I have been lurking here for well over a year now and keep hearing people state as fact that the NRA and TSRA are not supporting and are totally against this Bill moving forward. As a member of both organizations for many years I am wondering if there is any documentable proof of these claims. I will be the first to pick up the phone and call these organizations if that is the case but will not do it if it is just somebodys rant looking to place blame someplace. Lets get the facts out there and then take action...
My father was a life-long NRA member. I have been a NRA member nearly all of my adult life. I appreciated the NRA involvement in the Heller and McDonald decisions - at first. Then, I started wondering WHY ....it took the NRA so long to deal with the "incorporation" issue, and WHY was the approach in Heller & McDonald so narrowly defined.
Right now on
www.nraila.org you can click on the U.S. map for Texas legislation and you will find a very brief reference to "Right to carry bill" in the Texas legislature. That one line blurp links to a Waco TV station report that only quotes the "Brady Bunch's" hired hand Representative Lon Burnam's opposition to HB 2756. Now I don't call that support for respecting the constitutional right to open carry for Texans.
It shouldn't take over 135 years to get rid of "Reconstruction" disarmament policy in Texas .
The 14th Amendment has been in effect for over 140 years. The Supreme Court held in McDonald v Chicago that the 2nd Amendment therefore has been in effect in Texas for 140 years because it was incorporated under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. So why is an 1871 Reconstruction act supported only by the Reconstruction Constitution of 1869 STILL in the Texas Penal Code? Why does every citizen in Texas need a CHL in order to carry a handgun in lawful defense when the Texas Constitution HAS DECLARED SINCE 1876 that to do so is their RESERVED RIGHT ?
The Texas Constitution of 1876 NEVER set aside handguns from the right to bear arms. The common (mistaken) assumption that the power to regulate the wearing of arms somehow pertains to handguns is unsupportable. The power of the Legislature to "regulate the wearing of arms" pertains as much to the CONCEALMENT of a .30/.30 under your clothing as a handgun, or Bowie Knife. Perhaps a little harder to accomplish - but the citizens of Texas would never tolerate total prohibition of all firearms. The handgun ban is a good example of incrementalism at work.
Even though the NRA is not quite ready to be comfortable with "open carry" for every citizen - the framers of the U.S. Constitution were not only comfortable with it - but INSISTED UPON IT ! What does that tell you about the NRA and there "support" for the Second Amendment ?