History: How Texans Lost the Right to Bear Handguns

[Paladin]

This article was recently reprinted by the TSRA. Great read!

How Texans Lost the Right to Bear Handguns

[Rafe]

Very good read, quick and to the point. Thanks!

And now we know why some Dems feel differently than some of us about the RKBA. They get their information from old TV shows like Gunsmoke.

[crazy2medic]

What would be required for a Republican Senate and House to Amend the Texas Constitution back to it's original second amendment wording

[Flightmare]

What would be required for a Republican Senate and House to Amend the Texas Constitution back to it's original second amendment wording

In order to change the state constitution, it requires 2/3 vote in both chambers, and then a popular vote of the general voting public. Do you believe that 17 democrats will side with all 83 republicans in the house, and that 3 democrat senators will side with the 18 republicans? It wasn't that wide of a margin to pass HB 1927. The odds are about as likely as a snowball's chance in Hades.

[Papa_Tiger]

What would be required for a Republican Senate and House to Amend the Texas Constitution back to it's original second amendment wording

In order to change the state constitution, it requires 2/3 vote in both chambers, and then a popular vote of the general voting public. Do you believe that 17 democrats will side with all 83 republicans in the house, and that 3 democrat senators will side with the 18 republicans? It wasn't that wide of a margin to pass HB 1927. The odds are about as likely as a snowball's chance in Hades.

The Texas Constitution specifically states that, "the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime." If it did not say this, then there are MANY county/city governments that would make an argument that they have the right to regulate the wearing of arms with the very loose definition "to prevent crime". With the way the Texas constitution is written, this power resides SOLELY with the legislature.

[MadMonkey]

That was a great overview. I gotta brush up more on my Texas history.

[The Annoyed Man]

What would be required for a Republican Senate and House to Amend the Texas Constitution back to it's original second amendment wording

In order to change the state constitution, it requires 2/3 vote in both chambers, and then a popular vote of the general voting public. Do you believe that 17 democrats will side with all 83 republicans in the house, and that 3 democrat senators will side with the 18 republicans? It wasn't that wide of a margin to pass HB 1927. The odds are about as likely as a snowball's chance in Hades.

The Texas Constitution specifically states that, "the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime." If it did not say this, then there are MANY county/city governments that would make an argument that they have the right to regulate the wearing of arms with the very loose definition "to prevent crime". With the way the Texas constitution is written, this power resides SOLELY with the legislature.

The problem with that interpretation is that the original text established the right as absolute, and gave neither the state nor local gov'ts the authority to infringe on it. That’s how it should be, and anything less is unacceptable. The current text may protect the right from local ordinances, but it also gives the state the authority to infringe it. That should not be.

[Papa_Tiger]

What would be required for a Republican Senate and House to Amend the Texas Constitution back to it's original second amendment wording

In order to change the state constitution, it requires 2/3 vote in both chambers, and then a popular vote of the general voting public. Do you believe that 17 democrats will side with all 83 republicans in the house, and that 3 democrat senators will side with the 18 republicans? It wasn't that wide of a margin to pass HB 1927. The odds are about as likely as a snowball's chance in Hades.

The Texas Constitution specifically states that, "the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime." If it did not say this, then there are MANY county/city governments that would make an argument that they have the right to regulate the wearing of arms with the very loose definition "to prevent crime". With the way the Texas constitution is written, this power resides SOLELY with the legislature.

The problem with that interpretation is that the original text established the right as absolute, and gave neither the state nor local gov'ts the authority to infringe on it. That’s how it should be, and anything less is unacceptable. The current text may protect the right from local ordinances, but it also gives the state the authority to infringe it. That should not be.

How has the absolute, personal right enshrined in original text of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution been infringed by all three branches of government?

At the very least, the Texas Constitution limits the damage that can be done to one branch that meets 140 days every other year.

[The Annoyed Man]

What would be required for a Republican Senate and House to Amend the Texas Constitution back to it's original second amendment wording

In order to change the state constitution, it requires 2/3 vote in both chambers, and then a popular vote of the general voting public. Do you believe that 17 democrats will side with all 83 republicans in the house, and that 3 democrat senators will side with the 18 republicans? It wasn't that wide of a margin to pass HB 1927. The odds are about as likely as a snowball's chance in Hades.

The Texas Constitution specifically states that, "the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime." If it did not say this, then there are MANY county/city governments that would make an argument that they have the right to regulate the wearing of arms with the very loose definition "to prevent crime". With the way the Texas constitution is written, this power resides SOLELY with the legislature.

The problem with that interpretation is that the original text established the right as absolute, and gave neither the state nor local gov'ts the authority to infringe on it. That’s how it should be, and anything less is unacceptable. The current text may protect the right from local ordinances, but it also gives the state the authority to infringe it. That should not be.

How has the absolute, personal right enshrined in original text of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution been infringed by all three branches of government?

At the very least, the Texas Constitution limits the damage that can be done to one branch that meets 140 days every other year.

Ok, I see your point, but consider this……

In the face of federal infringements, we at least still have the original text of the 2nd Amendment, which makes it obvious to the intellectually HONESTthat the gun-grabbers' fascist laws are infringements—at either the federal, state, or local levels. That hasn’t stopped them from behaving unconstitutionally, but their disdain for liberty and our natural rights is obvious and easy to point o—whether or not they have a political majority.

But it seems to me that, with the current wording of the Texas Constitution, whoever has the political majority in Texas has the power to trample our natural rights because the state constitution gives them the authority to do so. In other words, it quite officially makes our gun rights subservient to whomever holds the political majority. We’ve been lucky in Texas since 1995. Things could have easily gone the other way if the Dems had retained power here.

At least that’s my take. I’d love to be proven wrong.