TexasCHLforum.com

Locksmith wrote:

...unless you are a felon, or diagnosed by his/her own doctor to be incapable of safely owning a weapon, until he/she can demonstrate otherwise...

This sort of prequalification is not a license, per se. Without a background check of some sort....well, I don't like the idea of freestyle OC.

Well Charles,
It looks like the poll is running about 80% in favor of some kind of open carry. I must admit I am suprised that it is that high of a number. Personally I suspected only about 60% or so.

Oldgringo wrote:I do not support the notion that every loonie in the state has a right to walk around with "a big iron on his/her hip" (ode to Marty Robbins). Ergo, I reckon I support the notion that some sort of prequalification process; e.g., the CHL licensing procedure be involved prior to Open Carry.

If it is unlicensed OC it is a right but if it is licensed it is a privilege we get from the government. That means a lot for those of us who understand the difference between freedom and government control.

We need unlicensed OC for any person that can buy a handgun from an FFL. Keep CHL as is and completely separate. Then unlicensed OC will be viewed like car carry so no arguments for more CHL restrictions will stick.

I considered not pushing OC in this session because of the national elections. Since I have seen conservative minded people acting to reorganize and rally. Unlicensed OC would be a big help to that cause in this state. The contrast between the National Democrat Party and National RINO Party with our local politics would bolster those who are conservative minded if we have a cause pass that is big as this is in peoples minds. Not another state controlled privilege but a true return of a civil right shows a good faith the Elected Servants of this state have in its people. We either leave the people of this state, who cannot afford to buy a CHL, helpless or we give back what was given to them by God and that is the choice to carry to defend themselves. In this debate we can not abide the temptation of elitism and arrogance our anti-freedom political opponents have adopted. We are either fearless, freedom loving people who have faith enough in the people to except their freedoms or we are cowards that don't deserve the freedom we put claim on. Free people do not need government but government needs free men and women. If the leaders of our great state will not recognize RIGHTS then they lose their influence of ever using freedom-rhetoric again. Either they support rights or the support government control. "Choose wisely because we are watching every move you make" is what we all should be telling our Elected Servants. We are the power of this State and it is time we except that responsibility and act accordingly.

Very well said.

jbirds1210 wrote:While I have great respect for many people that do support this cause, I am not one of them. I really feel like open carry is a bad idea.

Jason

Agreed.

I do not support the notion that every loonie in the state has a right to walk around with any book or say whatever is on their mind. Ergo, I reckon I support the notion that some sort of prequalification process; e.g., the first amendment licensing procedure be involved prior to being able to read or speak.

After reading the existing 37 posts, I voted for option 3 (licensed or unlicensed). While I, too, can think of people I would not want to have a gun readily available, the second amendment ("shall not be infringed") is still the law of the land.

Limitations are infringements, IMHO.

Yes and everyone else has the right to ban them on premises.
Would it would do is lead to many, many places banning forearms outright.
Churches, gas stations, all places of work, pretty much everywhere I can think would have that. In an urban environment its a creaky proposition.

I support it in principle. However, I don't think the time is right; there is too much media-hyped hoplophobia to overcome first. The public needs to be educated about the facts. Most of them have been filled with lies and misinformation about firearms.

nitrogen wrote:I do not support the notion that every loonie in the state has a right to walk around with any book or say whatever is on their mind. Ergo, I reckon I support the notion that some sort of prequalification process; e.g., the first amendment licensing procedure be involved prior to being able to read or speak.

Touche'

nitrogen wrote:I do not support the notion that every loonie in the state has a right to walk around with any book or say whatever is on their mind. Ergo, I reckon I support the notion that some sort of prequalification process; e.g., the first amendment licensing procedure be involved prior to being able to read or speak.

I support licensed concealed carry of books but I don't think people should be able to read them openly in public.

On the flip side you have to obtain a permit to march...

nitrogen wrote:I do not support the notion that every loonie in the state has a right to walk around with any book or say whatever is on their mind. Ergo, I reckon I support the notion that some sort of prequalification process; e.g., the first amendment licensing procedure be involved prior to being able to read or speak.

Thank you. You have confirmed my reservations regarding unbridled open carry of firearms.

Russell wrote: Why sigh? I agree with his statement. I believe that it should be tied into our CHL.

I believe that if you want to carry a handgun in public, you should have to be licensed.

Tsk tsk tsk.

Licensed rights.

Such a shame.

Anygunanywhere