Open Carry legally available now, but READ ON

imported post

Hello all,

I throw this out to this esteemed group as the executive summary with the details presented later in the post: you can openly carry, in public, in Texas, right now so long as your firearm was manufactured before 1899 (1898 and earlier). :celebrate

I am NOT a lawyer and don't rely on me. Read it yourself or have your legal counsel do it. Legal and "not gettting arrested" are two different things. If you do this, you will probably get arrested. I don't do it because I don't want to be the test case. Police officers (almost certainly) and even prosecutors will probably NOT understand this initially. I doubt is comes up very often. The adage that "you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride" applies! In the end, I think such charges would never stick but I'm admitting up front I'm not willing to chance it myself. That doesn't make is any less legal; I just don't have a wallet that let's me fight the government. :banghead:

DETAILED REASONING

The place to begin is at Penal Code section 46 which is entitled "Weapons". Here it directly from the State of Texas website at http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/PE/content/htm/pe.010.00.000046.00.htm#46.01.00:

PENAL CODE

TITLE 10. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND MORALS

CHAPTER 46. WEAPONS

§ 46.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(3) "Firearm" means any device designed, made, or
adapted to expel a projectile through a barrel by using the energy
generated by an explosion or burning substance or any device
readily convertible to that use. Firearm does not include a firearm
that may have, as an integral part, a folding knife blade or other
characteristics of weapons made illegal by this chapter and that
is:
(A) an antique or curio firearm manufactured
before 1899; or
(B) a replica of an antique or curio firearm
manufactured before 1899, but only if the replica does not use rim
fire or center fire ammunition.
(4) "Firearm silencer" means any device designed,
made, or adapted to muffle the report of a firearm.
(5) "Handgun" means any firearm that is designed,
made, or adapted to be fired with one hand.

Notice the definition offirearm and thenhandgun which inherits from firearm. It certainly appears to me that if your firearm was manufactured before 1899, whether or not it possesses a knife or other feature (the word may is crucial there), it is NOT considered a firearm for the purposes of this section. To post all of the relevant sections would be unwieldy, so having posted the exact language of the most crucial section, I am going to resort to references. Using the link above you can access any of them.

Carrying a handgun is generally illegal in Texas because of seciton 46.02 Unlawful Carrying of a Weapon (UCW). There are exceptions in 46.15 and this is how peace officers and CHL-holders, among others,are able to do so. The key point is that Section 46 contains the key language that regulates weapons including how and where they can be carried.

If a pre-1899 handgun truly is exempt from all of the prohibitions of section 46, then there is no regulation of how or where you can carry such a weapon that I am aware of (with the possible exception of the "disorderly conduct" statute which I believe isn't serious problem but I can address itif anyone is interested). Why? Because you are exempt from 46.02 which says you can't carry a handgun and 46.03 which defines "Places Weapons Prohibited" as well as every other subsection of section 46! Forget all of the CHL stuff with 51% and 30.06 and court offices, etc. If your sidearm is exempt from all of section 46, none of these areas are prohibited by law. See above about getting arrested as the officer doesn't know this!

Bottom line summary (again, IANAL): section 46 contains all of the restrictions on carrying weapons (that I am aware of) and your firearm is exempt from scope of section 46. Given this, I don't see any restriction on how or where you carry. It is NOT a coincidence that a pre-1899 weapon is also not considered a firearm for the purposes of federal law. Any FFL should be able to confirm this. These are "antiques" and not subject to the usual procedures. You can buy one, across state lines, sent directly to your door without an FFL being involved. This MIGHT (I have NOT researched this) mean that national parks, post offices, etc. are no longer legally off-limits (to whatever extent they are now). The real point is that by carrying a pre-1899 firearm, you are exempt from many, if not all, restrictions not just from Texas law but from federal law as well!

My personal opinion is that having one or two pre-1899 handguns would be a good thing and just might save your bacon if you found yourself in a situation not covered by your CHL. Openly carrying them, while legal, will earn you a quick trip to the pokey and until there is a court case or AG's opinion confirming the legality of it, I won't do it but that doesn't mean others shouldn't know the option is available. Hopefully someone out there can slay that dragon for us. Anyone?

Thoughts?

SA-TX

imported post

At least this time, if a newspaper calls it a cowboy gun-slinger law, they MAY be historically correct. > )

imported post

Not going into great detail, the short story is, this law and definitions were modeled after the Federal law addressing the same topic (almost verbatim) and is referring to Black powder weapons. The definition of antique firearm is made in federal law and clearly indicates it to be a black powder firearm that does not use rim fire or center fire ammunition.

Black powderguns are not classified as firearms underfederal or state law and, thus, can be carried legally. In fact, no FFL is needed to purchase one, they can be mail ordered and convicted felons can legally possess them.

In short, the YES, you can carry a black powder revolver in Texas if you wish. If memory serves me correct, this haseven been before theTexas Supreme Court and was upheld there, as well.

Doc

imported post

Doc, I agree that black powder weapons are covered, but I disagree that the firearm MUST be black powder. Replicas of pre-1899 weapons cannot use rimfire or centerfire ammo, but I don't see why a truly pre-1899 weapon can't use, say, .38 S&W which is still commercially available. This is true at the federal level, as well. For example, if you want to buy an S&W "lemon squeezer" that is pre-1899, you can receive it without FFL involvement and it is NOT a black powder weapon.

If you could find a reference to the Texas Supreme Court case, I'd love toread it. Carrying a black power pistol isn't all that appealing, but a nice .38 S&W, or .44, or a pocket derringer might be useful, particularly if there is any uncertainty about CHL rules. Pre-1899 = no rules. :lol:

SA-TX

imported post

SA-TX wrote:

Doc, I agree that black powder weapons are covered, but I disagree that the firearm MUST be black powder. Replicas of pre-1899 weapons cannot use rimfire or centerfire ammo, but I don't see why a truly pre-1899 weapon can't use, say, .38 S&W which is still commercially available. This is true at the federal level, as well. For example, if you want to buy an S&W "lemon squeezer" that is pre-1899, you can receive it without FFL involvement and it is NOT a black powder weapon.

If you could find a reference to the Texas Supreme Court case, I'd love toread it. Carrying a black power pistol isn't all that appealing, but a nice .38 S&W, or .44, or a pocket derringer might be useful, particularly if there is any uncertainty about CHL rules. Pre-1899 = no rules. :lol:

SA-TX

Click to expand...

You have to refer to the definition of an antique firearm, which is established by federal law and used by Texas. Under that definition, the firearm must not use rim fire or center fire ammunition. In order to meet the requirements of the sections you are referring to, the firearm must be an antique, and an antique is a black powder by definition. Replicas are specifically required to meet the same requirements because otherwise someone could argue that it is not an antique, rather a replica, and as such does not have to be black powder (sort of the argument you are using in reverse). So, since antiques are already defined as black powder and this law specifically defines replicas as black powder, only black powder firearms are allowed.


Also, the federal version goes as far as to stipulate that the firearm can not have been converted to use rim or center fire ammo in order to prevent one fromarguing that the firearm was a black powder despite the fact that it was altered or converted.


I do not have them readily available, but it is easy to search, so look up the federal statutes on the subject as well as the Texas Supreme court case on the subject.

Doc

imported post

DocNTexas wrote:

SA-TX wrote:

Doc, I agree that black powder weapons are covered, but I disagree that the firearm MUST be black powder. Replicas of pre-1899 weapons cannot use rimfire or centerfire ammo, but I don't see why a truly pre-1899 weapon can't use, say, .38 S&W which is still commercially available. This is true at the federal level, as well. For example, if you want to buy an S&W "lemon squeezer" that is pre-1899, you can receive it without FFL involvement and it is NOT a black powder weapon.

If you could find a reference to the Texas Supreme Court case, I'd love toread it. Carrying a black power pistol isn't all that appealing, but a nice .38 S&W, or .44, or a pocket derringer might be useful, particularly if there is any uncertainty about CHL rules. Pre-1899 = no rules. :lol:

SA-TX

Click to expand...

You have to refer to the definition of an antique firearm, which is established by federal law and used by Texas. Under that definition, the firearm must not use rim fire or center fire ammunition. In order to meet the requirements of the sections you are referring to, the firearm must be an antique, and an antique is a black powder by definition. Replicas are specifically required to meet the same requirements because otherwise someone could argue that it is not an antique, rather a replica, and as such does not have to be black powder (sort of the argument you are using in reverse). So, since antiques are already defined as black powder and this law specifically defines replicas as black powder, only black powder firearms are allowed.


Also, the federal version goes as far as to stipulate that the firearm can not have been converted to use rim or center fire ammo in order to prevent one fromarguing that the firearm was a black powder despite the fact that it was altered or converted.


I do not have them readily available, but it is easy to search, so look up the federal statutes on the subject as well as the Texas Supreme court case on the subject.

Doc

Click to expand...

Hi Doc,

I respectfully disagree.Neither 46.01 nor any other Texas statue defines "antique firearm" or "curio firearm" or "antique or curio firearm". Even just "curio" only turns up in PC 46.01 and "antique" has several hits but only the one relating to firearms. I searched here: http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/index.htm.

Whether or not Texas law makes a distinction between pre-1899 firearms that are "regular firearms" --in your view,those that are not black powder -- and those that are "antique or curio firearms"is unclear and debatable. Notice that "black powder" appears nowhere. Notice that a reference to federal law definitions appear nowhere. The Legislature knows how to make such references when they want to (see 46.03 for machine guns where they refer to the NFA as a defense to prosecution).

As for replicas, that is a relatively new twist to TX law passed in 1999 (see here: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/76R/billtext/html/HB02825F.HTM). I believe that this was done to more clearly match federal law. Prior to that, no replics qualified as "antiques" no matter what they shot. I agree with you that the requirement for no centerfire or rimfire ammo means you can't "have the best of both worlds" (new gun that looks retro and qualifies as an antique). That does not mean, however, that all pre-1899 guns aren't antiques no matter their ammo.

My research on federal law is taken from here: http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+528+5++%28antique%20firearm%201899%29%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

Here is the definition that appears there:

imported post

Now that I have more time, I will expand on the above post. Here is the legal definition of an antique firearm:

Title 18, Section 921(a)(16) then defines "antique firearm" as follows:

​

imported post

SA-TX wrote:

My reading of this is that there are (3) types of "antique firearms" and you identified 2 of them :

1) Those that are pre-1899 and then they specifically list some of the ignition systems that qualify but you could eliminate the whole parathentical group and it is clear to see that all pre-1899 firearms qualify whether or not the ignition system is listed.

2) Replicas, which you accurately discussed in your post.

3) Muzzleloading firearms which you accurately discussed in your post.

As I mentioned in my prior post, I can point to numerous pre-1899 guns for sale by FFLs (who darn well better be right) that are not black-powder based and who are labeled as antiques and not requiring any of the usual BATFE paperwork or FFL transfer (if across state lines).

Click to expand...

I feel you have misinterpreted the pertinent provision and understandably so. While the lawcan be read to state"All Firearms" then include those with specific types of ignition, this is not the case. There is no reason to include specific types of ignition if the statement is "All types", since no exclusion is implied by the term "All Firearms".The actual intent is to define which firearm types are included by stating "those with matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system". This is further upheld by the reasoning that why would they alloy you to carry a pre-1898 firearm capable of utilizing rim or center fire ammunition but specifically prohibit it for replicas of the same firearms?

While one could argue the intent of the writers of this law as to which way to read it, it actually comes down to the interpretation developed through case law, which is basically the way it has been historically interpreted ans applied by the courts. Case law has determined this law to refer to those firearms with the listed types of ignition systems and not "All Firearms" as some read it to say.

While I can not say what the original author intended, I know how the courts view and apply the law and that is really all that matters. I would like to apply the reading that you interpret, but that has long been put down by the establishment of case law to the contrary and the only way to change it now is to rewrite the law.

It would be nice if the laws were straight forward and clearly written, but then we would have to find jobs for a lot of lawyers.

Take care and be safe,
Doc

imported post

DocNTexas wrote:

As you can see, by definition, antique firearms must be blackpowder and by state law, replicas must be as well, therefore, only black powder handguns are legal to carry under the provisions of Texaslaw.

Hope this helps.

Doc
​

Click to expand...

I don't see this in the law you quoted. What I see is that if a gun more than 109 years old then it qualifies as a legal antique by provision (A). The parenthetical clause (including...) does not imply that other 109+ year-old guns aren't antiques, and the restrictions on replicas from (B)(i) and (B)(ii) are completely irrelevent if the gun isn't a replica but in fact the real, original McCoy.

Now, whether or not you'd actually trust, say, a Colt Peacemaker manufactured in 1880 to fire without blowing up in your face, or if you'd want to actually risk damaging such an important antique by shooting it, are separate issues.

imported post

Doc:

The Federal definition of "antique firearm" as posted above does include centerfire or rimfire weapons that were manufactured in or before 1898. I personally own several pre-1899 centerfire weapons that are not considered firearms under federal law.

If you go to gunbroker.com and look in the category "Firearms (Collectible) > Antiques / pre-1899" you will see many examples of pre-1899 centerfire weapons being sold as antiques and not needing a FFL to complete the transaction.


Edit to add: The following locations have more stringent laws and consider pre-1899 centerfire weapons to be firearms: NJ, DC, NYC, IL, HI, and OH.

imported post

+1. I agree with this reading (two posts up -- I thought I was quoting). All means all and then some examples follow.

I further agree on replicas, though I think this detracts from the core discussion which is: are all pre-1899 handguns not "firearms" for the purposes of Texas law. I say that they are.

Doc, we may have to agree to disagree. Including simply gives some examples but isn't exclusionary. Ask some FFLs. There are too many examples of pre-1899 firearms listed for sale by FFL holders that are NOT black powder that specifically state paperwork and FFL transfer isn't necessary for your reading to be correct.

+1 for the poster from NH. He has several and I'm looking at buying some. They are all over and all of th FFL selling them agree with our interpretation.

SA-TX

imported post

In an effort to get a more informed opinion, I called a clay shooting partner of mine (and gun enthusiast) who is a District Judge and asked his opinion on this subject. His initial response was the same as my understanding, that being, only black powder handguns are exempt, however, after discussing several of the points brought out here, he offered to research it further and get back to me, so I will pass that information along if and when he gets back to me (with his schedule, it may be a while).

In the meantime, as I stated before, I understand how you reached the decision you have based on the wording of the laws in question, however, this is not the position the courts have typically held and case law is the defining factor at this point. As such I still hold that only black powder handguns meet the requirements of thelaw as established.

Again, I agree with the implied "All pre-1899" inclusion based on the wording, however, the interpretation of laws is based almost exclusively on case law and I have never found a case where a rim or center fire handgun was not considered a firearm for criminal law purposes (which includes unlawful possession cases, which is what we are talking about here).

As you said, wemay simply have to agree to disagree, but I highly suggestone contact an attorneybefore choosing to carry anything other than a black powder handgun openly in Texas. While I figure carrying anything openly, even a black powder,will get you detained and probably arrested, I am fairlycertain you will have little defense unless it is a black powder. Regardless of what any of us say or what any particular judge or attorney says for that matter, the only opinion that really matters is that of the ones presiding over ones trial (and I don'ttrust them to rule in my favor).

I say we simply push harder to get open carry passed inTexas and make this discussion a mute point.

Take care all and be safe,

Doc

imported post

MarkNH wrote:

If you go to gunbroker.com and look in the category "Firearms (Collectible) > Antiques / pre-1899" you will see many examples of pre-1899 centerfire weapons being sold as antiques and not needing a FFL to complete the transaction.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, but none of them chamber currently available ammunition. The 1898 designation encompasses only firearms of black powder and those using rim and center fire ammunition no longer manufactured in the USA or available on the common market here. This is why that wording was used in the distinction of replicas, because many replicas use currently made ammunition opposed to the original models.

In other words, in order to be legal as an antique or a replica, it can not use modern (commonly available)rim or center fire ammunition. If it is an 1898 or older manufacture, it will not be chambered for such and if it is a legal replica, it will not as well.

Doc

imported post

DocNTexas wrote:

MarkNH wrote:

If you go to gunbroker.com and look in the category "Firearms (Collectible) > Antiques / pre-1899" you will see many examples of pre-1899 centerfire weapons being sold as antiques and not needing a FFL to complete the transaction.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, but none of them chamber currently available ammunition. The 1898 designation encompasses only firearms of black powder and those using rim and center fire ammunition no longer manufactured in the USA or available on the common market here. This is why that wording was used in the distinction of replicas, because many replicas use currently made ammunition opposed to the original models.

In other words, in order to be legal as an antique or a replica, it can not use modern (commonly available)rim or center fire ammunition. If it is an 1898 or older manufacture, it will not be chambered for such and if it is a legal replica, it will not as well.

Doc

Click to expand...

Sorry doc, but you are still mistaken.

A few examples from gunbroker, all using commerially produced ammo:

12 gauge: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=91869355
20 gauge: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=91432159
.22 short: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=91827969
7.62x54r: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=91708543
.45-70: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=92344924
8mm mauser: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=92250353
.44-40 winchester: http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=91887699


The pre-1899 specialist currently has:

Colt SAA in .45LC
Webley in .45ACP
Colt SAA converted to .38 special
Winchester 1894 in .30-30
Chilean mauser converted to 7.62nato

http://www.antiquefirearms.org/blog/


pre-1899 FAQ: http://www.empirearms.com/pre-1899.htm

If you still disagree you are welcome to call BATFE directly and ask them.

Edit: to fix link.

imported post

DocNTexas wrote:

I say we simply push harder to get open carry passed inTexas and make this discussion a mute point.

Click to expand...

Now that's something I can agree with you on

imported post

As for the gunbroker list you identified, all of them require black powder ammunition, except for the Nagant and the Mauser. Although they use an ammunition designation that is equal to a modern made type, these all require black powder versions, which are not commonly manufactured. A pre 1899 handgun made to fire a 45 long colt is designed to fire 45 long colt black powder ammunition and not modern smokeless ammunition and all sources will tell you not to use modern ammunition in these weapons.

As for the Nagant and the Mauser listed, I have no answer, except that several years ago I purchased 2 Mod. 96 Swedish Mausers and was told that no FFL was required because although the manufacture date was 1941, the receivers were made and barrelled in 1898 making them exempt. Just to make sure, I contacted the BATFE and was told that this was not correct and that the fabrication date was considered the latest date stamped on the weapon, thus, I had to use an FFL to transfer the weapon or possess a collectors license.

As I stated before, based on the information I have found, I stand by my position and we will simply have to agree to disagree. I would certainly be willing to carry the video camera for anyone willing to strap one on and be the test case for us. Short of that, I will stick to my understanding of the law as it stands.

Other than that, although I disagree with your position, I respect your opinion.

Take care and be safe,

Doc

imported post

DocNTexas wrote:

As for the gunbroker list you identified, all of them require black powder ammunition, except for the Nagant and the Mauser. Although they use an ammunition designation that is equal to a modern made type, these all require black powder versions, which are not commonly manufactured. A pre 1899 handgun made to fire a 45 long colt is designed to fire 45 long colt black powder ammunition and not modern smokeless ammunition and all sources will tell you not to use modern ammunition in these weapons.

As for the Nagant and the Mauser listed, I have no answer, except that several years ago I purchased 2 Mod. 96 Swedish Mausers and was told that no FFL was required because although the manufacture date was 1941, the receivers were made and barrelled in 1898 making them exempt. Just to make sure, I contacted the BATFE and was told that this was not correct and that the fabrication date was considered the latest date stamped on the weapon, thus, I had to use an FFL to transfer the weapon or possess a collectors license.

As I stated before, based on the information I have found, I stand by my position and we will simply have to agree to disagree. I would certainly be willing to carry the video camera for anyone willing to strap one on and be the test case for us. Short of that, I will stick to my understanding of the law as it stands.

Other than that, although I disagree with your position, I respect your opinion.

Take care and be safe,

Doc

Click to expand...

Hi Doc,

No one said you wouldn't get arrested if you walked around openly carrying. Heck, I stated NUMEROUS TIMES in my original post that doing so would likely get you arrested. You said the same even in referenceto a cap-and-ball pistol. No matter what, local law enforcement is not going to understand this very subtle wrinkle in the law. The fact is, there are two responsibilites on those who want to see greater flexibility in defensive carry in TX:

1) Push for full open carry of modern handguns. Either with a license (or endorsement to our CHLs) or without. Without pressure, politicians do nothing. There was a shooting on a university campus in IL tonight (one of the state for where there is NO ability to carry), so we need to keep the pressure on. Are we THAT much better in TX?! Not if you are on a university campus. Hmm. Wait, if my pre-1899 position is correct, at least you have ONE way to carry. Yes I'd love for nothing more than this discussion to be moot.

2) Utilize the abilities that we have under current law. No, this doesn't necessarily mean anyone going to jail as the test case. We can push our state legislators to get an AG's opinion of what is currently legal. We can hold "open carry" rallys/BBQs/fund-raisers on PRIVATE PROPERTY but fax annoucements to LEOs and politicians far and wide about what we believe to be legal and invite them to attend. Even most city police officers understand that open carry is permitted on someone's private property. Being friendly and writing campaign contributionchecks works. Ask any big businessman.

May I offer these for your analysis:

You state the .45 Long Colt ammo is only designed for new guns. Some manufacturers do indeed say this (Buffalo Bore, as one example), others are "modern black powder" (see Cor-Bon)butothers appear to be moden smokeless with no such warningsnot touse them in older guns Here are some examples of each to demonstrate my fairness:

http://www.doubletapammo.com/php/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=21_38&products_id=131

DoubleTap ammo is NOT standard pressure (+P) so it specifies the guns is is compatible with:

http://www.dakotaammo.net/products/corbon/cowboyaction.htm

While it might be technically "black-powder" it is moden, commercial, high-grade, packaged ammo.

http://www.midwayusa.com/ebrowse.exe/browse?TabID=3&Categoryid=7554&categorystring=653***691***

No mention of not using it in older guns.

http://www.blazer-ammo.com/blazer_chart.aspx

Nor here from Federal, one of the biggest around:

http://www.federalcartridge.com/ballistics/Ammo_Ballistics.aspx?id=120&firearm=2&bc=0.15&muzzvel=830&bulletwgt=225


S&W .38is still commercially available (see http://www.midwayusa.com/ebrowse.exe/browse?TabID=3&Categoryid=7549&categorystring=653***691*** showing 4 manufacturers and 6 total offerings), isn't black powder,and there are many guns for sale chambered in this caliber.

NH's .44-40 example is also a good one. While SOME .44-40 ammo is black powder, some is smoke-less. See here (http://www.midwayusa.com/ebrowse.exe/browse?TabID=3&Categoryid=7545&categorystring=653***690***) for examples of both.

Your example is an interesting one but somewhat unusual due to the fact that it was newer weapon with an older componant part. In most cases it is the receiver (think AR-15) or main portion of the gun that counts and is serialized. Copyright or patent dates mean nothing; it is the actual date of manufacturer of the serialized part of the weapon that matters. Given this it is not unusual that theATF, for the reasons we both agreed with above, classified it as a newer weapon not getting the protection of the "antique" designation.

Hopefully your district judge friend will review it fairly. I agree that no matter what us poor working schmucks think, it is the lawyer's views that matter. This means we need to impress on our lawyer/judge/legislator friends how important this is. If there is grey area, we need the benefit of the doubt given to us, the law-abiding person. Even if you aren't convinced the law currently says what I and other say it does, please try to convince your District Judge friend that it does. Why? Cause it helps everyone. Don't you want ALL pre-1899 guns to be exempt from the crazy, non-rational restrictions placed in section 46? Don't you want to carry darn near everywhere in this state? Why shouldn't you? It is your right! Heck, our current governor, at least, gets it. When asked after the Virginia Tech massacre about similar restrictions in TX that prohibit CHLs from carrying on campus he said (and I'm pararphrasing), "why are there ANY restrictions?!" EXACTLY!

Please keep looking and debating,

SA-TX

imported post

I totally agree with your motives and, yes, I push for improving our laws at every turn. I correspond, telephone and have even met with out political powers on numerous occasions for that very purpose. Most recently I contacted the AG about increasing the effort to secure reciprocity with several states. I have discussed the issue of campus carry with my representatives and with Governor Perry. I have spoken to Alice Tripp on several occasions about these issues. Believe me, most of these people know me on sight and by name, so I assure you I do more than my share of work towards securing better gun and carry laws in Texas.

The shooting today merely serves to reinforce the point we have bade for years. These events occur in gun free zones. Illinois, as you pointed out, is the last Democrat and Brady safe zone states. While Wisconsin does not have CCW, it does allow open carry to a great degree, so Illinois is pretty much it for gun control (DC does not count in my book).

As for working the find a small loophole, such as the ability to carry an old revolver of questionable reliability, I would opt to work toward reforming the law to allow open carry of any firearm. Personally, I carry everywhere I go. While I would like the privilege of open carry for those really hot Texas days when even a light vest is uncomfortable, I would rather carry under my vest than carry an old revolver openly (personal preference).

My argument all along has been from a legal standpoint as to the interpretation of the law, rather than the intended meaning of the law and I stated that on many occasions. The U.S. legal system relies on case law and case law does not support your interpretation of this law. That is all I have ever stated.

So, yes, I would love to have open carry and I have and still do actively push for that very thing. Even if you could secure a ruling in your favor on this issue, how many people would it actually benefit? Whereas, pushing for CCW reform to allow carry anywhere is more likely and would benefit more people. Pushing for open carry by license holders is more beneficial. Lastly, pushing for a actualopen carry law would be better than a favorable ruling in this matter because it would remove the question of legality and prevent one from being arrested on sight and having to have a lawyer to get you off the charge.

While we all agree that Texas is behind the times and should allow open carry, our only disagreement is concerning the interpretation of a law concerning a potential loophole, which I feel case history has long since closed and you feel remains open. Either way, it will not benefit anyone because you could not (and I dare say, would not) try to utilize because you would spend all your time either in jail or defending your right to do so. In other words, no matter which one of us is correct, it is a meaningless point.

So, lets just agree to disagree on the fine points of this particular law cand work together to secure something that will actually benefit us all.....Open Carry and CCW anywhere.

Take care and be safe,

Doc

imported post

DocNTexas wrote:

I totally agree with your motives and, yes, I push for improving our laws at every turn. I correspond, telephone and have even met with out political powers on numerous occasions for that very purpose. Most recently I contacted the AG about increasing the effort to secure reciprocity with several states. I have discussed the issue of campus carry with my representatives and with Governor Perry. I have spoken to Alice Tripp on several occasions about these issues. Believe me, most of these people know me on sight and by name, so I assure you I do more than my share of work towards securing better gun and carry laws in Texas.

The shooting today merely serves to reinforce the point we have bade for years. These events occur in gun free zones. Illinois, as you pointed out, is the last Democrat and Brady safe zone states. While Wisconsin does not have CCW, it does allow open carry to a great degree, so Illinois is pretty much it for gun control (DC does not count in my book).

As for working the find a small loophole, such as the ability to carry an old revolver of questionable reliability, I would opt to work toward reforming the law to allow open carry of any firearm. Personally, I carry everywhere I go. While I would like the privilege of open carry for those really hot Texas days when even a light vest is uncomfortable, I would rather carry under my vest than carry an old revolver openly (personal preference).

My argument all along has been from a legal standpoint as to the interpretation of the law, rather than the intended meaning of the law and I stated that on many occasions. The U.S. legal system relies on case law and case law does not support your interpretation of this law. That is all I have ever stated.

So, yes, I would love to have open carry and I have and still do actively push for that very thing. Even if you could secure a ruling in your favor on this issue, how many people would it actually benefit? Whereas, pushing for CCW reform to allow carry anywhere is more likely and would benefit more people. Pushing for open carry by license holders is more beneficial. Lastly, pushing for a actualopen carry law would be better than a favorable ruling in this matter because it would remove the question of legality and prevent one from being arrested on sight and having to have a lawyer to get you off the charge.

While we all agree that Texas is behind the times and should allow open carry, our only disagreement is concerning the interpretation of a law concerning a potential loophole, which I feel case history has long since closed and you feel remains open. Either way, it will not benefit anyone because you could not (and I dare say, would not) try to utilize because you would spend all your time either in jail or defending your right to do so. In other words, no matter which one of us is correct, it is a meaningless point.

So, lets just agree to disagree on the fine points of this particular law cand work together to secure something that will actually benefit us all.....Open Carry and CCW anywhere.

Take care and be safe,

Doc

Click to expand...

Iagree that open carry (whether by permit or general law) would be an improvement and I support it. I do not argue that judges or case law support my position.They should -- who can read the statute and not see it as I do ?! -- but they may not. Nevertheless that doesn't discharge us of our obligations to do the right thing. Here, I think most of us here agree istoo impress upon our lawmakers that the number of areas where we cannot defendourselves is waaaay too high. What if the IL incident happend in TX? Nearly all law-abiding citizens would have been probhibited to carry. This happens way too often (at least 5 times in the last two weeks).

I had a much larger post that was lost during the process. Given the hour, I think this is sufficient. In short, press your legislators for better than we have today(whatever that exactly is) and make sure they know what you think is a good law for tomorrow.

Thanks, SA-TX

imported post

DocNTexas wrote:

I totally agree with your motives and, yes, I push for improving our laws at every turn. I correspond, telephone and have even met with out political powers on numerous occasions for that very purpose. Most recently I contacted the AG about increasing the effort to secure reciprocity with several states. I have discussed the issue of campus carry with my representatives and with Governor Perry. I have spoken to Alice Tripp on several occasions about these issues. Believe me, most of these people know me on sight and by name, so I assure you I do more than my share of work towards securing better gun and carry laws in Texas.

The shooting today merely serves to reinforce the point we have bade for years. These events occur in gun free zones. Illinois, as you pointed out, is the last Democrat and Brady safe zone states. While Wisconsin does not have CCW, it does allow open carry to a great degree, so Illinois is pretty much it for gun control (DC does not count in my book).

As for working the find a small loophole, such as the ability to carry an old revolver of questionable reliability, I would opt to work toward reforming the law to allow open carry of any firearm. Personally, I carry everywhere I go. While I would like the privilege of open carry for those really hot Texas days when even a light vest is uncomfortable, I would rather carry under my vest than carry an old revolver openly (personal preference).

My argument all along has been from a legal standpoint as to the interpretation of the law, rather than the intended meaning of the law and I stated that on many occasions. The U.S. legal system relies on case law and case law does not support your interpretation of this law. That is all I have ever stated.

So, yes, I would love to have open carry and I have and still do actively push for that very thing. Even if you could secure a ruling in your favor on this issue, how many people would it actually benefit? Whereas, pushing for CCW reform to allow carry anywhere is more likely and would benefit more people. Pushing for open carry by license holders is more beneficial. Lastly, pushing for a actualopen carry law would be better than a favorable ruling in this matter because it would remove the question of legality and prevent one from being arrested on sight and having to have a lawyer to get you off the charge.

While we all agree that Texas is behind the times and should allow open carry, our only disagreement is concerning the interpretation of a law concerning a potential loophole, which I feel case history has long since closed and you feel remains open. Either way, it will not benefit anyone because you could not (and I dare say, would not) try to utilize because you would spend all your time either in jail or defending your right to do so. In other words, no matter which one of us is correct, it is a meaningless point.

So, lets just agree to disagree on the fine points of this particular law cand work together to secure something that will actually benefit us all.....Open Carry and CCW anywhere.

Take care and be safe,

Doc

Click to expand...

Iagree that open carry (whether by permit or general law) would be an improvement and I support it. I do not argue that judges or case law support my position.They should -- who can read the statute and not see it as I do ?! -- but they may not. Nevertheless that doesn't discharge us of our obligations to do the right thing. Here, I think most of us here agree istoo impress upon our lawmakers that the number of areas where we cannot defendourselves is waaaay too high. What if the IL incident happend in TX? Nearly all law-abiding citizens would have been probhibited to carry. This happens way too often (at least 5 times in the last two weeks).

I had a much larger post that was lost during the process. Given the hour, I think this is sufficient. In short, press your legislators for better than we have today(whatever that exactly is) and make sure they know what you think is a good law for tomorrow.

Thanks, SA-TX