Texas Open Carry – Negative

[Conagher]

EDIT>>>ADD IN..I just read Kieth's response and I do agree that circumstances and location will dictate the reaction you get when toting around a rifle.

Hey, I agreed with Keith's response also! See, already we have common ground we can build on.

Thanks & Have a Nice Day!

Conagher

[03Lightningrocks]

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, as long as you submit to the government by providing fingerprints to the FBI for a background check, attend a training course, and pay a fee for a permission card.

Anygunanywhere

OK...what ever else is posted...that is funny.

And that attitude will keep OC illegal.

I would have to agree with you. It seems if anyone dares to question open carry, they are deemed anti RKBA. They have even decided to take the TSRA to task. Good night nurse....the TSRA has done more for CHL in Texas than any other group...and continues to do so.

[anygunanywhere]

And that attitude will keep OC illegal.

No, it will not.

If that statement were true, the states that currently allow OC without a permit would be scrambling to require it.

OC failed here because of the people pushing it did not know the right way to get it passed here in Texas. It never made it far enough to even discuss whether BC or permit would be required.

Attitude did have a lot to do with it, but it wasn't mine.

Anygunanywhere

[flintknapper]

And that attitude will keep OC illegal.

No, it will not.

If that statement were true, the states that currently allow OC without a permit would be scrambling to require it.

OC failed here because of the people pushing it did not know the right way to get it passed here in Texas. It never made it far enough to even discuss whether BC or permit would be required.

Attitude did have a lot to do with it, but it wasn't mine.

Anygunanywhere

+1

[Captain Matt]

>Frankly, I don't want to see it (your gun). It's an eyesore, and I don't need that in my face
>everywhere I turn. Honestly, I find it offensive.

sorry, I don't follow this. Do you mean the sight of a non-uniformed individual with gun is offensive?

Only the police and military should allowed to open carry a gun.

[waffenmacht]

I will keep my reply very simple. I believe law-abiding citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. Whether concealed or not... That should be a personal choice, not a government requirement. I have yet to see other states that allow OC be referred to as "The Wild West".

[ghostrider]

>Only the police and military should allowed to open carry a gun.

why?
under what circumstances?
Texas is not an open carry state, but open carry is legal on your own property, is that bad too?
Its perfectly legal to open carry at a gun range or while hunting, do you wish to continue to exempt those examples?

I'm just trying to understand the details of this statement.
thanks.

[baseballguy2001]

I have tried to tell the guys over there at OC.org the incremental approach is the way to go and promptly got nowhere. I believe if you have a CHL you should have a choice. Unlicensed open carry is a non-starter. It seems to me some of those guys are out of state types that haven't read the Texas Constitution.

[Abraham]

New laws ultimately come about regarding things that potentially cause harm or public outcry. Most reasonable people see the common sense of this.

Imagine folks decrying the meddlesome requirements in order to legally drive a car.

Example: "It's outrageous that the powers that be interfere with the rights of the citizenry with their burdensome laws - every citizen, regardless of any requirement, should be able to drive a car without restrictions of any kind"

Yeah, sure...that makes sense.

Common sense laws pertaining to O.C. are prudent.

[Liberty]

New laws ultimately come about regarding things that potentially cause harm or public outcry. Most reasonable people see the common sense of this.

Imagine folks decrying the meddlesome requirements in order to legally drive a car.

Example: "It's outrageous that the powers that be interfere with the rights of the citizenry with their burdensome laws - every citizen, regardless of any requirement, should be able to drive a car without restrictions of any kind"

Yeah, sure...that makes sense.

Common sense laws pertaining to O.C. are prudent.

I kinda hate getting involved in this old arguement. But our Constitutution doesn't promises us the the right to drive cars.

[srothstein]

New laws ultimately come about regarding things that potentially cause harm or public outcry. Most reasonable people see the common sense of this.

Imagine folks decrying the meddlesome requirements in order to legally drive a car.

Example: "It's outrageous that the powers that be interfere with the rights of the citizenry with their burdensome laws - every citizen, regardless of any requirement, should be able to drive a car without restrictions of any kind"

Yeah, sure...that makes sense.

Common sense laws pertaining to O.C. are prudent.

Actually, it does make sense. Given that the current law uses drivers licenses as a revenue stream and no longer requires any type of driving test for most beginners, there is not much sense to the requirements.

And anyone can drive some vehicles on the street, such as a farm tractor, even if their license is suspended or they never had one. And there is a legal theory that says anyone can drive a car on the street if it is not a limited access highway. It is an equal protection and equal rights issue. If I can legally ride a horse there, how can you restrict my right to drive a car there?

I kinda hate getting involved in this old arguement. But our Constitution doesn't promises us the the right to drive cars.

While I understand what your point is, the true question is where does the Constitution delegate the authority to restrict our driving or our firearms to the government. I now, after many years of watching the debates current debates, understand why some of the founders argued against a bill of rights. Without a bill of rights, instead of asking which rights are protected we would be asking what authority is being used. This would have slowed the growth of government tremendously.

[Trinitite]

New laws ultimately come about regarding things that potentially cause harm or public outcry. Most reasonable people see the common sense of this.

Since 9/11 you could probably find a lot of people worried about radical Islam. A license to exercise a First Amendment right is as "reasonable" as a license to exercise a Second Amendment right.

Are common sense laws pertaining to Islam prudent?

[Abraham]

srothstein,

"no longer requires any type of driving test for most beginners"

Yikes, this is news to me.

However, you're understanding of my overall point is appreciated.

I also appreciate strict constitutionalist concerns, but public anxiety regarding folks with visible shooting irons on their hips can't be ignored.

Weekly and sometimes more often, we read of someone blowing a gasket and blasting the general populace. I can't recall reading any of the pro-O.C. folks mentioning this rather common gun related contemporary aberration. Those that carry out this awful have to be considered in the O. C. equation, like it or not.

In the somewhat distant past, when folks most commonly O.C., I don't recall reading any history of bizarre mass murdering being done as an almost daily occurrence throughout the country. Did it? I don't think so. People weren't continuously flipping out and gunning others down because they lost their job, or didn't get served chicken McNuggets or listened to the voices in their heads.

Now, the public has become sensitized to this madness and want reassurance where it's somewhat possible...

With time, O.C. rights will be ironed out. Not withstanding the "I'll hold my breath until I get what I want" types.

[Liberty]

srothstein,

"no longer requires any type of driving test for most beginners"

Yikes, this is news to me.

However, you're understanding of my overall point is appreciated.

I also appreciate strict constitutionalist concerns, but public anxiety regarding folks with visible shooting irons on their hips can't be ignored.

Weekly and sometimes more often, we read of someone blowing a gasket and blasting the general populace. I can't recall reading any of the pro-O.C. folks mentioning this rather common gun related contemporary aberration. Those that carry out this awful have to be considered in the O. C. equation, like it or not.

In the somewhat distant past, when folks most commonly O.C., I don't recall reading any history of bizarre mass murdering being done as an almost daily occurrence throughout the country. Did it? I don't think so. People weren't continuously flipping out and gunning others down because they lost their job, or didn't get served chicken McNuggets or listened to the voices in their heads.

Now, the public has become sensitized to this madness and want reassurance where it's somewhat possible...

With time, O.C. rights will be ironed out. Not withstanding the "I'll hold my breath until I get what I want" types.

It doesn't seem to be a new thing to me .. Peoplke have been killing people throughout history. Sometimes its organised folks like the weatherman, There is nothing new about being a fruit cake. Maybe simply because there is more of us it happens more often. More people more nuts, Personally I think its 24 hour news that gives us these impressions.

[HGWC]

I also appreciate strict constitutionalist concerns, but public anxiety regarding folks with visible shooting irons on their hips can't be ignored.

Weekly and sometimes more often, we read of someone blowing a gasket and blasting the general populace. I can't recall reading any of the pro-O.C. folks mentioning this rather common gun related contemporary aberration. Those that carry out this awful have to be considered in the O. C. equation, like it or not.

In the somewhat distant past, when folks most commonly O.C., I don't recall reading any history of bizarre mass murdering being done as an almost daily occurrence throughout the country. Did it? I don't think so. People weren't continuously flipping out and gunning others down because they lost their job, or didn't get served chicken McNuggets or listened to the voices in their heads.

Now, the public has become sensitized to this madness and want reassurance where it's somewhat possible...

With time, O.C. rights will be ironed out. Not withstanding the "I'll hold my breath until I get what I want" types.

Let's not forget that it's not just "going postal" gun crime that the public is being sensitized to. I believe in Pearland TX just this year, there has already been four armed home invasions. A woman was kidnapped in a car jacking and is still missing. Just today, there was an armed car jacking in an affluent gated community just blocks from an elementary school. All students from the elementary were relocated to another school. All parents in the school district have been personally contacted about the event by the school district. Parents with children in three elementary schools must make arrangements to personally pick up their kids from school. A junior high and high school were put in lock down for the day. In this community of 100,000+, I would bet that families are discussing guns as a solution more often than as the problem.

For example, I live just a few blocks from this car jacking. The news of these home invasions is well known within the community. My wife is a school teacher, and there is a group of teachers who are all talking frankly about arming themselves. One of the teachers is the wife of a police officer. Through his wife, he is having an influence. My wife is already agreed that carrying a gun is something she's now ready to consider. When I get home today, I suspect we're going to be having that conversation again. I suspect this is a conversation running rampant throughout the community.