Open Carry Article in Star Telegram

[Charles L. Cotton]

You don't agree with an organization responding to the wishes of its members? That's an interesting position to take.

I find it interesting that you can say you speak for every single member.

I speak for the organization and the organization responds to the concerns expressed by our members. Do you claim to know the will of the TSRA membership?

As I said, I find it interesting that you disagree with an organization responding to the wishes of its members.

Chas.

[tfrazier]

My two cents:

I want priorities to be:

1. Prohibit my employer from restricting my right to carry to and from work. Above and beyond that is gravy to me. If they don't want me to carry inside their building, fine, but they should have to sign over all their assets to my family if anyone on their property intentionally injures or kills me where such victimization may have been prevented had I been armed.
2. Schools prohibited from restricting students or teachers with CHLs from toting on campus.

and after those are accomplished, if there's nothing else to do...

3. Open and concealed (cloaked, camouflaged, covered by invisibility spells, whatever) carry for the general public as provided by the United States Constitution, period. That includes repeal and/or deprecation of all laws establishing permits or "privileges" to carry.

A law establishing a privilege that is less of a right than established by the constitution is offensive to me. Yes, I interpret it very broadly, and heavily weighted on the side of individual liberty.

I'm libertarian and they almost aren't extreme enough for me. We're it not for the Christian in me that gives me additional compassion for my fellow man who may not have the physical or mental wherewithal to defend his own; and the need for a national defence against foreign enemies, I would be an anarchist and 100% for a "every man for himself and no government" situation.

But I don't complain and withdraw my support from gun rights organizations because they aren't going after my pie-in-the-sky goals. The logical steps they've been taking to eat this elephant one bite at a time are reasonable and have thus far been incredibly successful, therefore I commend the TSRA and NRA and their leadership for being practical and methodical. They don't waste our money by going on a ten year journey for prime rib for the starving when they can get hamburger on a day trip.

[Grog]

I find it interesting that you can say you speak for every single member.

I speak for the organization and the organization responds to the concerns expressed by our members.

You speak for a group as a whole, but not every member. I have been lurking here enough to see you will not change your opinion on anything and I really don't care since I'm not a member of the TSRA.

Do you claim to know the will of the TSRA membership?

I don't know ANY TSRA member so I have never claimed to speak for them.

[SA-TX]

Charles thank you for your reply. i apologize in advance for not breaking up my reply based on your post. My Internet phone makes this very painful. I hope you will indulge me as I'm on the road.

If constitutional rights were only honored when it was convenient or politically popular we'd surly live in a different society.

As for equal protection, doesn't the Texas Legislature pass several bills every session that differiante their effect based on county population? My very cursory review of sections of Texas law that are of interst me find many example of this.

Why isn't freedom woth fighting for? Why isn't the liberty to exercise our own judgement independent of government dictate not a desirable thing?

What is TSRA's view of what the 2nd Amendment means? What is the core of the pre-existing right simply protected from infringment? And what do you plan to do if the USSC applies the 2nd to the states at the end of this month?

The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled that open carry is a Constitutionally protected right. The Supreme Court HAS ruled that some restrictions (short of an outright ban on possession) CAN be placed on the right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, if you want to win this fight by utilizing a Constitutional argument, you’re going to have to do so in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The truth is that most gun rights advocates are pretty selective about when they choose to break out the “shall not be infringed” argument. If I start arguing that thirteen-year-old kids should be allowed to carry guns to school (assuming it’s okay with their parents), not many of you are going to send out letters supporting that position or break out the “COME AND TAKE IT” flags and march on the state Capitol with me, even though that would be a literal interpretation of “shall not be infringed.” SA-TX, even you have suggested compromising on what you claim to be a Constitutionally guaranteed right: You’ve suggested pushing for either licensed open carry or open carry only in rural areas. Though you’re trying to portray Charles and the TSRA as refusing to stand up for freedom and the U.S. Constitution, you’re really just upset at them for adopting a “let’s take what we can get” position than differs from your own “let’s take what we can get” position.

The reason I’m having trouble getting behind the open carry movement is that it seems to be much less about ensuring citizens the right to defend themselves than about shouting at our opponents, “We’re here, we’re armed, get used to it!” It’s less an offshoot of the gun rights movement than of the political and philosophical backlash against America’s disintegration into a nanny state. It’s a way for people who feel oppressed by a system that is occasionally oppressive to stand up and shout, “Don’t tread on me!” That’s all well and good, until it starts undermining our ability to defend life and liberty. At that point, I start looking at you the way you’d look at me if I actually advocated allowing thirteen-year-olds to carry guns to school.

I'm not trying to cause trouble. I just want for Texans what forty odd some other states do not infringe upon: people to exercise their rights as they see fit.

I'm not a protest guy or someone who wants to show off. I don't have the time or incliniantion for such things. I just want Texas government to to respect our rights and focus their regulatory energies where they are needed.

SA-TX

Perhaps, SA-TX, you're in the other category of open carry proponents: the ones who are so incensed that citizens of other states enjoy an obscure, little-utilized gun right not available to Texans that they're blinded (to the unintended consequences of their efforts) by indignation.

You make good points. I'm on my phone again so I'll address them as I can.

True the USSC hasn't spoken to the "bear" part of the 2A yet. Heller addressed the "keep" part as you said.

However, the opinion did discuss the bear part as the opinion went through the history, decided that no militia service is necessary, and said that the ruling would not result in a wholesale overthrow of other federal regulations rregarding firearms because certain things were presumed, without the Court deciding them now, to be reasonable. It mentions carry in sensitive locations, regulating the commercial sale of arms, etc.

For exact quotes from Heller and the McDonald oral argument, see my post in this thread http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 5&start=15.

As for my indignation blinding me to the consequences of what I advocate, I will say that I'm comfortable with my position. As a CHLer myself I do NOT want to see more 30.06 signs. The difference arises in that I do not believe that would be the result of legal OC and others do.

Doesn't the fact that 40-some other states either permit it or require via their constitution that folk be able to exercise their rights in this way suggest that Texas is out of step? I'm not quoting Patrick Henry and saying "give me liberty or give me death" or Barrry Goldwater in that "extremeism in defense of liberty is no vice". I recognize and admit that I'm taking an incremental one step at a time approach. I've never suggested otherwise. It is exactly this pragmatism towards the subject that makes me disinclined to believe that I'm blinded. I can't both a blinded zealot and a sell out at the same time can I? :)

SA-TX