TexasCHLforum.com

maximus2161 wrote:My question is how likely is the real possibility of Texas allowing open carry? And if something like that happened would Texas be either open carry only or concealed carry only?

Personally I would love the option to have both.

Allow me to answer a question with a question: How likely was it to have concealed carry over 15 years ago?

As for your second question, given the pension for politicians to overlook everything that might be good for us, I'm wary of their *allowing* OC at the expense of CC, and I wouldn't really support anything that got rid of CC for any reason.

BigBlueDodge wrote:

agbullet2k1 wrote:That is also why religious establishments which practice things some would consider horrible, like underage marriage, goat slaughter, ritual suicide, etc., are not impeeded, unless they trample on someone else's rights (I do not mean feelings).

So I'm unclear of your opinion. It seems as your response says that if a religion advocates 50 year old men marrying and having children with 11-12yr old girls, as long as it doesn't impede your rights, you support their right to practice those religious practices? Your answer didn't have a clear, agreement or disagreement.

I prefer to keep the worms in the can. That being said, I could point out at least one thing I personally cannot stand about every major religion (even some denominations of Christianity, of which I am one for disclosure sake). I definitely don't want to start a religious argument, so I'll leave it at that. PM me if you must know.

Darwood wrote:While I agree that those are some bad examples, a 50 year old man having children with 11-12 year old girls impedes on the girl's rights.

That was the point I was trying to make. You can be upset about a certain practice all you want, but unless it violates someone's rights, then it is protected by 1A. That's why I included the "unless..." part. An 11 year old is certainly being denied her rights by a 50 year old in that circumstance, and in that instance I believe it is legally justifiable and necessary to step in and take action. A goat has no human rights, and by suicide you are only violating your own rights (for the record, I still have a problem with it morally), so I feel less comfortable with gov't stepping in then, although I wouldn't necessarily try to protest it.

Also for the record, those last two examples were meant to be a bit sarcastic, sorry if it was taken differently. I do not advocate goat slaughter except for tasty food purposes, and I had Japanese honor suicides in mind with the last one, not the purple sheets UFO cults.

BigBlueDodge wrote:I have a hard time buy that if something is labeled a right, then the government has absolutely no control over the conditions of that right. The extremist view for 2nd amendment has no control over gun ownership, and it is completely within a individuals right to use a Barret .50 call gun to shoot an intruder breaking into his home. We shouldn't care that the round would also pass through the next 3-4 houses after it explodes my target. Your view is that the government cannot place restrictions on my 2nd ammendment, which I cannot buy.

Owning any gun you wish shouldn't be illegal, but killing your innocent neighbor through negligence has never been legal. A person's rights should not be infringed so long as those rights do not impede someone else's and are extended to everyone. That is why slander and libel are not protected free speech, but considered illegal (although civil, not criminal). That is also why religious establishments which practice things some would consider horrible, like underage marriage, goat slaughter, ritual suicide, etc., are not impeeded, unless they trample on someone else's rights (I do not mean feelings).

Therefore it should not be illegal for me to own a .50 if I wish (which I don't) since owning a gun hurts no one, but I will be held accountable if by using it I infringe on someone else's right to life.

MBGuy wrote:Personally, why I WOULD like to see open carry allowed is to remove the paranoia surrounding accidental flashing, or just when it's plain inconvenient to wear a cover. There are times when I've worn a belt holster under a suit coat, but then while waiting for the bus in 95 degree weather, it'd be nice to be able to take my coat off. Same goes for inside the bus when the AC isn't working. When getting in the car and having to look around to make sure no one sees you take your coat off or put it on when you've arrived.

I came here to say exactly that.

Heck, license wise, do as Tennessee. The license there is handgun carry, open or concealed, you pick.

My instructor in TN told us a few courts in the state had even ruled it was legal to just carry it around in your hand, as long as the barrel never pointed at anyone. Police will stop and hassle you, but you'll be on your way when your licence checks out. In TN, they also have badges that can worn next to the holster so that if it is accidentally shown, everyone thinks your a LEO anyway. The badges say CHP, which plays on the highway patrol acronym (concealed handgun permit), but even those are ruled legal because they do nothing other than correctly display the wearers certifications.

I think there is a lot of special factors that go into a person's carry preference. One thing that comes to mind is the big city/small town difference. In a small town, most everyone is likely to know you or about you, and seeing you with a revealed firearm won't shock them much. Try that in a big city where crime is high and no one knows you from a common thug, and you're going to get a bit more attention. Being on the big city side, I prefer to keep everything under wraps, but I would like to see the whole printing/paranoia stuff disappear.