http://www.tmpa.org/news-article/tmpa-oppose-open-carry-amendment/
"The supporters of the amendment – even members of the Legislature – have misquoted and misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution in their efforts to garner support for what at best can be described as bad public policy. They have repeatedly and incessantly tried to argue a question of gun “rights.”"
...
"This bill has nothing to do with gun rights. HB 910 attempts to amend the current gun-licensing process in Texas. Which means it is a licensing issue – not a rights issue."
These Police organizations don't recognize the right to carry as a Constitutional right. The DPS teaching material in the CHL class states the permit is a privilege not a right! The original permit system was created many years before McDonald v Chicago which incorporated the Second Amendment to apply to the states. Before then it was recognized that through the Fourteenth Amendment the First, Fourth and Fifth apply to the states, but not the Second.
That changed. The teaching material should reflect that.
See this from Oyez.org:
Facts of the Case
Several suits were filed against Chicago and Oak Park in Illinois challenging their gun bans after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a District of Columbia handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. There, the Court reasoned that the law in question was enacted under the authority of the federal government and, thus, the Second Amendment was applicable. Here, plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment should also apply to the states. The district court dismissed the suits. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Read the Briefs for this Case
Question
Does the Second Amendment apply to the states because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities or Due Process clauses and thereby made applicable to the states?
Argument
McDonald v. Chicago - Oral Argument
McDonald v. Chicago - Opinion Announcement
Conclusion
Decision: 5 votes for McDonald, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: U.S. Constitution, Amendment 2
The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states. With Justice Samuel A. Alito writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that rights that are "fundamental to the Nation's scheme of ordered liberty" or that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" are appropriately applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court recognized in Heller that the right to self-defense was one such "fundamental" and "deeply rooted" right. The Court reasoned that because of its holding in Heller, the Second Amendment applied to the states. Here, the Court remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit to determine whether Chicago's handgun ban violated an individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
Justice Alito, writing in the plurality, specified that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. He rejected Justice Clarence Thomas's separate claim that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment more appropriately incorporates the Second Amendment against the states. Alito stated that the Court's decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases -- rejecting the use of the Privileges or Immunities Clause for the purpose of incorporation -- was long since decided and the appropriate avenue for incorporating rights was through the Due Process Clause.
