Should Texas Embrace Open Carry? OR All Carry

[carlson1]

I will take open carry! I would like the choice.

[Tote 9]

Thanks for the link Kevin, it answered my questions. I'm trying to imagine
how I would feel or even if I would open carry if I were to go through Arizona.
I think I would just to have the experience of open carry.

[tsteven1]

Gunners;
The Second Amendment is rather clear. I would love someday to get an automatic rifle, but am trumped by mine congress. I do agree though, that a background check is acceptable. It seems that the police would be in a better place if they knew that any open carry they saw on public land was required to be done with background certification. I dig police and the rule of law, as well as personal liberty. Perhaps over a generation or two of open carry, where fathers teach sons, restrictions could reduce, but current society has been conditioned by Kennedy/Clinton/Kerry, and their recent unbathed predecessors, to fear guns. The reassertion of a recognized right would grow on Texans over time. Let's do it NOW for CHL's, in fact I just wrote my State Senator, (thanks to this thread,) and requested that he initiate said legislation. I would carry openly with pride, where I could, because Texas is my kind of place.

[casselthief]

What part of the second amendment specifically states that a carry permit is required?
The fact that our permit gains us carry in other states would be moot if ALL states followed the Constitution and BOR literally.

Remember, you have a PERMIT that allows you to exercise a RIGHT.

Driver's License.
no where in the constitution does it mention being 16 to get a dr's license, least that I'm aware of.
licensure isn't an infringement, it's a way to make sure you have the basic knowledge of the laws, and things like that.
If you want a license to drive a car, you gotta take a class, show proficiency driving, and knowing the octagon means stop.
I feel the same about weapons.

Open Carry? eh. sure. with a license. concealed carry? sure. with a license.
no license? bad idea. in my opinion.

if you think of it just like a Driver's License, it seems pretty reasonable.

[rspeir]

The problem with the driver's license example is that there is no constitutional right to drive, there is to keeping and bearing arms. I trust in the wisdom of the founding fathers and they didn't feel the need to require training, insurance, political connections or anything else in order for Americans to exercise our rights to keep and bear arms. If it's okay to require a permit to carry a concealed weapon, why wouldn't be okay to require a permit to exercise the freedom of speech?

[Mithras61]

What part of the second amendment specifically states that a carry permit is required?
The fact that our permit gains us carry in other states would be moot if ALL states followed the Constitution and BOR literally.

Remember, you have a PERMIT that allows you to exercise a RIGHT.

Driver's License.
no where in the constitution does it mention being 16 to get a dr's license, least that I'm aware of.
licensure isn't an infringement, it's a way to make sure you have the basic knowledge of the laws, and things like that.
If you want a license to drive a car, you gotta take a class, show proficiency driving, and knowing the octagon means stop.
I feel the same about weapons.

Open Carry? eh. sure. with a license. concealed carry? sure. with a license.
no license? bad idea. in my opinion.

if you think of it just like a Driver's License, it seems pretty reasonable.

This is a poor comparison since neither the Constitution nor any other document that I'm aware of list having a Driver's License as a RIGHT (it isn't - it's a privilege). I agree that you should have a reasonable knowledge of the laws concerning use of deadly force and you should also know your weapon & how to use it safely & effectively, but any sort of permiting or licensure is infringing by its very nature.

Gunners;
The Second Amendment is rather clear. I would love someday to get an automatic rifle, but am trumped by mine congress. I do agree though, that a background check is acceptable. It seems that the police would be in a better place if they knew that any open carry they saw on public land was required to be done with background certification. I dig police and the rule of law, as well as personal liberty. Perhaps over a generation or two of open carry, where fathers teach sons, restrictions could reduce, but current society has been conditioned by Kennedy/Clinton/Kerry, and their recent unbathed predecessors, to fear guns. The reassertion of a recognized right would grow on Texans over time. Let's do it NOW for CHL's, in fact I just wrote my State Senator, (thanks to this thread,) and requested that he initiate said legislation. I would carry openly with pride, where I could, because Texas is my kind of place.

Why a background check? Criminals won't get one (in fact, if I recall correctly, the Courts have held that they don't HAVE to, since it could constitute self-incrimination), and law abiding folks don't need one (they're "clean" by definition, right?).

Also, how would the police have any knowledge of your status as licensed or unlicensed? This tends to lead to the slippery slope of having a license, and having to display it...

[jimlongley]

Recall also that a driver's license is only necessary on public highways that were built (presumeably) with public funds, and that the fees generated are supposedly earmrked for road building, improvements, etc.

I didn't have a driver's license when I started driving, nor did I register my car when I bought and drove it it, but neither took place off of private lands.

I have made this suggestion in response to anti-gun nuts who use driver's license and vehicle registration as an arguement to justify gun registration and licensing:

OK, license and register guns and shooters that will be used on public lands that are developed for those purposes (ie shooting hunting, etc) but allow, just as we do for motor vehicles, completely unrestricted ownership and use on private lands.

That's the short version anyway, and I would accept it with little modification, as long as I get to own whatever guns I want on my property, and shoot whatever I want on private ranges (within range limitations of course) and only my CHL and CHL gun get registered (and even that's questionable.)

In short, the driver's license/auto registration arguement is full of holes, I'll bet there are even a few of us left who remember when your commercial driver's license was not good in every state.

[casselthief]

This is a poor comparison since neither the Constitution nor any other document that I'm aware of list having a Driver's License as a RIGHT

There's just too much to debate about the DL not being in the Constitution, and the validity of all that.
I never intended on that being a comparison. I meant that as a reference.
make Handgun Licenses, just like hunting licenses, and driver's licenses.
have it marked on the back, OC, CC, whatever.
just my idea.

[Mithras61]

This is a poor comparison since neither the Constitution nor any other document that I'm aware of list having a Driver's License as a RIGHT

There's just too much to debate about the DL not being in the Constitution, and the validity of all that.
I never intended on that being a comparison. I meant that as a reference.
make Handgun Licenses, just like hunting licenses, and driver's licenses.
have it marked on the back, OC, CC, whatever.
just my idea.

My point was quite simply that having a license to do anything presupposes that you don't have that activity as a right. You don't have to have a license to speak or publish information. You don't have a license to not quarter troops. You don't have alicense to not incriminate yourself. Why should you have a license to carry a weapon?

I don't object to a hunting license because it is used for managing the population of the animals. It isn't about if you can carry a rifle or bow & arrows. I don't object to having a driver's license because I don't think driving on public streets is a right.

I object to firearms ownership & carrying licenses because they suggest that some people should be prevented from carrying and exercising their 2nd Amendment rights by the Government. Historically, governments take this right away from those most likely to make a fuss when that government tries to trample on other rights of the people.

[rodnocker1]

As has been said over and over, criminals will carry anyway. I doubt that I would open carry as I feel like several others, it let's the would be criminal know for sure that you are armed and taking a different line of attack rather than him having to take his chances. My stance could change if open carry were allowed due to it being easier than trying to maintain cover, especially in our Texas summer's. It would definitely make it less of a worry about having to remain 100% concealed.

As far as I can tell (IMHO) I think we tend to misunderstand what licenses are for. I believe (meaning me, myself and I) they are not to permit a person to exercise a right, grant permission, or limit access, they are a revenue generating instrument and anyone wanting it bad enough will pay. Several states have no CHL permits, New Hampshire only charges residents $10.00, etc. Why does a Texas CHL cost so much? Revenue! Whether it be a marriage, hunting, fishing, driving, CHL, or whatever, "it's all about the money". The same goes with most registration "fees" (a tax by any other name would.....well, you know).

[srothstein]

Driver's License.
no where in the constitution does it mention being 16 to get a dr's license, least that I'm aware of.
licensure isn't an infringement, it's a way to make sure you have the basic knowledge of the laws, and things like that.
If you want a license to drive a car, you gotta take a class, show proficiency driving, and knowing the octagon means stop.
I feel the same about weapons.

Open Carry? eh. sure. with a license. concealed carry? sure. with a license.
no license? bad idea. in my opinion.

if you think of it just like a Driver's License, it seems pretty reasonable.

I think you missed the whole point of freedom and the Constitution. The Constitution is an agreement between the people and the government on exactly what powers the government has and what it is limited to. The concept is that anything not granted to the government means the government cannot do it.

So, if the Constitution does not give the government the authority or power to require a license, then the law is unconstitutional. We normally accept driver's licenses as legal, but in reality, they are an unconstitutional infringement on your right to free travel in the US (see the 9th amendment on what rights you have that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution). If you check some of the very old court cases, you will even find that the courts said this at the beginning of the 20th century. A few people fought licenses on the basis that they were an infringement on their right to access public roads that horse riders could go on without licenses and won. Smart prosecutors did not appeal these cases so no binding precedents were made (takes appeals court decisions for that). Since it never made it to SCOTUS, we don't here about it and the states made several changes until we just accepted drivers licenses, but in reality they are not constitutional (just not worth the fight right now when we have bigger fights ahead of us).

You also seem to have missed the most important part of this issue. If I have a right that is not allowed to be infringed, how can I possibly be required to get a license to exercise that right? What happens to my right when the state declines to issue the license? If you think this doesn't happen, ask people in Chicago (IIRC, it might have been New York) how to get the paperwork to register a new gun. You can do it if you can file the forms, but the city is refusing to print the forms or give them out.

Sorry, but requiring a license IS an infringement on my rights, and does nothing but control people. After all, how many people have you seen with drivers licenses that do not have the skill to drive further than their own mailbox?

[PatrickS]

[quote="quidni"]How about none of the above?

Open carry for anyone who can legally own and possess a handgun, no permit required.

Concealed carry by permit.

[/quote]

How about a new poll with the above 4th option. That's the
one I was looking for. Chose the first option simply as the
second best choice...

[casselthief]

according to those who most recently posted, you HAVE to remove the part about legally being able to own, since it is a right.
course, why wouldn't you want the government to say twisted off criminals can't carry?


sure, say criminals will carry anyway, but hey, making it a crime certainly helps the cops, cause then they can hold'em till evidence comes in, I mean, c'mon, doesn't anybody watch Law & Order?

[Charles L. Cotton]

I’m against open-carry for the reasons we previously discussed in other threads. However, I would like to comment on the constitutional rights v. legal restrictions issue.

First my beliefs:
I believe the Second Amendment is an individual right, not a “collective� right.
I believe the Second Amendment is a fundamental right (this is significant);
I believe the Second Amendment applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment; I do not believe it applies only to the federal government.

It is undisputed that in order to restrict a fundamental right, the government must meet the strict scrutiny test by showing a compelling state interest for the restriction and the restriction must be crafted as narrowly as possible. It is extremely difficult for the government to meet the strict scrutiny test and pass laws significantly restricting a fundamental right. There are very few instances where laws have withstood this test.

A good example of this is the right to vote. This is undisputedly a fundamental right of every U.S. Citizen. Gone are the days of the Poll Tax and literacy test. However, voter registration laws and laws designating a specific place for a person to vote are constitutional. Although Texas will allow a person to vote without their voter registration card, using only their driver’s license, I do not believe recognizing only a voter’s registration card would be unconstitutional. (I’m not 100% sure on this, as I have not done the research.) Texas is considering a new voter registration card that would include a picture and if it passes, this would be required to vote. So, requiring a card to exercise a fundamental right is constitutional in this example. The compelling state interest is in insuring the one-man-one-vote principle is maintained, but it is also to ensure that the person is an eligible voter; i.e. an American Citizen and not a convicted felon that lost their right to vote.

So, if the Second Amendment is a individual right, and if it is a fundamental right, what restrictive laws would likely pass the strict scrutiny test? I believe a law forbidding convicted felons from possession firearms would be found constitutional. I also have little doubt that at least parts of the NFA would be found constitutional, though by no means all of it. Laws forbidding the possession of WMD’s and bombs would likely be found constitutional. But laws requiring payment of all taxes, school loans, franchise taxes and the like clearly would not pass constitutional muster. Neither would laws prohibiting the carrying of arms in bars, government meeting, national parks, and numerous other “off limits� locations. Would CHL laws be constitutional? I believe they would, if they were limited to verifying the person was eligible to exercise that fundamental constitutional right (remember the voter registration card); i.e. they are an American citizen and not a convicted felon. In short, some few gun laws would be found constitutional, but the vast majority of those on the books likely would not.

What price would we Second Amendment supporters pay if the U.S. Supreme Court were to rule that the Second Amendment does not allow any restrictions on the “keeping and bearing� of arms, other than prohibiting non-citizens and felons from having arms and prohibiting WMD’s? I believe Congress would pass a constitutional amendment, and 2/3 of the states would ratify it, both in record time! I believe the amendment would either gut or totally repeal the Second Amendment.

The vast majority of Americans are neither members of the NRA or the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Rather, they are in the middle and generally support the NRA’s position on gun laws. (The latest Zogby “big� survey showed that support to be a whopping 70+%!) If faced with headlines such as “Supreme Court Strikes Down All Gun Laws,� we would loose that support in a heartbeat, because of the fear and panic that the media and anti-gunners could generate. Not even all gun owners agree on what guns are “needed.� Many shotgunners see no reason for anyone to have an AR-15 or a 30 rd. mag. Many pistol shooters don’t see a “need� for 50 BMG rifles. In truth, constitutional rights have nothing to do with “need,� but those opinions are out there, like it or not.

So what am I suggesting? Simply this; we should work to repeal as many gun laws as possible starting with the restrictions that serve no purpose whatsoever. Payment of taxes, school loans and other governmental fees are a pet peeve with me as they have absolutely nothing to do with crime prevention (as required in the Texas Constitution). “Off-limits� locations should be very few in number. “Car-carry� without a CHL here in Texas is a huge step in the right direction. Perhaps Alaska-carry is achievable in Texas, but it must be done incrementally or the effort is destined to fail. Over time, I would like to see requirements for a CHL to be nothing more than I think the Second Amendment would allow; i.e. verification that the applicant is a U.S. Citizen and that they are not a felon. These are the requirements in a number of states, so this is not a radical suggestion.

It is the “nuclear option� I believe is dangerous; i.e. arguing that all gun laws are unconstitutional. In all likelihood, it would fail, however, in the unlikely event such a campaign were successful, the backlash would be disastrous.

Chas.

[stevie_d_64]

Charles...

I think its the idea that we take three steps forward, and two steps back, and that the "baby step" method, although effective in most ways, is frustrating to most "activist" gun-owners, that when the big ones come up that "restrict" us, for example the "1994 AWB"...It seems that "why not?" lets try to get rid of most of them as we can in one fatal swoop...That rings true to a lot of folks out there that may not understand that it could backfire, or fail miserably...

I have always thought that the option to open carry in Texas was a baby step in the right direction...

Nobody is going to put a gun to your head and make you do it...(pardon the pun)...So putting aside the arguments for and or against it...Why should it be that much of a pill for Texas to swallow???

Most know I'm for the option, but I'll pick and choose my time when I will carry concealed, and the few times I may choose to carry openly...

The choice is a fundamental reason this country stays relatively stable...

The bearing of arms is an empowerment that every citizen is enabled to do...It is a symbol that all free men (and women) should be proud to do, if they so choose...

It represents a personal and moral fortitude that demonstrates and illustrates a seriousness of purpose and a respect for the freedoms this country was founded on...

And if you happen to see someone walking down the sidewalk openly carrying, most people who would understand the meaning is not in the hardware you carry, its in the heart of that person that the hardware protects...

An open carry option is a baby step for this state...

Just like all the other things that have been legislated in the last 10 or so years that has unfettered the citizens of this state to be moral and responsible people in their communities...

I believe sometimes that our government doesn't really want us to be moral or responsible with the way they desire to regulate and force us more to be wards of the state, and supportive of an elite few who form that government...