TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:* I further understand that the 1st Amendment gives me the right to take an apparent differing view of any given subject.

Of course it does, and nobody here would argue differently. But I think the collective counterpoint being made here, for which you are taking a little bit of heat, is that if you argue in favor of licensing (and it seems like that is what you're doing), then you are fundamentally arguing for a restriction on everyone else's rights (not just your own) - a restriction that you are OK with because you don't mind having to procure a license in order to exercise your right, but which nobody else seems to be OK with.

Am I making sense here? Please let me know if I am mischaracterizing your take on it.

Here's the thing. . . It appears that you want to have some assurance that the other person is lawfully allowed to be carrying - an understandable concern, but not one that licensing really deals with. Here's why: criminals don't care about no stinkin' license, so they will carry anyway, open or concealed. So if you require licensing for the RKBA, the only people who are going to pay attention to it anyway are the very ones you don't really need to worry about. And the criminals are still going to carry unlawfully, whether or not you or I have a license to carry lawfully. So the truth is, whether the other guy walking toward you with a gun on his hip is an honest and upright citizen, or a predacious criminal, you don't really have any way of knowing it anyway.

You might argue that by presenting LEOs with our CHL and TDL, they know that we are the good guys. OTH, I could argue just as easily that by running our TDL alone, they could tell whether or not we were A) good guys; and B) allowed to carry. If they run our ID, and no criminal arrests, gang associations, etc., show up in the record, they they already know we are not criminals, and then whether or not we are in possession of a weapon, concealed or not, is irrelevant.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:I agree with Chas. and The Annoyed Man if they said what I think they said.

An "in your face" open carry position is not in our long term best interests in the larger scheme of things. As TAM suggests, open carry, should it ever pass, must have some qualification/license attached to it, IMHO. Would you want everybody running around in a car/truck without some qualifying process? Yeah, yeah...I know, the constitution doesn't mention cars and trucks but that was then and this is now.

A slight correction...

What I said was that I think an open carry license might make sense as an interim step in an incremental plan toward total deregulation of firearm carry, open and concealed, by anyone legally allowed to be in possession of said firearm. In other words, the currently existing prohibitions against firearm possession by gang members, convicted felons (at least those who have not petitioned the court for the restoration of their rights), minors unaccompanied by an adult, etc., would continue to be in effect. And BTW, under the current state of affairs, anybody who is not currently prohibited by law from being in possession of a gun already has the right to carry it in their vehicle - licensed or not.

There is no logical reason to require law abiding citizens to obtain a license to carry, by whatever method, in order to enforce laws against those who are prohibited by law from carrying a gun in the first place. But that is my perfect world scenario. As a pragmatist, I recognize that we are on the road to that perfect world, but we are not there yet; and thus, licensing in the interim will probably be necessary until the general public gains enough comfort with the concept that they cease to be an obstacle to our freedom.