I forgot to add in my above post that I am not against OC, I am however gonna wait for conditions to be right. here's what has to be done in order to get my support:
1: CHL law has to be as untouched as possible.
2: No specific sign requirement for OC prohibition.
3: No attacks on other progun groups or orgs to further the bill
4: Well written bill with minimal changes to penal code.
Here's what would be nice to see in the bill:
1: Unlicensed OC and CC (Leaving CHL intact for reciprocity)
2: TSRA/NRA support
3: education campaign for the public.
Search found 4 matches
- Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:30 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: texas open carry
- Replies: 97
- Views: 12032
- Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:15 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: texas open carry
- Replies: 97
- Views: 12032
Re: texas open carry
Hey now, real Eskimos are taking offense that you are comparing them to me!PATHFINDER wrote:Texans wouldn't still be having their ARTICLE 1, SECTION 23 declared right to bear arms suppressed by a transgressing State government if Texas judges had taken it upon themselves to exercise due diligence in the performance of their constituted duties during the last 136 years.
A point of factual information for the benefit of any who are convinced that rifles & shotguns are somehow excepted from this regulatory power provision of Article 1, Section 23 ...
"The wearing of arms" is a term applied in Article 1, Section 23 that pertains to the custom of habitually transporting a deadly weapon on one's person. That includes, by the way - inside of , or under clothing, hand-carried, or within reach of one's person. stowed inside of "carpet bags", and YES - even long-guns slung over the shoulder, or simply grasped in one hand -IF THE WEAPON WAS CARRIED HABITUALLY.
But I believe the question was.....why do I assert that " this wearing of arms" regulatory provision only applies to CONCEALMENT?
Well... the handgun prohibition was first enacted in 1871 -right ? The Texas Constitution was adopted in 1876 - right ?
Now - could a reasonable person come up with any logical explanation as to WHY...... the " wearing of " (REMEMBER- as in habitual carry) of rifles & shotguns hasn't been restricted post-1876 ? Could it possibly be due to the fact that rifles & shotguns are not readily CONCEALABLE ??? Remember pickup gun racks ? (back in the days when one's parked vehicle was considered a fairly "safe" place to stow things)
I don't know why I insist upon trying to sell air conditioners to " Eskimos"- I really don't.
Perhaps it's because I lived with them dang "Eskimos" for 45 years , and I still regularly "travel" within their "Republic", and it saddens me that they are so content with having to trade their right for a privilege.
Now with that said, So your saying that the ban on open carry of handguns is unconstitutional (state const) because the ban on carry that was enacted before the state constitution was enacted and long guns weren't regulated because they are concealable and that makes the ban on Open Carry illegitimate? Ok, I'm confused even more on the issue because this logic is almost as fool proof as a child saying "Pineapples are yucky because apples are not oranges."
- Sun Mar 18, 2012 12:16 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: texas open carry
- Replies: 97
- Views: 12032
Re: texas open carry
Do you have case law to back up the claim that the Texas Constitution only allows the regulation of concealed carry? Everytime I have asked for such case law I get references to other states and their court rulings, never any TEXAS case law. Until there is such case law and a court case to use it towards invalidating portions of 46.02 these claims fall into the same category as the antis claims that the second amendment only applies to militia service.PATHFINDER wrote:I am a former Texas resident who now lives in Colorado where that State's constitution also reserves the right to bear arms- subject only to an exception for the practice of carrying concealed weapons.
In Texas Section 46.02(a) defines as a "crime" the very exercise of that State's own constitutionally declared right cited in Article 1, Section 23 of the State's constitution.
This is in spite of the fact that Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution declares that regulation of the right to keep & bear arms is OFF LIMITS to the high powers of the State government - except for the power granted to the legislature to regulate the "wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime" . No distinction is provided therein pertaining to specific categories of arms(rifles vs handguns) - only a provision for regulation by the legislature of the "wearing of arms".
Historically, and constitutionally the "wearing of arms" provision referred to in Article 1. Section 23 pertains to the practice of concealing deadly weapons - just as the Colorado Constitution excepts the carrying of concealed weapons from that State's recognition of the right to bear arms. The somewhat peculiar reference to the "wearing of arms" in the Texas Constitution equates to the concealment of arms addressed in most other state constitutions of that time. Wearing of arms is simply another way of addressing concealment of arms inside of , under, about or hidden among one's clothing or carry-alongs .
The movement to remedy this error in Texas only seeks the decriminalization of behavior that is protected by the State's constitution. Once this is accomplished folks can continue to make their own call as to conceal or not.
Two sections of the Texas Penal Code are inconsistent with Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution-
Section 46.02(a) which violates the Article 1, Section 23 provision empowering the legislature to regulate ONLY the CONCEALMENT of arms, and the Section 46.035(a) provision (intentional failure to conceal) which exceeds the limited legislative power to regulate concealment.
The fact that case law in Texas has yet to recognize these two constitutional inconsistencies - is a large part of the problem in Texas because the courts bear the burden of cleaning up the messes left after the Legislature adjourns.
Personal preferences regarding open or concealed carry notwithstanding - the former is a constitutional right in Texas - the latter is not.
- Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:17 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: texas open carry
- Replies: 97
- Views: 12032
Re: texas open carry
In my opinion the time to start working on open carry for the next session was when the last one ended. The first thing that OC supporters should have done was start building support within the general public by educating them with a PR campaign. The second step would be to get support from other pro-gun organisations, which will be difficult considering the OC groups past behaviour. The next step would be to fix their OC bill so that it cleanly and efficiently reflects their goals and get it ready to be prefiled. And by now they should be scouting candidates in both parties primaries to determine which ones they can best work with.
Here's what I see has happened and will be happening:
1: Nothing has been done to educate, and get support from, the general public.
2: Once the primaries are concluded any democrat candidate who gets TSRA/NRA support will be attacked, some republican candidates with said support will also be attacked.
3: Any candidate who wins a seat that will not introduce and/or cosponsor their bill (even if they support a competing OC bill) will be labeled antigun no matter how pro-gun they are.
4: They will get a bill prefiled this session.
5: Unfortunately it will most likely be the same poorly written bill that we saw last session with minor changes.
Here's what I see has happened and will be happening:
1: Nothing has been done to educate, and get support from, the general public.
2: Once the primaries are concluded any democrat candidate who gets TSRA/NRA support will be attacked, some republican candidates with said support will also be attacked.
3: Any candidate who wins a seat that will not introduce and/or cosponsor their bill (even if they support a competing OC bill) will be labeled antigun no matter how pro-gun they are.
4: They will get a bill prefiled this session.
5: Unfortunately it will most likely be the same poorly written bill that we saw last session with minor changes.