TexasCHLforum.com

djjoshuad wrote:dead horses notwithstanding, I do have opinions on this and wasn't around to contribute to the 20 other previous threads... so I'm saying my piece here. It's just my personal opnion and not one that I really want to argue about for pages and pages. I'm sure I'll get flamed and I'm sure that several people will either shout that I don't know what I'm talking about or try to convince me that their opinion is better than mine... but I'm not alone in these thoughts and I think it's worth saying.

I personally don't believe that the 2A should be interpreted to grant us the right to carry openly in public. Because of that, I don't believe that the term "constitutional carry" is valid. I know that some states allow unlicensed open carry, and that's the name commonly used for it... but I simply don't agree. I'm a proponent of State's Rights in this case - I think each state should be able to choose (as they are currently able to choose) who has the right to carry weapons in public. I also think that the state should be able to decide in what manner those weapons are allowed. I *do* believe that the 2A should be interpreted to allow unlicensed *ownership* of firearms and the ability to carry/use them in ones own home, and on one's own property (extending to any private property on which one should reasonably be allowed). Firearms are dangerous things, as we all know very well. When owned and used responsibly, they are invaluable. I believe that the current CHL requirements help ensure that the responsible among us have a viable mechanism for lawful carry, and helps make it harder for criminals to legally have weapons in public. That said, I think the current legal system is far too "trigger happy" with their felony and class A/B misd. convictions. I think people are made "examples" for good reason, but it too readily affects their ability to protect their loved ones... I have a good friend who is a convicted felon but never actually committed the crime. He was caught "attempting" to commit... but it was not a violent offense nor was it a repeat offense. He couldn't afford to fight it, so accepted a "deal" that put a big black mark on his record forever. It's not the gun laws that are at fault here, it's the system that put him in the wrong "bucket". Again, this is my interpretation and opinion.

I find the concept of Open Carry interesting as well. I tend to agree that it would result in more businesses posting 30.06 signs in a misguided attempt to make their location more "safe". I see benefits to it as well, mainly the ones already mentioned - Texas gets very hot in the summer, and keeping a weapon fully concealed isn't an easy task. I personally would almost always conceal, but I would like the ability to open carry on occasion. A good example would be this: I run sporting events regularly. At these events, I sell merchandise and handle prize money. I frequently do this from a temporary "headquarters" that consists of EZ-Up tents and Lifetime tables - not exactly easy to secure. I always carry when doing so, because I usually have at least $5k in cash on my person (also concealed), and always have at least $20k in retail value sitting on the tables (not concealed, obviously). In these situations I might prefer to have one pistol on my hip, to ward off any potential thieves. I'm a big man (former offensive lineman), standing 6'6" and 300 lbs, so most people who would want to rob me are going to arm themselves first anyway. I'd like to be able to "show" that I'm armed as well. For other scenarios I think I would always conceal my weapons.

I know full well that I'm opening myself up to flaming and other forms of hatred or at least strong disagreement. I'm not going to respond to that but I am willing to discuss if anyone would like to remain civil :). Once again, this is just my view on the subject. I'd also like to add that I'm very thankful that my state's laws allow me to own firearms and carry them in public. I'm very proud to be a native Texan.