Concealed Carry in Texas, pre-1968

[Deltaboy]

Arkansas was about the same there was a system set up by County Sheriffs. The Local Sheriff would give you a badge and make you a Special Deputy or give you a card saying you were allowed to carry due to your job. Our Local Bread man had one he carried a 38 because he had up to 10,000 in cash on him by the end of his bread run.
Our HS Principal carried when he took my dad's class on their SR Trip to Galveston back in 1962.

[JALLEN]

I have no idea what the law was, but I do recall an incident at Wurstfest in New Braunfels, probably in the late 60's-early '70's.

A man, likely drunk, was harassing folks arriving to park in the Knights of Columbus parking lot across the road from Wursthalle. Apparently he got too enthusiastic interacting with a woman in the passenger seat of one vehicle, and her husband shot him to death with a pistol taken from the glove compartment. The Grand Jury no-billed the husband. I would assume if having a weapon like that was illegal that would have been charged as well. There may be circumstances I'm not aware of, of course.

I also recall that when Charles Whitman started popping folks from the UT Tower, a bunch of guns came out and returned fire, ineffectively of course, until an Austin cop and civilian managed to sneak into the Tower and finish Whitman off. That was in 1966, IIRC.

When I was in high school, having a rifle in the rack across the back of a pick up was as common as boots. Nobody paid any attention whatsoever.

[AEA]

I'd like to see someone put a EBR (with 30rd "clip") in a pickup rifle rack and drive around today. Legal of course, but might get charged with "enticing a riot".......

And you would have to take it out of the truck every time you got out and carry it openly in order to keep it from getting stolen!

Wonder how that would work out if you were visiting the Capitol? Go thru the "Special line"? Explain the Law to the law makers?

[Heartland Patriot]

I'd like to see someone put a EBR (with 30rd "clip") in a pickup rifle rack and drive around today. Legal of course, but might get charged with "enticing a riot".......

And you would have to take it out of the truck every time you got out and carry it openly in order to keep it from getting stolen!

Wonder how that would work out if you were visiting the Capitol? Go thru the "Special line"? Explain the Law to the law makers?

I vividly remember lots of folks having rifles and shotguns in the gunracks in pickups when I was a kid, even through the 80s. But once I left for the USAF, and came back some years later to visit, it seemed like that had just about dried up. Some folks told me that too many people were getting their windows busted out and guns stolen during broad daylight even in small towns, so people just quit carrying them around like that. Just seems like another piece of "Texiana" that went away...but we've got concealed carry now, so I'll take that trade.

[UpTheIrons]

Thank you for all your responses. I was pretty sure I was right, but needed to be guided in the right direction.

I don't know if the car kills Kennedy or not, I'm still ~100 pages from the end, it's still early November of '63 in the book.

[cnovel]

County lines,traveling.,,all bull ,, if you got stopped and were honest as I,,once for speeding (dismissed) coming from the range,, cost 2 grand,,,another time in an accident(not my fault) 2 grand,,,and that was a long time ago,,,there are alot of good LEO out there,,ut alot of bad things in the old days,,,got stopped early in the morning going duck huntinting,,held to past daylight till they figured out I was legal,,,

[Bullwhip]

Like somebody said its been illegal since reconstruction, just wasn't enforced against the "right people".

When the law started treating everbody the same and good white Christian folks got scared of being arrested for carrying, we finally got a chl law.

[Kythas]

I have no idea what the law was, but I do recall an incident at Wurstfest in New Braunfels, probably in the late 60's-early '70's.

A man, likely drunk, was harassing folks arriving to park in the Knights of Columbus parking lot across the road from Wursthalle. Apparently he got too enthusiastic interacting with a woman in the passenger seat of one vehicle, and her husband shot him to death with a pistol taken from the glove compartment. The Grand Jury no-billed the husband. I would assume if having a weapon like that was illegal that would have been charged as well. There may be circumstances I'm not aware of, of course.

I also recall that when Charles Whitman started popping folks from the UT Tower, a bunch of guns came out and returned fire, ineffectively of course, until an Austin cop and civilian managed to sneak into the Tower and finish Whitman off. That was in 1966, IIRC.

When I was in high school, having a rifle in the rack across the back of a pick up was as common as boots. Nobody paid any attention whatsoever.

When Whitman started shooting, UT students went to their vehicles to get their hunting rifles. This was at the behest of police on the scene who told people "If you have a rifle in your car, go get it". These civilians who retrieved their hunting rifles returned fire, keeping Whitman pinned down, which allowed the Austin police officer and civilian (who was also armed) to gain entry into the tower.

Without these civilians and their rifles in their vehicles, which were obviously parked on campus, Whitman probably would have killed more people as police would have not been able to gain entry as quickly as they did.

[talltex]

Like somebody said its been illegal since reconstruction, just wasn't enforced against the "right people".

When the law started treating everbody the same and good white Christian folks got scared of being arrested for carrying, we finally got a chl law.

I understand your sentiment, but I think your a little over the line with that statement....being white and Christian has nothing to do with the right to carry.

As for the law not being enforced against the "right people", that may have been somewhat the case... but back then the LEO's had a lot more leeway in how they did their job...and in many cases it was better in my opinion, because they were moreconcerned with "justice", rather than revenue. At least in the smaller rural areas where I grew up, for the most part they viewed the "right people" as those who they knew were good, decent people without a background of problems...and it wasn't just those who were well off or buddies with the Sheriff or Judge...just hard working , honest people. It WAS a gray area, and undoubtedly abuses took place, but at the same time they didn't arrest kids just because they caught them with a sixpack...they confiscated the beer, and told us to be at the jail Sunday morning with our fathers to pick it up...knowing that we would be punished appropriately and not saddling us with an arrest record that would follow us the rest of our lives. If they stopped "Joe" driving home with too much to drink, and knew he was going through a divorce or other rough time, they'd drive him home and tell him he could pick his car up in the morning, rather than put him in jail. They viewed their job as "taking care of THEIR people"....not punishing them. The counties and towns back then didn't try to pay for half their budgets by raising fines and courts costs, writing tickets for any infraction, and arresting someone in situations where they used to give them a lecture...making sure they understood that they were doing them a favor..THIS TIME. I understand that we live in a different era now, and due to the proliferation of lawsuits, they can't risk turning someone loose that conceivably might wind up hurting someone and causing them to get sued for negligence...but I can't recall it ever happening back then.

[fickman]

For some perspective, I just heard a family story from my great uncle (my late paternal grandfather's identical twin) that I hadn't heard before.

He saw Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas with his rifle the morning of November 22, 1963.

My great uncle worked at the Federal building in downtown Dallas and was in a carpool with a few other guys who also worked there. They exited the freeway and were the front vehicle stopped at the stoplight on Commerce pointing towards downtown. They saw a man get off of the bus with a rifle case (everybody back then knew exactly what it was) and cross the crosswalk right in front of them. They even commented about, "can you believe that man with the rifle, right there in downtown Dallas, on the day the President is coming to town."

They said the crowd was already gathering, the street was full of cars, and there had to be hundreds of people who noticed him. They went on to work and put it out of their mind - for a few hours. They did walk down and see the President as he drove by - they were on the block just before he was shot. In fact, my great uncle estimates they saw the motorcade and probably didn't make it any farther than the lobby of the Federal building by the time Kennedy was shot. They didn't hear the shots, but it had happened before they made it back to their offices. As soon as they heard the reports, they thought of the man with the rifle they'd seen.

So, it's fair to say that a rifle (in a case) in downtown Dallas at the time was rare enough to for people to notice but not enough to cause people to panic, call the police, or faint on sight - even with the President visiting. It was somewhere in between. They figured Oswald was just a "country boy". One of them thought he could be part of the security detail, but riding on the bus didn't seem to fit that narrative.

It's a shame it took me so long to value the stories and family history while I still have firsthand access to them. When I get together with my great uncle nowadays, I ask a few open ended questions to get him started and soak it all in.

[C-dub]

I have no idea what the law was, but I do recall an incident at Wurstfest in New Braunfels, probably in the late 60's-early '70's.

A man, likely drunk, was harassing folks arriving to park in the Knights of Columbus parking lot across the road from Wursthalle. Apparently he got too enthusiastic interacting with a woman in the passenger seat of one vehicle, and her husband shot him to death with a pistol taken from the glove compartment. The Grand Jury no-billed the husband. I would assume if having a weapon like that was illegal that would have been charged as well. There may be circumstances I'm not aware of, of course.

I also recall that when Charles Whitman started popping folks from the UT Tower, a bunch of guns came out and returned fire, ineffectively of course, until an Austin cop and civilian managed to sneak into the Tower and finish Whitman off. That was in 1966, IIRC.

When I was in high school, having a rifle in the rack across the back of a pick up was as common as boots. Nobody paid any attention whatsoever.

When Whitman started shooting, UT students went to their vehicles to get their hunting rifles. This was at the behest of police on the scene who told people "If you have a rifle in your car, go get it". These civilians who retrieved their hunting rifles returned fire, keeping Whitman pinned down, which allowed the Austin police officer and civilian (who was also armed) to gain entry into the tower.

Without these civilians and their rifles in their vehicles, which were obviously parked on campus, Whitman probably would have killed more people as police would have not been able to gain entry as quickly as they did.

You beat me to it, Kythas. They didn't killed him, but they threw up some effective suppressing fire.

[JALLEN]

I also recall that when Charles Whitman started popping folks from the UT Tower, a bunch of guns came out and returned fire, ineffectively of course, until an Austin cop and civilian managed to sneak into the Tower and finish Whitman off. That was in 1966, IIRC.

When I was in high school, having a rifle in the rack across the back of a pick up was as common as boots. Nobody paid any attention whatsoever.

When Whitman started shooting, UT students went to their vehicles to get their hunting rifles. This was at the behest of police on the scene who told people "If you have a rifle in your car, go get it". These civilians who retrieved their hunting rifles returned fire, keeping Whitman pinned down, which allowed the Austin police officer and civilian (who was also armed) to gain entry into the tower.

Without these civilians and their rifles in their vehicles, which were obviously parked on campus, Whitman probably would have killed more people as police would have not been able to gain entry as quickly as they did.

You beat me to it, Kythas. They didn't killed him, but they threw up some effective suppressing fire.

I assume y'all are as familiar with the area, and the Tower, as I am. I was a a student there 64-68, and had been up in the Tower countless times. The Observation Deck where Whitman was was almost perfect for his purpose. It would be almost impossible to hit someone up there from the ground. But, those guys with their hunting rifles did manage to distract Whitman while the Austin PD officer and civilian managed to get up there and put a stop to it.

[CrosstimbersOkie]

http://www.txchia.org/history.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Texas

The first Texas law against concealed and open carry was "An Act to Regulate the Keeping and Bearing of Deadly Weapons, Law of April 12, 1871, ch. 34, §1, 1871 Tex. Gen. Laws 25" passed as part of the Reconstruction. That law was not substantially modified until 1995.

It was the yankees and their lapdog, Governor Edmund Davis who was responsible for eliminating Texans' right to defend their own lives: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/tslac/40 ... 40016.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AEA]

That's good to know. Now all we gotta do is forget about introducing a bill, just get the Gov to overturn that Law!

[smoothoperator]

I understand your sentiment, but I think your a little over the line with that statement....being white and Christian has nothing to do with the right to carry.

It has nothing to do with the right but it had a lot to do with being able to practically exercise that right fifty or even thirty years ago.