Greg Abbott and OC

[mr1337]

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.

[G26ster]

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.

[mr1337]

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.

[Charlies.Contingency]

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.

You need to read Rep. Stickland's bill before making this statement.

Chas.

I apologize for the misleading statement. It was not in reference to the bill.

[G26ster]

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.

[Charlies.Contingency]

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.

Totally agree!That's a BAD IDEA!. Just asking for trouble.

Thanks Joe, I am ANTI-restrictions as much as practically possible. I just want everybody to be safely practicing their rights.

That's dangerous territory. What about First Amendment rights for example?

Chas.

You are terrible observant sometimes Chas. But I hope you know that I just meant that I want people to be safe when handling firearms, I am very emotionally tied to this as I have been crippled for life and endure pain every day for somebody not practicing proper firearm safety.

[Charlies.Contingency]

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

Please, explain this further as to how it is relevant? How is wanting people to go through a CHL course exterminating hundreds of millions of people in this situation?

[Charlies.Contingency]

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.

Wow, some people really took my statement the wrong way. I won't bother getting into it, there is no point.

He pinned me to one extreme end of the spectrum of wanting to restrict everything, so I reversed the concept as if he wanted no restrictions on anything? Get what I was trying to say now?

[mr1337]

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]

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?

It's not a straw man. It's a simple question. You said, "It stems from the States that believe carrying a firearm is your Constitutionally-protected right, and thus do not pose any restrictions (read: infringements)" I asked, "What states do not place restrictions (infringements)" Licensing and or permits are not the only restrictions. The phrase "constitutional carry" implies there are NO restrictions for anyone. That's just not true. So why use a phrase that is untrue and misleading?

[jimlongley]

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.

Since felons have lost their constitutional rights, how does constitutional carry allow them to walk around unhindered?

[Charlies.Contingency]

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.

Since felons have lost their constitutional rights, how does constitutional carry allow them to walk around unhindered?

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?

[TXBO]

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.

Totally agree!That's a BAD IDEA!. Just asking for trouble.

Thanks Joe, I am ANTI-restrictions as much as practically possible. I just want everybody to be safely practicing their rights.

That's dangerous territory. What about First Amendment rights for example?

Chas.

You are terrible observant sometimes Chas. But I hope you know that I just meant that I want people to be safe when handling firearms, I am very emotionally tied to this as I have been crippled for life and endure pain every day for somebody not practicing proper firearm safety.

You certainly have a different perspective than most of us. You have my prayers for comfort. I do have two questions for you:

1) Do you believe that the current TX CHL training requirements adequately affect the proficiency of a CHL holder in a defensive situation?

2) Do you see the peril in arbitrary training requirements to exercise a right?

[joe817]

From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

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. Until the SCOTUS issues an opinion stating that the Second Amendment includes an unfettered right to carry handguns, there is no such constitutional right. This is especially true in light of dicta in the Heller case and the SCOTUS' recent refusal to hear a New Jersey case challenging that State's "may issue" statute on Second Amendment grounds. I disagree with the Court, but that means nothing.

Chas.

Well, not to split hairs, or give the appearance of being argumentative, the term "constitutional carry" is the title of HB195:

"BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. This act shall be known and cited as the Texas
Constitutional Carry Act of 2015."

Now, if I'm totally off base, or misunderstand the message you are imparting, I just want to say, I retract everything I just posted, and further disavow having any knowledge of any topic in the history of the world in the past, present or future.

[Charles L. Cotton]

From the DMN:

"Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, introduced a bill that would allow people to carry handguns without obtaining a concealed handgun license."

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. Until the SCOTUS issues an opinion stating that the Second Amendment includes an unfettered right to carry handguns, there is no such constitutional right. This is especially true in light of dicta in the Heller case and the SCOTUS' recent refusal to hear a New Jersey case challenging that State's "may issue" statute on Second Amendment grounds. I disagree with the Court, but that means nothing.

Chas.

Well, not to split hairs, or give the appearance of being argumentative, the term "constitutional carry" is the title of HB195:

"BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. This act shall be known and cited as the Texas
Constitutional Carry Act of 2015."

Now, if I'm totally off base, or misunderstand the message you are imparting, I just want to say, I retract everything I just posted, and further disavow having any knowledge of any topic in the history of the world in the past, present or future.

You are correct, that's the Bill's title.

Chas.