TexasCHLforum.com

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:

Furyataurus wrote:IMO, open/conceal carry should not require a license, but a license should be available to those who would like to have one for receprocity for other states or those who like the fact that it doubles as an NICS check when purchasing a firearm. .

However,
Since it is supposed to be our RIGHT (lets face facts right now its a privilege) there should be NO reciprocity as every state should not have a license therefore reciprocity would be granted through you not having a criminal record.

The constitution does not state a requirement for a license and I think they're overall a bad idea. I think it should be mandatory that anyone who wants to carry a gun (which should be just about everyone) should attend training. I dont think that training should be tied to a license or the right to actually carry though. That creates problems on it's own.

Because the constitutional right to bear arms (but not arm bears) applies to every state in the union there would be no reciprocity issues with other states to contend with, therefore the license should not be required for that purpose either.

If you really think about it though.... saying licenses should be issued for reciprocity with other states is kind of like saying licenses should be issued to everyone because everyone has a license.... so why bother issuing them then? we all have them.

just my 3,575 cents accounting for inflation.

*just realized chas said to look at it from a texas consitution point of view. That nullifies a lot of what i said, well, not really because the language is very similar in both :)

IANAL and this is IMO but I believe according to my research (which has been significant) that carry of firearms for the purpose of self defense and preservation of the common peace whether openly or concealed carry is protected under the 2nd amendment to the constitution. The method/state in which you carry your weapon is not restricted per the constitution. It is therefore logical IMO to conclude that so long as your method of carry does not conflict with any of the other rights set forth in the constitution then any method of carry is permitted.

For instance.... carrying loaded with one in the chamber in your hand pointed at your neighbor directly conflicts with his right to life and the pursuit of happiness (as most reasonable persons could figure out) so that method of carry is right out....

However, carrying in a holster whether in a viewable or concealed manner does not in any way form or fashion interfere with another's constitutional rights as far as I (or i believe any other reasonable person) can see and should therefore be protected.

Again, IANAL and this is simply IMO. hope i made someone smile :)


*edit: For clarification, the stated purpose above being "for the purpose of self defense and preservation of the common peace" is really irrelevant IMO and the constitution does not state a purpose for guaranteeing the right. It simply states that the right exists. I draw the conclusion that that is indeed the purpose of the right as it is stated from my own research on the political climate of the time and on those that wrote the words. That being said, I believe the stated purpose is true. I also didn't mention that I believe another purpose of the right is to allow the people the ability to overthrow the government should it get too big for it's britches. I'm in no way advocating that and in fact that's not the way I feel, but it's certainly the way Ben Franklin felt as he has made very clear in his writings. :)

*edit II: I also believe that licensing is a BAD idea. I'm not sure if it's unconstitutional but it's bad. Forcing someone to have a license for something that's already guaranteed is only asking for the erosion of rights IMO.