Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Jose Melendez would concider Open Carry law if it had same training and Licensure requirements

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, Va
    Posts
    181

    Post imported post

    Ok, I took Milke's advise to email my Rep/Sen/Gov. I did that and then did one more, I sent each of them a letter with a copy of the poposed bill. The first person to respons was Gov Perry's office who planly said, Please speak to you Rep/Sen as they are the ones who propose laws.

    Second to respond was Rep Jose Melendez, who stated he supported the Conceal Carry laws in Texas and that intentionally or otherwise failing to follow laws would result in License revocation.

    He finished by stating he would concider an Open Carry Law if it had the same training and Licensure requirements as the CHL.



    My plan in to reengage Rep Melendez and stress that if HE would sponsor such a bill many Texans who support open carry laws would not be above a compromise and would accept legislation that would require training and even licensing. (Even thow I said the same thing in my initial letter). I want to see if I give him License/Training if we give me a comittment to sponsor or co-sponsor an Open Carry bill. I will post once I get another response from him.

    Bryan

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Yeah, tell him to draft a bill!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    800

    Post imported post

    Part of me says at making requirements.

    Part of me says take it however you can get it. That would be a great first step to restoring rights.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Decoligny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Rosamond, California, USA
    Posts
    1,865

    Post imported post

    ScottyT wrote:
    Part of me says at making requirements.

    Part of me says take it however you can get it. That would be a great first step to restoring rights.
    If it's a right, then it is a right. Any time you place a licensure requirement, or a training requirement, or fee, placedupon the excercise of a fundamental right, you no longer have a fundamental right, youhave a government bestowed priviledge.

    They tried it in the South with the right to vote when they tried to keep blacks from voting byrequiringa "test" be passed in order to "qualify" to vote. Clearly a violation.

    If you read Heller closely, Unlicensed Open Carry is the only way you can really exerciseyour 2nd Amendment rights. "Reasonable restriction on the carry of concealed weapons" is specifically mentioned as being constitutional.

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    AFCop wrote:
    Ok, I took Milke's advise to email my Rep/Sen/Gov. I did that and then did one more, I sent each of them a letter with a copy of the poposed bill. The first person to respons was Gov Perry's office who planly said, Please speak to you Rep/Sen as they are the ones who propose laws.

    Second to respond was Rep Jose Melendez, who stated he supported the Conceal Carry laws in Texas and that intentionally or otherwise failing to follow laws would result in License revocation.

    He finished by stating he would concider an Open Carry Law if it had the same training and Licensure requirements as the CHL.



    My plan in to reengage Rep Melendez and stress that if HE would sponsor such a bill many Texans who support open carry laws would not be above a compromise and would accept legislation that would require training and even licensing. (Even thow I said the same thing in my initial letter). I want to see if I give him License/Training if we give me a comittment to sponsor or co-sponsor an Open Carry bill. I will post once I get another response from him.

    Bryan
    Looks like i'll be filing my lawsuit Sep 2nd.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    "Training "& licensingrequirements as a bargaining chip for the lifting of restrictions on the free excercise of a CIVIL RIGHT long denied - is tantamount to a car thief offering to return your car to you -with a stipulation that you complete a defensive driving course first.

    This "deal" should not be made.The goal here is toREMOVEtheopen carry restriction for theconcealed handgun licensee, & remove "handgun" from prohibited weapon status- not to EXPAND regulation of concealed carry (and excuses for revocation), and LICENSE something that is already a RIGHT.

    If a citizen elects to apply for a concealed handgun license that is all the better - but no licensing provision should be accepted for non-concealed carry.


    Recognize this for what it is - a "first offer" from a legislator who needs to be provided with more information on the benefits of open carry.The burden is upon the Texas legislature to show cause why the State's unconstitutional ban on open wearing of a side-arm should not be rescinded.

    Let's not let these representatives forget that this issue is about SAVING LIVES, & PREVENTING CRIME.


    This is just more of the "common sense & reasonable" regulations B.S.


  7. #7
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    DKSuddeth wrote:
    Looks like i'll be filing my lawsuit Sep 2nd.
    OK, what law suit would this be?

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    I'm in the dissenter's camp on negotiating OC.

    A law about OC isn't the point. There should be no law about it. That is the point.

    Don't forget that getting such an OC licenselaw this year might make it harder to get momentum for getting rid of it next year. Whereas, it may be possible to just keep building support across the next session or two and get rid of the OC restriction all together.

    If they want to play hardball a little bit, there is no reason we can't do the same thing.

    Besides a license would just guarantee that any anti-gun cop could hassle an OCer with impunity. Since its being OCd, the gun is there for everybody to see, including anti-gun or anti-OC cops. "Lemme see your license. It says right on it you have to show it to me." Imagine what OCers in cities would have to go through? Look at what we've had to put up with in places it was already legal?

    Oh, and since there is a gun in view, I can just imagine the seizures "for officer safety" while the license check is run against the state database. And now that the gun is seized, "Well, I'd just better run the serial number. Maybe I can catch this gun-totingass-clownon a stolen gun charge."


    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    DKSuddeth wrote:
    Looks like i'll be filing my lawsuit Sep 2nd.
    OK, what law suit would this be?
    If the legislature fails to remove 46.02 or imposes a license requirement, i'll be filing a 2ndAmendment lawsuit against TX using Heller and Murdock v. PA.

    TX will either be forced to allow open carry rights or concealed without a license.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    marshaul would consider telling Jose Melendez what he really thinks, but would instead politely inform Mr. Melendez that he can keep his compromise, and that the people demand our rights be respected in full.

    And where I come from, rights don't require permission slips.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:

    Besides a license would just guarantee that any anti-gun cop could hassle an OCer with impunity.



    Precisely !!

    I am a Colorado resident since 2006 - but if CO's 9 electoral votes go to Bin Obama on Nov 4th - I may agree with mynative Texan wife andhead back to TX...

    I lived in Texas for 45 years before moving to Colorado. Istill have a TX CHL & DL in my wallet, have 6 children , and countless grandchildren living in TX - so I do have a stake in this issue. So I think I have standing to participate in this discussion, even though I can't vote in Texas. ( Perhaps I need to check with ACORN on that)

    While residing in CO, I have come to appreciate the Coloradans' political philosophy that not everything under the sun needs a "law" regulating or"prohibiting" it - as seems to be the case in Texas lately.

    Something for the "carpet baggers" in Texas to consider.....IF the "perfect storm" lands in D.C. (Obama/Reid/Pelosi/Marxist majority in the Supreme Court)) people all across this land will begin studying the U.S. and State constitutions again, and realize that the "plague" must be isolated and contained inside the District of Columbia.

    Since the "regulators" and their sheeply constituencies will not favor Texas seccession/sovereignty from the U.S., the "nuclear" option will present itself. I refer to the perogative of the Texas body politic to divide into separate states. I can imagine San Antonio- the capitol of South West Texas (everything west of the Brazos River)while FT Worth/Dallas and Houston fight it out for the honor of "regulating" what's left.Just kidding ! I know there are far more Patriots EAST of the Brazos thanPinheads.

    I understand that the notion of Texas leaving the U.S.disturbs many patriotic Texans, but the U.S. that so-called "progressives"(read MARXISTS)have in mind would be a subjurisdiction of the U.N. (forget the Constitution- THEY have !) The point is that legislators should NOT assume that "change" ain't coming. I agree with Obama on that point - change IS coming- just not quite along the lines he imagines. Texas legislators need to get on board - or they will be left behind.

    I apologize for straying from the central issue of this thread. I rant. I am familiar with the patriotic political spiritin Texas .The Texas Legislature is fixin' to experience a "tsunami" in January. "Tsunamis" aren't easily REGULATED.




  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    He finished by stating he would concider an Open Carry Law if it had the same training and Licensure requirements as the CHL.
    Isn't this the Tennessee Law? There may be but I don't know of a large organized group protesting this and filing lawsuits in TN. Maybe there is but I just am no aware of it. I realize that the comparision may be stupid but I am learning.



  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    He finished by stating he would concider an Open Carry Law if it had the same training and Licensure requirements as the CHL.
    Isn't this the Tennessee Law? There may be but I don't know of a large organized group protesting this and filing lawsuits in TN. Maybe there is but I just am no aware of it. I realize that the comparision may be stupid but I am learning.
    This is the law of the states coded in green - licensed open cary states. Licensure is generally disfavored for constituitonal rights - there is a S. Ct. case striking down a requirement for newspapers to be licensed for example - a violation of the First Amendment.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Newport News, Va
    Posts
    181

    Post imported post

    DKSuddeth wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    DKSuddeth wrote:
    Looks like i'll be filing my lawsuit Sep 2nd.
    OK, what law suit would this be?
    If the legislature fails to remove 46.02 or imposes a license requirement, i'll be filing a 2ndAmendment lawsuit against TX using Heller and Murdock v. PA.

    TX will either be forced to allow open carry rights or concealed without a license.
    You are right!!! Forget the compromise, where do I donate?



    Edit: Doesn't Heller only apply to RKBA in the home? Without incorporation or something more definitive, how would Heller help?

  15. #15
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    AFCop wrote:

    You are right!!! Forget the compromise, where do I donate?



    Edit: Doesn't Heller only apply to RKBA in the home? Without incorporation or something more definitive, how would Heller help?
    Incorporation appears to be coming from California Nordyke case, or at least the possibility looks good.

    Even so, Murdock v. PA doesn't say anything about incorporated rights. It only states that a state may not charge a license, fee, or tax for a right protected by the constitution. US v. Emerson in the 5th circuit handled that for us a few years ago, but Heller just affirmed it.

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    DKSuddeth wrote:
    AFCop wrote:
    You are right!!! Forget the compromise, where do I donate?

    Edit: Doesn't Heller only apply to RKBA in the home? Without incorporation or something more definitive, how would Heller help?
    Incorporation appears to be coming from California Nordyke case, or at least the possibility looks good.

    Even so, Murdock v. PA doesn't say anything about incorporated rights. It only states that a state may not charge a license, fee, or tax for a right protected by the constitution. US v. Emerson in the 5th circuit handled that for us a few years ago, but Heller just affirmed it.
    Emerson was not an incorporation case - so neither Emerson nor Heller binds any court to hold Texas to respect Constitutinal rights.



  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    I think its a bad trade.

    Eventually, either BHO will pack the courts or some kind of right to bear arms will be protected and it will apply at the state level.

    Some people think OC will be protected, some think CC and OC will be protected. I personally don't see how OC cannot become a protected right.

    But it may take a while to get there.

    OTOH, the courts think oddly at times. TX already allows the OC of long guns, only the OC of hand guns is prohibited. It is entirely possible the courts might decide the OC of long guns is adequate to protect the right.

    Its possible as part of the horse trading that tends to go on at the legislature that you may need to make a few concessions to get something passed, but to start that way is not starting from a position of strength.

    Personally,I think you need a well written legal opinion that supports the idea that OC is, or will soon become a protected right, and use that as leverage to get the law changed now, rather than have the courts nullify the law later on. Not as messy that way. A friendly legislator might well be able to get the state AG to opine on this subject.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, USA
    Posts
    234

    Post imported post

    Exposing my ignorance here perhaps - but my reading of the Heller OPINION gave me the sense that the 2A was considered in depthby the court within the context of nationwide application - therefore "incorporated". Although the case DEALT WITH a D.C. issue the application of the 2A was generic for all the U.S.

    Is there some deep nuance to this "incorporation" concept that I am missing ? I mean - like does the SCOTUS have to use the precise word "incorporated" ? Please help me - I know I sound naive - Just because the BOR was ratified in 1791, and the 14th Amendment "incorporated " ALL (but the 2A ???) 10 amendments - we are still waiting for some court to tell us we have an unalienable RIGHT to keep and bear arms ? Don't hold your breath.

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    DKSuddeth wrote:
    AFCop wrote:
    You are right!!! Forget the compromise, where do I donate?

    Edit: Doesn't Heller only apply to RKBA in the home? Without incorporation or something more definitive, how would Heller help?
    Incorporation appears to be coming from California Nordyke case, or at least the possibility looks good.

    Even so, Murdock v. PA doesn't say anything about incorporated rights. It only states that a state may not charge a license, fee, or tax for a right protected by the constitution. US v. Emerson in the 5th circuit handled that for us a few years ago, but Heller just affirmed it.
    Emerson was not an incorporation case - so neither Emerson nor Heller binds any court to hold Texas to respect Constitutinal rights.

    I never stated that Emerson was an incorporation case. Emerson found the 2nd to be an individual right, applicable to Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana. Murdock found that no state can charge a license, fee, or tax for any right protected by the constitution. Nothing in either of those two cases did I refer to anything being incorporated. IF Nordyke incorporates, I don't see the 5th circuit being very far behind it. Even if Nordyke isn't considered, I find it unlikely that the courts could disallow both murdock and emerson/heller without some serious hoop jumping to still consider that a state can turn the right to bear arms in to a licensed priviledge.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    SANDCREEK wrote:
    Exposing my ignorance here perhaps - but my reading of the Heller OPINION gave me the sense that the 2A was considered in depthby the court within the context of nationwide application - therefore "incorporated". Although the case DEALT WITH a D.C. issue the application of the 2A was generic for all the U.S.

    Is there some deep nuance to this "incorporation" concept that I am missing ? I mean - like does the SCOTUS have to use the precise word "incorporated" ? Please help me - I know I sound naive - Just because the BOR was ratified in 1791, and the 14th Amendment "incorporated " ALL (but the 2A ???) 10 amendments - we are still waiting for some court to tell us we have an unalienable RIGHT to keep and bear arms ? Don't hold your breath.
    The premise from which to start is that the Constitution and Bill of Rights have effect only on the federal government and are ignored to the extent possible.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

  21. #21
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    DKSuddeth wrote:
    Mike wrote: I never stated that Emerson was an incorporation case. Emerson found the 2nd to be an individual right, applicable to Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
    No, Emerson held only that the Second Amendment provided an individual right against federal power. Current but dated federal S. Ct. cases say the Second Amendment is not incorporated. But see footnote 23 of Heller.

    Selective incorporation of federal rights against state power by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment is the process by which the courts have slowly applied formerly federal rights against state action.

    A federal circuit holding is only binding on district courts in that circuit and future circuit panels. Federal circuit holdings are not binding on the state courts in any circuit - they have no more pursuasive authority than the federal circuit courts in other parts of the country - only the federal Supreme Court can overrule a state appellatecourt, and even then, only on a federal question.

  22. #22
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    DKSuddeth wrote:
    Mike wrote: I never stated that Emerson was an incorporation case. Emerson found the 2nd to be an individual right, applicable to Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
    No, Emerson held only that the Second Amendment provided an individual right against federal power. Current but dated federal S. Ct. cases say the Second Amendment is not incorporated. But see footnote 23 of Heller.

    Selective incorporation of federal rights against state power by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment is the process by which the courts have slowly applied formerly federal rights against state action.

    A federal circuit holding is only binding on district courts in that circuit and future circuit panels. Federal circuit holdings are not binding on the state courts in any circuit - they have no more pursuasive authority than the federal circuit courts in other parts of the country - only the federal Supreme Court can overrule a state appellatecourt, and even then, only on a federal question.
    So are you saying that Murdock v. PA is no longer good law?

  23. #23
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    DKSuddeth wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    DKSuddeth wrote:
    Mike wrote: I never stated that Emerson was an incorporation case. Emerson found the 2nd to be an individual right, applicable to Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
    No, Emerson held only that the Second Amendment provided an individual right against federal power. Current but dated federal S. Ct. cases say the Second Amendment is not incorporated. But see footnote 23 of Heller.

    Selective incorporation of federal rights against state power by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment is the process by which the courts have slowly applied formerly federal rights against state action.

    A federal circuit holding is only binding on district courts in that circuit and future circuit panels. Federal circuit holdings are not binding on the state courts in any circuit - they have no more pursuasive authority than the federal circuit courts in other parts of the country - only the federal Supreme Court can overrule a state appellatecourt, and even then, only on a federal question.
    So are you saying that Murdock v. PA is no longer good law?
    Not all.

Posting Permissions

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