Constitutional carry bill pre-filed

stealthyeliminator said:

I think your conclusions are silly, billy. I can't believe you'd deny the closest thing to constitutional carry we can muster because it might mean you have to be more careful about being in possession while drinking.

In that section, "intoxicated" isn't defined, but I'm guessing a court would probably see it as something similar to the section further down... (1) "Intoxicated" means substantial impairment of mental or physical capacity resulting from introduction of any substance into the body.

If this applies to you, then you probably shouldn't carrying, much less hunting.

Click to expand...

My pistol and my car keys are equidistant at this moment. I'm two thirds into a nice variety 12 pack of hard cider, sitting in my own home close to midnight on a Saturday night.

Should I be arrested for DWI just because I could pull out my car keys and do so?

If not, what's the difference between my car and my pistol?

You won't be arrested if your pistol isn't on you.

Jack House said:

You won't be arrested if your pistol isn't on you.

Click to expand...

You don't *have* to be arrested if your car is on you.

jsimmons said:

You don't *have* to be arrested if your car is on you.

Click to expand...

If you're driving your car while intoxicated you deserve to be arrested.

Bill to bring Constitutional Amendment to vote has been filed

"Proposing a constitutional amendment to remove legislative authority to regulate the wearing of arms."
Bill History http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=HJR56
Bill Text http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/html/HJ00056I.htm

really, I could see courts still saying that they could regulate carry. Need to specifically say that they cannot.

IMO

Yes, I'm sure many would still try... Ultimately I think the only thing that'll keep guberment in check is the people standing up. Don't want to get in a situation where the only thing we do is point to ink on paper, words of the past. Oh wait, we've already done that. but I figure here I'm preaching to the choir, don't need to tell you these things.

the way I read it is that we need to get the word out to all pro carry gunners to vote yes because we all know that the anti-gunner will be there to vote no

Would seem that this proposed amendment is virtually Constitutional Carry.

Am I missing something?

Grapeshot said:

Would seem that this proposed amendment is virtually Constitutional Carry.

Am I missing something?

Click to expand...

Nope, I don't think you're missing anything.

Looks to be just Rep James White authored the Bill. Any co-sponsors on this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

davidmcbeth said:

really, I could see courts still saying that they could regulate carry. Need to specifically say that they cannot.

IMO

Click to expand...

For all the good that does. The 2A itself says no government on any level may but they do anyway. Though if it passes, that would be better than the other bill. That simply said licences were not required. This one would seem to ban any regulation meaning any public place or building is now fair game. Though I would add specific prohibitions or some fool is bound to try to slap a no gun sign up where they have no right.

rightwinglibertarian said:

For all the good that does. The 2A itself says no government on any level may but they do anyway. Though if it passes, that would be better than the other bill. That simply said licences were not required. This one would seem to ban any regulation meaning any public place or building is now fair game. Though I would add specific prohibitions or some fool is bound to try to slap a no gun sign up where they have no right.

Click to expand...

Well, it'd be good to push this and hb195. Several reasons. For one, if this passes it just puts the amendment on the ballot next time. Second, if this passes and then the amendment passes but no hb195 we'd be left to challenging the laws on the books in court. IMO we should push for 195 to get the laws fixed and then this to help protect the changes going forward. This won't just erase the prohibitions on the books.

davidmcbeth said:

really, I could see courts still saying that they could regulate carry. Need to specifically say that they cannot.

IMO

Click to expand...

That's already the case. The legislature has no power over anything absent the constitution granting them permission to do so. That's why our constitution has like 130 amendments.

Zach are you from Texas? Do you understand how the Texas constitution works?

Jack House said:

Zach are you from Texas? Do you understand how the Texas constitution works?

Click to expand...

No on the first, yes on the second.

Article 17: "Mode of amending the Constitution of this State"[edit]
Notwithstanding the large number of amendments (and proposed amendments) that the constitution has had since its inception, the only method of amending the constitution prescribed by Article 17 is via the legislature, subject to voter approval. The constitution does not provide for amendment by initiative, constitutional convention, or any other means. A 1974 constitutional convention required the voters to amend the Constitution to add a separate section to this Article; the section was later repealed in 1999.

The section also prescribes specific details for notifying the public of elections to approve amendments. It requires that the legislature publish a notice in officially approved newspapers that briefly summarizes each amendment and shows how each amendment will be described on the ballot. It also requires that the full text of each amendment be posted at each county courthouse at least 50 days (but no sooner than 60 days) before the election date.

Once an amendment passes it is compiled into the existing framework (i.e., text is either added or deleted), unlike the United States Constitution.

So no, you don't know.

Jack House said:

So no, you don't know.

Click to expand...

Well, are you going to enlighten me?

Doesn't really matter, it won't pass anyway. This route also requires litigation.

I already have.

Jack House said:

I already have.

Click to expand...

"That's already the case. The legislature has (sic) no power over anything absent the constitution granting them permission to do so. That's why our constitution has like 130 amendments."

Soooo......obviously they're not going to prevent themselves from regulating the wearing of arms... Soooooo..... any amendment that gives you what you want (pending the required litigation) will have to spell out where they can regulate wearing arms.