SB17 Allowing Permitted Open Carry Has Just Passed The Texas State Senate

carstensxdm45 said:

Hey jsimmons, what is your problem? Don't like what is being served fine but don't spit in everyone else's food!!

Click to expand...

"Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license. "

You might have a problem. They need to add "concealed" in front of handgun. Georgia LE agencies weren't obeying court precedent and so the legislature had to make it explicit that stopping for carry, in and of itself, was not permissible.

carstensxdm45 said:

His problem is it is all or nothing, you will be hard pressed to find anything perfect, perfect becomes the enemy of good, we refuse it because it is not perfect, constitutional carry is the goal, take what you can get and fight for more later

Click to expand...

I'd make a minor edit to this, not changing the overall air of it but just a detail which might or might not be critical in some circumstances...

Instead of saying to take what we can get and fight for more later, I'd say, fight for what's right now and all the time, while taking what is given along the way.

Never stop, or delay, or pause the fight for true constitutional carry, but certainly don't deny more liberty simply because it isn't full liberty.

I don't subscribe to the constitutional carry or bust mentality, but I don't want to stop fighting for constitutional carry.

I know this isn't a contradiction to your post, I was just using your post as a launching point, so to speak

77zach said:

"Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license. "

You might have a problem. They need to add "concealed" in front of handgun. Georgia LE agencies weren't obeying court precedent and so the legislature had to make it explicit that stopping for carry, in and of itself, was not permissible.

Click to expand...

I am curious to see what comes of this section, if anything, when open carry takes effect. The penalty was apparently removed, while the section remains on the books, whatever that means.

Stealthy, you are absolutely correct, thanks for the backup

stealthyeliminator said:

...snip...

Never stop, or delay, or pause the fight for true constitutional carry, but certainly don't deny more liberty simply because it isn't full liberty.

I don't subscribe to the constitutional carry or bust mentality, but I don't want to stop fighting for constitutional carry.

...snip...

Click to expand...

Agree totally! It may not be what I really want but I'll take it this time around...especially after the disappointments of the previous sessions. Fingers crossed, if anything, this will help the case for constitutional carry in two years--once people start seeing open carriers and see that we're not taking each other out at high noon every day.

qednick said:

Agree totally! It may not be what I really want but I'll take it this time around...especially after the disappointments of the previous sessions. Fingers crossed, if anything, this will help the case for constitutional carry in two years--once people start seeing open carriers and see that we're not taking each other out at high noon every day.

Click to expand...

Because, no doubt, you dumb knuckledragging gun-totin' rednecks are so stoopid you would take each other out at 12 noon by the clock (even during daylight savings time) instead of at high noon. (Yes, that's sarcasm. We all know zero, zip, nada will happen.)

In all seriousness, one can no longer try to make the message, "we are carrying rifles because we can't carry pistols, and if you think the rifle is scary, maybe you should work to let us carry the pistols," so someone has to think of a way to make visual the basic message of "we shouldn't need a permit to do this."

SteveInCO said:

snipped...(do not wish to be accused of inciting or casting dispersion against the citizens of the LoneStar state)
In all seriousness, one can no longer try to make the message, "we are carrying rifles because we can't carry pistols, and if you think the rifle is scary, maybe you should work to let us carry the pistols," so someone has to think of a way to make visual the basic message of "we shouldn't need a permit to do this."

Click to expand...

why change tactics now Steve, et al., the LG carry campaign worked so well as Texan's citizens now (well... maybe, perhaps, could be ~which way is the wind blowing?) have a OC punch on their CC privilege card (oh forget about those citizens who don't have one now & have to proffer up to the LoneStar's profit center so they can OC) but always remember: their legislature will change legislation in the future...let's see...hummm over a hundred yeas of no capability to OC? ~ Ya next session the OC law will be changed...RIGHT!

oh and the state's part time lawmakers will continue getting elected by those citizens who are accepting of 'partial' instead of doing it right the first time.

by the way, this OC punch on your CC privilege card, supposedly in the wind by the legislation, is immune from being changed by local municipalities throughout the state?? sorry as one of the posters stated: too long to read to compare!

may https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W41tB1nkQtI be upon the good folk in the LoneStar state!!



ipse

solus said:

by the way, this OC punch on your CC privilege card, supposedly in the wind by the legislation, is immune from being changed by local municipalities throughout the state?? sorry as one of the posters stated: too long to read to compare!

may https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W41tB1nkQtI be upon the good folk in the LoneStar state!!

View attachment 12444

ipse

Click to expand...

There are already statutes that say municipalities can't make laws stricter than the state laws. We should be good. OTH, that doesn't mean Houston, Dallas, Sa or Austin wont try.

mustangkiller said:

There are already statutes that say municipalities can't make laws stricter than the state laws. We should be good. OTH, that doesn't mean Houston, Dallas, Sa or Austin wont try.

Click to expand...

thanks mustang, in new mexico, colorado, and even in north carolina when they initially issued their cc privilege card the cities stated nope not in our locale. glad it is already covered in Texas statutes.

ipse

solus said:

thanks mustang, in new mexico, colorado, and even in north carolina when they initially issued their cc privilege card the cities stated nope not in our locale. glad it is already covered in Texas statutes.

ipse

Click to expand...

Colorado has pre-empted local governments on CC via permit. (But not on OC.)

solus said:

why change tactics now Steve, et al., the LG carry campaign worked so well as Texan's citizens now (well... maybe, perhaps, could be ~which way is the wind blowing?) have a OC punch on their CC privilege card (oh forget about those citizens who don't have one now & have to proffer up to the LoneStar's profit center so they can OC) but always remember: their legislature will change legislation in the future...let's see...hummm over a hundred yeas of no capability to OC? ~ Ya next session the OC law will be changed...RIGHT!
ipse

Click to expand...

Can't quite figure out what you are saying here.

The reason I suggested a change in tactics is the message was "We carry rifles because we can't carry handguns." Well, now you can carry handguns (albeit with a permit) so that message will (at best) confuse people. The message should now be "Why the heck do we need a permit to carry handguns" and I don't see how carrying rifles will help convey that. Though a less rambling explanation would be in order if I am wrong.

I am just saying, pick the best way to put the message across. That may no longer be the way that worked before, because the circumstances have changed.

Honestly, I don't think rifle OC is going to stop if all that's passed is licensed open carry. I also think it can still be used to convey the right message.

If someone is carrying both (modern handgun and rifle) "You can carry this rifle freely, but to carry this little handgun, which is much more practical for everyday self defense, you're expected to pay a fee and get a privilege card from the state. How silly is that?"

If carrying only rifle "You can carry this rifle freely, without having to get pre-approval from the state, but if you wanted to just carry a little handgun everyday for self defense, you'd have to start paying fees and get a privilege card from the state. How ridiculous is that?"

Ian said:

I certainly understand that and I agree with you that an all or nothing attitude is seemingly not going to help us get what we ultimately want. Sometimes you have to play the game.

All I'm saying is you can attack the man's view points without having to attack the man.


jsimmons, what would you suggest we do differently and how would we go about it?

Click to expand...

The Constitution was an all or nothing deal, why shouldn't I want the same things my forefathers wanted - and got. All I want is Constitutional carry. Nothing more, and more importantly, nothing less.

I merely stated I don't support SB17. In the end, my support (or lack thereof) doesn't matter one way or another. My view is that driving a car is a privilege, and can be licensed, and your license can be revoked. Keeping and bearing arms is NOT a privilege - it's a natural right, and rights are not revocable, therefore licensing or establishing a fee structure in order to restrict/control a right is unconstitutional. Like I said before, all SB17 does is expand on what the state thinks is a privilege, and does NOTHING for your typical citizen. It's all a sham.

SteveInCO said:

Colorado has pre-empted local governments on CC via permit. (But not on OC.)

Click to expand...

yes steve your are correct, to a point...Colorado, Nuevo Mexico, and North Carolina legislatures had to go back and enact additional statutes stating the cities couldn't enact restrictive ordinances...

now before you take off...

remember, as recently discussed on this very forum... that is why an appeals court upheld, against the state's preemption claim, leaving Denver/county's firearm's ordinances intact cuz after the passed preemption statutes were enacted, Denver said nope, we are keeping our restrictive firearm ordinances !!

in the Land Time forgot, Baca, Alb's mayor said no, not only h3ll no CC of firearms in 'his' city. Gov called a special legislation session to put a stop to Baca's rhetoric, Baca who was a front runner for a bid towards the Gov's seat faded into obscurity...thank goodness!

In NC, there is still contests on what locales declare as GFZs even with preemption.

so perhaps my query about texas' preemption wasn't so far fetched after all...huh!!

ipse

solus said:

yes steve your are correct, to a point...Colorado, Nuevo Mexico, and North Carolina legislatures had to go back and enact additional statutes stating the cities couldn't enact restrictive ordinances...

now before you take off...

remember, as recently discussed on this very forum... that is why an appeals court upheld, against the state's preemption claim, leaving Denver/county's firearm's ordinances intact cuz after the passed preemption statutes were enacted, Denver said nope, we are keeping our restrictive firearm ordinances !!

ipse

Click to expand...

Can't speak to the others (which I therefore didn't quote here), but Denver has in fact been pre-empted on concealed carry. The state made no open carry pre-emption claim. That appeals court you reference was dealing with an open carry case, and it even went to the state supreme court, which failed to overturn it due to a tie vote. Since the state had made no open carry preemption claim, that was the excuse the jurispukes used to uphold Denver's law against OC. (An egregiously bad ruling given the plain language of article II section XIII of the Colorado Constitution, which states that the right to OC shall not be called into question (to say nothing of the US 2A); the state should not have to legislate such a pre-emption claim for OC.)

Denver has also been pre-empted on in-car carry.

Denver still has varying restrictions on the type of firearms one may keep, but they have to let people from other parts of the state who are passing through alone. It boils down to it being illegal to possess those items if you are in Denver with "Denver" given as the address on your driver's license.

So we have a situation where people from outside of Denver can pretty much ignore what denver says, even in Denver (with the exception of OC), while Denver is PRK lite, but with shall-issue CC.

Nightmare said:

Is there a penalty for enforcing a preempted restriction. Is there a penalty for a false/pretextural enforcement of such an ordinance.

You may beat the rap but you will not beat the ride.

Click to expand...

Thankfully, I believe at least one bill is being introduced to create penalties for government agencies or offices that attempt to restrict the people's rights in violation of state preemption law, in specific circumstances at least. People are fighting for better tools to hold those in power accountable.

Nearly 30 years ago I lived in San Angelo and ranged out to some of the smaller communities of west Texas in my occupation. It was nothing to be sitting in a cafe with ranchers and cowboys packing side arms. Of course they all had loaded rifles and shotguns in the pickup racks. Nobody said a word. Having come there from CA It was a surprise. Of course being able to drive down the road suckin on a cool one was also curious to me.

My question is, what happened? Or was it just the area I lived that LEO didn't care?

TBG

I lived in San Angelo myself from 1964 - 1982. The 46.02 handgun restriction was generally not enforced in the absence of criminal conduct. .....which IMHO happens to be the legislative intent of this section of the penal code in the first place.

West Texas was a pretty much another "State of mind" anyway compared to the larger metro urban areas. The biggest problem was always Harris County ( Houston) when it came to enforcing 46.02 against law-abiding citizens.

jsimmons said:

The Constitution was an all or nothing deal, why shouldn't I want the same things my forefathers wanted - and got. All I want is Constitutional carry. Nothing more, and more importantly, nothing less.

I merely stated I don't support SB17. In the end, my support (or lack thereof) doesn't matter one way or another. My view is that driving a car is a privilege, and can be licensed, and your license can be revoked. Keeping and bearing arms is NOT a privilege - it's a natural right, and rights are not revocable, therefore licensing or establishing a fee structure in order to restrict/control a right is unconstitutional. Like I said before, all SB17 does is expand on what the state thinks is a privilege, and does NOTHING for your typical citizen. It's all a sham.

Click to expand...

wait, then why'd they write the bill of rights?

jsimmons said:

The Constitution was an all or nothing deal, why shouldn't I want the same things my forefathers wanted - and got. All I want is Constitutional carry. Nothing more, and more importantly, nothing less.

I merely stated I don't support SB17. In the end, my support (or lack thereof) doesn't matter one way or another. My view is that driving a car is a privilege, and can be licensed, and your license can be revoked. Keeping and bearing arms is NOT a privilege - it's a natural right, and rights are not revocable, therefore licensing or establishing a fee structure in order to restrict/control a right is unconstitutional. Like I said before, all SB17 does is expand on what the state thinks is a privilege, and does NOTHING for your typical citizen. It's all a sham.

Click to expand...

Well, I have a nit with that. Driving is also a natural right. The difference is that infringement of that right by the government is not prohibited by the constitution.

Rights are also revocable. The constitution provides that a person can be deprived of rights through due process.