TexasCHLforum.com

[rant on]
This issue is like the Energizer Bunny - it keeps going and going.

A couple of points. First, regardless of differences of opinion about Constitutional issues, is open carry of a long gun in Texas legal or illegal? I'll leave it to the lawyers to argue the ifs, wheres, and whens.

If it is legal and we object because some people frighten the horses, then in my opinion we should get busy and change the laws to make open carry of a long gun illegal in Texas. I don't think anything short of jail will persuade the OC folks who insist on doing it to change their minds. Can anyone think of anything else that would persuade them? One thing is for sure. All the posts here are doing nothing to change their actions. (Mind you I'm not really suggesting this, but just sayin...)

If it is legal, then we are going to have an impossible task appealing to folks who are within the law to stop doing it. It is virtually impossible in this world we live in to appeal to people to stop doing something that Is illegal, or even harmful, just because it is. It seems you cannot rely on good judgement or consideration for others or issues. Some people are just going to do it. Take drunken driving for instance.

I sure wish as much time, effort, and rhetoric were being put into a solution as it is into the endless threads.
[/rant off]
Flame away if it makes you feel better.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I really haven't heard anyone claim they were carrying a rifle or shotgun into a store to exercise their constitutional right. Oh, perhaps there was one or two who said that on camera, but I really don't recall.

The overwhelming majority of people who are carrying long guns into stores in Texas are doing so to promote passage of open-carry of handguns, or so they claim. So the real question is "does this help or hinder passage of open-carry?" The clear answer is that it is hurting the cause, even though some will claim otherwise. The negative media coverage combined with pro-open-carry elected officials and their staff asking for such tactics to stop should be all the proof anyone needs. I can't help but wonder if part of the reason these in-your-face tactics haven't stopped is because of a division among open-carry supporters on the issue of licensed v. unlicensed open-carry.

Chas.

I agree. Your last statement may have hit the nail on the head. There must be some reason behind the reluctance to seek a workable solution. Given the current political climate, unlicensed open carry will probably never gain any traction.

Also I'm a huge firearm supporter and gun rights guy but this 2A crap is wearing thin with me. The 2nd doesn't say you can go anywhere and do everything with a rifle on your back and people are prohibited from being concerned. Limited what you can buy, own, and keep. Restrictions on movement and punitive taxes are 2nd A issues, not going to the movies with an AK.

Respectfully my friend, the 2nd Amendment does not say anything whatsoever about people being concerned. Please correct me if I misread what you wrote, but you cite restrictions on movement and punitive taxes as 2nd Amendment issues, then cite a restriction on movement (carrying an AK) into a movie as not being a 2nd Amendment issue. Come to think of it, nothing in the entire Constitution speaks to how people feel about the rights laid out. Constitutional rights are rights and are not subject to how we, or any American citizen, feels about them.

You are absolutely correct in this. The 2nd Amendment offers no restrictions, positive or negative, on what or where you can own or carry. It is silent on those issues. But we must deal with those two simple words "keep and bear." I believe those two words are at the heart of the issue.

Again, with all due respect, a lot of people have bled and died to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights. I believe it is the greatest document ever penned by man and worthy of respect. Of course, you're free to disagree.

I did state, and have in several other threads, that I too disagree with the tactics of those who want to force the issue. I understand our frustration. I am frustrated too. I would hope we seek a real solution, not just another fire.

EEllis wrote:I don't believe the "They will get used to it" line that people are pushing. I grew up in a couple of small towns where you could go to school with a gun in the rack in your truck. People just didn't carry into stores or restaurants ever. There was just no need and it didn't happen. A kid on his bike would prop his .22 inside door or by the counter inside a store when he went to go get candy or whatever. The idea that anyone would ever walk up to the counter of dairy queen with a rifle slung is misleading at best. They always would of thought you had issues and the cops would be talking to you. If there is a reason then people still don't give you a second look now. It is when you are doing something that there is no reason for that people start wondering what the heck you might be up to.

Every time I hear this I am more and more concerned. That you own and carry a firearm is not connected in any way, shape, or form with your "need" to own and carry one. It is based on your Constitutional "right" to own and carry. There is a vast gap between what you "need" and what is your Constitutional right.

All the restrictions we have on the when and where, or even the existence, of owning and carrying are legal infringements on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. All the permissions of law concerning firearms are infringements of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

I think each of us need to carefully read the 2nd Amendment every day and decide to what extent "shall not be infringed" will be tolerated. I suppose some of you think I am some kind of "OCT" firebrand nut who carries an AR into WalMart. I assure you I am not such a person. Why? Because I believe my good judgement prevents me from doing so. Therefore I have no desire to. I don't feel I have a "need" to. But never let it be said that I don't have the right, under the 2nd Amendment, to do so. I am in a Catch 22 of sorts. To say that I have the right, but don't exercise it to the extent others do, does not qualify me to decide if others have the right.

Whenever I look at those who protest differently than I, I always remember the old saying, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your RIGHT to say it." I suppose since we the people are the government, the only way to control how others exercise their Constitutional rights is to enact infringements under force of law. How far are we willing to go?