texas open carry

[fickman]

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.

If anyone wanted an example of OC supporters degrading and insulting the CHL crowd, here it is.

I'd say most of us here would like constitutional carry, open or concealed, no permit. We understand we shouldn't have to pay the state for a permit to carry. It is frustrating.

But, there is reality, and there is candyland.

To act like we don't understand that our RIGHTS are being infringed upon is an insult. What do you propose we do, just ignore the laws?

TSRA, and many members of this board have worked hard to take Texas from a state with NO carrying of handguns before 1995 to a state with pretty good gun laws regarding carry (not perfect, but not awful).

Working together towards better gun laws is of course what we should be doing.

But when people continue to act like we're stupid for accepting the reality of our situation, which is this:

Texans from the late 1800s until 1995 were stripped of their rights.

....it becomes incredibly frustrating. No, we're not happy with the current state of affairs.

But thanks for calling us stupid for working to restore our rights. Do you propose we do anything different that our proven strategy of legislative success? Our gun laws have been steadily loosened since 1995, BECAUSE of the TSRA and the work of Mr. Cotton and others.

But by all means, continue to be snarky about selling rights for privileges. When you're ready to work with us towards campus carry, open carry, and constitutional carry, let me know your suggestions.

Telling us how awful it is that our ancestors didn't fight back against this stuff 100 years ago doesn't help our situation today.

/rant off.

I think would be a step forward if the CHL community in Texas showed outrage any time the thought of less-than-Constitutional carry enters our mind, even if we're not swinging for the fences in the next legislative session.

Probably due to the bitter taste from the poorly-organized out-of-state OC-zealots two sessions ago, this board often seems ambivalent at best about Constitutional carry being a real, obtainable, worthy goal.

[bayouhazard]

Let me present it another way. I don't own full-automatic weapons or suppressors. TSRA has been promoting expanding the use of suppressors for hunting of game animals. Does that mean that because I don't use them, I should oppose it? Based on some of the comments here - yeah, I should.

Based on some comments, not only should you oppose it, you should liberally sprinkle PETA talking points throughout your arguments against it.

[steveincowtown]

To All CHL Holders:

Not matter what your stance is on Open Carry it seems like it would best to place ourselves at the active end of the OC issue, and not the "reactive" end. Just sitting around and opposing OC and Constitutional Carry because you are afraid how it could affect your CHL rights doesn't seem like a great course of action to me; in fact it seems like a course of action that has a higher probably of leading to our rights actually being affected.

Just like your community, neighborhood, church, and your family; not participating in any of these and just sitting by the sidelines is a good way to insure you won't be happy with the results.

I for one would like to see the TSRA and the NRA take a proactive role in creating a bill that will protect the rights that they fought for so hard for in the 90's. As proven by comments here and elsewhere there is a certain segment of the OC crowd that doesn't care about us; doesn't care about the rights that have been fought so hard for; and has little or no interest in creating a bill that would preserve the relatively good CHL laws we enjoy in TX.

[PATHFINDER]

What about the fact that your state bans open carry in Denver?

I will gladly address the Denver question since you brought up the issue.

The State of Colorado does not ban open carry in Denver. Denver Metro/County has an ordinance restricting handgun carry to CONCEALMENT which in Colorado requires a Colorado concealed handgun permit.

This continues to be a bone of contention between Colorado State law, and Denver. This matter has not been resolved, and oral arguments were presented before the 10th Circuit in Denver this very afternoon challenging the Colorado "system" that allows Denver to essentially require that any out-of-state visitor must conceal a carried handgun which requires a resident CHL from the visitors state of residency- even though Colorado law does not restrict open carry.( Petersen v Martinez/modified).

The thrust of the remedy sought by Petersen seems to be a bit illusive to the court's grasp at this point , but it appears that Petersen is asking the 10th Circuit to step forward, and clarify that the 2A protected right to bear the "quintessential handgun" affirmed by the SCOTUS in Heller/McDonald actually extends outside of one's home. If the 10th Circuit relies upon the SCOTUS dicta in Heller/McDonald , and affirms the right to carry the "quintessential handgun" in case of confrontation outside of the home, then Denver by restricting the 2A right to only concealed carry with a permit/license is intruding into a domain preempted by the totality of Colorado law, and the 2A.

This should be an interesting case that may well end up being ultimately decided by the SCOTUS, and hopefully also have a positive impact on the Texas licensed concealment mandate. The 10th Circuit is pretty pro-2A, but it may want to hand this one off to the SCOTUS.

[Hoosier Daddy]

It sounds like the Denver ban on open carry is like the 30.06 signs at gun shows on city property in Houston, except that somebody challenged the Denver rule.

[sugar land dave]

Is there any organized effort/organization active to get a vote & passage in the next legislative session ?

... and 5 pages later if there was an answer there it got buried in the static. I presume the answer is that there is not an organized effort (at least not well known as such) for OC.

My parting comment, for your consideration, is this:

In my college days I took a history course. It was supposedly about Western Civilization but the professor had a bent about institutions (like governments) and how they perpetuated themselves against popular will. One singular aspect that has stayed with me all these decades is this. To control the unwashed masses, divide them. That simple. Grant special privileges to some and tell them they are special, deserving and above the rest. That they must protect their special status. And that is all it takes.

We all want our rights, including gun rights. But look back at these past 4 pages of posts. How much heat? How much light in these arguments among citizens with a common interest? Now ask yourself this- How hard was the CHL test? How difficult was the shooting practical? Do those 2 tests plus not being a felon make you an extraordinary rare and special citizen deserving of a very special privilege? A privilege as opposed to a right?



thanks

Fishfree did you miss this? What about it is unreasonable? I'm really trying to get there for you, but all I get back is "static" as you call it. I'm trying to be friendly and learn "facts" of your position, but conjecture will not get me there. Still you have my best wishes, but need to help us to help you.

I'm sorry; I must have grown a little dense.

To what advantage is it to occasionally come in mass onto this chl forum and, intentionally or not, to cultivate discord with those of us who follow the existing law as closely as we can to how it is actually written, to fail to have a discourse with those Pro CHL leaders who have helped achieve restoration of some of our rights per good laws for the chl community, and to be unwilling to negotiate reasonable points of view with us to help us understand how we might better help you without selling out the gains we have made.

I don't think there is any frequent visitor on this forum who will not banter back and forth to try to understand a point. We sometimes bicker like family, but we usually return to the dinner table to break bread.

There seems to be some bad blood from prior encounters, but I think if everyone could get past that and civilly debate what would be needed to gain organizational support from actual groups with lawmaking and lobby experience, then all might find a way to prosper together. I do think you will have to answer Charles questions to have any favorable chances to make headway on your goals via this forum.

Best of wishes for you;
I know you wish us the same.

[PATHFINDER]

The Denver case mentioned above was originally filed under Petersen v McCabe. It has been modified to Petersen v Martinez because the defendants seem want to keep trying to dodge the ball of responsibility. Details are "stickied" at the top of the Colorado forum at http://www.opencarryforum.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Reading the filing by Petersen, it appears that the remedy sought is to expand the Heller/McDonald decisions to strengthen the right to bear arms under the privileges & immunities clause of the 14A -as Justice Clarence Thomas had recommended in his McDonald concurring opinion. . A ruling that the right to bear arms in case of confrontation extends well beyond the home - only to be restricted by locations such as schools,court houses, and such like is being sought.

The result regarding Denver's ban on unlicensed open carry would be that since the State of Colorado itself does not require a permit/license in order for a person to open carry, the Denver law requiring a license to carry at all - denies Petersen the otherwise lawful exercise of his right to bear arms in defense of his person under the existing Colorado law that makes him ineligible to obtain a CO CHP, or benefit from CO reciprocity.

I think a successful decision in this case at the SCOTUS level would further apply the spot light of (2A) scrutiny on Texas 46.02(a) which also requires a somewhat arbitrary licensing eligibility criteria- regarding child support, student loan, state tax delinquency- in order to "wear" a handgun "IN CASE OF CONFRONTATION" at all- not just concealed. We'll see.

In response to the OP - Yes, at least one bill that would repeal 46.035(a) will be introduced in 2013.

[Keith B]

In response to the OP - Yes, at least one bill that would repeal 46.035(a) will be introduced in 2013.

Can you provide some validation on this?

[PATHFINDER]

In response to the OP - Yes, at least one bill that would repeal 46.035(a) will be introduced in 2013.

Can you provide some validation on this?

"Validation" ???

Texans are actively involved in preparing for the introduction of a bill to address Section 46.035(a) in some manner. Outright repeal would be warranted since that section of the Penal Code fails to define any offense against persons, appears to be a redundant echo of Section 42.01 (a,8) and actually serves to promote the practice of concealing deadly weapons which is the primary public safety concern expressed in Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution.

I'm sure that when the time is appropriate those Texans involved in this effort will get the word out. Stay tuned in.

[gigag04]

I love pointed terms like "constitutional carry"

While I'm pro 2A, I feel like its kind of like saying one believes in the Biblical view of womanhood or some other hotly debated issue. If one truly wants to use the constitution to defend Open Carry, than I hope they are as zealous about giving gun rights back to felons, or allowing drunk people to carry guns.

Most won't, because they are not felons or drunks...so why spend the time and effort to lobby for it.

However, this is the same situation as the OC community guilt tripping the concealed community to further the OC agenda. I don't work hard or contribute to OC because frankly, to me, I'm not going to do it, and don't see it as the greatest need at the moment for my time and resources.

[fickman]

I love pointed terms like "constitutional carry"

While I'm pro 2A, I feel like its kind of like saying one believes in the Biblical view of womanhood or some other hotly debated issue. If one truly wants to use the constitution to defend Open Carry, than I hope they are as zealous about giving gun rights back to felons, or allowing drunk people to carry guns.

Most won't, because they are not felons or drunks...so why spend the time and effort to lobby for it.

The Constitution allows us to deny people life, liberty, and property through due process of law (5th and 14th Amendment). Constitutional Carry would include the ability to ban felons from participation.

[speedsix]

...Texas had it right...once...

The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of
himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it
from the State government. It is one of the "high powers"
delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of
the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to
infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and
independent of the lawmaking power.

Texas Court Decision
Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

[Keith B]

In response to the OP - Yes, at least one bill that would repeal 46.035(a) will be introduced in 2013.

Can you provide some validation on this?

"Validation" ???

Texans are actively involved in preparing for the introduction of a bill to address Section 46.035(a) in some manner. Outright repeal would be warranted since that section of the Penal Code fails to define any offense against persons, appears to be a redundant echo of Section 42.01 (a,8) and actually serves to promote the practice of concealing deadly weapons which is the primary public safety concern expressed in Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution.

I'm sure that when the time is appropriate those Texans involved in this effort will get the word out. Stay tuned in.

Yeah, and still no validation as I thought. I really like the fact that you say that we should rally around the Open Carry movement and try to get on board, but you are secretive about who 'they' are so we won't know who to rally with.

[sugar land dave]

Yeah, and still no validation as I thought. I really like the fact that you say that we should rally around the Open Carry movement and try to get on board, but you are secretive about who 'they' are so we won't know who to rally with.

Which is why my earlier post suggested to the open carry visitors that they would have to answer questions. I just do not believe browbeating and threatening goes very far in the effort to enact legislation.

[AEA]

...Texas had it right...once...

The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of
himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it
from the State government. It is one of the "high powers"
delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of
the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to
infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and
independent of the lawmaking power.

Texas Court Decision
Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

WOW.....now if we could only get current lawmakers to restore that right completely and throw out all other infringements we would be doing great!

Oh,.....but blood would run in the streets!