tomdavis wrote:Thanks for the three points that describe the position of NRA/TSRA. What is the basic parameters of "constitutional carry" and why is it the ultimate goal? Likely when I know what it means the value will be obvious. Why is OC in a 30.06 area a step backward for us CHL's.
Sorry if those answers are somewhere as I did not find them.
I'll repeat what others have said, but say it this way......First, the text of the 2nd Amendment:
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.
Obviously, anything that sets a limit on the unrestrained carry (bearing) of any firearm constitutes an infringement.
We have accepted, and case law tends to support, the notion that "the
expression of your right to "A" ends where it infringes on the
expression of my right to "B"". So for instance, although we have a protected right to free speech, the expression of your right to freedom of speech stops at the point where it places my right to life in danger. For reasons like this, your freedom of speech does not permit you to foment a riot, or to shout "FIRE!" in a theater.....if there is no fire. On the other hand, if you shout "FIRE!" and there
IS a fire, then you may have saved some lives and have not violated another's right to life. Similarly, you have a Constitutional right to bear arms - which includes guns - but you don't have a right to use them in an irresponsible manner that will place another person's life in danger......unless you are actually defending yourself from that person. Hence municipal ordinances against the discharge of firearms within city limits. You have no right to shoot your gun into the air at midnight on New Years Eve, downtown in the middle of a crowd of people. You DO have a right to shoot that same gun at the same location on the same night to protect yourself from an assault.....although the consequences are on your shoulders if it's in the middle of a crowd and you hurt/kill someone else accidentally.
So, with Constitutional Carry, you have the right to carry a gun openly OR concealed (your preference is the only determiner) any place where it is lawful to carry a gun, for any person for whom it is legal to possess said gun. Thus, Constitutional Carry allows you to carry into both the HEB and your house of worship, but not into the town jail or in a courtroom.....provided that certain kinds of criminal convictions are not found on your record which would be disqualifiers to even owning, let alone carrying, a firearm. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says that nobody may be deprived a their rights
without due process. It is on this entirely constitutional basis that we may deprive convicted felons of the rights to vote, and to keep and bear arms. Among the penalties for conviction are loss of rights, and they have received due process before losing their rights.
The issue with 30.06 is easily understood. The very same principle which dictates that your rights stop where they interfere with mine, also dictates that businesses and other private not-owned-by-government entities/persons have a right to control their property as they see fit......
including the right to exclude your guns from their property. Since the penalties to you for violating the property owners' right to exclude you from carrying on his property are fairly significant (and used to be even worse, if I recall correctly), PC §30.06 was added to the code to standardize the signage requirements. The pro-CHL majority passed it in such a way as to make it a "big ugly sign" with very specific requirements, which would have the tendency to deter some people from posting one in the first place, and which would make it invalid if not 100% compliant with the legal requirements.
Historically, 30.06 signs are not all that prevalent. There is a REASON for this, and that is that as long as your gun is out of sight, it is out of the other person's mind. PC §30.06 is the perfect illustration of the out of sight = out of mind principle. At first, the only people who tended to post them were those who cared enough about gun control to do the research and/or consult attorneys to find a way to ban firearms from their facilities. Those people were/are internally motivated, and the visibility of your gun, or lack thereof, made no difference. Others posted because an incident occurred at their place of business, or because their insurance company told them to. But the vast majority of businesses are not posted, simply because of the "out of sight = out of mind" principle.
However — and this is where a lot of OTC folks simply fail big time at the "in touch with reality" test — an openly carried firearm is a provocation to many people. Now, it isn't an ACTUAL provocation, as in an intentional act of provocation, but it
still has a provocative effect on both fence sitters and "antis" who might not otherwise be
thinking about your guns, because they simply aren't on the radar. Monkeys in a tree are still agitated by the sight of a lion, even if the lion can't reach them. The lion isn't trying to provoke, but its
presence is provocative. THAT is what OC does. Openly carrying guns places them on the radar, and what OTC folks don't seem to understand, and in fact categorically deny, is that these people who are bothered by openly carried firearms WILL seek refuge in whatever signage relief the law provides, the same way that the monkeys in the tree will still jump up and down and pelt the lion with twigs and branches; and they WILL post signs to exclude Open Carry. They simply WILL, and when OCT folks deny it, they are out of touch with human nature, and they are in denial of reality. I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone else's denial of reality cause a setback to my rights if I can help it, and OCT's record to date is that they ARE in denial, and that DOES affect me.
Therefore, if PC §30.06 includes OC, then when fence-sitters and antis are "provoked" into posting signs to exclude OC, they are ALSO (although they may not even realize it) excluding me with CC. Why? Because I am a law-abiding citizen and will not carry my concealed weapon into a place with a compliant 30.06 sign.
THAT is why it is absolutely crucial that, whether an Open Carry bill provides for Constitutional
or Licensed Carry, it absolutely MUST NOT include OC under PC §30.06, and why—if it
must address signage, then it
must specify OC signage under a separate part of the code........call it PC §30.0
7 for purposes of discussion.......so that if a business owner wanted to exclude both concealed and open carry on his property, he would have to post TWO "big ugly signs", and they would BOTH have to be compliant signs.
This is the part that OCT does not seem to get — and that's being generous to them — because, if they DO get it, then the implication is that their official policy is that if
they cannot OC into a building, then neither should someone be able to CC into that same building....... a classic case of "if I can't have it, then no-one can."
And the galling thing about it is that their response to this FACT is to either LIE about it, or to call anyone who calls them on the inconsistency "anti-gun".....which is the refuge of intellectual midgets and the morally compromised.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
I tend to believe that one people start seeing guns that are against them, will try to begin posting 30.06. Out of sight and out of mind with CHL, but OC is open for everybody to see, and some may find they dislike guns in their stores and such. Not saying this would happen, but there is always the possibility. This needs to be addressed carefully.
