TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:Get back on topic and drop the religious discussion

Do you honestly not get the Constitutional/historical context of our comments? If your point is that a discussion of the original intent of the Second Amendment is not germane the issue of open carry of long guns at restaurants, that point is well-taken, but nobody here is having a religious discussion.

Bladed wrote:

NavyVet1959 wrote:

Bladed wrote:You can make the case that the framers of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to be the only FEDERAL gun law, but they never intended for the Constitution to restrict state governments. I fully support the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, but we have to be careful about making inaccurate or misleading historical arguments.

Do you believe that the Constitution as originally intended by the Founding Fathers gives states the right to mandate or prohibit a particular religion?

Yes.

Here are a few excerpts from state constitutions:

Arkansas Constitution, Article 19, Section 1 of the 1874 Constitution:
"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court."

North Carolina's Constitution, Article 6, Section 8:
"Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God...."

Pennsylvania a Declaration of Rights, Article 1, Section 4:
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

South Carolina's Constitution, Article 4, Section 2:
"Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

Tennessee's Bill of Rights, Article 9, Section 2:
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."

Texas' Bill of Rights, Section 4:
"RELIGIOUS TESTS: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

NavyVet1959 wrote:

Bladed wrote:You can make the case that the framers of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to be the only FEDERAL gun law, but they never intended for the Constitution to restrict state governments. I fully support the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, but we have to be careful about making inaccurate or misleading historical arguments.

Do you believe that the Constitution as originally intended by the Founding Fathers gives states the right to mandate or prohibit a particular religion?

Yes.

NavyVet1959 wrote:

Bladed wrote:In any true compromise, both sides give a little, and both sides get a little. Rather than eschewing the word "compromise" altogether, we need to focus on ensuring that our get outweighs our give.

Our ultimate goal should be the re-establishment of the intentions of the Founding Fathers with respect to the 2nd Amendment being the ONLY gun "law" out there. We should be actively attempting a full repeal of the NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968 -- not that I have any particular desire to own fully automatic weapons, but it is the principle of the thing. Of course, the leftists will balk at that and suggest something else, but the point is that we need to put *them* on the defensive for a change. Instead of us trying to minimize the damage that they can do to us, we need to put them in that position. Each year, we should attempt a full repeal of the NFA of 1934 and GCA of 1968 and use that as a starting point to get back our rights. Eventually, we will have dug ourselves out of this hole that the leftists have put us in.

You can make the case that the framers of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to be the only FEDERAL gun law, but they never intended for the Constitution to restrict state governments. I fully support the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, but we have to be careful about making inaccurate or misleading historical arguments.

NavyVet1959 wrote:

Bladed wrote:Off the top of my head, here are a few compromises that constituted huge gains for gun owners.

1. Texas's CHL law: Twenty years ago, one side wanted citizen to be able to carry handguns for personal protection, and the other side wanted to maintain the status quo in which only trained, vetted, commissioned peace officers could carry handguns. The two sides compromised.

2. The federal safe passage law: The Hughes amendment not withstanding, the Firearm Owners Protection Act was a compromise between states that wanted local control over their firearms laws and gun owners who wanted to be able to travel with their guns without risking jail time.

3. Virtually every gun rights bill that has ever passed in Texas or any other state: Whether we're talking about the passage of PC 30.06 (a compromise between gun rights and property rights), negotiations over the parking lot bill (certain influential groups were granted limited exceptions in order to ensure passage of the bill), or changing "fails to conceal" to "intentionally displays" in 46.035(a) (it's not open carry, but it does address the issue of unintentional display), most gun rights wins involve some form of compromise.

In my humble opinion, one of the more pervasive threats to the gun rights movement is the all-or-nothing mentality promoted by some of the more fanatical factions of the movement (e.g., the open carry advocates who, in complete disregard for the realities of Texas politics, are antagonistic toward efforts to pass anything less than unlicensed open carry). It's rare to see a controversial bill pass without at least a few concessions, and nothing is gained by watching a perfect bill die.

Those "compromises" were our taking back some of the rights that we had lost from either previous compromises or just leftovers from the Yankee Imperialistic Occupation after the War of Northern Aggression. Even with them, we're not back to where we were with what the Founding Fathers intended. We need to put the leftists on the defensive for a change instead of just slowly giving up more and more of our 2nd Amendment guaranteed rights.

"The secret to successful negotiation is to ask for the world, but settle for New Jersey."

In any true compromise, both sides give a little, and both sides get a little. Rather than eschewing the word "compromise" altogether, we need to focus on ensuring that our get outweighs our give.

jmra wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

RetNavy wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:
1. Notify police before protests. 2. Ask for reservations at restaurants before OCing. 3. When holding a rally or a protest have large signs describing it as a Open carry rally, so that people see the signs before they see the guns.

All good points... I like #2 the best.... by letting a restaurant know that you are bringing in a large group (i.e. MONEY + tips) hopefully they will see what revenue they could receive instead of losing..

Can't think of many restaurants that would think this is a good idea.
Sorry but keep businesses out of it. It just makes everyone look stupid and is a direct feed to the MotherJones types.

Businesses aren't discriminating. The law is what you're protesting against so protest appropriately.

I truly have never seen an organization more involved in self destructing their cause than these individuals. They are complete morons totally disconnected from reality. What business would possibly want to be associated with these idiots.

In early April, when the Texas Senate Committee on Agriculture, Rural Affairs, and Homeland Security held its hearing on "removing barriers to Second Amendment rights," all available evidence suggested that open carry advocates had finally won the mainstream acceptance they sought. In the two months since then, they've done everything possible (short of killing a bystander with a negligent discharge) to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

NavyVet1959 wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:This is not a country where we get to tell people to shut it and sit down. This is a nation where dialog can will and must take place. If the 2nd amendment people do not come together in reasonable conversation then a house divided against itself will not stand. The anti's will win and we all lose.

As far as I'm concerned, *compromise* is what has gotten us into the sorry condition we are currently in. Every attempt at compromise has resulted in the leftists gaining ground and then using that as a point to further assault our 2nd Amendment guaranteed rights. The time for compromise is over. We need to put the leftists on the defensive. We need to take back ground.

Off the top of my head, here are a few compromises that constituted huge gains for gun owners.

1. Texas's CHL law: Twenty years ago, one side wanted citizen to be able to carry handguns for personal protection, and the other side wanted to maintain the status quo in which only trained, vetted, commissioned peace officers could carry handguns. The two sides compromised.

2. The federal safe passage law: The Hughes amendment not withstanding, the Firearm Owners Protection Act was a compromise between states that wanted local control over their firearms laws and gun owners who wanted to be able to travel with their guns without risking jail time.

3. Virtually every gun rights bill that has ever passed in Texas or any other state: Whether we're talking about the passage of PC 30.06 (a compromise between gun rights and property rights), negotiations over the parking lot bill (certain influential groups were granted limited exceptions in order to ensure passage of the bill), or changing "fails to conceal" to "intentionally displays" in 46.035(a) (it's not open carry, but it does address the issue of unintentional display), most gun rights wins involve some form of compromise.

In my humble opinion, one of the more pervasive threats to the gun rights movement is the all-or-nothing mentality promoted by some of the more fanatical factions of the movement (e.g., the open carry advocates who, in complete disregard for the realities of Texas politics, are antagonistic toward efforts to pass anything less than unlicensed open carry). It's rare to see a controversial bill pass without at least a few concessions, and nothing is gained by watching a perfect bill die.

Oldgringo wrote:

Chili's, which is owned by Brinker International, said Friday, "We kindly ask that guests refrain from openly carrying firearms into our restaurants and we will continue to follow state and local laws on this issue."

Sonic said,"We're asking that customers refrain from bringing guns onto our patios or into our indoor dining areas."

I have no problem with either of these quotes:

1. These merchants also have rights,
2. I don't want to sit around with a bunch of goons playing with symbols; and,
3. I frequent neither business.

Right now, it seems they're only interested in prohibiting open carry. As long as the Texas Legislature doesn't tie legalized open carry of handguns to PC 30.06, concealed carry probably won't be widely affected.

In my assessment, most business owners are going to do whatever generates the fewest complaints from customers. Concealed carry is out of sight and out of mind, so business owners aren't likely to get many complaints about it. However, they ARE likely to get complaints from CHL holders if they post 30.06 signs; therefore, few business owners post 30.06 signs.

Because open carry is much less subtle, business owners are much more likely to get complaints about it. If the only way they can prohibit open carry is by posting the 30.06 signs that simultaneously prohibit concealed carry, they'll weigh the cost of irritating half of the population (people who don't own guns) against the cost of irritating 2% of the population (CHL holders) and, in all likelihood, choose to post the signs.