open carry and chl limitation

[Morgan]

Actually, I'd posit that it's at least statistically more significant that you suggest... People who have student loan issues, owe child support or back taxes... none of these impact NICS, but there are a LOT of people who have those... SO that's a lot of people who can pass a NICS that can't obtain a CHL.

How many is a lot? That's the question, and it's an important question. More importantly, what evidence is there that any crime is prevented by keeping this subset of people from wearing firearms in public? On the other hand, these secondary requirements, outside of the NICS, present an enormous burden to the rest of the population.

I'm sorry, I think you got the impression that I feel that the restriction of these people is good. I do not. I didn't trim your quote enough. I was merely arguing that I think it's more people that your statement seems to indicate.

First, no, I don't have ANY idea how many people have their applications denied due to non NICS issues. But I DO know that there are plenty of people who do NOT APPLY because they see the list of exclusion factors and say, "I won't qualify."

I'm all for every honest, law abiding general citizen who has no illegal intentions who wishes to get the proper understanding of the law and some basic training to be allowed to carry a gun. The more the merrier.

[anygunanywhere]

ok... lets make sure that we all understand a few simple things...

The second amendment says that the FEDERAL .gov cannot infringe our rights to keep and bear arms. it literally should be read as... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the Federal Government."

the 10th amendment says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. so, the state is not specifically prohibited from infringing gun rights... according to Heller, they cannot ban guns entirely, but it has been long held that they can ban assault weapons and standard capacity magazines... This holds that states can infringe gun "rights".

the Texas constitution says: Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

Texas allows the unregulated right to "keep" arms, but reserves the right by law to regulate the wearing, or "bearing" of arms.

In my educated opinion, anyone who insists that Texas requiring a CHL to carry a handgun infringes on their 2A rights is less than correct.

that being said... i personally kinda like that we have to be able to pass a shooting test, and a written test about the laws and deadly force statutes. I do not consider it to be invasive, or overly difficult. Personally, if i could wave a magic wand, i'd require every CHL holder to be able to recite Penal Code section 9 verbatum from memory. I also support having OC contingent on having a CHL... i don't want any nut out there able to carry without knowing the laws, or passing a simple shooting test.

flame on!

Sorry, I don't understand a few of your things.

Using your deductive reasoning I guess the states can form religions and enter your house without a warrant and get a warrant without PC and force you to testify against yourself and force you to house the state guard and censor the news and muzzle your speech too.

That is the logic you gave the second amendment with respect to the states.

Where are all of these individuals coming from who support reasonable restrictions and common sense gun laws?

We are sunk for certain.

Anygunanywhere

[Liko81]

I have a question, and I'd like to keep the scope of the discussion more on the side of philosophy and belief rather than practice and tactics.

First... CHL is limited. By that I mean the restrictions are HARDER than simply the ability to buy a handgun. Do you favor opening the restriction to basically allow anyone who can PURCHASE a handgun to be able to obtain a CHL? Further, if you believe that, do you go a step further and believe that anyone who can purchase and own a handgun should be allowed to concealed carry without a permit?

Second... Open carry. Do you support the initiative to make open carry legal? I'm NOT NOT NOT asking if you personally would eschew concealed carry in favor of open, I'm just asking if you support the initiative to make open carry legal or if you're against it.

Please tell me why and why not to all of the above.

I'm not sure I understand how CHL requirements are significantly more restrictive than the requirements to buy a handgun in the first place. Then again, I've always been eligible for both. There are really only three additional disqualifiers for a CHL that aren't a factor when simply buying a gun; A CHL holder will have had no Class A/B misdemeanor convictions in the five years preceeding the issue date, will have demonstrated sufficient marksmanship with a suitable weapon, and will not be delinquent on any State-monitored debt such as child-support, property taxes, etc.

Anyway, to answer the questions, I think the statutory requirements to obtain a conceal permit are no more or less restrictive than other "shall-issue" CC states; the ones that are less restrictive generally require that same permit to open carry. My main beef with the CHL process is its cost (it's one of the three most expensive "shall-issue" permits in the U.S., along with Colorado and Arkansas) and the fact that the only way I can legally exercise my 2A right in public is by paying that cost (Colorado is open-carry except in Denver, while Arkansas is another of the 6 states banning open carry entirely). I thus would not change the requirements, but the cost needs to drastically decrease; most other states charge around $100, while many charge around $50. Indiana (a licensed-OC state) charges $125 for a *lifetime* carry permit that allows both open and concealed carry, and does not require qualification even for a four-year.

As far as open carry, yes, I am definitely for it, without fees, licenses, or government permission. Again, I have a beef with the state of affairs in Texas, which basically requires me to pay $250 or more, sit through ten hours of classes on stuff I have already learned for myself, score 175 on the easiest shooting test I will ever take in my life, and wait for as long as 6 months, in violation of State law, before being *allowed* to carry in public at all. I then must carry in a manner such that nobody could tell I was armed anyway, like a common criminal. I hate to say it, but it's a feel-good; the overwhelming majority of Texas handgun owners are lawful and competent, could easily pass the test, and would carry responsibly whether they had a CHL or not; they do not bother getting a CHL because the cost and time are prohibitive.

I want to OC without government permission anywhere a CHL holder currently can, I want CHLs to be able to carry wherever an LEO can, and I want the application fee for a CHL to be an accurate reflection of the cost involved in processing it, not a cash cow for the State (The State makes about $5 million in yearly revenue from CHL holders, and it costs nowhere near that to administer the program from one office in Austin). That's the ideal; if Texans get those three things this session, Texas will actually be the banner state for gun rights that so many people stereotypically view it as being and I will be absolutely over the moon. As it stands now, even blue-state New Mexico has less restrictive gun laws.

[mr surveyor]

I suppose I am in the minority, but, regardless of what I would like (in a perfect world), I can forsee many, many more private establishments posting once they see a few open carries. As it is now, concealed handguns are generally "out of sight-out of mind". When they are in plain open view, then it becomes a matter of the business owner trying to please the majority of the customers. I'd bet there would be enough skittish owners, or customers complaining, to triple the number of off limits establishments within one year of OC legislation. Unless other legislation is submitted (concurrently with passage of OC) that takes away the rights of business or other private property owners to regulate activities on their property, there will likely be very few places we would be allowed to carry.

I would welcome OC, and if initiated I would "remove my jacket at the resturant" if allowed to carry there at all.

Still mulling over all the possibilities.


surv

[HGWC]

I'm sorry, I think you got the impression that I feel that the restriction of these people is good. I do not. I didn't trim your quote enough. I was merely arguing that I think it's more people that your statement seems to indicate.

I'd really like to know how many people fail all the requirements outside of the NICS. Except for the training, it's the primary differentiator between buying the gun and getting a CHL. Then look at the cost differential, the burden, the delays, etc as compared to the benefit, and that's assuming that anyone can make a case at all that there is a benefit.

First, no, I don't have ANY idea how many people have their applications denied due to non NICS issues. But I DO know that there are plenty of people who do NOT APPLY because they see the list of exclusion factors and say, "I won't qualify."

I agree completely. Even the training class keeps people from exercising their rights, which of course is the only purpose of these laws. We don't need the mandated training. They could greatly simplify the firearm possession laws, produce a small handbook (not the 73 page one they have now) and offer a short test mostly on the penal code. That would take $100+ off the cost of getting the CHL. You go to the DPS office. Take the test. Pass the NICS background check. That probably takes another $100 off the cost. Then you walk out with the license, eliminating months of delay and cost. The training is a bad compromise, but it's not as bad as the compromises that were made for all the bureaucratic nonsense that happens afterwords.

One person for all of Harris county spending ten or fifteen minutes per application can't be doing anything of real value for the citizens of Texas. I figure that's about all the time she has to address all of this other nonsense beyond the NICS check.

I'm all for every honest, law abiding general citizen who has no illegal intentions who wishes to get the proper understanding of the law and some basic training to be allowed to carry a gun. The more the merrier.

Then of course you don't support the 2nd and fourteenth amendments that assure us we have no such obligations to the state of Texas. The government can never allow us to exercise our rights. They have no such power. They can only prevent us from it.

[HGWC]

I suppose I am in the minority, but, regardless of what I would like (in a perfect world), I can forsee many, many more private establishments posting once they see a few open carries. As it is now, concealed handguns are generally "out of sight-out of mind". When they are in plain open view, then it becomes a matter of the business owner trying to please the majority of the customers. I'd bet there would be enough skittish owners, or customers complaining, to triple the number of off limits establishments within one year of OC legislation. Unless other legislation is submitted (concurrently with passage of OC) that takes away the rights of business or other private property owners to regulate activities on their property, there will likely be very few places we would be allowed to carry.

I would welcome OC, and if initiated I would "remove my jacket at the resturant" if allowed to carry there at all.

Still mulling over all the possibilities.


surv

I can't predict what will happen in Texas. My understanding is that this hasn't happened in other states.

[Morgan]

I'm all for every honest, law abiding general citizen who has no illegal intentions who wishes to get the proper understanding of the law and some basic training to be allowed to carry a gun. The more the merrier.

Then of course you don't support the 2nd and fourteenth amendments that assure us we have no such obligations to the state of Texas. The government can never allow us to exercise our rights. They have no such power. They can only prevent us from it.

EXCUSE ME? I think I understand what you're saying here... but it seems to be based on your incorrect assumption that I believe that "get the proper understanding of the law to be allowed to carry a gun" be some kind of mandate. I suppose my use of "allowed" might lead you there, and that was unintentional. I'm not sure exactly how else to put it. Perhaps "not be disallowed" would be better.

All I really meant was that I personally would PREFER it if people who do NOT wish to gain an understanding of the law and do NOT wish to gain basic training would not carry.

[mr.72]

All I really meant was that I personally would PREFER it if people who do NOT wish to gain an understanding of the law and do NOT wish to gain basic training would not carry.

The problem comes when these preferences are given the force of law.

There are a bunch of things I would PREFER people do not do, but of course I fully support their right to do these things anyway since they are perfectly legal. In fact there are a lot of things that are illegal currently, and which I prefer people would not do, but I still support legalizing them. This is the difference, IMHO, between a libertarian and a Republican (note the small "l").

A gun is just like any other property as far as I am concerned, except that it is the only property whose ownership and use is specifically protected by the Constitution. Amazing that it is one of the very few pieces of property whose ownership is so commonly restricted, while it is the only thing specifically protected. The Constitution does not guarantee you the right to own a home, or a car, or your own clothes, or any other property, specifically, only generally. But it does guarantee you specifically the right not only to own a gun, but to actually use it.

Not only do I not support any law restricting the carrying of guns, I also oppose the current laws restricting the buying of guns. I oppose the law that prevents convicted felons of buying a gun. If they are that dangerous, they belong in prison. If we see fit to set them free, then they are free just like the rest of us.

So philosophically, I am in the extreme minority. You should be able to go buy a gun without any kind of background check from any seller as long as you are willing to pay the market price, and then holster that gun however you like and carry it straight away. No license required for dealers, no records required for sellers, no license required to manufacture or build a gun, no restriction, nada.

Of course this philosophy does not just extend to guns. I have this same philosophy about nearly all laws. More freedom, less government in my life.

The thing I see wrong with our whole method of going about this is that we don't need to pass any more new laws, we just need to repeal the vast majority of the existing laws, plain and simple. I realize this is completely impractical but we are talking about philosophy here, right? In Texas we pass a law, then another law to clarify that law, then another law to remove restriction of the previous law, then another law to add to the other law, etc. It's never ending and it only succeeds in keeping lawyers employed and keeping citizens in the dark.

[HGWC]

EXCUSE ME? I think I understand what you're saying here... but it seems to be based on your incorrect assumption that I believe that "get the proper understanding of the law to be allowed to carry a gun" be some kind of mandate. I suppose my use of "allowed" might lead you there, and that was unintentional. I'm not sure exactly how else to put it. Perhaps "not be disallowed" would be better.

All I really meant was that I personally would PREFER it if people who do NOT wish to gain an understanding of the law and do NOT wish to gain basic training would not carry.

Sorry for my misunderstanding. There are so many "gun rights supporters" that prefer that only the "right" people are allowed that it's sometimes difficult to tell. My apologies.

Frankly I prefer that the state just not pass unconstitutional, onerous and complicated laws. That minimizes the training requirement substantially, and then I prefer that people just obey the common sense laws we have left. I presume citizens understand that irresponsible handling of a gun, threatening people with it, or murdering someone with it is against the law. The same laws govern use of a crowbar, knife, or even brute force. We trust citizens to understand these same laws except when they possess a firearm, and that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. On the other hand, I'm more than happy that people are able and willing to get what ever training they feel is necessary.

[Morgan]

No worries, I know where you're coming from. yes... small "l" libertarian.

[lunchbox]

1) CHL: NO. I do recommend more Regulations and Certifications, like a yearly marksmanship and safe handling exam. A refresh on the laws or newly introduced laws, etc...
2) Open Carry: I believe that accidental exposure of your handgun should be legal. if Open Carry is legal, than it should be with the same restrictions and licensing as of CHL.

you happen to have a brother named Frankie?

The second amendment says nothing about any qualifications or training.

Beiruty, what other rights are you going to give up so you can purchase more government licenses?

Anygunanywhere

Im with anygun on this one this whole business of licensing is good for 2 things knowing where the guns are and taking money from us for rights we should have anyway.
the government needs to do to itself what it did to the energy industry deregulate abolish the BATFE along with FFLs the nick operation center and CHLs
just like your name says sir any gun anywhere criminals would think twice then and we would all be better off gun prices would come down as well as ammo and crime would follow

[cyberj60]

After reading this post fully I decided that I might just throw my 2 cents into the pot and maybe give it just a stir or two. I mostly lurk but I have met Mr. Cotton and others from this forum and attended one of his fine classes. I have learned alot over my 47 years and even more from his class. I say this to point out I am not some offhanded nutcase nor do I think the .gov knows better than any of us.

I am a Texas native and even have a distant relative who fought for the indepence of this fine country turned state (Henry Wax Karnes who has a county and city named for him) so I am a little bit knowledgeable of Texas history. From my take of the history, a man who open carried in the past was viewed as an honest man for the most part. The only gun laws were basically the cities asking those honest men to put up their guns when they came into town (only the larger more sophisticated cities for the most part). The reason that the Texas constitution placed the wording allowing the state legislature to regulate the wearing was for crime prevention. Back in those days it was more for appeasing the larger cities. I know of a few instances in the past where if a man was found hiding a gun on his person was tried and convicted as if it was his intention to do harm to the good people of the community (history lesson over).

Now for my own opinion. I think the state should NOT restrict open carry of firearms period. If an honest person is willing to pay the price for a handgun and a holster and allow every man, woman and child view said holstered firearm while he is going about his lawful daily business then in my view that will typically show that he is honest, as has been the case in all other states with open carry laws. I have a CHP from Florida as I am be one of those who would be restricted as I have a student loan in default but I have never been convicted of anything more than a traffic ticket. Am I wrong for owing money ,sure and I know lots of others who are as well, but I am making an effort to correct this but that takes lots of money and it looks like I might get it paid off some time around 2020, after reviewing all of the other state chl laws, Texas is the ONLY one with such onerous hoops for self protection of myself and my family so I chose to send my money out of state and will continue unless the laws change right here. Have I attended a proper Texas CHL class prior to obtaining my CHL,yes. Do I have competency to properly use said firearm, yes. Do I wish I could afford much more advanced training, yes. Would I be worried that the gang bangers would start going around shooting up the place after we pass open carry, no. Why you ask? Well most BG's want to have the element of surprise just as most CHLers do. Do I wish we had Vermont firearm laws, yes, somewhat.

If we look at ourselves as CHLers falling into the same catagory as BG's wanting the same thing , surprise, then maybe history was right, open carry is the honest approach. Most BG's do not want to have to fight, they want surprise and submission. If they see lots of people open carrying and staying in condition "YELLOW" then they will move to others who are the easier prey. In New Orleans ,right now, the BG's are going after the illegals (they call them walking ATMs) because they know very few will have a gun and none will open carry for fear a police officer will stop them. Is that right? NO, but it is reality. Many honest legal citizen supervisors have begun carrying openly to protect the workers and it is working for the most part. Why can't we use these same common sense rules as those who wish to oppose us seem to chant so much. Are there people who have no business owning a firearm so much as open carrying? Yep!!! There was back then and today too, but if a man royally screwed up then the laws would handle it back then as we have today the only difference is back then there were fewer LAWYERS and stiff and swift penaltys . I might have been a bit young but I remember my dad who was a LEO in the 50's- late60's was proud to have never have to draw his firearm except at the range. As an aside he had a full sized holster for a 4inch barrel pistol where he kept his little S&W chiefs special and back then they practiced accurate draw and shoot from the hip and I have seen him pick off a half dollar on a fence post from 30 paces with that little 2 inch snubby.

Well I hope you get the idea that have tried to put forward. Should we still have licensed concealed carry,yep and we should also have unlicensed open carry for those of us who would feel more honest open carrying without a bunch of .gov nonsense. Would the anti's say there will be blood in the streets? Yep, just as you can count on the summers to be hot in Texas. Will I open carry if passed? Yes, and I will keep a CHL for those times when I think it would be more prudent to conceal ,such as church or business meetings. Will there be business owners post restrictions? Yep, but after awhile they will drop it just like we have seen with CHL's. Will some gangbangers try to open carry? Hmmmm, if they do then the LEO's should be able to single them out pretty quickly.

So I have given you a little of my thinking on this subject. Will I ask my legislator to support a PROPER open carry bill? You can bet your bottom dollar on that. Same I as would any other bill Mr. Cotton thinks we should have as law. Will I oppose bad law, well it didn't help in the past but I will.

[Liko81]

Sorry, I don't understand a few of your things.

Using your deductive reasoning I guess the states can form religions and enter your house without a warrant and get a warrant without PC and force you to testify against yourself and force you to house the state guard and censor the news and muzzle your speech too.

That is the logic you gave the second amendment with respect to the states.

Where are all of these individuals coming from who support reasonable restrictions and common sense gun laws?

We are sunk for certain.

Anygunanywhere

Well, the logic is incomplete, on both sides. What's missing is what happened to the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment was written and intended to enfranchise the now-freed slaves, and prevent the States from putting them back under heel by denying them the rights they now had as U.S. citizens. However, the Slaughterhouse cases pretty much read that interpretation out of existence by doing a flip-flop of the Privileges OR Immunities clause of the Constitution and the Privileges AND Immunities clause of the 14A, basically saying that even though the Constitution was always first and foremost a check on federal power, Article Four's clause referred to the rights of citizens of a State, while the Fourteenth Amendment referred to rights of citizens of the U.S. This allowed the states to keep on keepin' on, and forced the incorporation of the priviliges or immunities granted under the Bill of Rights to be done one at a time using the Due Process clause; the interpretation most often used being the exact opposite from the Slaughterhouse cases, saying that a State cannot alienate an individual from one or more of the Constitutional rights at issue (thereby depriving them of liberty) without due process of law.

So, you're both right. AJ, you're exactly right in that the Second Amendment has not been recognized as a check on State power. No court in this land has considered the question since the 14th Amendment was ratified; the cases considered beforehand do specifically say that the Bill of Rights is a check on Federal, not State, powers, and those still hold. Heller has not even been recognized as applying to the States; it affirmed that the RKBA is an individual's right, but no case since has considered the question of whether it is inalienable, and thus that the States have no power to restrict it. Therefore, the states can infringe the individuals right as they please. That doesn't mean they should; ample precedent exists to state that the Second Amendment, like 6 out of 7 of the individual rights enumerated in the BoR, should apply to the States.

Anygun, you're right in saying that it's wrong; just because nobody HAS officially recognized the Second Amendment as a check on State powers doesn't mean they SHOULDN'T. Requiring a license in order to bear arms publicly is infringement; the fact that 31 states allow open carry WITHOUT a license is testament to that. (Though 44 States allow open carry somehow, 13 of them require a license; of those 13, the license of 7 states is easier and/or cheaper to get than a TxCHL).

[Darwood]

Of course. Whether anyone ever does, it's our right. Texas voters passed an amendment to our state constitution in 1876 to limit the legislature infringing keep and bear and to repeal the 1871 ban on public firearm possession. The 1871 law disarmed and oppressed the people and set up a police state that ended only with the armed removal of the Governor from the state capital in 1873. Yet the law still exists. It's a wrong that still needs to be corrected.

Do you have more information on this or know where I can find more information on these events? This is something I've been wanting to know more about for some time.

No flame here and I agree with some of what you are saying. As originally written, all of the Constitution applied solely to the federal government. However, the Fourteenth Amendment changed that and the Supreme Court has selectively applied the safeguards of the U.S. Constitution to the States. As yet, this has not been done with the Second Amendment and, in fact, the Cruickshank decision (1875) expressly said it applied only to the federal government. As noted by Justice Scalia in Heller however, the Cruickshank Court also held the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. This is a very clear signal that the Second Amendment will be "incorporated" to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

I still can't believe the entire Cruickshank decision hasn't been overturned yet. It was probably one of the worst Supreme Court decisions to date.

[bryang]

There are a lot of people out there that I personally would not like to see carrying guns. But, a long time ago, I learned that the only way to protect my rights is to protect the rights of others.

So, since I want to carry weapons anytime I want (with the exception that I do support private property rights), and I want to buy a lot of different weapons that some other people don't like, I support the right of all people to keep and carry any firearms they want.

I also read the Second Amendment to be worded more strongly than any other amendment in the Bill of Rights. It is the only amendment that says it shall not be infringed. Others say that there shall be no law made, or similar less strict wording. And the laws requiring the CHL or training clearly infringe on the right.

So, as a philosophy, I am a believer that any law that requires anything in order to carry is an unconstitutional, and therefore wrong, law.

As a practical matter, I recognize some limitations right now, but this thread was asking about philosophy.

The founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment in plain English, despite the wildly implausible far left protestations to the contrary, and they meant it to say exactly what it plainly does say - that any citizen has an unrestricted right to keep and carry (bear) arms, especially including those designed for military use as well as all others.

Their other contemporary writings clearly show that they wrote it this way not to protect duck hunting or concealed carry, but to protect liberty by making certain the government never had a monopoly on force, which they knew from history was the prelude to abuse of power and tyranny. An armed citizenry is the only real deterrent to corrupt leadership.

If liberty is to be preserved, our citizens need to hold our elected representatives strictly accountable for adhering to their oaths to uphold the Constitution,not only with regards to the 2nd Amendment, but all the others as well, and to remove those who fail to do so from office as expeditiously as possible by either election or impeachment.

There's certainly no shortage of corrupt and power hungry people salivating at the opportunities they see to write away our freedoms with unconstitutional laws. If we as a country do not hold liberty sacred and fail to demand Constitutionally lawful conduct from our elected representatives, corrupt rulers elected will seize the opportunity to wipe away our freedoms and enslave our citizens as we stand idly by.

I do disagree with Steve on one point. From a philosophical perspective, I cannot defend the restriction of Constitutionally guaranteed rights by any entity that invites members of the public onto their premises, or that employs others to perform work on their property. The founding fathers believed that these rights are not granted by the state, but are given to all men by God. As such, I don't see any logic to the position that such rights can be nullified by a business entity.

Excellent post and I could not agree more strongly!

-geo