TexasCHLforum.com

Really, the ultimate solution is to once again allow us to carry without requiring a license.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:Really, the ultimate solution is to once again allow us to carry without requiring a license.

Anygunanywhere

Exactly. Someone please tell me when did the state usurp this right? Where does the state derive its authority to infringe on a fundamental right?

ryoung wrote:

Mike1951 wrote:Ya ain't from 'roun here, ere ya?

Excuse me?

Uhm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederat ... of_America


We're currently in that big ole state toward the southwest.

Some of you seem to need some help coming to grips with the outcome of the Civil War.

A war of attrition is what generally happens when an agrarian society takes up arms against an industrialized nation.

OK guys, this is off topic, bring it back around to CHL background checks.

anygunanywhere wrote:Really, the ultimate solution is to once again allow us to carry without requiring a license.

Anygunanywhere

Sorry, I have a very basic question, but when did it become illegal for citizens to carry without a permit, at least in Texas?

I'm getting this picture in my head of the movie Tombstone, where as the local lawmen the Earp brothers made it illegal for people to carry within the town limits...

ryoung wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote: Our very own Texas constitution is rife with reconstruction language, the most glaring example that is related to us and this board is the clause relating to the wearing of arms.

Anygunanywhere

I would like to know know more about that, but I think this thread has gone down an unhelpful rabbit trail, so we must attempt to get back on course.

. . .


As much as I hate to admit it, we really are like sheep.

I don't think we have gone down the rabbit hole here - the reconstruction era is, imho anyway directly connected to and responsible for many of the incursions on the rights that have taken place since then, and our Texas Constitution/Bill of Rights is a good example.

Keith B wrote:OK guys, this is off topic, bring it back around to CHL background checks.

And CHL background checks are part of the problem.

In 1875, when the Texas Constitution, the latest one that is, was being written, reconstructionists held sway over vast swaths of the recently conquered South, and ten years of reactions from the unreconstructed, such as my many times removed cousin, Bill Longley, were festering sores and even open wounds that they were having trouble healing. Many of the overtly rebellious were tacitly, if not openly, supported by the less adventurous and their actions with gun, knife, and stick were looked upon as what the carpetbaggers and their collaborators deserved.

Thus the new Texas Constitution included language that allowed the State to regulate the wearing of arms, which eventually led to a complete denial of concealed and open carry, and then led to our current CHL law. Of course that's severely truncated, but after all, this is meant to be a pretty short forum message, not a book.

So we can, justifiably, claim that our CHL law, and many of those in other states (don't get me started on the syphilitic Big Tim Sullivan) are a direct linear result of policies established by Lincoln and his successors in government. And background checks are endemic to the system, background checks that would have been as distasteful to our founding fathers as any other governmental intrusion.

And in some ways the Earp brothers were as bad as Sullivan, they had a tendency to petty crime themselves, and even more than petty if some tales are to be believed, and hung our with some pretty shady characters. They established their laws against guns in town ostensibly with a view to the safety of the citizenry, but an undeniable side benefit was that their sworn enemies had to disarm while they did not.

Such laws were quite common throughout the US in the era, and undoubtedly led to expansion of those laws, from town, to county, to state, and even nation, as time went on.

[/ did I really say that?]

Thanks Jim for the abridged history lesson.

Let us also take this as a lesson in never walking down the slippery slope, where one seemingly innocuous restriction leads to another seemingly innocuous restriction and then all of a sudden you have a ban on guns.

jimlongley wrote:
In 1875, when the Texas Constitution, the latest one that is, was being written, reconstructionists held sway over vast swaths of the recently conquered South, and ten years of reactions from the unreconstructed, such as my many times removed cousin, Bill Longley, were festering sores and even open wounds that they were having trouble healing. Many of the overtly rebellious were tacitly, if not openly, supported by the less adventurous and their actions with gun, knife, and stick were looked upon as what the carpetbaggers and their collaborators deserved.

Thus the new Texas Constitution included language that allowed the State to regulate the wearing of arms, which eventually led to a complete denial of concealed and open carry, and then led to our current CHL law. Of course that's severely truncated, but after all, this is meant to be a pretty short forum message, not a book.

So we can, justifiably, claim that our CHL law, and many of those in other states (don't get me started on the syphilitic Big Tim Sullivan) are a direct linear result of policies established by Lincoln and his successors in government. And background checks are endemic to the system, background checks that would have been as distasteful to our founding fathers as any other governmental intrusion.

That's a good part of it, but the other half is Jim Crow, that nasty little century's worth of our history. Freemen and former slaves alike were now citizens of the United States, and thus Dred Scott no longer applied. Blacks could vote, marry, travel freely, own property and businesses, and yes, own guns. Thus, the laws banning carry of guns were written with the intent that they wouldn't be enforced equally; the State could create all the laws it wanted to ban guns, and the good ol' boys on the bench would look the other way for whites. That philosophy came back to bite the lawmakers; as a result of the combination of the Summer of Love and the Civil Rights movement, the laws stayed on the books (make love not war) and applied to everyone (1967 CRA meant the judiciary, a government entity, could not discriminate). Quite simply, Texas law regulating firearm carry was misguided from the moment it was penned. First it was a tool for Reconstructionist LEOs, then for good old boys, then for gun grabbers. The laws have always been misused and misinterpreted, and it's time for a major rethink along those lines.

Liko81 wrote:That's a good part of it, but the other half is Jim Crow, that nasty little century's worth of our history. Freemen and former slaves alike were now citizens of the United States, and thus Dred Scott no longer applied. Blacks could vote, marry, travel freely, own property and businesses, and yes, own guns. Thus, the laws banning carry of guns were written with the intent that they wouldn't be enforced equally; the State could create all the laws it wanted to ban guns, and the good ol' boys on the bench would look the other way for whites. That philosophy came back to bite the lawmakers; as a result of the combination of the Summer of Love and the Civil Rights movement, the laws stayed on the books (make love not war) and applied to everyone (1967 CRA meant the judiciary, a government entity, could not discriminate). Quite simply, Texas law regulating firearm carry was misguided from the moment it was penned. First it was a tool for Reconstructionist LEOs, then for good old boys, then for gun grabbers. The laws have always been misused and misinterpreted, and it's time for a major rethink along those lines.

But even Jim Crow laws can be traced to reconstruction era attitudes and legal practices. I remember vividly the "whites only" water fountain sign in the city hall of Albany NY. Those laws and attitudes prevailed as much, and even more in some cases, in the north as well as the south.

Indeed, unequal enforcement of the law was the norm, from the Earps, to Sullivan, and even up to today, even if we are more aware of it and able to right the wrongs - sometimes - and even the CRA was flawed, making some more equal than others.

and it's time for a major rethink along those lines.

dukesean wrote:Sorry, I have a very basic question, but when did it become illegal for citizens to carry without a permit, at least in Texas?

I think it was the toxic combination of carpetbaggers and Jim Crow laws.

Like Joel White they didn't want "those people" to enjoy full civil rights.

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS.
Bill of Rights.

SEC. 23. 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.

So it is the exception clause that give the legislature its authority with respect to the wearing of arms, but only with a view to prevent crime. So any regulation restricting or permitting the wearing of arms, provided it is with a view to prevent crime, is fair game.

SEC. 29. To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this "Bill of Rights" is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.

Does this mean that the legislature is limited to making regulations concerning the wearing of arms? And are all other laws which place restictions on the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself void?

A very common phenomenon, and one very familiar to the student of history, is this. The customs, beliefs, or needs of a primitive time establish a rule or a formula. In the course of centuries the custom, belief, or necessity disappears, but the rule remains. The reason which gave rise to the rule has been forgotten, and ingenious minds set themselves to inquire how it is to be accounted for. Some ground of policy is thought of, which seems to explain it and to reconcile it with the present state of things; and then the rule adapts itself to the new reasons which have been found for it, and enters on a new career. The old form receives a new content, and in time even the form modifies itself to fit the meaning which it has received. The subject under consideration illustrates this course of events very clearly.

from The Common Law, O.W. Holmes, 1881

Does this not describe the plight of our Second Amendment?

God forbid its necessity, and the reasons for it should ever be forgotten.