TexasCHLforum.com

Although I have made comments about the futility of this approach to passing open-carry, I've tried to stay out of this legal discussion. However, I think it's time folks take a look at Tex. Penal Code §46.01 before claiming any and all pre-1899 firearms and replicas thereof do not come within the definition of "firearm."

Tex. Penal Code §46.01(3) wrote:(3) "Firearm" means any device designed, made, or adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by using the energy generated by an explosion or burning substance or any device readily convertible to that use. Firearm does not include a firearm that may have, as an integral part, a folding knife blade or other characteristics of weapons made illegal by this chapter and that is:

• (A) an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899; or
  
  (B) a replica of an antique or curio firearm manufactured before 1899, but only if the replica does not use rim fire or center fire ammunition.

A question, that to my knowledge has not been answered, arises as to whether the word "may" in the exception means the antique firearm must have either a knife or "other characteristic of weapons made illegal by . . ." the TPC in order to be excluded from the definition of "firearm." While "may" usually indicates "permissive" rather than "mandatory," the sentence taken as a whole does not support that connotation. An illegal knife, knuckles, etc. remain illegal without being defined as a "firearm," so the word "may" seems to have been improvidently used and could well be interpreted as mandatory by a court. Plus, subsections (A) and (B) are preceded with the word "and" which further indicates that they are dependent on the existence of the first element(s), i.e. a "folding knife, . . ."

So, it's not at all clear that the express language of the Code excludes all pre-1899 handguns from the definition of "firearm." It could well be that only those with folding knives, knuckles, etc. attached fall within the exception.

Chas.

SherwoodForest wrote:...... " I just wish those rabble rousing troublemakers wouldn't do that..... They keep this sort of thing up......next thing you know ...we won't even be allowed into Woolworth's or on them buses at all......."

I'm going to agree to disagree. Carry on..................

Trying to equate this event with the plight of blacks in the 1950's is a clear sign you cannot justify the in-your-face tactics being used on their own merit.

When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white person on the bus, there was no organized, effective campaign/organizations fighting to protect the civil rights of blacks. Rosa's defiant stand was the spark that ignited the civil rights movement for blacks.

That's not the case with open-carry. An open-carry bill has been filed in the last two sessions and during 2013, both NRA and TSRA supported it, even though it was not on either organization's political agenda for 2013. A factor that made their support possible was the greatly diminished bomb-throwing tactics that had been so widespread in 2009 and 2011.

Unfortunately, the same in-your-face tactics are once again being used and videos are being posted showing confrontations with law enforcement. This does not help pass open-carry. The general public is very supportive of concealed-carry, but they oppose open-carry. We change their minds by being consummate statesmen, not by intentionally provoking law enforcement to make an arrest, or forcing Wal-Mart Managers to ask people to leave the store with their "weapons." If a picture speaks a thousand words, a video speaks a million words. All the general public is seeing of open-carry are people being defiant and confrontational. In their minds they are thinking, "these are the very people who will be openly-carrying handguns, if it ever becomes legal and I don't want that to happen!"

I am absolutely convinced that there is a segment of society that value confrontation and their personal 15 minutes of fame above all else. Otherwise, they would attempt to change the law by using methods that have proven successful for decades, rather than resorting to those that always fail.

SherwoodForest, I'm sure you disagree so tell me precisely how the confrontation in Austin moved the open-carry cause forward.

Chas.

SherwoodForest wrote:Reality check. Those folks at the Capitol were engaged in a peaceful, and lawful assembly, and were violating NO TEXAS LAW.

The Travis County D.A.'s office did not like the message they were communicating plain & simple.

These people that were arrested Sunday were defending YOUR Texas Constitution.

They weren't defending anything; they were/are making passage of open-carry far more difficult. Even worse, they are emboldened by the praise they are getting from a very small minority of Texas gun owners, so they will continue to use these damaging tactics.

Chas.

K.Mooneyham wrote:IMHO, both sides handled this poorly. The protesters obviously wanted a confrontation; they used a method that guaranteed it, in fact. However, law enforcement played right into their hands, creating a scene that made the protesters' actions appear as civil disobedience. It would seem a more prudent course of action would have been to keep the protest contained and let them talk all they want; eventually they would get tired and leave.

You may well be right, but there is no political downside for law enforcement, while there is for the protesters. They lose, their cause loses, and the definition of "firearms" will very possibly be changed. That's the reality of the situation.

Chas.

These arrests were on KHOU Ch. 11 TV news last night and it was noted that they were given the opportunity to leave and refused. These tactics will not pass open-carry. They are more likely to result in the definition of "firearms" being amended to include all firearms, regardless of age, propellant or ignition system.

Chas.