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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Constitutional carry coming to Texas
- Thread starter Count
- Start date
canvasbck
Regular Member
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.
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.
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.....)
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........
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
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.
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.
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......
canvasbck
Regular Member
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.
canvasbck
Regular Member
^^^this^^^^
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:
utbagpiper
Banned
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
utbagpiper
Banned
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
rushcreek2
Regular Member
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.
utbagpiper
Banned
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
nonameisgood
Regular Member
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."
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
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.
utbagpiper
Banned
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.
stealthyeliminator
Regular Member
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...
half_life1052
Regular Member
Too Late
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.
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.