Thread: Constitutional Carry
There are a few members on this forum who have a very comprehensive view of the current Texas Constitution and Penal Code. I would like to have a respectful conversation regarding the following.
1. If you claim that possessing / wearing arms is a Right, why would you ever get permission (a license) to participate in what you claim is above the regulating authority of the STATE? "I got my CHL to protect my 2A right" is an oxymoron.
2. Going further in making the claim of a Right, why would the focus be to strike part X or Y from the penal code in chapter 46 that pertains to a CHL holder. Again, acceptance of the license is admission to the STATE that you view the subject as a privilege.
We have four states with Constitutional Carry and its passage in Texas would put 99% of the issues on this forum to bed. Some say 'baby steps.' I say study the path four other states have trail blazed. This is a food for thought discussion as its too late for this session.
I have no such "comprehensive view of the current Texas Constitution and Penal Code" (so I hope you'll entertain my responding anyway) but I did want to say I agree with you that Constitutional Carry would be OUTSTANDING for TX -- and for EVERY state (especially the most thus-far repressive anti-gun/anti-carry states such as HI, for specific example).
MOST if not ALL of us here agree that some form of carry (as per recognizing the 2nd part of the 2nd Amendment "to bear") IS a right, not a privilege, but apparenlty the SCOTUS hasn't agreed for how long now (or states such as super-infringing UNconstitutional HI would have been "corrected" LONG ago)? Neither have many state legislatures that have INFRINGED upon the 2nd Amendment to varying degrees -- and get away with it. So, in states where a permit is REQUIRED, the legal consequences of getting caught with an "illegal" handgun (not to mention the "collateral damage" of becoming a "criminal" would likely do to one's family, career/employment, etc.) are such that most people want to avoid that -- so they are forced/coerced into getting a permit -- as distasteful as that may be. As another poster mentioned earlier (and in another thread) single men with no attachments MIGHT take a stand aganist this kind of "infringement" by "the state" (meaning federal and state governments) but those with families and other such reponsibilities likely would not.
And there are other reasons people get a permit. I could cite MY particular case as an example, but won't elaborate as I would also have to cite the 5th Amendment along with discussing the 2nd. No can do -- not in public and not in writing. ;-)
So on the surface, yes, by getting a permit it could be said people are not only condoning, but also "aiding & abetting the delinquency of the state" -- and at the same time, showing they agree that the right to carry IS a privilege, or, that "the state" DOES have the right to sell/rent us our RIGHTS (sell = initial CC permit/application fees; rent = periodic CC permit renewal fees).
Still, I think it's CRIMINAL that decent citizens are put in this position -- accepting what's WRONG because of the consequences doing otherwise -- but that's the reality of it. And few will challenge it.
Although I'm not sure how COMPLETE (and honest, forthcoming or candid) a discussion on this topic you can have here in a PUBLIC forum, I'm sure others will respond to you shortly...not everyone here has led such a "colorful life" (I've often been told) as Yours Truly and can speak more freely!
Last edited by cloudcroft; 12-30-2012 at 12:57 PM.
Just because the state infringes on my right, does not make it less of a right.
I have an absolute fundamental, human, and constitutional right to order a machine gun, short barreled shotgun, and destructive device and have them delivered directly to my home in another state, without going through any government approval process. The government infringes upon those rights, but they are still my rights.