If open carry passes...
- Thread starter KAK
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
What difference does it make? It's no body's business why anyone carries. The point I was trying to make that obviously fell flat, was that I think the fear of people "showing off" is a really lame reason to be against open carry.
Best I can tell from reading all the posts in this thread and others, is that we generally agree. Yet, for some reason when open carry is mentioned all we can seem to do is bicker and pick fights with each other. So will open carry pass? It sure the hell won't as long as we keep arguing with each other.
Arguing is debating.
The subject of showing off is two sided. People might want to open carry simply because they feel like the sight of the gun may help with deterring crime. Others might simply exercise thier right with no pun intended.
Open carry just to show off ? I see no reason why anyone would call it showing off. It simply exercising your right.
If showing off is the case, I want to show off the entire Constitution.
Only funny because it's true.
"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."
Like many of the rights granted in our Constitution/Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms MUST be viewed as a two sided coin. We have the right to free speech but yelling "FIRE" where there is none in a crowded theater is certainly criminal and dangerous and can't be legally justified. Similarly, turning citizens loose with deadly weapons without insuring some minimal training is also criminal. I don't believe that the government has the right to restrict any legal citizen from carrying any way they wish but do believe there should be some required training (and more meaningful than that now in place) that includes public and personal gun safety. The purpose of the training should not be to infringe on the right to carry (open or concealed) but to provide safety for the general public. Proficiently training shouldn't be part of this training. I don't really care if another individual is proficient as long as they don't shoot me by mistake. If you carry, your proficiency is your personal responsibility. As far as whether I would open carry if the law allowed, can't see where it makes any difference what I CHOOSE to do or why I choose to do it. I think perhaps open carry is a right not a requirement and if I choose not to open carry doesn't mean I think others should be restricted from doing so or me trying to ascribe a rationale for open carry. I don't care if someone else does or does not but I sure hate seeing the government restrict our 2nd Amendment rights in any way. The government is in the private citizen's knickers too much already across the board and we are the ones who pay for that mess in Washington.
Like many of the rights granted in our Constitution/Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms MUST be viewed as a two sided coin. We have the right to free speech but yelling "FIRE" where there is none in a crowded theater is certainly criminal and dangerous and can't be legally justified. Similarly, turning citizens loose with deadly weapons without insuring some minimal training is also criminal. I don't believe that the government has the right to restrict any legal citizen from carrying any way they wish but do believe there should be some required training (and more meaningful than that now in place) that includes public and personal gun safety. The purpose of the training should not be to infringe on the right to carry (open or concealed) but to provide safety for the general public. Proficiently training shouldn't be part of this training. I don't really care if another individual is proficient as long as they don't shoot me by mistake. If you carry, your proficiency is your personal responsibility. As far as whether I would open carry if the law allowed, can't see where it makes any difference what I CHOOSE to do or why I choose to do it. I think perhaps open carry is a right not a requirement and if I choose not to open carry doesn't mean I think others should be restricted from doing so or me trying to ascribe a rationale for open carry. I don't care if someone else does or does not but I sure hate seeing the government restrict our 2nd Amendment rights in any way. The government is in the private citizen's knickers too much already across the board and we are the ones who pay for that mess in Washington.
We all share the some rights no matter who we are. The only way those rights should be restricted is if a person abuses them. The government requiring training for a person to exercise their rights is not acceptable.
People should make choices for themselves and accept the responsibilty for their actions.
Training, if people need training they have plenty of places to get it. Like anything we do were all liable for our own negligence. The state charging for the right to carry arms is an infringemnet. Nobody should be charged for their Constitutional Rights.
States such as Pennsylvania and Indiana have Concealed Carry License requirments. The license in those states is cheap. Take Indiana for example, Application for Handgun License this is all you have to do!!!!!
Their License does not require class training, and it only cost $40 for a 5 year permit. Their life permit only cost $125... I have spoken to the DPS in Indiana and they were most helpful by explaining they Have No Negative Issues with their requirements.
Indiana is 1/3 the size of Texas and has over 300,000 citizens with license. Texas has a little over 400,000.
The license in Indiana requires a background check based on Criminal History and nothing more!
Texas accepts Indiana hangun license, but requires more of its own citizens to get a license!
Your basic premise is flawed. The Founders themselves stated that no document, the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta - none of them granted a human being these rights. The rights that are defined and protected in the Bill of Rights are yours from birth. They are the most basic and most important of human rights. So the Bill of Rights grants us nothing that we don't already have. It does give us a tool to protect those rights that are ours because we're born to live free.
Comparing yelling fire in a theater to requiring training doesn't hold water. The first is an irresponsible act that can and does get people injured, but only comes about after the exercise of free speech. The second is a restriction placed on someone before they're allowed to exercise a right. There is no prerequisite to exercising free speech. And no, one need not even learn to speak to do it. Free speech covers spoken word, recordings, video, painting, drawing, dance, etc. etc.
Would you be Ok with a government-mandated training class (complete with licensing fee) to be able to worship whatever God you wish? If you don't pass the training, you don't get to worship, that's the law!
See how ridiculous it is when we apply it to other rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights? Why then should we put up with thinking like this when applied to the right to keep and bear arms? It's a hypocrisy that's been foisted on us by our enemy. They've used intellectually dishonest arguments for so long that even we believe some of them. It's time to stop. We need to step back and examine every restriction, every requirement and see if they are indeed in line with the 2nd Amendment and with the intent behind it. I'll warn you though, if you do that you're going to find that not many (if any) are.
Texastransplant
Active Member
Should ones economic inablityor should someones age or disablity be a reason he or she shouldn't be allowed to carry a firearm? No we all have that right it's just that we have allowed in the past for the politicans to make "laws" that go against our right to bear arms.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)
You can usually find a firearm or two or three next to my Bible, don't try to take either one away.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)
You can usually find a firearm or two or three next to my Bible, don't try to take either one away.
It comes down to that more than anything. Gun control laws put a heavier burden on the poor and minorities. Most of them were originally designed to ensure that poor minorities were unable to stand up for themselves.
There is zero difference between a training requirement and a poll tax. There is zero difference between a licensing scheme and a reading test at the poll. They all serve the same purpose - as an excuse to deny people legitimate exercise of rights. Poll taxes have been exposed for what they are, and are now viewed (rightly) with disdain and outright hatred. When will we get there with this mandatory training scheme? I've heard of folks who have their grandparents' poll tax receipts and show them with pride - "here is the proof, they were discriminated against but still voted!" I hope that someday our grandchildren will display our CHLs the same way.
In 1868 Texas regulated the carrying of CONCEALED WEAPONS!! This was noted as the CRIMINAL method to carry guns. OPEN CARRY was know as the Honest way to carry firearms.
In 1868 E.J. Davis was made Texas Governor. At this time Texas became a POLICE STATE! Davis banned ALL carrying of handguns! In 1869 E.J. Davis amended the Texas Constitution to deny Texans the 14th amendment right that was ratified 1868.
E.J. Davis was such a POS that armed Texans had to remove his sorry ass from the capital after his defeat in 1873. Davis attempted to keep hit seat by armed force.
Today, E.J. Davis still infringes on Texans Rights!
JSDinTexas
New Member
Don't think I would OC
I believe OC should be passed because of the 2nd, but I don't think open carry is a good idea generally - idiots might want to challenge you or try to take it or whatever - and I don't want the hassle.
But I will always CC - I like the element of surprise.
I believe OC should be passed because of the 2nd, but I don't think open carry is a good idea generally - idiots might want to challenge you or try to take it or whatever - and I don't want the hassle.
But I will always CC - I like the element of surprise.
