Will Rick Perry pass open carry

Jack House said:

Cite?

Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment. That really should be the end of every discussion regarding license requirements, or any other gun law for that matter.

Typically I agree, however that's not supreme court precedent.

Jack House said:

Cite?

Click to expand...

A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a Right granted by the federal constitution.... Thus it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce.... This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the State. The privilege in question exists apart from State authority. It is guaranteed the People by the federal constitution."

- Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).

someone said this could be settle by going to court is this true
and if so what are the proper step to take
maybe we can all pitch in what ever you can to hire one tough lawyer

Just some thoughts on the subject

Whenever State statutes come into conflict with the Texas Constitution ( and the federal Constitution), the Texas Attorney General has a duty to attempt to help resolve the conflict by issuance of a formal advisory opinion. This is particularly true given the Texas AG's front-line AMICUS position in the McDonald case. The opinion may advise State law enforcement agencies against future unconstitutional enforcement , advise the executive, and the legislative branches regarding the respective available options under the State Constitution, and even initiate action in State court to enjoin enforcement of unconstitutional statutes.

The sole intent and purpose of Chapter 46 of the Penal Code is TO PREVENT CRIME. Since all State statutes are PRESUMED to be constitutional, the legislative intent of Chapter 46 is to address and prevent CRIMES. The mere carrying of a handgun for lawful defense is NOT A CRIME AGAINST PERSONS under Texas law - and NOT A CRIME - PERIOD - if the person is TRAVELING.

Although the term "traveling" has been subjected to decades of progressive degradation, it still is the universally accepted English word for GOING FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER -period. The Texas Legislature in its infinite wisdom did not see fit to further elaborate on the term "traveling" - apparently having access to a dictionary , and a need to create a loop-hole for themselves and other law-abiding members of society. After all if a person left their own property - they were embarking upon a journey - "traveling" - regardless of the time or distance involved. And you don't need to hold a CHL in Texas in order to carry a concealed handgun - while traveling. There are no "hairs" to be split concerning traveling. You either are traveling , or you are not traveling. Take your pick. Way too much hair-splitting going on over this "traveling" issue in Texas - in my opinion.

The Texas Constition does not exclude HANDGUNS from the choice of arms available for use in the lawful defense of self, or the State, and the Second and Fourteenth amendments to the federal Constitution - at least according to the Heller and McDonald decisions- clearly established federal protection for the right to keep AND BEAR a "quintessential " handgun for self defense in case of confrontation.

The text of Section 46.02 does not expressly reference a nexus between the cited offense ( carrying a handgun, illegal knife, or club) and some collateral crime against persons, just as it does not make any express reference to CONCEALMENT of the listed weapons . However, both elements are logically inferred , given that the keeping and bearing of arms is a constitutionally protected right , and long guns are not listed even though they are equally employable in the commission of crimes against persons.

In addition to the "traveling" exemption, the law originally provided for a blanket "frontier" exemption for handguns through the Governor issuing a "frontier proclamation". Somewhere along the trail the "frontier proclamation" option got filed away - leaving the handgun toter the option of "traveling". The reasons for the "traveling", and "frontier proclamation" options were obvious - bandits, Comanchees, and perhaps even an occassional foreign invasion along the Texas/Mexico border. Although we tamed the Comanchees, the bandits haven't yet been eradicated, and it appears that the "frontier" has arrived in town.

I suggest that it may be time for some action along the lines of a modern day "frontier proclamation" by the Governor. The Governor's office contends that this is a "legislative matter" despite the fact that "legislative matters" seldom preclude a Governor from exercising some degree of executive prerogative when politically advantageous, or even, pray tell , constitutionally necessary.

How about a new "frontier proclamation" from the good Governor (after he wins the election of course) , or his request for an Attorney General opinion in order to recalibrate Chapter 46 of the Texas Penal Code and bring it into synch with the State and federal constitutions. A state of emergency currently exists along the Texas/Mexico border - according to the Governor himself- thus providing an excellent opportunity to declare the existence of at least ONE "frontier" - for starters.

Of course it's still safer along the Texas/Mexican border (including Falcon Lake)than inside the city limits of Austin, Houston, Galveston, San Antoinio, Dallas, and Ft. Worth - just to name a few.

I plead guilty to completely side-stepping the open carry issue. Sometimes it is constructive to step back a little and survey the landscape. You gain a little different perspective. Reflecting back on a little history can help in selecting strategies for the future. Texas has achieved acceptance of licensed concealed carry, and yet Texas does not presently criminalize concealed carry of a handgun when the handgun carry is not a crime per se - as when traveling. How can you get much closer to "constitutional carry" despite the concealment mandate. Again - I would refer back to "traveling" whenever display seems to be advisable.

rushcreek2 said:

Although the term "traveling" has been subjected to decades of progressive degradation, it still is the universally accepted English word for GOING FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER -period. The Texas Legislature in its infinite wisdom did not see fit to further elaborate on the term "traveling" - apparently having access to a dictionary , and a need to create a loop-hole for themselves and other law-abiding members of society. After all if a person left their own property - they were embarking upon a journey - "traveling" - regardless of the time or distance involved. And you don't need to hold a CHL in Texas in order to carry a concealed handgun - while traveling. There are no "hairs" to be split concerning traveling. You either are traveling , or you are not traveling. Take your pick. Way too much hair-splitting going on over this "traveling" issue in Texas - in my opinion.

Click to expand...

One of the many apocryphal tales attributed to Roy Bean was a finding over a man with a revolver. Bean supposedly ruled that "If he's standing still he ain't carryin', and if he's movin', he's travelin'."

Nice piece, rushcreek. Well thought and written.

Thank you KBCraig for your appreciation of my thought trail. I occassionally bubble over with such profundity in between periods of depression , and brain bleed-outs over Texas' convoluted handgun "law" situation.

Sometimes I think I hit the nail square on the head in suspecting that this problem isn't as serious as we tend to view it. Sometimes I hit my knuckles and accomplish nothing. I don't engage in chit-chat much. I'm more inclined to throw my views on the table kind of like at a garage sale - maybe someone can use them - or spin off from them.

The more we consider other ideas, and perspectives the closer we get to a solution. I'm prone to progress into wordy dissertations on this subject that probably require installation of special defragmenting software by those who expose themselves to my ramblings. (See what I mean.) Other times I just have to go back to Colorado Springs for a spell, where I can visit Walmart with my Glock in plain view. Of course I need my CO/ CHP to conceal carry up there.

I like the Judge Roy Bean approach to the issue. I suspect that is pretty close to what his take would have been on "dispensations" out of Austin in his day. Langtry, Texas - I've been through there a few times. Would be a good location for a "test case" on 46.02 or 46.035, except for the fact that there simply would not be a case !

Texas is a paradox. Handgun "law" like Maryland - reality more like Alaska - depending upon WHERE you are in Texas. I am optimistic that this issue will eventually be straightened out and made right in Texas.

so how many signature do we need on the petition to make anything happen

have gun will travel said:

so how many signature do we need on the petition to make anything happen

Click to expand...

Forget the petition. They'll just scoff at it.

tx65 said:

The time is coming to be emailing and writing state legislators making reasonable arguments to enhance Texas firearms laws.

Click to expand...

And who, pray tell, would you have in mind for determining what's "reasonable"? Would that be, oh I dont' know, you? Why can't I determine what's "reasonable"?

1. Remove the failure to conceal language using the argument that the climate in Texas does not lend itself to wearing clothing that will conceal a handgun without "printing". Licensed CHL holders should not be required to choose between becoming criminals for "printing" or suffering a case of heat stroke by having to wear heavy clothing in 90-100 degree plus heat during six months of the year.

2.. Protect the rights of gun owners when storing their gun in their locked car while at work.

3. Allow concealed carry on state supported university campuses so college students can protect themselves. Look at what just happened at UT Austin.

Click to expand...

I can live with that.

4. Allow open carry by licensed CHL holders. That is a reasonable request by responsible gun owners. If you are willing to submit to a background check and be tested, what is the problem with being allowed to open carry.

Click to expand...

Now that's not "reasonable". All person's who can legally own a firearm should be able to carry said firearm - without a government permission slip.

CliffH said:

And who, pray tell, would you have in mind for determining what's "reasonable"? Would that be, oh I dont' know, you? Why can't I determine what's "reasonable"?

We elect legislators and judges who are supposed to do that, the opinions of those of us who want open carry are a minority opinion for now unfortunately. Since we know we're right about the issue it's up to us to make it a majority opinion.

Now that's not "reasonable". All person's who can legally own a firearm should be able to carry said firearm - without a government permission slip.

Click to expand...

You won't get any arguement from me there. The problem for me is (and I'm sure it's a problem for a lot of the pro-gun lobby) I do not relish the day when thugs have gold plated Desert Eagles sticking out of pants that already needed to be pulled up. A gun is a tool, not "bling". "Liberalizing" gun laws too quickly could create problems for our cause. That's not to say that our ultimate goal should not be Constitutional Carry. Yet just like the fascist gun grabbers (who've worked diligently since the 1920's) have slowly chipped away at these rights, our side has worked diligently since the 1980 and have made huge strides in the other direction by defending our position with sound logic and reasoning, not to mention truth vs. the leftist's lies.

The first sign of irrationality, or especially the sight of thugs with gun bling will slow our momentum. Therefore I could easily tolerate licensed OC for the time being, or as been mentioned unlicensed CC. Though I think the former would be easier to push.

Too add a thought, since I've never been to an OC state, are there people who look like ganster idiots walking around with "gun bling", or is that a product of my own imagination?

I've visited and/or lived in a few OC states (rural CA, AZ, NM & KY), in none of those states did I ever see one person who fit the profile of a gang-banger OC'ing. Of course I didn't go wandering around in the more "unsavory" areas. My guess is that those who are in a gang don't particularly want to advertize they're carrying.

I did see some who carried as "bling" - at BBQ's. Lots of people have their favorite BBQ gun.

Your concerns are why I constantly urge those who haven't been exposed to OC to take their next vacation in an OC state, and maybe OC themselves while there. It can be an eye opener.

You're the second person in the last week or so to voice the opinion that OC folks in TX are in the minority. Since there haven't been any statewide polls, how can we know for sure?

DKSuddeth said:

A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a Right granted by the federal constitution.... Thus it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce.... This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the State. The privilege in question exists apart from State authority. It is guaranteed the People by the federal constitution."

- Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).

Click to expand...

The Constitution doesn't grant us anything.

CliffH said:

I've visited and/or lived in a few OC states (rural CA, AZ, NM & KY), in none of those states did I ever see one person who fit the profile of a gang-banger OC'ing. Of course I didn't go wandering around in the more "unsavory" areas. My guess is that those who are in a gang don't particularly want to advertize they're carrying.

Click to expand...

I agree. I don't see any more problems than we have already with gangbangers. They hide their guns.

I did see some who carried as "bling" - at BBQ's. Lots of people have their favorite BBQ gun.

Click to expand...

Absolutely! I normally carry a 1911 but at an open carry bbq, I might wear a single action .45 in a nice looking western holster. Nothing wrong with that.

Your concerns are why I constantly urge those who haven't been exposed to OC to take their next vacation in an OC state, and maybe OC themselves while there. It can be an eye opener.

You're the second person in the last week or so to voice the opinion that OC folks in TX are in the minority. Since there haven't been any statewide polls, how can we know for sure?

Click to expand...

I've open carried in and around Lafayette, Louisiana when I lived there and had no problems. This was between 1980 and 1995(ish).

Fisherman said:

The Constitution doesn't grant us anything.

Click to expand...

true, but not even supreme court justices will get every word right all the time. the gist and meaning of the opinion is whats important, unless you think that every court out there would suddenly jump on the bandwagon of the constitution doesn't grant rights, but protects them......say, wouldn't that pose just a bit of intellectual dishonesty on their part?

Without constructive constitutional incorporation of our God-given rights into a founding document - would we have any in actual practice ?

Problem is WE THE PEOPLE shouldn't have allowed ourselves to be neutered into sheeply waiting 230 years for the Supreme Court to "certify" THE EXISTENCE OF , and extend federal protection to our right to keep and bear arms that SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN INFRINGED UPON IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Most of us would agree with that, but HOW MANY are WILLING to undergo a reversal of our neutering in order to get the attention of our elected representatives?

The provisions embodied in Chapter 46 of Title 10 (Offenses against public health, safety, and morals ) that criminalize the otherwise lawful wearing of a "quintessential handgun" in plain view - or concealed - in Texas have been null and void since the McDonald decision because Texas has no statute criminalizing concealed carry without a license, and carry of a handgun is now a federally protected right subject only to restrictions pertaining to sensitive locations, juveniles, and persons prohibited from firearm possession for criminal or mental health reasons.

This fact needs to be brought to the attention of the 82nd Texas Legislature, Governor Perry, Attorney General Abbott, and every law enforcement agency in the State. Where is THE OFFENSE AGAINST health, safety, and morals when a citizen exercises a constitutionally protected civil right ? Is it immoral , unhealthy, or unsafe to be able to defend yourself against criminals?

CliffH said:

I've visited and/or lived in a few OC states (rural CA, AZ, NM & KY), in none of those states did I ever see one person who fit the profile of a gang-banger OC'ing. Of course I didn't go wandering around in the more "unsavory" areas. My guess is that those who are in a gang don't particularly want to advertize they're carrying.

I did see some who carried as "bling" - at BBQ's. Lots of people have their favorite BBQ gun.

Your concerns are why I constantly urge those who haven't been exposed to OC to take their next vacation in an OC state, and maybe OC themselves while there. It can be an eye opener.

You're the second person in the last week or so to voice the opinion that OC folks in TX are in the minority. Since there haven't been any statewide polls, how can we know for sure?

Click to expand...

I reckon you're right about gang bangers concealing their weapons, and that "bling guns" aren't a bad thing when they're carried tastefully. I suppose I wouldn't even care if gang bangers carried gold plated DE's openly as long as they pulled up their dad gummed pants!!!

I do intend to visit AZ someday, from the sounds of it I almost want to live there. I suppose it's just my own perception that OCer's are a minority because several gun carriers I know oppose the idea for a variety of (wrong) reasons. I guess my concerns about thugs w/ gun bling isn't a valid concern either.

....as long as they pulled up their dad gummed pants!!!

Click to expand...

I'll second that!

I guess my concerns about thugs w/ gun bling isn't a valid concern either.

Click to expand...

It is a valid concern. But the odds of it happening are pretty low, at least in my experience. I can see them behaving like more responsible citizens when they're with their friends and showing off their newest or most prized possession.

IMO one of the most important things an OC or Constitutional Carry effort will have to do is educate the general public on the how's and why's of OC. We'll have to make sure they understand that only those who can legally own a firearm will be carrying, concealed carry would still be an option for those who wish to, and the CHL permission slip will still be available. Getting people to agree that, even if OC isn't for them, it doesn't hurt them if someone else does OC.

That's not an impossible task. But it will take an effort on all OC'ers part to get the word out to as many as possible.

CliffH said:

Getting people to agree that, even if OC isn't for them, it doesn't hurt them if someone else does OC.

Click to expand...

There are a few who do think that way though. I know of one who is against OC and the answer he comes up with most often is, "I prefer to conceal because it's tactically, blah blah blah...". I prefer!?! So because he prefers, we have to go that way too? That's one of the most selfish things I've ever heard. Disagree and you're some kind of nut. Well, I'm a nut then because I think that the people ought to have a choice.

I was talking about this on another forum a week or two ago and was accused of pushing an agenda. Well heck yes I was and am. Everyone has an agenda. Everyone, whether it's Constitutional Carry or cheaper gasoline.

So if "I prefer" and "you're just pushing an agenda" are their big guns (so to speak), I think we can get something done this session.

They're not going to "give" our rights back. We have to take them back by being active, voting correctly and constantly letting the folks in office that we're watching and will support their opponent next time if they don't wise up.

DARN IT!

press1280 said:

I'd forget about any lawsuit trying to force open carry, per se. Heller basically said the government can "regulate" the right meaning they can prohibit OC or CC but not both(this is backed up by state precedents banning CC). The licensing requirements could be an issue though.
Best bet is just get rid of the sheep in the TX legislature and eliminate the concealed requirement or better yet go VT carry and hold onto the CHL for reciprocity purposes.

Click to expand...

Which portion of the opinion stated that? It does not make such determination from what I have read in it.