Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Constitutional carry coming to Texas

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453

    Constitutional carry coming to Texas

    I had a chance to talk to some of the legislators yesterday! I asked one of our favorite ones what it will take to have Constitutional carry. His reply: we need to educate the legislators. Most of them have no idea that most states allow some form of unlicensed carry. They think we need a permit because they don't understand that most of the country doesn't...... This person I talked to was very well informed and knew that Kansas and Maine just went Constitutional carry. So, let the education begin. We need to show up during this summer to all of our local club meetings that have legislators as guests..... That means Tea party, or Republican club or whatever we can find..... Without this step even if we replace Straus as speaker we will not have the legislators on board with us. It is important to also educate them that the Republican platform calls for Constitutional carry..... Constitutional carry will come to Texas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Alvin, Texas
    Posts
    117
    Is constitutional carry the biggest priority for 2017, or is it removal of prohibited places? In a perfect world we would do both, but as everyone saw this session, even with super majorities of Republicans in both chambers there is only so much that will get done.

    I can see arguments for either of these being the priority for 2017. On the side of CC, it's a valid argument that Texans should not have to ask permission from the state to excersize a constitutionally guaranteed right. A pay to play system discriminates against the poor and creates a privledged class.

    Arguing that some Texans do not qualify for a CHL, but still should have the right to carry is a BAD idea. The left would jump all over that argument.

    On the side of removal of prohibited places is the argument that we are considered responsible citizens 99% of the time, but not when we go to a sporting event, or go vote? It makes no sense to allow me to be armed in a cafe in the small suburb where I live, but I must be disarmed walking back to my car after attending an Astros game in downtown Houston. Common sense would tell you which situation carries the greatest possibility for needing protection.

    Again, if we lived in a perfect world, both of these measures would be well received by the legislature. But, in the world we live in we may have to choose which of these has a better chance of passage and is worth the political capital. I know there are those who are going to jump all over me because both of these issues are wrongly prohibiting people from excersizing their 2A right. Many will argue that we should DEMAND that the legislature restore all of our rights, but the reality is that we will not get everything we demand, regardless of it being the right thing to do.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453
    If you can own it, you can carry it. Period. Lots of people don't qualify for a CHL and can own a gun! Yes, they should be able to carry to defend themselves. No, it's not a BAD idea! We need to stop creating more and more classes of defenseless citizens! As far as places off limits, Texas is one of the best in the nation. Very few places where you cannot carry (relative to many other states.....)

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453
    Quote Originally Posted by canvasbck View Post
    Is constitutional carry the biggest priority for 2017, or is it removal of prohibited places? In a perfect world we would do both, but as everyone saw this session, even with super majorities of Republicans in both chambers there is only so much that will get done.


    Again, if we lived in a perfect world, both of these measures would be well received by the legislature. But, in the world we live in we may have to choose which of these has a better chance of passage and is worth the political capital. I know there are those who are going to jump all over me because both of these issues are wrongly prohibiting people from excersizing their 2A right. Many will argue that we should DEMAND that the legislature restore all of our rights, but the reality is that we will not get everything we demand, regardless of it being the right thing to do.
    I would never hire you as a negotiator. You start the bargain at the lowest bid possible..... You must bring the argument to them and have them argue for less.... Don't ask for less from the beginning for fear of not getting any........

  5. #5
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Apparently rewriting 46.02 would fix some ambiguity issues, so my vote would be to make that a priority. If that rewrite takes the form of constitutional carry, that'd be great.

    I don't think that arguing the semantics of 'constitutional carry' is very prudent, to be honest. The bill has to have a title. Ideally everyone voting on it will know what it actually does (I know that isn't necessarily the case, but still) and so having the most semantically and politically correct title might not be so important. But hey, what do I know.
    Advocate freedom please

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453
    Agree stealthyeliminator. Generally speaking we come up with a concept: Castle doctrine, Parking lot carry, Constitutional carry or whatever.... Then we start passing these ideas in different states.... Once an idea catches on and it works we just replicate it..... It's like a good fast food design..... Once you get it right you just keep spreading the same concept across new territories..... In that sense branding and naming are important. We can point out how Constitutional carry works in Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine and Vermont..... We can also point out how open carry without a license works very well in almost 35 states..... The other 10 or so, that have open carry with a license only, can make a transition easier to join the MAJORITY of the states..... Texas pride should pressure these legislatures to not fall that far behind the MAJORITY of the other states...... So, once we sense an idea has some traction we jump on the bandwagon and roll with it..... That's all. Most people on this site have awesome ideas and valid points..... Sometimes the writing is on the wall: this legislative session the TSRA was strongly behind licensed open carry..... Once I saw that I knew we had a good chance to pass that.... Is it what I preferred? Nope. Did I go with it? Yes! When we see something we can really pass we need to unite behind it, if it is a step toward what we want......

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Alvin, Texas
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by Count View Post
    I would never hire you as a negotiator. You start the bargain at the lowest bid possible..... You must bring the argument to them and have them argue for less.... Don't ask for less from the beginning for fear of not getting any........
    When you negotiate, you have to go into the negotiation knowing what is possible and what is beyond your reach. Start the negotiation by asking for what is barely beyond your reach. But you have to know going in what concessions you are willing to make, then make the other side work hard to get you to make those concessions.

    I do understand the concept that shooting for the stars and just missing is better than aiming for a pile of manure and hitting. But thanks for your input anyway.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Alvin, Texas
    Posts
    117
    Quote Originally Posted by count View Post
    agree stealthyeliminator. Generally speaking we come up with a concept: Castle doctrine, parking lot carry, constitutional carry or whatever.... Then we start passing these ideas in different states.... Once an idea catches on and it works we just replicate it..... It's like a good fast food design..... Once you get it right you just keep spreading the same concept across new territories..... In that sense branding and naming are important. We can point out how constitutional carry works in alaska, arizona, wyoming, arkansas, kansas, maine and vermont..... We can also point out how open carry without a license works very well in almost 35 states..... The other 10 or so, that have open carry with a license only, can make a transition easier to join the majority of the states..... Texas pride should pressure these legislatures to not fall that far behind the majority of the other states...... So, once we sense an idea has some traction we jump on the bandwagon and roll with it..... That's all. Most people on this site have awesome ideas and valid points..... Sometimes the writing is on the wall: This legislative session the tsra was strongly behind licensed open carry..... Once i saw that i knew we had a good chance to pass that.... Is it what i preferred? Nope. Did i go with it? Yes! When we see something we can really pass we need to unite behind it, if it is a step toward what we want......
    ^^^this^^^^

  9. #9
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Count View Post
    I had a chance to talk to some of the legislators yesterday! I asked one of our favorite ones what it will take to have Constitutional carry. His reply: we need to educate the legislators. Most of them have no idea that most states allow some form of unlicensed carry. They think we need a permit because they don't understand that most of the country doesn't...... This person I talked to was very well informed and knew that Kansas and Maine just went Constitutional carry. So, let the education begin. We need to show up during this summer to all of our local club meetings that have legislators as guests..... That means Tea party, or Republican club or whatever we can find..... Without this step even if we replace Straus as speaker we will not have the legislators on board with us. It is important to also educate them that the Republican platform calls for Constitutional carry..... Constitutional carry will come to Texas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    at least a breath of an idea...catch up with the legislators on their turf but one thought off that...invite the legislator and staff members to an organized OC handgun picnic under the premise it is good exposure for the election(s).

    get with the friends of the NRA and sponsor a dinner...kill two birds in one.

    mate does bring up a good point...you need a list of options you are willing to settle for or the pile of bovine crap is what you will win.

    ipse
    Last edited by solus; 06-10-2015 at 05:28 PM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Then give the bill an honest title instead of glorifying it to be something that it isn't. Let's see....
    Labeling a bill is one of the more important parts of getting it passed.

    As an off topic example, Obamacare was never really about reducing or controlling medical costs, it was about extending medical insurance to additional persons. But it was labeled the "Affordable Care Act." That sells a lot better than "Increased Welfare Act that will raise insurance premiums for many current subscribers".

    Permit-free or Permit-Less carry can easily sound like we are not permitting something. Neither rolls off the tongue nicely.

    On the flip side, Constitutional Carry brings us closer to what the constitution requires. Here in Utah last year, we called it "Common-Sense Carry". Sixes IMO.

    Nor is Constitutional Carry dishonest simply because it doesn't eliminate all improper off-limits locations. In terms of how it addresses the requirement to get permission, it is "constitutional carry." And it is well understood by most in the RKBA community for what it is. There is a need for marketing. We should not be dishonest, but neither do we need to select terms that do not show well simply for slightly increased "accuracy".

    You can always come back next year with the "Safe Schools Act" that removes the carry restrictions in schools. And that name--or something similar--is way better than anything like "Allow Guns in Schools Law". Then follow up with the "Safe Post Office Law" at the federal level.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    There you go. Call it the Personal Safety and Self-Defense Act.
    In the absence of anything better, there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I can imagine a legislator giving it that official name.

    But since I'm not in Texas, I don't really get to decide.

    And it turns out we do have something "better" in terms of marketing appeal and existing branding: Constitutional Carry.

    We all know what it means: OC or CC of a gun in public, no permit required.

    It doesn't mean that every offensive, stupid, ill-conceived, or unconstitutional off limits location is eliminated. It doesn't mean unconstitutional limits on purchase, ownership, or even use are eliminated.

    We know what it means and it rolls off the tongue nicely. There is really nothing wrong with its usage at all, IMO.

    But I hasten to add, I'm not in Texas and so don't claim to know what might be the best naming tact there.

    In Utah we've used the terms "Constitutional Carry" and "Common-sense Carry".

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  12. #12
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    Our embarrassing plight....is that we must beg a special statutory dispensation from our respective elected law makers...who have ALL sworn oaths to respect and abide by our federal and state constitutions....in order to freely exercise a RIGHT already protected from infringement by same.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453
    Texas enjoys such a false reputation of being a rugged, pro gun, extremely conservative state......

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Anti-gun Congress Critter, "In 2015 you asked for Constitutional Carry and you got Constitutional Carry. Now you want to argue that we should allow you to carry a gun in a Post Office. Why? You say that you have Constitutional Carry so why are you now wanting something beyond the Constitution?"

    Average American voter, "Geez, they already got Constitutional Carry....why should I vote for another 'right' when they said back in 2015 that they got 'Constitutional Carry'. Why isn't the Constitution enough? Why do they want more?"

    How do you argue against that? After all it is you that will jump up and down and exclaim, "Yay! We got Constitutional Carry finally!", right?
    How do I argue against that?

    1-I probably won't have to since I don't recall Alaska, Arizona, nor any other recent State to go Constitutional Carry having to do so. Or has all progress on RKBA stopped in those States?

    2-If necessary, I might ask associates in those States what worked for them.

    3-The Average American voter has trouble remembering what happened before the last commercial break, much less last year or the year before in the legislature. I don't deal with "average American voters." I work with elected legislators.

    4-I might just say, "No bill is ever perfect. But since you now agree that Constitutional Carry is a good thing, let's actually repeal the remaining unconstitutional infringements."

    Respectfully, is this issue of calling it "constitutional carry" a real problem you've experienced or seen? Or is it more like the "problem" of OCers having a drink in public when doing so is perfectly legal? I trust you and I both have fine answers should someone be overly worried about an OCer having a drink, despite the long standing mantra of "guns and booze don't mix".

    What makes "constitutional carry" any more difficult to deal with after it passes than "guns and booze don't mix"?

    Permit free carry is a big deal. It can be a big hurdle to get over. If an alliterative, positive name like "Constitutional Carry" can help with that hurdle, so be it.

    Of course, this is still a Texas thread, so maybe "Texan Carry; Not that weeny pinko commie Kalifornication carry" is a better name to rouse support.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    Quote Originally Posted by Count View Post
    Texas enjoys such a false reputation of being a rugged, pro gun, extremely conservative state......
    This.

    While I would accept the description as mostly true, just as with any place, city folk have lost their ruggedness and tend toward wanting to be cared for and protected by the state.
    During the campus carry floor debate, one sticking point (that was resolved by the conference committee taking liberties) was to allow private colleges to restrict in any way they want, in the name of private property rights. They were more concerned about property rights than gun rights, because they don't view the latter as rights. And I think this is why and how we have carry by permit only.

    It is obvious that many lawmakers here are afraid of guns and afraid of people who want to carry guns. The fear is due to the mere presence of a gun, or how they view "gun people". Or it is fear of losing the votes of the "gun people". I would argue that we need to help the lawmakers understand what we want and why, rather than being overly argumentative - as they say, let's disagree without being disagreeable.

    From what I saw, once we have a couple of years of safe open carry, there may be more support to unlicensed carry. If need be, we might get things back in historical balance by pushing unlicensed open carry, while leaving concealed by permission. I do not see any hope of forcing private businesses to allow carry, but I could be wrong. The police might help with this effort if they start reporting significant numbers of guns stolen from parking lots at buildings where carry is prohibited. (Leaving a gun in a car while wearing an exposed, empty holster seems like asking for trouble.) I also suspect that if we started allowing unlicensed carry we would begin to see more 30.07 (openly carried guns prohibited) signs. Right now, I think the requirement for a permit will let people believe that anyone carrying a gun has training and has been verified to not be a criminal. Beginning Jan 1, expect to hear people saying "I don't mind people having guns but I don't want t see them in my shop."

  16. #16
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Of course, this is still a Texas thread, so maybe "Texan Carry; Not that weeny pinko commie Kalifornication carry" is a better name to rouse support.

    Charles
    Hahahaha, I actually like that title.
    Advocate freedom please

  17. #17
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    Hahahaha, I actually like that title.
    Thank you and have a ball. I'm not about to copyright it.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    796
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post

    It is obvious that many lawmakers here are afraid of guns and afraid of people who want to carry guns. The fear is due to the mere presence of a gun, or how they view "gun people". Or it is fear of losing the votes of the "gun people". I would argue that we need to help the lawmakers understand what we want and why, rather than being overly argumentative - as they say, let's disagree without being disagreeable.
    Yup.

    Watching the legislative process was disturbing to say the least. What was obvious as I watched endless hours of hearings, debates and political games is that most elected seem to be dangerously misinformed about guns and gun laws, and frankly it was readily apparent that a significant percentage of those making decisions about what may become law hadn't even actually read the legislation before them.
    NRA Life Member

    "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

  19. #19
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Glockster View Post
    Yup.

    Watching the legislative process was disturbing to say the least. What was obvious as I watched endless hours of hearings, debates and political games is that most elected seem to be dangerously misinformed about guns and gun laws, and frankly it was readily apparent that a significant percentage of those making decisions about what may become law hadn't even actually read the legislation before them.
    Yep, agree 100%.

    I understand that there are a lot of bills filed that one might have to make a decision on, but I can't help but think that's no excuse to be as clueless as many of them were...
    Advocate freedom please

  20. #20
    Regular Member half_life1052's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    271

    Too Late

    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Thank you and have a ball. I'm not about to copyright it.
    According the the Berne Convention, copyright protection is automatic at creation (poor mans copyright). So if you decide to remain anonymous your comment will remain copyrighted for 95 years. I am trying to recall if the site terms of service modified that or not. I don't remember.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, ,
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by canvasbck View Post
    Is constitutional carry the biggest priority for 2017, or is it removal of prohibited places? In a perfect world we would do both, but as everyone saw this session, even with super majorities of Republicans in both chambers there is only so much that will get done.

    I can see arguments for either of these being the priority for 2017. On the side of CC, it's a valid argument that Texans should not have to ask permission from the state to excersize a constitutionally guaranteed right. A pay to play system discriminates against the poor and creates a privledged class.

    Arguing that some Texans do not qualify for a CHL, but still should have the right to carry is a BAD idea. The left would jump all over that argument.

    On the side of removal of prohibited places is the argument that we are considered responsible citizens 99% of the time, but not when we go to a sporting event, or go vote? It makes no sense to allow me to be armed in a cafe in the small suburb where I live, but I must be disarmed walking back to my car after attending an Astros game in downtown Houston. Common sense would tell you which situation carries the greatest possibility for needing protection.

    Again, if we lived in a perfect world, both of these measures would be well received by the legislature. But, in the world we live in we may have to choose which of these has a better chance of passage and is worth the political capital. I know there are those who are going to jump all over me because both of these issues are wrongly prohibiting people from excersizing their 2A right. Many will argue that we should DEMAND that the legislature restore all of our rights, but the reality is that we will not get everything we demand, regardless of it being the right thing to do.
    Just because someone can't "legally" concealed carry, doesn't mean they should have their rights infringed. I say restore our constitutional rights FIRST, and then worry about prohibited places.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, ,
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    Anti-gun Congress Critter, "In 2015 you asked for Constitutional Carry and you got Constitutional Carry. Now you want to argue that we should allow you to carry a gun in a Post Office. Why? You say that you have Constitutional Carry so why are you now wanting something beyond the Constitution?"

    Average American voter, "Geez, they already got Constitutional Carry....why should I vote for another 'right' when they said back in 2015 that they got 'Constitutional Carry'. Why isn't the Constitution enough? Why do they want more?"

    How do you argue against that? After all it is you that will jump up and down and exclaim, "Yay! We got Constitutional Carry finally!", right?
    Because the 2nd amendment doesn't say "...shall not be infringed (except for arbitrarily selected gun-free zones)." We don't have constitutional carry until ALL restrictions are lifted on the keeping and bearing of arms.

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    453
    Constitutional carry terminology works..... What politician would argue that they are against something "Constitutional"? It worked very well this year in Maine, West Virginia, Kansas, New Hampshire, Montana,....... Interesting thing is Maine is heavily democrat and still passed..... So, when you have a terminology that sells well for both sides, you stick with it..... We are on the right track in Texas. Governor Abbott is better than Perry and Lt gov Dan Patrick is better than Dewhurst.... Open carry with a license is better than no open carry at all..... Campus carry is better than no campus carry at all..... We are winning...... We will be ripe for Constitutional carry in 2 years....... (our legislature only meets every 2 years...)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •