Well, I disagree with Charles - constitutional carry is a concept, not a thing, and you were responding to a statement about such with a reductio ad absurdam statement that he was for felons walking around armed unhindered, I was merely pointing out that the restriction already pre-exists the issue. If the concept known as constitutional carry, which does indeed exist in some places, comes to pass in TX, it will still be illegal for felons to possess.Charlies.Contingency wrote:Have I ever said in my text the words "Constitutional Carry?" No. I never said that about Open Carry anyway, it was a contrasting statement to whom suggested I was wanting to take away our rights, because I am for "RESTRICTING GUNS TO AMERICANS" by supporting a background check. If you removed restrictions, what would you have? No restrictions... Seems pretty simple to me. And there is no such thing as constitutional carry, it's an idea and a catch phrase. I though chas already cleared that up?jimlongley wrote:Since felons have lost their constitutional rights, how does constitutional carry allow them to walk around unhindered?Charlies.Contingency wrote:And you would support felons allowed to walk around unhindered with an AK and Pistol on their side because it's our right to bear arms.anygunanywhere wrote:So you do not support constitutional carry? How many more rights do you want restricted by requiring certain qualifications?Charlies.Contingency wrote:Idk about that. I would like to keep CC the way it is, but add an OC option that would allow for licensed/unlicensed carry with proper certification like the CHL. I just don't want somebody to buy a gun who's never shot it, carry it around in public, and try to engage somebody without knowing the laws regarding the use of force, or having any training at all to hit their target and not kill innocent people.gdanaher wrote:From the DMN:
"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."
I'm for common sense and for life preservation. I am not for restrictions as you so accuse, I am for safety and proficiency training, and a ID stating that you are not a felon and have accomplished certain training to help you better protect yourself and others.
Search found 3 matches
Return to “Greg Abbott and OC”
- Wed Nov 12, 2014 5:30 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Greg Abbott and OC
- Replies: 198
- Views: 31736
Re: Greg Abbott and OC
- Wed Nov 12, 2014 1:24 pm
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Greg Abbott and OC
- Replies: 198
- Views: 31736
Re: Greg Abbott and OC
Since felons have lost their constitutional rights, how does constitutional carry allow them to walk around unhindered?Charlies.Contingency wrote:And you would support felons allowed to walk around unhindered with an AK and Pistol on their side because it's our right to bear arms.anygunanywhere wrote:So you do not support constitutional carry? How many more rights do you want restricted by requiring certain qualifications?Charlies.Contingency wrote:Idk about that. I would like to keep CC the way it is, but add an OC option that would allow for licensed/unlicensed carry with proper certification like the CHL. I just don't want somebody to buy a gun who's never shot it, carry it around in public, and try to engage somebody without knowing the laws regarding the use of force, or having any training at all to hit their target and not kill innocent people.gdanaher wrote:From the DMN:
"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."
I'm for common sense and for life preservation. I am not for restrictions as you so accuse, I am for safety and proficiency training, and a ID stating that you are not a felon and have accomplished certain training to help you better protect yourself and others.
- Fri Nov 07, 2014 11:58 am
- Forum: General Texas CHL Discussion
- Topic: Greg Abbott and OC
- Replies: 198
- Views: 31736
Re: Greg Abbott and OC
I'm thinking those signs, but traffic size, with language that says anything smaller is not just a defense to prosecution, but just flat unenforceable.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Absolutely not!! At a minimum of 6" diameter, those generic signs are larger than the typical 2"X2" "no gun" decals we saw in Texas, but not nearly as large as a compliant 30.06 sign.txpilot wrote:Perhaps when OC is legal, Texas might follow the Kansas example where they have signs to cover all combinations: http://ag.ks.gov/public-safety/conceale ... ed-signage
Chas.