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

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

imported post

Yeah, tell him to draft a bill!

imported post

Part of me says :banghead: at making requirements.

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

imported post

ScottyT wrote:

Part of me says :banghead: at making requirements.

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

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

Click to expand...

OK, what law suit would this be?

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."

imported post

Mike wrote:

DKSuddeth wrote:

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

Click to expand...

OK, what law suit would this be?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

Mike wrote:

DKSuddeth wrote:

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

Click to expand...

OK, what law suit would this be?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Emerson was not an incorporation case - so neither Emerson nor Heller binds any court to hold Texas to respect Constitutinal rights.

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.

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Emerson was not an incorporation case - so neither Emerson nor Heller binds any court to hold Texas to respect Constitutinal rights.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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)