are a gnag member and does arrest you for traveling w/firearm.

Lone Star
June 21, 2005, 09:35 PM
It is remarkable that I can't find anyhing about this on the TV news or in the paper.

I imagine that it is the worst nightmare of the liberal media, which is pretending that it didn't happen.

Lone Star

Delmar
June 21, 2005, 10:08 PM
"I guess everybody is equal under the law except for old people and military members and veterans who are more equal then others"

Not sure how you treat old folks, active duty and veterans in New Jersey, but we tend to give old folks a break down here. Most of them being on fixed incomes and all.

As to active and recently retired or honorably discharged veterans, it makes sense to allow them to skip the weapons qualification if they qualified in the military on firearms. We also have an abiding respect for those who serve and have served in the military here. I guess if it upsets you that veterans and serving folks in the military get a break on CCW, we'd have to peel you off the ceiling if you saw the deal we have for Texas veterans on land purchases

Jeff OTMG
June 22, 2005, 01:04 AM
It is a shame about 823. It is actually more restrictive than the old law. Travelling was originally done for people on horseback back in the 1800's. It would also cover you for stopping for gas or eating because that was a reasonable part of the trip, all this according to my attorney Roger Zimmerman. Now it ONLY applies while you are in your car.

GhostRider66
June 22, 2005, 10:21 AM
It is a shame about 823. It is actually more restrictive than the old law. Travelling was originally done for people on horseback back in the 1800's. It would also cover you for stopping for gas or eating because that was a reasonable part of the trip, all this according to my attorney Roger Zimmerman. Now it ONLY applies while you are in your car.

Arguably it was less restrictive. There is a book available that discusses the intricacies of the old law and the case history of how is had been applied. The sad part is that it was pretty much up to the officer and local court to decide and many, many times a determination was made that the traveling exemption did not count for whatever reason. It makes very interesting reading. At least this way, it seems pretty cut and dry. From a legal standpoint, location seems much easier to determine than condition of travel or not.

dolanp
June 22, 2005, 10:29 AM
Well regardless of the original intent of the law, as it is being applied in this day it only applies to your car anyways. And you have to prove you are traveling and you better be convincing. I don't see how 823 is less restrictive. If you took your gun out of your car while on a road trip the traveling exception would not get you out of hot water.

GhostRider66
June 22, 2005, 11:03 AM
Found some interesting court dissents on this (the old law). This one is the best but very long reading:

http://www.io.com/~velte/moosani.htm#dissent

rhubarb
June 22, 2005, 12:26 PM
Here's a gem Perry vetoed: SB 1195.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/tlo/textframe.cmd?LEG=79&SESS=R&CHAMBER=S&BILLTYPE=B&BILLSUFFIX=01195&VERSION=5&TYPE=B
SECTION 1. Article 1.06, Code of Criminal Procedure, is
amended to read as follows:
Art. 1.06. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. (a) The people shall be
secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from all
unreasonable seizures or searches. No warrant to search any place
or to seize any person or thing shall issue without describing them
as near as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or
affirmation.
(b) A peace officer who stops a motor vehicle for any
alleged violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic may not
search the vehicle unless the peace officer:
(1) has probable cause or another legal basis for the
search;
(2) conducts a search for weapons based on an
articulation of a reasonable fear for the officer's safety or the
safety of others;
(3) obtains the written consent of the operator of the
vehicle on a form that complies with Section 411.0207(b),
Government Code; or
(4) obtains the oral consent of the operator of the
vehicle and ensures that the oral consent is evidenced by an audio
and video recording that complies with Section 411.0207(c),
Government Code.
The underlined part would have been an amendment to existing code.

This would have made a roadside search illegal unless an officer obtained the written or recorded oral consent of the operator. I'm sure the LEOs here would squeal as did those in Texas, but what does "The people shall be
secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions" mean if the search is a matter of he said, she said when it goes to court? Of course, if a cop wants to know what you got in your car and you don't consent, he can get a warrant sworn out.

Sean Smith
June 22, 2005, 04:57 PM
I guess everybody is equal under the law except for old people and military members and veterans who are more equal then others.

:rolleyes:

Well, I guess it wouldn't be THR if there weren't occasional anti-military eruptions. Maybe it is this forum's version of herpes?

I could argue with you about why it is stupid for your silly ass to bitch about people, whose government job often involves the risk of death for poor pay, saving the equivalent of some beer and pizza money on some government fee. But I really can't be bothered. :rolleyes:

wasrjoe
June 22, 2005, 05:06 PM
House Bill 322 (Hupp) which reduces all fees for a concealed handgun license for military members and veterans by 50 percent and lowers the age from 21 to 18 for members of the military or veterans to obtain a concealed handgun license.

Hooray, I'm going to get my CHL while I'm in Texas for some training! Though I think the CHL should be 18 everywhere (actually, having a little sister, I think it should start at 13 for females, but that's another story) at least this eliminates the "I'm old enough to serve my country but not CCW?" argument in Texas. Partially.

Better than nothing, I suppose.

R.H. Lee
June 22, 2005, 05:15 PM
We could use that kind of governor. Would he be available for a couple of terms in California?

Spreadfire Arms
June 22, 2005, 06:44 PM
i thought there was also a bill that would allow carry of a loaded pistol in your car as legal and exempt from having to have a CHL? i.e. the vehicle is an extension of your home?

i guess it was either my imagination or it didn't get signed...yet....?

and:
House Bill 322 (Hupp) which reduces all fees for a concealed handgun license for military members and veterans by 50 percent and lowers the age from 21 to 18 for members of the military or veterans to obtain a concealed handgun license.

per federal law you still cannot yellow sheet a handgun to someone under 21. state law even prohibits a private person from selling a person under 21 years of age a handgun.....?

torpid
June 22, 2005, 06:49 PM
Tx Governor Perry Signs ALL Gun Protection Laws!


Must be nice.



.

onerifle
June 22, 2005, 06:56 PM
i thought there was also a bill that would allow carry of a loaded pistol in your car as legal and exempt from having to have a CHL? i.e. the vehicle is an extension of your home?

Conceptually, it seems like you're referring to HB 823, which now defines "traveling" by statute, and nothing more. There seems to be a bunch of opinions on how the statute will be prctically applied, both in the field...and in court. On it's surface, it looks to be an improvement.


We'll see.

unclestu
June 22, 2005, 09:16 PM
HB 823 may be an improvement over the old statute, but I'm kinda disappointed in it. Sounds like it leaves a lot of room for interpretation. I've long considered getting the CCL just so I could have a weapon in the car without any hassles, then thought the new bill would take care of that. Looks like it may not. :(

scout26
June 23, 2005, 01:16 PM
We'll trade you our Governor, a pair of Senators and a big city mayor for your Governor, even if for only a couple of days. You don't have to 'em send back at the end, keep 'em as a present and with our gratitiude.

Daniel T
June 23, 2005, 03:42 PM
HB 823 may be an improvement over the old statute, but I'm kinda disappointed in it. Sounds like it leaves a lot of room for interpretation. I've long considered getting the CCL just so I could have a weapon in the car without any hassles, then thought the new bill would take care of that. Looks like it may not.

I'm not sure what you're seeing in the bill that makes you think this. It seems pretty clear to me.

The laws that govern the unlawful carrying of a handgun are nonapplicable if you are "traveling". "Traveling" used to mean whatever the jurisdiction you were in wanted it to mean. Now its meaning is very well defined. You are "traveling" if you are in a private vehicle, you aren't breaking any major laws, you aren't a gang member, you have the gun out of plain view, and you aren't otherwise prohibited (i.e. you are a felon or have a DV conviction).

It is most definitely a step up.

Brad Johnson
June 23, 2005, 05:31 PM
Quote:
Tx Governor Perry Signs ALL Gun Protection Laws!




Must be nice.

Torpid,

May I be the first to extend you an invite to take up permanent residence here in our great state!

Brad

IZinterrogator
June 23, 2005, 07:03 PM
I guess everybody is equal under the law except for old people and military members and veterans who are more equal then others.I can only speak for the active military folks, but since we work on federal installations where CHLs are not valid and spend (at least I do) an average of 12 hours a day on said installation and 6 hours sleeping, we are still paying more per usable hour for our CHLs than people with no such restrictions.
Hooray, I'm going to get my CHL while I'm in Texas for some training! Though I think the CHL should be 18 everywhere (actually, having a little sister, I think it should start at 13 for females, but that's another story) at least this eliminates the "I'm old enough to serve my country but not CCW?" argument in Texas. Partially.

Better than nothing, I suppose.Check with your state laws before you start packing concealed in AZ. The reciprocity bill may not count for 18 year-olds in your state, although you will be able to carry while in Texas. However, since you will probably be quartered on post and have no place to keep a firearm except an arms room (and it is a pain in the butt to get them out if you are storing them there), you are probably better off saving your money if AZ won't allow you to carry. Unless you just want one for cool points. Hate to burst your bubble like that, sorry.

Spreadfire Arms
June 23, 2005, 07:16 PM
i suppose i'll find out the scoop soon. im taking the once-a-year CHL Instructor School in TX the first week of August. i'm sure this will be covered.

Augustus
June 23, 2005, 07:55 PM
A question about HB 823? Is the gun to be carried concealed (under the seat/ in the glove compartment)? Does this go into effect Sept.1?

Spreadfire Arms
June 23, 2005, 08:18 PM
from what it sounds like there is no amendment to the law that allows carrying of a loaded pistol in your vehicle without a valid CHL in Texas.

the "travelling" exception is still questionable as to if this applies or not.

DISCLAIMER: i'm not a lawyer so i don't know if it's wrong or right. :(

wdlsguy
June 23, 2005, 08:26 PM
per federal law you still cannot yellow sheet a handgun to someone under 21. state law even prohibits a private person from selling a person under 21 years of age a handgun.....?

An 18 year old can buy a handgun from a private party in Texas.

Texas Penal Code § 46.06. UNLAWFUL TRANSFER OF CERTAIN WEAPONS.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
...
(2) intentionally or knowingly sells, rents, leases, or gives or offers to sell, rent, lease, or give to any child younger than 18 years any firearm, club, or illegal knife;
...
(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the transfer was to a minor whose parent or the person having legal custody of the minor had given written permission for the sale or, if the transfer was other than a sale, the parent or person having legal custody had given effective consent.
...

Spreadfire Arms
June 23, 2005, 08:49 PM
thx for the clarification...so they could buy from a private party.

Warbow
June 24, 2005, 12:30 AM
from what it sounds like there is no amendment to the law that allows carrying of a loaded pistol in your vehicle without a valid CHL in Texas.

the "travelling" exception is still questionable as to if this applies or not.

It's there. H.B. 823.

It applies starting 9/1/05.

mec
June 26, 2005, 07:32 PM
"It is remarkable that I can't find anyhing about this on the TV news or in the paper."

Some things never change. Dead silence was always good news when it came to gun legislation. It meant the anti gun bills had changed and, now that we have pro-gun legislation, It means that the pro gun bills made it through.

There were probably editorials preaching against it in our local Red Fishwrapper but dead silence when it went into effect. You used to have to wait for two months for the gun magazines to come out to find out the details. Now, we can get the big news on the forums- along with a lot of psychedelic interpretations.

Lone Star
June 26, 2005, 08:01 PM
mec-

Because of the publication schedule, "Gun Week" will probably have the first "official" gun magazine data.

You can read some of it at their Website www.gunweek.com This issue should be covered soon.

"Gun Week" also gives much more space to legislative material than do other gun rags.

Lone Star

Double Naught Spy
June 26, 2005, 10:24 PM
It makes sense that if one can carry at home (or any property under one's control) and in one's car, then a CHL isn't as necessary.

Right, and this is because the only times we are likely to encounter trouble are when we are in our homes or vehicles?

s to active and recently retired or honorably discharged veterans, it makes sense to allow them to skip the weapons qualification if they qualified in the military on firearms.

Strange, many military folks never get sidearms training. How to handle an M16 isn't the same as a handgun. Even cops who want to get a CHL have to do the shooting qualification even though they may qualify every quarter, half year, or year with a handgun as part of being a LEO.

DonNikmare
June 26, 2005, 10:42 PM
Can someone clarify...can have a gun in the car but can it be loaded & within reach?...can it be concealed (under seat/in glove box)?...or does it have to be in plain view?

mec
June 26, 2005, 11:24 PM
"mec-

Because of the publication schedule, "Gun Week" will probably have the first "official" gun magazine data.

You can read some of it at their Website www.gunweek.com This issue should be covered soon."

Gunweek also has the good fortune to have Jim Taylor on board.

onerifle
June 26, 2005, 11:31 PM
Can someone clarify...can have a gun in the car but can it be loaded & within reach?...can it be concealed (under seat/in glove box)?...or does it have to be in plain view?

It must be concealed. That provision was added as a Senate amendment.

rhubarb
June 27, 2005, 12:14 AM
I said:
It makes sense that if one can carry at home (or any property under one's control) and in one's car, then a CHL isn't as necessary.
Double Naught Spy said:
Right, and this is because the only times we are likely to encounter trouble are when we are in our homes or vehicles?

When I took my concealed handgun class here in Texas, there were two older gentlemen who stated that they only wanted a CHL so that they could carry when they took their business deposits to the bank. There was one recent immigrant from Mexico that wanted a CHL so that she could have a gun at home. There are many people who have no desire to carry everywhere every day. I agree with you that we should all carry all the time, but some don't. This bill cuts back some of the legal kudzu that has infringed on our rights. That is a Good Thing.

Weapons qualification? Shoot a total of 50 rounds a 3, 7, and 15 yds without shooting someone else or yourself and you're good to go. Of the fifteen or so folks in my class, all had qualified without even firing at the 15 yd distance. As far as I am concerned, it was just a formality.

Again, the fewer restrictions and less money required for anyone to carry a gun, the better in my opinion. I don't care if it is a geezer or Gomer Pyle. It's a step in the right direction.

natedog
June 27, 2005, 04:01 AM
“The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of every law-abiding citizen of our country,” Perry said.

I wish my representatives and leaders in the state government would say things like this.

english kanigit
June 27, 2005, 04:13 AM
To bad us Shockers can't hire him to give private lessons, up to and including a nice loud B-slap, to our commie witch of a governor.... :(

GhostRider66
June 27, 2005, 12:09 PM
Strange, many military folks never get sidearms training. How to handle an M16 isn't the same as a handgun. Even cops who want to get a CHL have to do the shooting qualification even though they may qualify every quarter, half year, or year with a handgun as part of being a LEO.

:rolleyes: It was about the most worthless "training" in terms of firearms handling, safety or shooting that I have ever experienced. All-in-all, the course could have been cut down to about half the time and, as mentioned, previously, my 93 year old, blind father-in-law could have passed the qualification.

Sam Adams
June 27, 2005, 12:18 PM
I'd like to see a Texas duplicate of the law that Jeb recently signed in FL, protecting all of those who make a good shoot in ANY place that they have a right to be at that moment. 823 doesn't matter much for me, as I have a CHL, but it'd be nice to have a law that'd protect me from being jailed - and then having to prove my innocence, etc. at very great expense and with enormous stress.

823 seems to be a step in the right direction, but we've got further to go.

TheDutchman
June 27, 2005, 12:26 PM
+ 1 Sam

mec
June 27, 2005, 02:43 PM
"Quote:
Strange, many military folks never get sidearms training. How to handle an M16 isn't the same as a handgun. Even cops who want to get a CHL have to do the shooting qualification even though they may qualify every quarter, half year, or year with a handgun as part of being a LEO.

Ghostrider:

It was about the most worthless "training" in terms of firearms handling, safety or shooting that I have ever experienced. All-in-all, the course could have been cut down to about half the time and, as mentioned, previously, my 93 year old, blind father-in-law could have passed the qualification."
__________________
Shuuuuu! You'll hurt a lot of folks feelings. Of course, you are totally right. I've taught the course and the best can be said about the shooting is that it assures that the carriers will take their gun out every couple of years and remind themselves how it works. The legal aspects are necessary but knowledge could be demonstrated by a simple test.

GhostRider66
June 27, 2005, 03:24 PM
mec,

Oooops! My bad. What I meant to say is that the training requirements here are so tough that they are obviously precluding large segments of the normal, law-abiding citizenry from successfully passing and obtaining the permit. I think we need to take this issue to the legislature to get those requirements lowered or removed completely. It's for the children! ;)

mec
June 27, 2005, 06:00 PM
Ur Uh... Right!
A couple of years ago, we got in a batch of seecamp .32s. The things work pretty good when they are new. Later on, they start malfing and shoving the bullets back into the cases. Anyway three of us shot through the CHL proficiency demo with them. Scores Ran 93,92 and from the rank amature- 90. Good enough to pass the instructor's qualification. So, we at least know that you don't need sights to pass the course.

If you enjoyed reading about "Tx Governor Perry Signs ALL Gun Protection Laws!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!