Texas Constitution and the Right to keep and bear arms.

[SIGnage]

I am sure this topic has been brought up before, but still, I would like to hear the opinions and interpretations of others on it.
As stated in the The Texas Contitution Article 1. Bill of Rights
Sec.23.RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall
have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of
himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law,
to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

The key words in question here are regulate and view, that and along with the use of the comma to seperate "the wearing of arms" , "with a view to prevent crime."

So if I interprate it to say that only open carry is to be regulated; meaning of the word view. Then why are we regulated by the state under the Texas D.P.S. Texas Regulatory Licensing Bereau to have a Concealed Handgun License. And shouldn't this license only be for open carry.

This brings up the question of the use of the comma. In my first interpretation, the more proper use of the comma would have been after the word view.

My second interpretation would be that the comma is used to seperate two different descriptors, which would cover both concealed and open carry. But if this being the case how are we to bear arms for defense of oursleves, property or state, if we cannot carry unless given permission by our legislatures. So this brings up the question; Where does "Every citizen shall have the right come in to play?

So I have to look at the definition of the word Bear. According to webster using the word bear as a verb, in this text, the most common definition is "to carry or possess arms." So if I apply this definition to the use of the word BEAR in Sec. 23, then my first interpretation is correct.

I would like to hear others thoughts on this. Just like in how the commas are used in the 2nd Amendment, proper punctuation could remove any doubts as to the proper meaning.
Or maybe I just need to go back to School.

[The Annoyed Man]

The phrase "with a view to prevent crime" translates as "with the intent of preventing crime."

Example usage: "With a view toward preserving the solvency of the federal government, we are going to do no more bailouts paid for by the American taxpayer."

Therefore, the correct interpretation of the wording would be, "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, for the purpose/intent of preventing crime."

[SIGnage]

The phrase "with a view to prevent crime" translates as "with the intent of preventing crime."

Example usage: "With a view toward preserving the solvency of the federal government, we are going to do no more bailouts paid for by the American taxpayer."

Therefore, the correct interpretation of the wording would be, "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, for the purpose/intent of preventing crime."

OK, this makes more sense. I guess I have to remember that it was written, or rather rewritten in 1876. Vigilanteism, and taking the law into you own hands, is against the law. By regulating, I take it that they are inferring to deputizing.
I would have read that a thousand times, and never would I have come to that conclusion. That is why this is such a great forum with a wealth ok knowledge from it's users.
Thanks Annoyed Man.

[KaiserB]

The phrase "with a view to prevent crime" translates as "with the intent of preventing crime."

Example usage: "With a view toward preserving the solvency of the federal government, we are going to do no more bailouts paid for by the American taxpayer."

Therefore, the correct interpretation of the wording would be, "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, for the purpose/intent of preventing crime."

OK, this makes more sense. I guess I have to remember that it was written, or rather rewritten in 1876. Vigilanteism, and taking the law into you own hands, is against the law. By regulating, I take it that they are inferring to deputizing.
I would have read that a thousand times, and never would I have come to that conclusion. That is why this is such a great forum with a wealth ok knowledge from it's users.
Thanks Annoyed Man.

If you every try to read US code it is the same deal. You have to use the grade school grammar rules you learned about sentence structure to decipher the meaning.

[seamusTX]

The use of commas and other punctuation in English prose has been very irregular over the centuries. You can't read much into it, though courts have done so. In the past, writers used commas where we would not these days.

Examination of the text of the Declaration of Independence illustrates this concept:
http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The important thing to note about the Texas Constitution's RKBA is that it recognizes our right to self-defense. The 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution doesn't so that.

- JIm