Reply from my newly-elected State Representative

[rushcreek2]

"If traveling" - AGAIN

I'm slipping this link into the discussion since I think it still very much addresses the general topic. The Court of Criminal appeals case is a bit dated but it's interesting, and provides considerable insight into the history of Texas case law regarding 46.02 application.

This is the DISSENTING OPINION in the case - BUT it's apparent that the Texas Legislature was paying attention to it when they passed the 2007 INSIDE your vehicle provision which did not actually DEFINE TRAVELING but did manage to place 99% of traveling off-limits to Texas courtroom meddling.

www.io.com/~velte/moosani

This "if traveling" exception has been amended from its former status as a DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION under 46.02 - to its present NONAPPLICABILITY - CONDUCT NOT ENCOMPASSED BY the provisions of 46.02 . Technically the NOT IN PLAIN VIEW INSIDE YOUR VEHICLE carry provision does not apply "if traveling" - UNLESS a court wishes to hold that whenever a person is INSIDE their vehicle - THEY ARE NOT TRAVELING. Then it really gets ridiculous. OBVIOUSLY - this does NOT mean a handgun (or rifle) can be displayed in public in plain view from the inside of a vehicle in a manner intended to cause alarm.

"IF traveling" still implies a potential question of fact, however the burden of proof still rests with the State to prove that a person is NOT TRAVELING, and the UNLICENSED carry of a handgun inside of one's vehicle (NOT IN PLAIN VIEW) exception provision has greatly reduced the wiggle-room for replacing legislated NO DEFINITION AMBIGUITY of "IF traveling" with THE COURT'S own versions of ENHANCED AMBIGUITY in attempting to erect parameters for "IF traveling".

It is noteworthy that the Court in the Moosani v State of Texas dissenting opinion also addressed "temporary suspension" of travel in order to conduct necessary "business" RELATED TO the travel. This is where LOGIC comes into play. Stops en route to the presumed final destination in order to eat, attend to personal needs, acquire provisions, necessary supplies, obtain vehicle repairs, lodging, fuel, seek directions, etc, etc - all of these activities fall outside of the provisions of section 46.02.

The now incorporated 2A RIGHT to carry a handgun in case of confrontation has now been added to the 139 year old "stew" of Texas handgun jurisprudence. The FREEDOM TO TRAVEL takes that RIGHT - FAR, FAR from "the home". I think it's just about time for Texans to take a seat at the table and enjoy the SETTLED LAW "stew" that the Texas Attorney General worked so hard to obtain from the SCOTUS.

WELCOME RAVENDOVE ! You're comments are VERY refreshing , and absolutely correct.

 

[B.D. WALKER]

Because their Elitist. Do you think their going to admit it? NO!
I have asked that question more times than I can remember, never got an answer.
I even made the argument as to why Constitutional Carry works in other states, and why Texans cant be trusted with the same. Nobody has been smart enough to debate that topic with me yet.
I even question people why would other states trust me to carry firearms without a license, but my home state of Texas doesnt! Nobody will debate that subject either.

Licensing in Texas is just a career builder for those who mooch off the working mans rights.

Here is the thing, even the most knowledgeable of them would never debate even some of the least knowledgeable OC supporters. This is because when they say out loud what the view stand point is it make less and less sense to them but would rather not admit it.

Either way one carries has its pros and cons so to just dismiss OC just because they dont want to do it then no one should is simply wrong. OC or better yet constitutional carry is a right that should have never been taken away in the first place.

 

[B.D. WALKER]

I used to live in Wy. off and on for last 10 years, my no. 1 argument with others gun owners that lived there was about open carry, I heard "no ones stoping you from having a rifle, keep a pistol in your house if you like, if you want to carry just get a permit, the 2nd Amendment is so we can hunt, open carry if you want but its foolish and you will scare people," and my favorite would have to be "this is Wyoming thay will never take our guns away." I know very few gun owners that were friendly with open carry, and thats sad to think that Wy. is like that.

"this is Wyoming they will never take our guns away." Now that is a good one. Yet by not exercising their right to OC at least some of the time, they a willingly giving away the right that those of us in Texas right now are fight so hard to get, which shouldn't be so.

OC would surprise some and scare a few but how else would they know there are armed citizens every were right now that are obeying the law and saving their lives as well as the lives of others. Like you said, there a approximately 90,000,000 gun owners in the US and though they don't all OC or CC; do unarmed citizens even know that?

If the armed citizens keep bothering themselves with what others care or think, these people would never get educated and we are the ones that their ignorance would affect. We as gun owner chose to take the responsibility of arming ourselves and we need to to have the freedom to keep and bear arms as we so choose, when we so choose and where we so choose. Coz at the end itz our lives that are at stake.

 

[rickc1962]

"this is Wyoming they will never take our guns away." Now that is a good one. Yet by not exercising their right to OC at least some of the time, they a willingly giving away the right that those of us in Texas right now are fight so hard to get, which shouldn't be so.

OC would surprise some and scare a few but how else would they know there are armed citizens every were right now that are obeying the law and saving their lives as well as the lives of others. Like you said, there a approximately 90,000,000 gun owners in the US and though they don't all OC or CC; do unarmed citizens even know that?

If the armed citizens keep bothering themselves with what others care or think, these people would never get educated and we are the ones that their ignorance would affect. We as gun owner chose to take the responsibility of arming ourselves and we need to to have the freedom to keep and bear arms as we so choose, when we so choose and where we so choose. Coz at the end itz our lives that are at stake.

Thinks B.D.WALKER, I could not say it any better, I love the state of Wy. and most of the people there are great, but the apathy thy have for gun rights is alarming, if you wonder why I say this just look at the date of the last post on the Wy. thread, 12/8/2010, I posted there on 11/19/2010 about Constitutional carry and only got 2 comments. Wy could have got Constitutional carry before Az. if thay would have got off there butts, you would think that thay would have gotten this passed years ago, for no other reason then the long cold winters and the need for coats. this is not to criticize Wy. there are some good people working hard for the 2nd Amendment in Wy. and thay will probably get "Freedom to Carry' in 2011. You Texans seem to be working hard also, I hope Gov. Parry signs open carry into law in 2011, keep up the pressure.

 

[MR Redenck]

Here is the thing, even the most knowledgeable of them would never debate even some of the least knowledgeable OC supporters. This is because when they say out loud what the view stand point is it make less and less sense to them but would rather not admit it.

Either way one carries has its pros and cons so to just dismiss OC just because they dont want to do it then no one should is simply wrong. OC or better yet constitutional carry is a right that should have never been taken away in the first place.

Constitutional Carry is the only acceptable right for United States Citizens.

You have to read some of my work to understand how and why it was taken away, maybe you already do, i dont know.
The right to carry should be an individual right. One persons right to choose, not the states.

 

[rushcreek2]

When the sheep SUBMITTED to being herded up and induced over several generations to live in sheep-pens where their safety would be dependent upon the whims of the wolf-pack, and the responsiveness of the sheep-herder -THEY MADE A BIG MISTAKE.
It's human nature to stubbornly refuse to ADMIT to having made a BIG MISTAKE.

So it's not surprising that these same sheep would ENVY former fellow sheep who have managed to escape the confines of the pen and roam free as sheep dogs capable of defending themselves from wolves. They are prone to bleat and heckle the sheep dogs, because the visible display of courage contrasts their OWN reliance upon the "security" of the pen to keep the wolf-pack at bay.

They actually RESPECT the sheep-dog who stands as an obstacle to the free reign of the wolf-pack -but to publicly affirm that fact is to admit to their own unwillingness to accept responsibility for the presence of the wolf threat. They live in denial of their own shame for having allowed themselves to become pathetic, helpless sheep who survive another day by huddling and hiding amongst each other while hoping that the roving wolves will pass over them. When the wolves nightly slaughter yet another randomly selected member of the herd - the survivors all join in a chorus of bleating over the tragedy until the sheep-herder acts to reinforce the sheep-pen. They hope reinforcement of the pen will keep the wolves at bay and ensure their "safety" - whlie not realizing that it also serves the sheep-herder's interest in keeping HIS sheep inside HIS pen.

Sadly the sheep fail to realize that the sheep-herder is more concerned with breeding them for the annual "wool harvest" , than their individual safety from wolves. The sheep-herder is willing to nightly sacrifice a few sheep to the wolves because he is unwilling to adopt policies, employ measures, and invest resources to effectively deal with the wolf-pack. The occassional loss of a few individuals from the herd to the wolf-pack is simply a consequence of OWNING sheep, and is deemed to be an economically acceptable bottom-line "expense". The sheep-herder doesn't want HIS sheep getting out of HIS sheep-pen because then they would no longer pay for the "security" of HIS sheep-pen with THEIR wool.

 

[KBCraig]

I'm slipping this link into the discussion since I think it still very much addresses the general topic. The Court of Criminal appeals case is a bit dated but it's interesting, and provides considerable insight into the history of Texas case law regarding 46.02 application.

This is the DISSENTING OPINION in the case - BUT it's apparent that the Texas Legislature was paying attention to it when they passed the 2007 INSIDE your vehicle provision which did not actually DEFINE TRAVELING but did manage to place 99% of traveling off-limits to Texas courtroom meddling.

www.io.com/~velte/moosani

Thanks for the link. Lots of good cites to case law are included in that case.

 

[B.D. WALKER]

You Texans seem to be working hard also, I hope Gov. Parry signs open carry into law in 2011, keep up the pressure.

Thanks rickc1962, we sure will. I really hope Gov. Perry signs it too should the bill get presented to him...

 

[B.D. WALKER]

Constitutional Carry is the only acceptable right for United States Citizens.

You have to read some of my work to understand how and why it was taken away, maybe you already do, i dont know.
The right to carry should be an individual right. One persons right to choose, not the states.

Oh, I know and I am with u on that...

 

[emk]

When the sheep SUBMITTED to being herded up and induced over several generations to live in sheep-pens where their safety would be dependent upon the whims of the wolf-pack, and the responsiveness of the sheep-herder - THEY MADE A BIG MISTAKE.

It's human nature to stubbornly refuse to ADMIT to having made a BIG MISTAKE.

So it's not surprising that these same sheep would ENVY former fellow sheep who have managed to escape the confines of the pen and roam free as sheep dogs capable of defending themselves from wolves. They are prone to bleat and heckle the sheep dogs, because the visible display of courage contrasts their OWN reliance upon the "security" of the pen to keep the wolf-pack at bay.

They actually RESPECT the sheep-dog who stands as an obstacle to the free reign of the wolf-pack -but to publicly affirm that fact is to admit to their own unwillingness to accept responsibility for the presence of the wolf threat. They live in denial of their own shame for having allowed themselves to become pathetic, helpless sheep who survive another day by huddling and hiding amongst each other while hoping that the roving wolves will pass over them. When the wolves nightly slaughter yet another randomly selected member of the herd, the survivors all join in a chorus of bleating over the tragedy until the sheep-herder acts to reinforce the sheep-pen. They hope reinforcement of the pen will keep the wolves at bay and ensure their "safety" - whlie not realizing that it also serves the sheep-herder's interest in keeping HIS sheep inside HIS pen.

Sadly the sheep fail to realize that the sheep-herder is more concerned with breeding them for the annual "wool harvest", than their individual safety from wolves. The sheep-herder is willing to nightly sacrifice a few sheep to the wolves because he is unwilling to adopt policies, employ measures, and invest resources to effectively deal with the wolf-pack. The occassional loss of a few individuals from the herd to the wolf-pack is simply a consequence of OWNING sheep, and is deemed to be an economically acceptable bottom-line "expense". The sheep-herder doesn't want HIS sheep getting out of HIS sheep-pen because then they would no longer pay for the "security" of HIS sheep-pen with THEIR wool.

I absolutely love the way this was said. This is applicable of course not only to firearms rights, but to all of our rights, and the soft surrender of each one to a so-called authority figure who promises us protection if we just submit ourselves to them. This must be why the government is always after the Mafia; they can't stand competition in the protection racket.