TexasCHLforum.com

G26ster wrote:

mr1337 wrote:

G26ster wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: BTW, it would be a good idea to stop referring to a legal concept that does not exist, i.e. "constitutional carry." Now matter how appealing this buzz phrase may be, it diminishes one's arguments in favor of unlicensed carry of firearms when one grounds those arguments on a nonexistent premise.

Chas.

Thank you Charles. I was just about to post asking why in Heaven's name "constitutional carry" is used, as no phrase could be further from fact.

It stems from the States that believe carrying a firearm is your Constitutionally-protected right, and thus do not pose any restrictions (read: infringements) upon doing so, such as licenses or permits.

What states do not place restrictions (infringements) on persons such as felons, or others convicted of certain crimes, etc.? Licenses and permits are one thing, but there are restrictions. If not, I don't think I'll be visiting there.

Can we keep the straw man out of this?

G26ster wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: BTW, it would be a good idea to stop referring to a legal concept that does not exist, i.e. "constitutional carry." Now matter how appealing this buzz phrase may be, it diminishes one's arguments in favor of unlicensed carry of firearms when one grounds those arguments on a nonexistent premise.

Chas.

Thank you Charles. I was just about to post asking why in Heaven's name "constitutional carry" is used, as no phrase could be further from fact.

It stems from the States that believe carrying a firearm is your Constitutionally-protected right, and thus do not pose any restrictions (read: infringements) upon doing so, such as licenses or permits.

anygunanywhere wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

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."

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.

So you do not support constitutional carry? How many more rights do you want restricted by requiring certain qualifications?

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.

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.

Of course I do not support felons doing such and your throwing that out in response is a straw man. Felons cannot now legally own and possess firearms and constitutional carry does not negate those protections as is evident in Arizona. I guess before you take the fifth amendment to protect yourself or demand a search warrant or hand property over to the government you need to take a college course on rights to make certain you are trained.

Reasonable restrictions and common sense gun laws have exterminated hundreds of millions of people globally.

Thank you for pointing out that fallacy. I was just about to when I read your response.

Unlicensed carry would not change who can own and possess guns. It will still be against the law for felons and anyone involved in criminal activity from possessing a gun.

But remember one important thing: Criminals don't obey the law! If they want to carry a gun, they're not going to care what the law is. They're going to carry regardless.

So laws only hurt the law-abiding.

Allowing more people to lawfully carry guns will deter crime. More people being armed will make many criminals think twice before robbing or raping someone. If it's easier to lawfully carry a gun, more people will arm themselves that might not have otherwise, and lives will be saved - both directly and indirectly.

patterson wrote:I have mixed opinions on OC like someone in a line at a convenience store or fast food place with their firearm exposed and someone in line behind that person pulling their gun. So you would have to be aware of your surroundings

Then have a holster with retention. Problem solved.

Seriously though, I don't think that's going to be a problem.

mojo84 wrote:

mr1337 wrote:I won't be looking forward to MDA members and the like SWATing here in Texas if/when OC passes.

The answer to that is to file charges against those that make a false report.

Still doesn't fix if anyone is killed in the process, as we've seen in the past.

I really can't wait to see if the SWATer that called 911 on the guy at the gas station gets canned. Or the SWATer from Walmart. Hopefully that will show people that this stuff isn't a game. People can die, and you WILL go to jail.

I won't be looking forward to MDA members and the like SWATing here in Texas if/when OC passes.

ghostrider wrote:OC would be nice as an option (and as a matter of principle) but frankly I have other changes I'd like to see:

# elimination of the 51% rule
# campus carry

I agree. I'd rather have 51% repeal and campus carry than open carry, if it came down to the brass like that. Being able to carry in 51% establishments and especially on campus could do more good. Open carry is more of a convenience and freedom. Concealed Carry in more places could (read: WILL) save lives.

steveincowtown wrote:Yup, but here is what I don't get. Constitutional Carry is part of the Texas Republican platform:

http://www.texasgop.org/wp-content/uplo ... -Final.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Page 40)

Oh man.

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF PRIORITIZING CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY LEGISLATION

We call upon the 84th Texas Legislature to propose to the people of Texas a constitutional
amendment to strike “; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of
arms, with a view to prevent crime” from Article I, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution.
Further, we request the State Party Chair and the State Republican Executive Committee
consider adoption of such an amendment and other legislation necessary to remove restrictions
on Texans' right to own and bear arms a legislative priority for the Republican Party of Texas for
the 2015 legislative session and to utilize reasonable Party resources necessary to promote and
support their passage.

That's fantastic news, and definitely something to look forward to. Although I still recommend everyone to get a CHL (I'm assuming they'll still be around) for reciprocity and those places like 1,000 ft from a school that you can't carry unless licensed, or in TABC "Blue Sign" stores. But I wonder if that would be the end of TABC Red and Blue signs. If it is, that would be amazing as well.

But back to the OC topic. It would be great to get some legislation passed for it. Texas is one of only a handful of states that doesn't allow OC of handguns. We're behind the times, and we're supposed to be THE gun friendly state! I would definitely limit my OC'ing to maybe once a month (on the 2nd for "Every 2nd Matters") and while camping/hiking/etc. But as I hear, most people won't even notice.