The consensus of the citizens of Texas in 1875 was that the delegates tasked with adopting a post-Reconstruction constitution should essentially reinstate the universally respected, and readily available 1845 Texas Constitution, while modifying it only as necessity might require rather than attempting to start from scratch, or rely upon the 1861, 1866, or 1869 Texas Constitutions as models. This is a CRUCIAL element - in any effort to honestly interpret the intent of "...but the Legislature shall have power to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime".
The 1845 Texas Constitution provided absolutely NO means for the Texas Legislature to regulate the right to keep and bear arms. The only discussion during the 1845 Constitution Convention relating to the question of whether the right should be subject to some restriction concerned the practice of CRIMINALS carrying CONCEALED deadly weapons- primarily Bowie Knives by the way - not handguns. Bowie Knives were much more lethal, and not limited to only ONE "shot" as pistols were.
Efforts to adopt some restriction upon CONCEALED carry of deadly weapons during the 1845 Convention FAILED due to the overriding concern that such restrictions would also render the LAW-ABIDING citizens helpless in the face of assassins, and robbers. In other words the consensus of the convention delegates was that it was preferable to suffer the spurious practice of potential criminals carrying concealed deadly weapons, than to prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves against such criminals by also carrying concealed deadly weapons.
Arguments were put forth during the 1875-76 Constitution Convention that the Legislature should be empowered to PROHIBIT the wearing of arms - AGAIN - a term used to describe the CONCEALMENT of arms. The proposed power to "PROHIBIT the wearing of arms" was not adopted. Instead the wording "power to REGULATE the wearing of arms , WITH A VIEW TO PREVENT CRIME" was adopted. In other words this power to regulate the wearing of arms was INTENDED to address the wearing of arms FOR CRIMINAL PURPOSES.
The entire legal premise that handgun carry is somehow excepted from the right to keep and bear arms that every citizen shall have under the present 1876 Texas Constitution is preposterous. Handgun carry for CRIMINAL purposes may be regulated. The Texas CHL is constitutional to the extent that such licensing serves to preclude known criminals from carrying handguns, but there is no basis for the premise that the 1876 Texas Constitution somehow provides the Legislature with the power to mandate that law-abiding citizens who are issued the CHL must carry their handguns concealed at all times.
I know - Texas case laws still stubbornly adheres to the April 12, 1871 Disarmament Act that essentially banned habitual handgun carry except when traveling. This aspect of Texas case law is an utter embarrassment to the Lone Star State in that it amounts to nothing less than 141 years of voluntary submission to federal Reconstruction rule well into the 21st Century.
Now - if my feeble, and simple mind can navigate through a few pages of documented Texas history, and reason out this obvious conclusion - don't you think the Texas Attorney General can do the same ? And isn't that the job he was hired to do - provide wise counsel to the State regarding the Texas Constitution ?
