HGWC wrote:Skiprr wrote:
The answer, in my opinion, is because it is not the correct battle. Such a groundswell would be (as nitrogen so eloquently put it) better focused on where and when we can carry, not how. It would be better directed in support of bills that can be won and that would make important differences to the 260,000 or so CHL holders in Texas, as well as thousands of future CHL holders.
If tens of thousands of people think it's a worthy issue to raise with their representatives in the legislature,
who are you to say it isn't?
HGWC wrote:NcongruNt wrote:As it is, you're pushing people away from your cause.
I don't have a cause. I have a point of view in one OC thread on one Internet forum.
HGWC, I am one guy stating an opinion in one OC thread on one Internet forum. Those are my only credentials for expressing my thoughts. And I would never ask that same question of you, because I respect your right to voice your opinion.
HGWC wrote:Skiprr wrote:Conversely, if thousands of people contact their representatives requesting support of an RKBA-related concept that will be, let's face it, a political hot-potato for any senator or member of congress, we're flooding the aisles with noise and running the risk of desensitizing our legislators to RKBA-related measures that have a realistic chance of passing, that would improve our lives and the state of RKBA in Texas, and that have been in the works for months and years.
Tens of thousands of constituents flooding their representatives demanding their fundamental rights be restored is considered noise and desensitizes them to the issues? What's wrong with that picture?
My only observation here is that the playing field keeps shifting as I read arguments for the "cause," and at some point someone needs to decide if what is being so passionately sought is a change to the Texas Penal Code so that open carry is permitted, or if the demand is the "restoration" and securing of "fundamental rights."
If the belief is that it is the latter that is required, you don't need to worry about a bill changing the Penal Code; you need to be working toward an amendment to the Texas Constitution. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Texas Constitution
expressly says that the state may regulate the wearing of arms. Article 1., Section 23. was written into the Texas Constitution on February 15, 1876, and has not been amended in the intervening 132 years.
Texas Constitution, Bill of Rights wrote:Section 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
The legislature can, in any session, pass laws that regulate the wearing of arms. If unlicensed open carry is a fundamental right, it can be secured with practical permanence
only by an amendment that modifies the wording of Section 23 of the Texas Bill of Rights.
As for the issue of open carry as a fundamental right at the Federal level, Charles already answered this with far more knowledge than I will ever have. Since his post have become lost or overlooked a few pages ago, I'm going to take the liberty of repeating it:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:A lot of people are basing their support of open-carry solely on the Second Amendment, arguing that not allowing unlicensed open-carry violates the Second Amendment. In a purist sense, I agree. To me, the Second Amendment means precisely what it says; i.e. no infringement.
However, what I think about the Second Amendment doesn't matter. Like it or not, accept it or not, the only opinions as to the constitutionality of any laws that matter are those in the majority of any U.S. Supreme Court decision. Right now, five of the nine justices tell us the Second Amendment is an individual right. In dicta, those same five justices tell us that states can restrict where guns can be carried and the states/cities can even require a license merely to own a gun, not to mention carry one in public. I'm very happy with the Heller decision, but I would have been elated if Alan Gura had not conceded that licensing is constitutional, so the majority opinion would have directly addressed licensing. My guess is that licensing would be found constitutional, so long as it is not arbitrary or capricious or merely veiled prohibition.
So when supporters of open-carry argue that any opponents don't support the Second Amendment, the allegation is unfounded. All this means is that opponents don't accept their interpretation of the scope of the Second Amendment. As I stated earlier, no opinions matter unless they get a vote on the Supreme Court. It doesn't matter how much we scream and holler or beat our chests, open-carry isn't mandated by any decision of the U.S. Supreme Court or the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
I wish it were different, but it is not. We get things done by dealing with how things are, not how we wish them to be. Reasonable minds can differ on whether open-carry should be pursued in Texas, and if so, how should it be done (licensed v. unlicensed, etc.) and who should carry the flag. Since valid, rational arguments can be made on both sides of the debate, there is no reason to question the dedication of people who don't share our opinions on this very emotional issue.
Chas.
?
How about the Ruth's Chris in Pentagon City (or is it Crystal City) - and walk through the neighboring mall to get there. More