TexasCHLforum.com

stevie_d_64 wrote:
How, and what do the other state's that recognize it's citizens unalienable right to keep and bear arms do to solve the issues Texas would have to resolve, before Texans are truely given full trust and respect to do this???

I don't think it was ever taken away. It was never made illegal. That thought is why I started the post on the Texas Constitution and the carpetbagger language.

MOst states made concealed carry illegal. SCOTUS ruled a long time ago that concealed carry is not protected. I think the ruling would have to go that OC is protected.

That is where we need to focus some energy, IMHO.

Anygun

NcongruNT, I understand.

I was trying to help Herb calm down a bit.

I hope he does a search and find the other threads on OC. This is pretty much a rehash of the past.

Our cause needs passion and the passion needs to be focused on things besides each other's opinions on OC. Heaven knows I fell the same way and we don't need to keep beating each other up.

Anygunanywhere

Hey Herb.

I feel your pain.

In spite of my posts on these threads, I try to stay away from these open carry discussions.

Really, I try. I would be right alongside you. I agree with you. We be blood brothers.

This thread has reached the dead horse phase. Your intentions are honorable, but these folks will not change their minds because this forum is dedicated to concealed carry. You need to go to TCDL and rant a bit. It will make you fell better.

Everything in its time. OC will be a big change. Let's get more involved over at the TCDL site. These fine folks here will support us.

I see Charles' argument as very valid.

That is why I have started a few other threads today to see if we can focus on a few things I think are more important.

If open carry was an issue at all in the 44 states where it is legal then it would be made illegal faster than a democrat changing his position based on a poll in an election year.

Insisting that we not broach the subject in Texas for fear it will make things worse would be buckling in fear to the antis and take us back to the Ma Richards days. You do remember those days, don't you?

The antis are all smoke and mirrors. We have rught on our side.

Anygunanywhere

BigBlueDodge wrote:
If my religion says that 50 year old men can marry and have children with 11 yr old girls.

Established history and legal precedent in natural and common law already make this act unacceptable in established civil society. This is not a good example to support your assertion and is an extreme.

Not supporting open carry is not an extreme and will not require extreme measures. It is legal in 44 states. Marrying 11 year old girls is not.

BigBlueDodge wrote:my religion allows me to sacrifice animals for my deity (cats/dogs/chickens) are you going to stick to your guns and say that my right to freedom of religion protects me in those actions?

You bet I will. Animal sacrifice to whoever you worship is no more wrong to me than accepting that seeing people worshipping a cow as grandpa or a girl born with a birth defect as a hindu goddess.

BigBlueDodge wrote:Or is your assessment of the control over rights based on the specific right (meaning, do you treat all rights equally in your opinion)

I will not get into the discussion of absolute rights here because it would drag this off-topic.

Let me restate myself. If we. as second amendment believers, are ever going to make profound inroads into regaining our right as literally stated in the BOR, we must stop posturing and slinging these unfounded assertions about keeping and bearing our arms. All we do is provide ammo to the antis and put up a broken front.

If we were truly united in our cause as firearms owners we would be swimming in our freedom.

Absolute rights will be discussed another day. I am researching and consulting with advisors on other boards.

BigBlueDodge wrote:I have a hard time buy that if something is labeled a right, then the government has absolutely no control over the conditions of that right.

Just because the government restricts a right that does not validate the restriction. Just because the SCOTUS upholds a right does not make the ruling correct. Tell that to the millions of aborted babies.

BigBlueDodge wrote:The extremist view for 2nd amendment has no control over gun ownership, and it is completely within a individuals right to use a Barret .50 call gun to shoot an intruder breaking into his home. We shouldn't care that the round would also pass through the next 3-4 houses, possibly killing innocent bystanders, after it explodes my target.

If you shoot your Barret and kill someone you must be charged with murder. Murder is already against the law. Murder charges fall in line with natural and commona law. You already believe in the 4 Rules do you not? Why should I be infringed for your breaking the 4 Rules? Infringing on my rights because you break the rules is exactly what the current 21,000 gun control laws are all about.

BigBlueDodge wrote:The 2nd ammendment says nothing about the age, mental state, or criminal history of an individual. Without restrictions it is possible for people with known mental issues to keep firearms. It would also be legal for murders, rapists, wife beaters, child molestors to purchase firearms because it is their right. Your view is that the government cannot place restrictions on my 2nd ammendment right, which is hard for me to accept.

For someone to honestly state that laws keep the mentally deranged or any felon from obtaining firearms or prevents violence ignores established facts, facts we use to support concealed carry and eliminating unnecessary gun control laws. Are you for or against gun control? The ultimate goal of gun control is not to prevent the loonies from purchasing firearms, it is to take them all. You, BigBlueDodge can be declared mentally incompetent for pretty much any reason.

BigBlueDodge wrote:The more I hear about the "Open Carry" debate, it becomes very clear that "Open Carry" is NOT about providing MORE security, it more because the government says I can't do it. I asked the question in my previous post, but no-one answered it, so I'll ask it again. What does Open Carry give me that Concealed Carry does not that REALISTICALLY makes me safer in a confrontation?

OC gives you a slight edge in draw speed. It lets the BG see you are armed. Research the fallacy of "the BGs will take you out first". Yes, LEO are shot because BGs know they are armed. LEO go to places and respond to crimes in progress. People open carrying do not.

What difference does the advantage make to you if you are not going to OC anyway? Why do I have to convince you? What convinced you to carry in the first place? If packing concealed is what you want to do, go for it. Just support the cause. The cause is freeedom. The cause is no infringement. The amendment says "shall not be infringed". No other amendment says that. How can people support infringement when the amendment says no infringement? The first amendment states "Congreess shall make no law...." but congress has made laws. We allowed it to happen and we now live in a society where we hold the Constitution and BOR as almost sacred but allow our government to spit on them with impunity and then people insist that they spit on it some more by insisting on more infringements in the form of useless laws. Amazing. Pitiful.

BigBlueDodge wrote:Second, for all of the people that say "I may/may not Open Carry, but I should at least have the choice". Let me ask you this. Do you think that Open Carry will increase the number of businesses that prohibit gun carry, or do you assume that it will stay the same as it is now?

I am not certain. In my travels, I can tell you that Texas has more signs than I see anywhere. I honestly think if we the packers stopped making such a fussover signs they would go away. Some say the legislature was wise in the 30.06 law but I think it made signs more of a problem. I have OCed in several states. Most people do not care.

We are so afraid of asserting our rights that we will cower in fear over any attempt to reestablish our rights to the freedoms we once enjoyed.

Personally, I am to the point where if anyone questions my activism and comittment to my rights I will very emphatically insist that they go somewhere where they can wet themselves and bleat with the other sheep. They need to get over my exercising my right to keep AND BEAR arms and minfd their own business.

Their rights end at their nose and mine begin at mine.

What I have on my hip is my business.

Anygunanywhere

Any individual that owns a firearm and considers himself a free man must be cautious about what their stated beliefs are with respect to their rights.

Anything less than demanding and fighting for your God given rights is inviting the government to take them away.

Whether or not you would open carry is irrelevant. You have the right to free speech and have the right to set your soap box up on the streeet corner and preach about armageddon if you want. Are you going to? Maybe not. DO you want to keep that right? I pray so.

During the Heller oral arguments, and in some of the doscuments filed in support of Heller, the fact that the SCOTUS has ruled the CONCEALED carry is not protected as part of the RKBA guaranteed under the 2A.

IANAL and IANA history professor so this is how I understand how our system works. If I am wrong I trust I will be corrected.

Our laws are based on natural law and English common law. English common law forbade concealed carry of weapons. The royals did not trust the subjects with concealed weapons.

Concealed carry can be taken away with the stroke of a pen. If the court eve restores the RKBA fully it will be open carry. When open carry is forbidden then the second amendment is infringed.

The court also needs to rule that the 2A applies to the states.

A right licensed is not a right but a priviledge.

Our rights are what define us as free men. How we fight to recover and maintain our rights will define our Texas and American way of life. Our American and Texian forefathers fought and died to win our freedoms and define our rights.

I find the fact that people who claim to be free and yet publicly state that they do not care about significant aspects of their rights as foreign and unacceptable.

The Second Amendment must be held as a whole. No part of any infringement is acceptable. Stating that you oppose open carry because blah blah blah is the same as the shotgun/deer rifle fair weather gun owner stating publicly that military style weapons are not necassary and should be banned. If you state publicly that you oppose open carry than you must accept someone else's infringement on certain part of what you think is acceptable as RKBA. DO you like Glocks or hollow points? Do you like semi auto shotguns? 1911s? Imported firearms? No matter what your likes and dislikes about the RKBA, remember that there are people out there, legislators and others rabidly willing and able to stomp your second amendment into a dust pile and remove your weapons from your posession.

This is the main reason that the antis have made such massive inroads against us. We can not agree among ourselves about what is acceptable. We give the antis the ammunition they need to take our rights.

The only thing that is acceptable is no infringement, period.

ANygunanywhere