TexasCHLforum.com

speedsix wrote:"...I understand that you see it that way, but that does not make me incorrect. Historically, governments of all types and locales have *not* granted these rights to their citizens. In fact, the previous government denied many of these rights to its citizens. Regardless of why the rights are being protected or where their foundation lies, they are still "granted" by the government. *Any* right that the citizens have under a government is *by definition* granted. I know you disagree, but please do not be so rude as to call me "absolutely incorrect" because I believe differently from you...."this quoted from above post...

...the right to protect myself and my family by owning and bearing weapons was NOT granted to me by our government...rather, it is a common right of man...and, if you rightly understand OUR history...you'll realize that it appears in the bill of rights not as a grant to the people by the government...but as an ULTIMATUM by the PEOPLE TO the government that this right was not to be tampered with as other governments had and still do try to do...it's not a matter of your believing differently...it's a matter of what clearly happened in our history and your understanding that correctly...or not...

You are focusing too closely on a semantical disagreement that has little impact on the underlying premise. You say that they are rights of man, I say look at all the places where men do not have these rights. Of course I understand *why* they are there, but that is hardly the point. There is a simple fact - the bill of rights ensures that the government does not trample the rights contained within. Let's move past the chicken and egg discussion, it's not doing us any good.

Purplehood wrote:I have to dispute the following assertions:

djjoshuad wrote:"It's about rights granted by the government to its citizens".

That is absolutely incorrect. The Bill of Rights are about "inalienable" rights that the government cannot rescind, and by no means are "granted" by the government to its citizens.

I understand that you see it that way, but that does not make me incorrect. Historically, governments of all types and locales have *not* granted these rights to their citizens. In fact, the previous government denied many of these rights to its citizens. Regardless of why the rights are being protected or where their foundation lies, they are still "granted" by the government. *Any* right that the citizens have under a government is *by definition* granted. I know you disagree, but please do not be so rude as to call me "absolutely incorrect" because I believe differently from you.

Purplehood wrote:

djjoshuad wrote:"The 2A even uses the term "well regulated"..."

Well-regulated is used specifically in regards to the forming of State Militias and is NOT related to the latter half of the sentence to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

really? how do you defend that stance? The first half of that sentence cannot stand on its own and be anywhere near grammatically correct. Therefore, the sentence *must* be taken as a whole. As I wrote above, I interpret that to mean that the right to keep and bear arms is directly related to the first half of the sentence, not a separate one. After all, the framers could have separated them if they wanted to... but they did not.

Purplehood wrote:Violence has not changed since those days.

Once again, I disagree. Violence has not only changed, it has changed *drastically*. There are still embattled parts of inner cities in which it does take place with the same regularity, but that environment was the norm in 1776, not the exception. We had just finished fighting an 8-year-long WAR that *literally* happened in our backyards. Local law enforcement was almost non-existent, and vigilante justice was often the only type available. I'm not suggesting that we should not be armed, but the general climate in regards to violence is *nowhere near* the same.

first, thanks everyone for remaining civil. It makes discussion of an obviously hot topic much easier and ensures that opinions on the issue are heard, not just blasting a one another unnecessarily. Kudos for that accomplishment, it's not always an easy thing to do :)

To the subject of enumerating natural laws - I agree, to an extent. I agree that the framers viewed these rights as things that should just be. I also agree that the culture of the times was a religious one, however I do not believe that religion begets morality. I feel that a person is moral or immoral, good or bad, based one their character not their religion. It is purely coincidental that they were religious. There is a wealth of examples that support what I'm saying there... no need to quote them here, they're so easy to find. I believe that the framers had pure intentions and motivation in their enumeration of these rights. That said, I still believe that they were put to paper for a good reason. The framers wanted to ensure that these values carried on in their new union. They wanted to ensure that their new government provided these rights to their citizens.

srothstein wrote:I hope you don't see this as a flame, but I broke out some points of yours that I disagreed with. Some are just clarifications and I think we might be disagreeing on the meanings of some terms. Others are basic philosophy questions that we may or may not ever come to agreement on. After all, reasonable men can disagree on basic philosophy and still respect each other and work together.

This is certainly not a flame. I applaud your civility :)

srothstein wrote:

djjoshuad wrote:I know that a lot of people believe that the word "unconditionally" is implied with each of the bill of rights. I don't know where that comes from.

I agree with you for almost all of the amendments, but definitely not for the Second. When you read the other amendments, almost all of them have some wording limiting the right. Note that int he first, the amendment does not state that the rights are unlimited, and solely mentions Congress making no law. Int he Fourth, the right is against unreasonable searches and seizures, not all searches.

I would argue that the wording is poorly chosen, but we must respect it as it is written. I believe that if the authors' intentions were as you stated, they would have been at least a bit more verbose. There is, of course, no way to know for sure. We can infer intention based on other documents from the same authors, which do seem to support your theory. That said, I still refer back to the cultural differences between then and now. Disarming citizens was practically inconceivable to the people of that time, unless it was done with malice in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage. Consider the preceding wars and the general environment. In that context, I read this as prevention of tyranny (like Hoi Polloi said) in a time where the people had *very* recently been ruled by a tyrannical monarchy. It was a union of states that had just fought the bloodiest war of their lifetimes and declared independence from Britain. I believe that because of this, the intent of the 2A was to provide for regulated militias AND to keep citizens armed. I don't think it has any application to the public arena in today's society.

srothstein wrote:They were used to men carrying firearms and swords openly visible, so I cannot believe they intended to only allow concealed or just around your own property. As late as the reconstruction period, men who carried concealed weapons were generally looked down upon, while carrying openly was accepted as normal. That was also the period when men in the large cities started going unarmed and relying on police forces, so there might be some tie in to that point. Before then, there were no police forces and everyone carried when they felt it was needed.

This furthers what I was trying to say above. People of that time carried weapons all the time because it was absolutely necessary. Not being armed wasn't just a little risky, like it is today. Not being armed in that time meant certain vulnerability and likely harm to your person. A man carrying a weapon openly, walking down main street USA, was normal and no cause for alarm. Today is a much different society. A man doing the same thing today would cause great alarm - right or wrong, it's how society has evolved. At this point, it will take "corrective" action to get society to feel differently.

srothstein wrote:This is why I believe open carry can be called constitutional carry. But to be fair, we use the term constitutional carry to mean more than just OC, but the removal of the laws on requiring permits or any restrictions. Well, that is how I understand the term.

I did not mean to imply that OC = "constitutional carry". I hold that it means "unregulated" in this context. I think we have the same definition for it. I disagree, however, that unregulated carry is actually constitutional.

srothstein wrote:

Also, the constitution of the united states is not about enumerating rights granted by any particular god (the word "god" is not written once in the constitution). It's about rights granted by the government to its citizens.

This is really a philosophy of law question, and you are welcome to believe it. But if you hold that position, I would ask how you justify the 9th Amendment's protection of other rights not listed but retained by the people. To me, that implies that the list given is a guarantee of certain rights being respected, and not a granting of rights at all.

To me, the 9th amendment is as vague as any statement of law can get. I read it as "hey, just in case we missed somethin'..." I don't think that answers your question though. For that, I reaffirm what I said earlier - I believe it is an enumeration of moral rights that should be bestowed upon any human by any governing body. They put it to paper to ensure that their new union respected these core values and did not become tyrannical. I do not believe that religion has anything to do with it. Many of the framers were coincidentally religious, but the rights are human rights, not religious ones.

srothstein wrote:

The 2A even uses the term "well regulated"... unregulated open carry seems to go against the 2nd amendment, not with it. Calling unregulated carry "constitutional" is not only incorrect, I believe it is irresponsible.

In addition to my above answer on OC, I would point out that the well-regulated referred to the militia and not the carrying of firearms. A militia, or any military, must be well regulated in order to work. The Roman Legion proved this - a small disciplined (or well regulated) military group can defeat a much larger undisciplined mob.

I contend that the statement is a whole, not two parts. If you separate the first half from the second, it has no place in law - it is just a statement of opinion about hypothetical militias. The second half can stand on its own, but I don't think it was meant to. The "well regulated" part *does* refer to the militia, but the keeping and bearing of arms does as well. Therefore, so does the regulation in my opinion. Again, this is poorly worded at best... If the FF had any idea what debate this wording would cause for the centuries following their writing, they surely would have worded it differently :)

srothstein wrote:One of the things I have always loved about our Constitution, and admired in it, is the very vagueness which makes it so frustrating to apply sometimes. As you say, our world has changed tremendously since the Constitution was written, and we have really needed very few changes in it. Some were necessary to correct flaws (like allowing women to vote and counting all people equally) but most of the changes were not really necessary and could be seen as minor improvements (like the way we elect senators). There were a couple that were wrong to make (and one - prohibition - was later repealed as wrong).

So, I think the current Constitution needs very little changes to keep it working. The beauty of it is that we can apply the general concepts written into it for the new technology and situations and it will continue to work. For example, we applied the term "press" very liberally when radio and TV were invented and the protection guaranteeing freedom of the press apply to these unforeseen technologies also. As general attitudes change, we change the definitions of some of the other terms to keep the intent going, such as not executing minors because it might be cruel and unusual punishment.

my point was that the constitution has proven fallible. Many people put it on a pedestal and insist that (usually their interpretation of it) is perfect and not open to question or revision. I argue that this sentiment isn't true, as evidenced by 27 amendments. While I agree that many were minor and at least one was flat-out wrong, I believe the rest uphold my opinion.

srothstein wrote:But the one point where I strongly disagree with you is on what the Second was intended to protect. It was not intended to grant protection from raiders, or even local criminals. To me, those are side benefits of it. It was intended to protect the people's right to restructure the government when it became necessary. I see the primary purpose of the Second as being to allow every person the means to defend himself against a tyrannical government. And the mention of militias in the amendment is because we keep hoping that neighbors will protect each other. And yes, to me that certainly means that the worst infringements of our rights are assault weapons bans and the ban on any non-governmental militia that we currently have in Texas.

I'm not sure that you and I are going to find a lot of common ground on this point, however I do agree that a ban on non-governmental militia is in direct conflict with the 2nd amendment. In my opinion, most of the bill of rights is a "sins of our fathers" sort of thing - they wanted to ensure that life under the new union did not become what life was under the old monarchy. 2A strengthens that - the government should not be the only legally armed entity. I still stand by my previous assertions. The disarming of the public in 1776 (well, 1791 since we're talking bill of rights) would have meant certain death for that public. By the hands of raiders, animals, or other do-badders. There simply was not enough law enforcement to prevent it. I'm not suggesting that the FF thought "well, we will let them have guns until we get enough cops." I'm trying to suggest that the way of life for them was an openly armed way of life. There was no feasible or forseeable alternative. Today there is. It is no longer necessary for one to be armed in order to survive daily life. Threats do still exist, even ones that are outside the reasonable protection of local law enforcement. For that reason, I believe that citizens should arm themselves. But we also live in drastically closer quarters than we did back then. We have new drugs and abnormalities that did not exist or were not as prevalent back then. Your average citizen has access to others on a scale that would have stupefied any of the founding fathers. We have a lot more "idle hands" than ever before... regulation of firearms is paramount.

For the same reasons I support regulation of firearms, I support campus carry and the employer parking lot bills. I (cautiously) support open carry. I want the good guys to have guns. I know that the bad guys will get them, regardless of the laws, but I want to make it tougher for them, and for them to be more heavily punished when they do break the laws. Unregulated ownership and carrying of firearms threatens our ability to do that. But... I digress. This is about OC, not about gun control. BTW - go mavs :)

Heartland Patriot wrote:Can someone PLEASE find me the part of the Texas penal code that specifically states the word "printing"...I just don't remember reading it. BUT, since I'm not quite as young a fella as I used to be, maybe I missed it. This is the other one that irritates me like the word "brandishing"...maybe in whatever state someone else came from, but not in Texas. Mr. Cotton and some of the other fine folks here, including my CHL instructor, helped educate me. And I hope that others will become educated on this as well.

I took the following from Texas penal code...

(3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence
of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a
reasonable person.

Is there something else that I am missing? Let me know if there is...thanks.

I believe "printing" is just a one-word version of "openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person". It's not like "brandishing" which has a meaning other than what is in Texas law, IMO.

Dragonfighter wrote:

djjoshuad wrote:dead horses notwithstanding,<SNIP>

No flames here but I'll play.

The main principle of the constitution is the enumeration of God given rights, not the granting of them. We are blessed to have been founded on the recognition of God given rights, not the oppression of them.

States' rights are enumerated where the federal rights are limited but do not supersede the constitutionally enumerated rights of the individual.

The 2A is the enumeration of an individual right and does not limit the scope of weapon selection, capacity, caliber nor the when and where we may keep and bear arms. Therefore, except for rights being stripped by "due process of law" the states have no constitutional authority to limit what, when and where we bear arms for our defense.

The practical reality is, of course, they do as does the federal government but the constitutional authority does not exist for such limitations. So calling the unlicensed carry of weapons "constitutional carry", whether open or concealed, is legitimate.

I politely disagree. I know that a lot of people believe that the word "unconditionally" is implied with each of the bill of rights. I don't know where that comes from. Also, the constitution of the united states is not about enumerating rights granted by any particular god (the word "god" is not written once in the constitution). It's about rights granted by the government to its citizens. The 2A even uses the term "well regulated"... unregulated open carry seems to go against the 2nd amendment, not with it. Calling unregulated carry "constitutional" is not only incorrect, I believe it is irresponsible.

I also believe that the very extreme changes in American life over the past 235 years warrant qualifications to the original text. The founding fathers did start this ship down the right path, and obviously did a very good job of assessing what was necessary to form a new union in 1776. Today, we need different things... we are a technologically advanced society wherein your average citizen does not need to hunt to live, nor does he need to protect his homestead against roving bands of raiders. He does, however, need to be able to protect his family from smaller groups and individuals. We now have local law enforcement in nearly every corner of the country, and the nation's military is at most hours away, not weeks or months. Instead of needing multiple militias all over the nation to secure it, the defense needs of the individual citizen are basically limited to his home, his person, and his loved ones. The founding fathers never could have imagined today's America, and therefore could not have written amendments to properly govern it.

I'm not advocating the repeal of the 2A, far from it. I'm simply saying that it needs to be applied to today's society appropriately, not the society of 1776. This idea always meets with huge resistance, with good reason. It's a dangerous concept. If taken lightly, rights could be trampled. At the same time, it needs to make *sense*. We can't promote the idea that the constitution is infallible just because it's been around so long. It's been amended twenty-seven times, 10 of which were nearly immediate. At a minimum, states *should* be allowed to interpret the vague nature of the 2A. What's laughable to me is that the very same people who cry foul at the idea of interpreting 2A are interpreting it themselves. Calling unregulated carry "constitutional" or insisting that 2A somehow guarantees the right of every citizen to carry weapons in public... that's an interpretation of what is in the constitution. I interpret it differently.

I wouldn't dream of saying that I have the answer or know what is best for this country. I just can't wrap my brain around a concept that allows every citizen, regardless of their ability (or proclivity) to do so responsibly, to carry deadly weapons in public.

For anyone who doesn't recall the exact text of 2A, here ya go: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

dead horses notwithstanding, I do have opinions on this and wasn't around to contribute to the 20 other previous threads... so I'm saying my piece here. It's just my personal opnion and not one that I really want to argue about for pages and pages. I'm sure I'll get flamed and I'm sure that several people will either shout that I don't know what I'm talking about or try to convince me that their opinion is better than mine... but I'm not alone in these thoughts and I think it's worth saying.

I personally don't believe that the 2A should be interpreted to grant us the right to carry openly in public. Because of that, I don't believe that the term "constitutional carry" is valid. I know that some states allow unlicensed open carry, and that's the name commonly used for it... but I simply don't agree. I'm a proponent of State's Rights in this case - I think each state should be able to choose (as they are currently able to choose) who has the right to carry weapons in public. I also think that the state should be able to decide in what manner those weapons are allowed. I *do* believe that the 2A should be interpreted to allow unlicensed *ownership* of firearms and the ability to carry/use them in ones own home, and on one's own property (extending to any private property on which one should reasonably be allowed). Firearms are dangerous things, as we all know very well. When owned and used responsibly, they are invaluable. I believe that the current CHL requirements help ensure that the responsible among us have a viable mechanism for lawful carry, and helps make it harder for criminals to legally have weapons in public. That said, I think the current legal system is far too "trigger happy" with their felony and class A/B misd. convictions. I think people are made "examples" for good reason, but it too readily affects their ability to protect their loved ones... I have a good friend who is a convicted felon but never actually committed the crime. He was caught "attempting" to commit... but it was not a violent offense nor was it a repeat offense. He couldn't afford to fight it, so accepted a "deal" that put a big black mark on his record forever. It's not the gun laws that are at fault here, it's the system that put him in the wrong "bucket". Again, this is my interpretation and opinion.

I find the concept of Open Carry interesting as well. I tend to agree that it would result in more businesses posting 30.06 signs in a misguided attempt to make their location more "safe". I see benefits to it as well, mainly the ones already mentioned - Texas gets very hot in the summer, and keeping a weapon fully concealed isn't an easy task. I personally would almost always conceal, but I would like the ability to open carry on occasion. A good example would be this: I run sporting events regularly. At these events, I sell merchandise and handle prize money. I frequently do this from a temporary "headquarters" that consists of EZ-Up tents and Lifetime tables - not exactly easy to secure. I always carry when doing so, because I usually have at least $5k in cash on my person (also concealed), and always have at least $20k in retail value sitting on the tables (not concealed, obviously). In these situations I might prefer to have one pistol on my hip, to ward off any potential thieves. I'm a big man (former offensive lineman), standing 6'6" and 300 lbs, so most people who would want to rob me are going to arm themselves first anyway. I'd like to be able to "show" that I'm armed as well. For other scenarios I think I would always conceal my weapons.

I know full well that I'm opening myself up to flaming and other forms of hatred or at least strong disagreement. I'm not going to respond to that but I am willing to discuss if anyone would like to remain civil :). Once again, this is just my view on the subject. I'd also like to add that I'm very thankful that my state's laws allow me to own firearms and carry them in public. I'm very proud to be a native Texan.