open carry and chl limitation

[srothstein]

There are a lot of people out there that I personally would not like to see carrying guns. But, a long time ago, I learned that the only way to protect my rights is to protect the rights of others.

So, since I want to carry weapons anytime I want (with the exception that I do support private property rights), and I want to buy a lot of different weapons that some other people don't like, I support the right of all people to keep and carry any firearms they want.

I also read the Second Amendment to be worded more strongly than any other amendment in the Bill of Rights. It is the only amendment that says it shall not be infringed. Others say that there shall be no law made, or similar less strict wording. And the laws requiring the CHL or training clearly infringe on the right.

So, as a philosophy, I am a believer that any law that requires anything in order to carry is an unconstitutional, and therefore wrong, law.

As a practical matter, I recognize some limitations right now, but this thread was asking about philosophy.

[nitrogen]

I don't believe a CHL should be required for anyone to be able to carry concealed or openly.

This, but I'd support limitations like those in effect for CHL's today w/o a "license" of some kind.

I think those limitations should disappear if you have a CHL though.

[nils]

....exactly

[stevie_d_64]

I look at it this way...

It has been said that the new administration is going to be very active in restricting, infringing and just downright removing our right to keep and bear arms...

Now if they are successful in their intent to remove our ability to carry concealed, then we should be able to carry openly...I am sure the folks that are not onboard with open carry, would carry in that manner if we lose the concealed issue...

Oops, but wait...We are in a state that regulates the carrying of weapons...And open carry is illegal...

Dirnit...

Pick yer poison folks...

[Morgan]

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean "pick your position, folks."

Personally.... I'm for open carry. I'm for concealed carry. I believe that the restrictions on buying firearms should be the same as the restrictions on carrying them. If you're law abiding enough to purchase and own a gun, you should be able to carry it on your person concealed or not.

And if you're doing so and you commit a crime, they should nail your hide to a tree. Carrying a gun while committing a crime should be an incredible additional penalty, AND those sentences should not EVER be allowed to run concurrently. So if you get 5-10 for the rape or robbery, you get an additional 5-10 for having a gun while doing it, and that clock starts after the first sentence is done....just an example.

[Liberty]

And if you're doing so and you commit a crime, they should nail your hide to a tree. Carrying a gun while committing a crime should be an incredible additional penalty, AND those sentences should not EVER be allowed to run concurrently. So if you get 5-10 for the rape or robbery, you get an additional 5-10 for having a gun while doing it, and that clock starts after the first sentence is done....just an example.

OK, but ....
How about while speeding, or jaywalking?

Or tax evasion, being evasive to the Feds or smoking illegal plants. Some of these are felonys

[shootthesheet]

Punish the guilty and let the majority of law abiding citizens alone to exercise or not exercise their civil rights as they please.

[YellowTJ]

I'd prefer if CHLers would have a little more "training" be it in the actual class that is already being enforced. I was unhappy with the way we wasted so much time in class doing nothing when time could have been better used. Now some instructors I'm sure are doing this so... maybe more requirements on instructors or what has to be in the class would help. I'd also not be opposed to showing up more often than every 5 years to re-qualify. I like having peace of mind if I meet another CHLer that I know this guy hasn't been in trouble with the law, and it'd also be nice to know for example he gets out to the range at least once a year. If they could somehow have you submit a range ticket once a year I'd be for that. I think all people especially those carrying them daily should be sure and get range time. Some of us do, and I bet most of us who care enough to of sought out a online group are pretty into our guns and make sure we do get range time, but we probably also know someone who doesn't.

This said I totally get the guys who think even having to get a CHL is absurd. It is a right to have a gun so why must we go the extra step and pay money and prove we're good enough to use that right. I've thought it over and I've just come to think of it like this... that CHL is my paperwork to say... "hey cop I'm a good guy, I have a gun but please don't treat me like the street thug carrying" I think the CHL gives trackable stats that normal citizens can carry guns daily and not use them to break laws or harm others. I find it more like I'm paying for TX to keep records of us good gun carrying citizens and how keeping us around is a positive thing.

As far as open carry... I'd say sure why not, it might not be for me, but if the guy next door wants to I see no harm in it. As long as I can still conceal mine then having others open carry as well might just mix it up enough that bad guys won't know or can see they'll have trouble and just move a long.

[Morgan]

And if you're doing so and you commit a crime, they should nail your hide to a tree. Carrying a gun while committing a crime should be an incredible additional penalty, AND those sentences should not EVER be allowed to run concurrently. So if you get 5-10 for the rape or robbery, you get an additional 5-10 for having a gun while doing it, and that clock starts after the first sentence is done....just an example.

OK, but ....
How about while speeding, or jaywalking?

Or tax evasion, being evasive to the Feds or smoking illegal plants. Some of these are felonys

I prefer the reasonable man criteria be applied here. Speeding? Not a problem. Don't stop and evade the police while you have a gun? Bad deal. Tax evasion? No, it's white collar. The gun won't help you. Being evasive to the feds? What's THAT? If the gun helps you or endangers the public in the illegal endeavor, it should go worse for the criminal. There shouldn't BE any illegal plants. That's another discussion entirely.

[Morgan]

For those who are for regulation, let me ask you a question from the other direction... If someone is of such character that they not be allowed to carry a gun in public, why should they be allowed to own it in the first place? Because if they're of such a character that they can't be trusted to carry, then what's to stop them from doing so, when they have it because they can buy it? Wouldn't it be BETTER to have restrictions in place on ownership so those who's character is so in question that they not be allowed to own, and let anyone who can own them carry them? Then if you have someone who's on the "no guns list" the onus is on them to demonstrate why they should be an exception to the rule, and be allowed to own a gun for home defense, and prove they won't take it in public?

[Excaliber]

There are a lot of people out there that I personally would not like to see carrying guns. But, a long time ago, I learned that the only way to protect my rights is to protect the rights of others.

So, since I want to carry weapons anytime I want (with the exception that I do support private property rights), and I want to buy a lot of different weapons that some other people don't like, I support the right of all people to keep and carry any firearms they want.

I also read the Second Amendment to be worded more strongly than any other amendment in the Bill of Rights. It is the only amendment that says it shall not be infringed. Others say that there shall be no law made, or similar less strict wording. And the laws requiring the CHL or training clearly infringe on the right.

So, as a philosophy, I am a believer that any law that requires anything in order to carry is an unconstitutional, and therefore wrong, law.

As a practical matter, I recognize some limitations right now, but this thread was asking about philosophy.

The founding fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment in plain English, despite the wildly implausible far left protestations to the contrary, and they meant it to say exactly what it plainly does say - that any citizen has an unrestricted right to keep and carry (bear) arms, especially including those designed for military use as well as all others.

Their other contemporary writings clearly show that they wrote it this way not to protect duck hunting or concealed carry, but to protect liberty by making certain the government never had a monopoly on force, which they knew from history was the prelude to abuse of power and tyranny. An armed citizenry is the only real deterrent to corrupt leadership.

If liberty is to be preserved, our citizens need to hold our elected representatives strictly accountable for adhering to their oaths to uphold the Constitution,not only with regards to the 2nd Amendment, but all the others as well, and to remove those who fail to do so from office as expeditiously as possible by either election or impeachment.

There's certainly no shortage of corrupt and power hungry people salivating at the opportunities they see to write away our freedoms with unconstitutional laws. If we as a country do not hold liberty sacred and fail to demand Constitutionally lawful conduct from our elected representatives, corrupt rulers elected will seize the opportunity to wipe away our freedoms and enslave our citizens as we stand idly by.

I do disagree with Steve on one point. From a philosophical perspective, I cannot defend the restriction of Constitutionally guaranteed rights by any entity that invites members of the public onto their premises, or that employs others to perform work on their property. The founding fathers believed that these rights are not granted by the state, but are given to all men by God. As such, I don't see any logic to the position that such rights can be nullified by a business entity.

[KBCraig]

Punish the guilty and let the majority of law abiding citizens alone to exercise or not exercise their civil rights as they please.

Punish "the guilty" of what? Have you considered how many laws we all break on a regular basis?

Not a single one of us is a "law abiding citizen", because every single one of us breaks some law, at least once day. 36 mph in a 35 mph zone? Class C misdemeanor! Failed to come to a complete (ONE thousand, TWO thousand) stop at a stop sign? Ditto!

Does your 16 year old know where your loaded guns are? Guilty!

There are so many laws that we all break ever day, that I really don't need to go on. We tend to dismiss those laws we think of as "silly", but they are still the law. Do we really want to vigorously enforce them? I hope not!

Kevin

[45ACP]

I'd much prefer being free to carry openly or concealed without restriction.

[Liberty]

Punish the guilty and let the majority of law abiding citizens alone to exercise or not exercise their civil rights as they please.

Punish "the guilty" of what? Have you considered how many laws we all break on a regular basis?

Not a single one of us is a "law abiding citizen", because every single one of us breaks some law, at least once day. 36 mph in a 35 mph zone? Class C misdemeanor! Failed to come to a complete (ONE thousand, TWO thousand) stop at a stop sign? Ditto!

Does your 16 year old know where your loaded guns are? Guilty!

There are so many laws that we all break ever day, that I really don't need to go on. We tend to dismiss those laws we think of as "silly", but they are still the law. Do we really want to vigorously enforce them? I hope not!

Kevin

Which is one of the dangers we have with the Motorist protection act. If we break the law we expose ours to Unlawful Carry of a handgun . While most traffic laws are exempt, minor infractions like littering could get someone in a whole lot of rrouble.

[usurp31]

I am for open carry but probably wouldn't carry openly; also I don't feel we should have to get a license to carry concealed; my .02.