I think I may have figured out a loophole

imported post

Ok according to Section 42 or 46 subsection 5 a handgun is a firearm that can be fired with only one hand.

So technically if you rigged your handgun up with an external saftey that would have to be depressed before you could fire it, it would no longer be a handgun right? Therefore you should be able to OC it, seeing as how there is no restriction (other than establishments the CHL holders already can't enter with concealed weapon) for unlicensed rifle OC.

Just a thought, let me know what you think, or just shoot holes in it, I don't care just brainstorming.

imported post

Wouldn't an un-chaimberd semi-auto qualify then? Hard to rack the slide with one hand.

imported post

Not really. You should become acquainted with the one armed reload of a semi-automatic. Basically involves dropping the empty mag, dropping to a kneeling position with you left foot forward and you right leg bent and wedging the pistol behind the knee of the right leg. With your now free hand, grasp and insert the new mag into the pistol. If the slide locks open upon firing the last round, a simple flip of the slide release and you're ready to go. If you need to rack, remove the pistol and place the top of the rack (the weapon basically upside down) on your right heel and push to rack.

Carry on.

imported post

Should we look for loopholes or just yell at our state reps?

imported post

loopholes till they start listening

imported post

I'm suggesting that (just maybe) the simplest solution is to amend Texas law to clearly insert "CONCEALED handgun" into 46.01 & 46.02 in lieu of "handgun".

Perhaps we are so deep into the "forest" on this Texas OC issue - that we can't see the BIG "TREE".

Is it possible that Texans have convinced themselves that open carry is "illegal" - when it is not ?

Texas law (the State constitution) specifically affirms the right to keep and bear arms in defense of one's person, and obligates State government to respect that right. Texas statutes were revised in 1995 to"regulate the wearing" of CONCEALED handguns.

OK - step back a minute and reflect on this. The reason handguns have been singled out in Texas statutory law is BECAUSE they are CONCEALABLE,as opposed to long guns. The concealable nature of the handgun lends itself to CRIMINAL applications. Fine - the Texas legislature hasacted within its constitutional power to "regulate the wearing" thereof.

Problem solved ! It is illegal to "wear" a concealed hangun without a State license.The Texas legislature has also "regulated" WHERE ANY firearm may NOT be "worn"- specific locations. This pretty well demonstrates the "regulate the wearing" clause of the Texas constitution.

I think the challenge is more one of re-educating ,than legislatingto "allow" for the lawful wearing of a (nonconcealed) handgun...when the Texas constitution already recognizes the practice to be a RIGHT.

The purpose and intent of Texas statutory law on this issue is to "prevent crime". Shooting other persons without just cause, robbing, kidnapping, threatening, etc - are crimes. Bearing arms in defense of one's person so as not to become the victim of a crime - is NOT a crime. It is a RIGHT.

Perhaps in January the Texas Legislature cancan have a hearing on this issue ,and resolve it through reason, consensus, and a simple amendment to clarify CONCEALMENT as the issue.

imported post

SANDCREEK wrote:

I'm suggesting that (just maybe) the simplest solution is to amend Texas law to clearly insert "CONCEALED handgun" into 46.01 & 46.02 in lieu of "handgun".

Perhaps we are so deep into the "forest" on this Texas OC issue - that we can't see the BIG "TREE".

Is it possible that Texans have convinced themselves that open carry is "illegal" - when it is not ?

Texas law (the State constitution) specifically affirms the right to keep and bear arms in defense of one's person, and obligates State government to respect that right. Texas statutes were revised in 1995 to"regulate the wearing" of CONCEALED handguns.

OK - step back a minute and reflect on this. The reason handguns have been singled out in Texas statutory law is BECAUSE they are CONCEALABLE,as opposed to long guns. The concealable nature of the handgun lends itself to CRIMINAL applications. Fine - the Texas legislature hasacted within its constitutional power to "regulate the wearing" thereof.

Problem solved ! It is illegal to "wear" a concealed hangun without a State license.The Texas legislature has also "regulated" WHERE ANY firearm may NOT be "worn"- specific locations. This pretty well demonstrates the "regulate the wearing" clause of the Texas constitution.

I think the challenge is more one of re-educating ,than legislatingto "allow" for the lawful wearing of a (nonconcealed) handgun...when the Texas constitution already recognizes the practice to be a RIGHT.

The purpose and intent of Texas statutory law on this issue is to "prevent crime". Shooting other persons without just cause, robbing, kidnapping, threatening, etc - are crimes. Bearing arms in defense of one's person so as not to become the victim of a crime - is NOT a crime. It is a RIGHT.

Perhaps in January the Texas Legislature cancan have a hearing on this issue ,and resolve it through reason, consensus, and a simple amendment to clarify CONCEALMENT as the issue.

Click to expand...

+10 this is the best point I've read so far

imported post

Just to comment on the original post, a handgun is still able to be operated with one hand regardless of the safety location. This is true because, once the safety is off, the weapon can stillbefired, cycle, and be fired again, accurately, with one hand. Ifyou were tosuccessfully convert a handgun into a "two-handed" weapon, say by adding a vertical fore-grip, you've got other problems on your hands.

http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/041006-vert_grip.htm

ATF has long held that by installing a vertical fore grip on a handgun, the handgun is no longer designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand. Therefore, if individuals install a vertical fore grip on a handgun, they are “making” a firearm requiring registration with ATF’s NFA Branch. Making an unregistered “AOW” is punishable by a fine and 10 years’ imprisonment. Additionally, possession of an unregistered “AOW” is also punishable by fine and 10 years’ imprisonment.

Click to expand...

Bottom line, if you alter your handgun enough to remove its handgun status, it will receive a new, more restricted status in the process. On top of that, you would no longer be able to carry it under the permission of a concealed carry permit that specifies handguns. This is not a "loophole" that you want to fall through.

(edited for factual accuracy)

imported post

Though there is a lot of paperwork involved, a tax stamp for an AOW is only $5. Get a 6" barrel Super Shorty 12 gauge and OC it!

imported post

I think Gov. Perry is very clear that he is for the right of Texans to be able to carry handguns. Maybe the simple answer is to flood his website with comments from Texans on making OC legal.

http://governor.state.tx.us/contact/

imported post

SANDCREEK wrote:

I'm suggesting that (just maybe) the simplest solution is to amend Texas law to clearly insert "CONCEALED handgun" into 46.01 & 46.02 in lieu of "handgun".

Perhaps we are so deep into the "forest" on this Texas OC issue - that we can't see the BIG "TREE".

Click to expand...

That's true, but we won't help clear the forest by planting a new tree.

The solution to the forest is liberal application of the axe: chop out PC Chapter 46, every single word of it, for firearms, knives, clubs, and every other thing. Nothing that is criminalized in PC 46 harms anyone, by itself. If those inanimate objects are used by criminals to harm someone, then the harm is already a crime, aggravated by the use of a weapon.

Punish the harm, not the object.

Absent harm of another, the items themselves should be perfectly legal.

imported post

RIAShooter wrote:

SANDCREEK wrote:

I'm suggesting that (just maybe) the simplest solution is to amend Texas law to clearly insert "CONCEALED handgun" into 46.01 & 46.02 in lieu of "handgun".

Perhaps we are so deep into the "forest" on this Texas OC issue - that we can't see the BIG "TREE".

Is it possible that Texans have convinced themselves that open carry is "illegal" - when it is not ?

Texas law (the State constitution) specifically affirms the right to keep and bear arms in defense of one's person, and obligates State government to respect that right. Texas statutes were revised in 1995 to"regulate the wearing" of CONCEALED handguns.

OK - step back a minute and reflect on this. The reason handguns have been singled out in Texas statutory law is BECAUSE they are CONCEALABLE,as opposed to long guns. The concealable nature of the handgun lends itself to CRIMINAL applications. Fine - the Texas legislature hasacted within its constitutional power to "regulate the wearing" thereof.

Problem solved ! It is illegal to "wear" a concealed hangun without a State license.The Texas legislature has also "regulated" WHERE ANY firearm may NOT be "worn"- specific locations. This pretty well demonstrates the "regulate the wearing" clause of the Texas constitution.

I think the challenge is more one of re-educating ,than legislatingto "allow" for the lawful wearing of a (nonconcealed) handgun...when the Texas constitution already recognizes the practice to be a RIGHT.

The purpose and intent of Texas statutory law on this issue is to "prevent crime". Shooting other persons without just cause, robbing, kidnapping, threatening, etc - are crimes. Bearing arms in defense of one's person so as not to become the victim of a crime - is NOT a crime. It is a RIGHT.

Perhaps in January the Texas Legislature cancan have a hearing on this issue ,and resolve it through reason, consensus, and a simple amendment to clarify CONCEALMENT as the issue.

Click to expand...

+10 this is the best point I've read so far

Click to expand...

Sec.23.RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

Now let us look at this. It states that every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself. It does not say how to wear carry or anything else....

ItONLY gives the law makers the power to regulate the wearing of arms toPREVENT CRIMES...Not to allow them to make laws to regulate the bearing of arms to defend one's self such as a CHL.

Our forefathers did not make a statment that changed what they said in the next sentence.

The lawmakers here in Texas cannot regulate the CITIZEN from keeping and bearing arms PERIOD. There is no laws that can be passed about CARRYING arms until they change the Constitution.

They can only regulate the wearing of arms if people are commenting crimes. Not to KEEP OR EVEN PASS LAWS ON PEOPLE CARRYING OR WEAR ARMS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.

Example.. They can regulate a person from wearing a arm to rob a 7-11. But they cannot regulate a citizen from wearing a gun to defend himself while going to a 7-11.

Make sense if you just read it. So this thing about carring a gun will never pass until they change the Constitution. "The Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."

If you think about the Texas CHL is UNCONSTITUIONAL. They did not and do not have the power by law to pass and give out permits for people to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself. They do not have the right to regulate acitizen in keeping and bearing arms And it says ARMS.... NOT RIFLE SHOTGUNS OR HANDGUNS.



How may laws are there in Texas on long guns?????? NONE..... Why???? Because you carry a long gun you do not WEAR them. They can only regulate the WEARING of arms...... To prevent crimes not to regulate the defending of one's person.

imported post

Although I do not agree with your entire interpretation, there is one point that, once clarified a little bit, makes some sense. And that is the the legislature can regulate HOW we wear the arms that we choose to bear, but says nothing about having to ask permission (obtain a CCP) in order TO wear said arms.
You would think that Open Carry would be preferable to Concealed sue to the fact that you know who is armed and who isn't! That would do more towards the prevention of crime then only allowing concealed carry.
I have always figured that the only reason to conceal something is if you had a reason to hide it. Only criminals should have a reason to hide the fact that they have a weapon!
Just my $0.02
Gator
>|--|~

imported post

Gator5713 wrote:

Although I do not agree with your entire interpretation, there is one point that, once clarified a little bit, makes some sense. And that is the the legislature can regulate HOW we wear the arms that we choose to bear, but says nothing about having to ask permission (obtain a CCP) in order TO wear said arms.
You would think that Open Carry would be preferable to Concealed sue to the fact that you know who is armed and who isn't! That would do more towards the prevention of crime then only allowing concealed carry.
I have always figured that the only reason to conceal something is if you had a reason to hide it. Only criminals should have a reason to hide the fact that they have a weapon!
Just my $0.02
Gator
>|--|~

Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point of our forfathers. The legislature can only regulate the wearing of arms to prevent crimes not to regulate the wearing of arms for defense. They cannot regulate the carring of arms. The difference in wearing and carring is.... are you wearing your clothes or carring your clothes. Why did Texas call their permit CHL and not CCW???? They cannot regulate the carring of arms... only the wearing.So If the get this Carring open passed it will be unconstituntional. They better call it open wear......

Click to expand...

They did not say one thing and then change that meaning in the next sentence. They did not give the people the authorty to keep and bear arms then let the lawmakers regulate a citizen in how he had to wear the gun to defend himself. Or even regulate him by making him pay and get a permit to exercise his Constituntional RIGHT. They only gave the lawmakers the authorty to prevent crimes. It is not a crime to defend one's self. Remember the 7-11 story.

Click to expand...

They can regulate a person from weaing a arm to rob a bank, go and rape at gun point, go and kill some one. And make that a offenseNot regulate a bank from weaing a arm to defend, or wear a gun to keep from being raped or to defend yourself from murder.

Click to expand...

imported post

I'm on point with Gators supposition about HOW we wear arms. At this point, it doesn't matter what our forefathers, founding fathers, or the writers of our own state constitution meant. Texas has had complicit courts and judges rubber stamp the legislatures power by law to regulate WHO wears weapons and HOW they wear them. Unless we change the law or replace the State Supreme Court, nothing will change.

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

I'm on point with Gators supposition about HOW we wear arms. At this point, it doesn't matter what our forefathers, founding fathers, or the writers of our own state constitution meant. Texas has had complicit courts and judges rubber stamp the legislatures power by law to regulate WHO wears weapons and HOW they wear them. Unless we change the law or replace the State Supreme Court, nothing will change.

Click to expand...

This has never been challanged by the Supreme Court of Texasas far as I know. Judges do not always make the right decision and that is why we have the Supreme Court of Texas to let them decide what the constitutiion means. Look how long some people thought the 2nd admenment of the USdid not mean a indivudial right to bear arms.Remember it is our right to defend ourselfs and it is a right that can only be taken away if you do something bad enough that the courts take away your rights OR you voluntary give up your right....such as get a CHL which is a privilege and can be taken away at any time. Also if you have every read your Texas Constitution it states that if the Law makers pass any laws that is unconstitutional we as citizens are not require to obey those laws.

imported post

SO know anyone who's a Lawyer? Man i wish i was id challenege it and call you guys as witnesses hahaha:dude:

imported post

My plan of action should the legislature fail to remove 46.02 from the books is to fill out my app and send it in without any fees, wait for the rejection, then sue using Murdock v. PA for 2nd Amend violations