Interesting News on Open Carry.....

[APatriot]

I think the parking lot bill was struck down due to private property right protections, personally.

Open carry via a CHL already has private property protections. All they have to do is display a 30.06 sign, and I fear this will be the backlash towards open carry. I believe it would be a better idea for them to introduce a new legal sign depicting the open carry of firearms on premises not accepted, but allowing concealed.

In either regard, open carry needs to be passed. You have only to look at the numerous other states that allow it to see it in practice.

Backlash is my fear as well. Yet, I personally believe OC will die in committee.

 

[AresV]

So, what do you want - MORE restrictive laws? Every time we can loosen the laws, we ALL win.

^This.

I'm all for open carry - pistols AND rifles.

I'd love the ability to sling an AR across my back when the wife wants me to go to the mall with her. One of my biggest objections for not going to the mall is that I'm extremely disadvantaged if there was to be an active shooter incident with just a Glock 19 and one extra magazine at my disposal.

And before anyone starts freaking out about people openly carrying (pistols OR rifles) - consider this - if someone means you physical harm (i.e. an active shooter at the mall), they will commit such crime without any regard for the minor firearms laws they violate during the process. Those laws are merely there to keep the sheeple in order...they do nothing to prevent a criminal hell-bent on killing someone from committing the crime. Honestly, do you think the BG will get to the door of the business with the "No Gun" sign and stop, turn around, and go get a baseball bat to carry out his murder spree because he doesn't want to be criminally trespassed for bringing in a gun?

Do you honestly think that anyone who's ever murdered another person using a firearm gave any thought to any firearms laws they violated leading up to and during the act?

There's nothing stopping heinous criminals from committing murder - think about it. If the will is there and strong enough, they will attempt to do whatever it is they want to achieve. LE and armed citizens are the only thing that can stop them once they make the decision to commit the crime. There's nowhere near enough police officers to be everywhere they'd need to be to nip every active shooter situation in the bud - nor would I want to live in a society where there were that many - it would be a total police state.

So who does the burden of protecting ourselves fall upon? Us, the armed citizens. This is the point of the right to keep and bear arms. It is so that someone cannot deny you of your INALIENABLE rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (including a tyrannical government).

An armed society is a polite society.

 

[txinvestigator]

^This.

I'm all for open carry - pistols AND rifles.

I'd love the ability to sling an AR across my back when the wife wants me to go to the mall with her. One of my biggest objections for not going to the mall is that I'm extremely disadvantaged if there was to be an active shooter incident with just a Glock 19 and one extra magazine at my disposal.

That strikes me as quite bizzare.

 

[AresV]

That strikes me as quite bizzare.

Which part of it? The open carry of rifles as well as pistols?

Or the fact that I've actually contemplated a scenario and formulated a plan for my reaction prior to its actual occurrence.

In my line of work, I find it highly advantageous to think ahead and have a plan of action for worst case scenarios. My on-duty response to an active shooter scenario would include a rifle (in addition to my duty gun). Would it not be to my advantage to be able to respond in a similar manner if I found myself in the midst of a very bad situation when I'm not at work?

This is not a situation to be cast aside with the attitude of "I'll worry about that if it happens". Because if and when it happens, attempting to formulate a plan at that point will put you FAR behind the 8-ball.

ETA: I guess I should've added that I hate dealing with the crowds at the mall as well.

 

[Roscoe]

Not being an LEO, my responsibility if there's a shooting at the mall (or elsewhere) would be to get my wife to safety as quickly and securely as possible. I think I'm good enough with my pistol to do that, and at inside the store ranges I believe I could protect my wife and myself from a rifle shooter walking around looking for random targets. I don't think carrying a rifle would be that much of an improvement over my pistol. I don't think I'd want to be shooting a rifle inside the mall when police converge on the scene.

 

[mike75925]

what is fixed? i cited black's law dictionary, mainly because every lawyer is said to use it. it contains summaries for many cases. i shall take jailhouse lawyer as a complement, as most do not even care to know much about the law. state laws are supposed to be more free than federal laws. but, both are to be judged by the constitution. instead, state laws more often than not, are more restrictive. i do not recall whether this is a supreme court opinion or someone else's, but, the right to travel is contingent upon one's servants helping to clear the roads. now, look at it like this: if you own property, you pay property taxes as well as road and bridge fees. so instead of having your individual servants clear/repair the road, our collective servants (the D.O.T.), clear/repair it for us. a privilege is a granted right or immunity. one could say that leo's are privileged in carrying into places where others are not allowed. the rights enumerated and implicated (or rather said to be implicated) are mostly, if not entirely, natural and fundamental rights. this new show called rookie blue seems to shed a bit of light on how things get messed up. straight from the academy, the recruits seek to do as they are supposed to. when they get to their respective stations, the older leo's tell them 'oh, don't worry about this or that, we have ways around it.' supreme court cases apply to all states. yet, states like to play the 'plausible deniability' game, for lack of better terms. you may have read or heard that the SC refers back to the founder's writings to get a clearer picture of what they had in mind, in reference to particular rights and/or procedures etc. the founders had meant for the judicial branch to perform judicial review. early SC's ruled that they would only investigate laws when the people brought them to their attention. so under this guise, any law can be passed and enforced reguardless of constitutionality. people don't perpetrate crimes in front of armed people, because the odds of completion and egress are no longer in their favor. a person who does not care for the consequences, but only that a specific job is done, carry out said job if they think the odds for themselves are even barely favorable to them. someone said that the no guns on campus act was still valid? in what manner? they had to change the law quite a bit from what i read. schools are not centers of commerce and therefore do not get to claim that nullification of rights, correct? idiots are resilient because not many people want innocent blood on their hands. idiot, imbecile and one other similar term are terms associated with maturity. the highest age attributed these terms, if i recollect correctly, was 12 years of age. would any of you kill someone who was even 45years old, if their mental facilities were that of a prepubescent child? i would hope not. if the person in question were trying to kill you, you normally are justified in returning fire. i've heard that police departments direct their officers to shoot to kill. it is said that they do this to avoid the immediate legal ramifications of a bad shoot. in watching target practice, nearly everyone aims for the head or heart of the sihlouette. so this is true of nearly everyone that shoots. true, shooting someone in the arm or leg may not incapacitate them enough to be able to flee safely, and depending on your beliefs, you are not to maim. it is also true, that to aim and hit something no bigger than a pencil in diameter, at any distance, is quite hard. especially, if it is moving. common modes of transportation of the day? hmm, atv's, motorcycles, cars, trucks and to a lesser degree aircraft. on aircraft, ultralights are not licensed. i am unaware if they have an ultralight helo. the reasons for licensing on cars and other auto's, is for commercial/public use. ultralights carry a max pax of two. but, the most common ones, carry a single soul. if you are being paid to transport, or are otherwise making money from activities on the road, you are said to need a license. but for private travel, you do not. a sailboat 14' and under you do not need a license. a row boat, the same. for some reason, they want a license if you attach a motor, though. i have not looked into the marine aspects of travel, i am just going off of what my uncle has told me concerning boats. the reasonable regulations there, could be that you need a life preserver, or as a waiver, do a swim test. one of the main reasons for all of these laws to safeguard all of us, is that, if we all started having our freedoms, as they were meant to be, and many of us died in our exercising of those, where would the governments get money from? the happier a people are, the more productive they are. how do you get happy people? by less restriction.

 

[txinvestigator]

Which part of it? The open carry of rifles as well as pistols?

Or the fact that I've actually contemplated a scenario and formulated a plan for my reaction prior to its actual occurrence.

In my line of work, I find it highly advantageous to think ahead and have a plan of action for worst case scenarios. My on-duty response to an active shooter scenario would include a rifle (in addition to my duty gun). Would it not be to my advantage to be able to respond in a similar manner if I found myself in the midst of a very bad situation when I'm not at work?.

A couple of things;

1) What is your "line of work"? If you are a cop and believe that you would be required to take action is such a case (our policy manual told us to consider the resources available to us before deciding to engage off-duty, but I realize many departments are different) then I understand your concern to being limited to a handgun. But why the mall of all places? Isn't any place with people a potential for an active shooter?

And if the above is correct and you are a cop, why not sling that rifle and go to a shopping?


2) You didn't say you considered a scenario and made a plan, you wrote that you don't like to go to the mall because you would be

extremely disadvantaged if there was to be an active shooter incident

Is there something especially dangerous about your mall, that is not true anywhere else?

3) I have thought these things thru also. I have a plan, but I don't fret over only having a pistol around in case there is an active shooter at the Mall. If he is near me where my family is in danger I shoot him. If I can escape without having to engage, that is what I do.

 

[txinvestigator]

what is fixed? i cited black's law dictionary, mainly because every lawyer is said to use it. it contains summaries for many cases. i shall take jailhouse lawyer as a complement, as most do not even care to know much about the law. state laws are supposed to be more free than federal laws. but, both are to be judged by the constitution. instead, state laws more often than not, are more restrictive. i do not recall whether this is a supreme court opinion or someone else's, but, the right to travel is contingent upon one's servants helping to clear the roads. now, look at it like this: if you own property, you pay property taxes as well as road and bridge fees. so instead of having your individual servants clear/repair the road, our collective servants (the D.O.T.), clear/repair it for us. a privilege is a granted right or immunity. one could say that leo's are privileged in carrying into places where others are not allowed. the rights enumerated and implicated (or rather said to be implicated) are mostly, if not entirely, natural and fundamental rights. this new show called rookie blue seems to shed a bit of light on how things get messed up. straight from the academy, the recruits seek to do as they are supposed to. when they get to their respective stations, the older leo's tell them 'oh, don't worry about this or that, we have ways around it.' supreme court cases apply to all states. yet, states like to play the 'plausible deniability' game, for lack of better terms. you may have read or heard that the SC refers back to the founder's writings to get a clearer picture of what they had in mind, in reference to particular rights and/or procedures etc. the founders had meant for the judicial branch to perform judicial review. early SC's ruled that they would only investigate laws when the people brought them to their attention. so under this guise, any law can be passed and enforced reguardless of constitutionality. people don't perpetrate crimes in front of armed people, because the odds of completion and egress are no longer in their favor. a person who does not care for the consequences, but only that a specific job is done, carry out said job if they think the odds for themselves are even barely favorable to them. someone said that the no guns on campus act was still valid? in what manner? they had to change the law quite a bit from what i read. schools are not centers of commerce and therefore do not get to claim that nullification of rights, correct? idiots are resilient because not many people want innocent blood on their hands. idiot, imbecile and one other similar term are terms associated with maturity. the highest age attributed these terms, if i recollect correctly, was 12 years of age. would any of you kill someone who was even 45years old, if their mental facilities were that of a prepubescent child? i would hope not. if the person in question were trying to kill you, you normally are justified in returning fire. i've heard that police departments direct their officers to shoot to kill. it is said that they do this to avoid the immediate legal ramifications of a bad shoot. in watching target practice, nearly everyone aims for the head or heart of the sihlouette. so this is true of nearly everyone that shoots. true, shooting someone in the arm or leg may not incapacitate them enough to be able to flee safely, and depending on your beliefs, you are not to maim. it is also true, that to aim and hit something no bigger than a pencil in diameter, at any distance, is quite hard. especially, if it is moving. common modes of transportation of the day? hmm, atv's, motorcycles, cars, trucks and to a lesser degree aircraft. on aircraft, ultralights are not licensed. i am unaware if they have an ultralight helo. the reasons for licensing on cars and other auto's, is for commercial/public use. ultralights carry a max pax of two. but, the most common ones, carry a single soul. if you are being paid to transport, or are otherwise making money from activities on the road, you are said to need a license. but for private travel, you do not. a sailboat 14' and under you do not need a license. a row boat, the same. for some reason, they want a license if you attach a motor, though. i have not looked into the marine aspects of travel, i am just going off of what my uncle has told me concerning boats. the reasonable regulations there, could be that you need a life preserver, or as a waiver, do a swim test. one of the main reasons for all of these laws to safeguard all of us, is that, if we all started having our freedoms, as they were meant to be, and many of us died in our exercising of those, where would the governments get money from? the happier a people are, the more productive they are. how do you get happy people? by less restriction.

Dude seriously; paragraphs, punctuation and capitalization. No one is going to wade thru that jibberish.

 

[AresV]

A couple of things;

1) What is your "line of work"? If you are a cop and believe that you would be required to take action is such a case (our policy manual told us to consider the resources available to us before deciding to engage off-duty, but I realize many departments are different) then I understand your concern to being limited to a handgun. But why the mall of all places? Isn't any place with people a potential for an active shooter?

And if the above is correct and you are a cop, why not sling that rifle and go to a shopping?


2) You didn't say you considered a scenario and made a plan, you wrote that you don't like to go to the mall because you would be Is there something especially dangerous about your mall, that is not true anywhere else?

3) I have thought these things thru also. I have a plan, but I don't fret over only having a pistol around in case there is an active shooter at the Mall. If he is near me where my family is in danger I shoot him. If I can escape without having to engage, that is what I do.

PM sent.

 

[Texan2]

what is fixed? i cited black's law dictionary, mainly because every lawyer is said to use it. it contains summaries for many cases. i shall take jailhouse lawyer as a complement, as most do not even care to know much about the law. state laws are supposed to be more free than federal laws. but, both are to be judged by the constitution. instead, state laws more often than not, are more restrictive. i do not recall whether this is a supreme court opinion or someone else's, but, the right to travel is contingent upon one's servants helping to clear the roads. now, look at it like this: if you own property, you pay property taxes as well as road and bridge fees. so instead of having your individual servants clear/repair the road, our collective servants (the D.O.T.), clear/repair it for us. a privilege is a granted right or immunity. one could say that leo's are privileged in carrying into places where others are not allowed. the rights enumerated and implicated (or rather said to be implicated) are mostly, if not entirely, natural and fundamental rights. this new show called rookie blue seems to shed a bit of light on how things get messed up. straight from the academy, the recruits seek to do as they are supposed to. when they get to their respective stations, the older leo's tell them 'oh, don't worry about this or that, we have ways around it.' supreme court cases apply to all states. yet, states like to play the 'plausible deniability' game, for lack of better terms. you may have read or heard that the SC refers back to the founder's writings to get a clearer picture of what they had in mind, in reference to particular rights and/or procedures etc. the founders had meant for the judicial branch to perform judicial review. early SC's ruled that they would only investigate laws when the people brought them to their attention. so under this guise, any law can be passed and enforced reguardless of constitutionality. people don't perpetrate crimes in front of armed people, because the odds of completion and egress are no longer in their favor. a person who does not care for the consequences, but only that a specific job is done, carry out said job if they think the odds for themselves are even barely favorable to them. someone said that the no guns on campus act was still valid? in what manner? they had to change the law quite a bit from what i read. schools are not centers of commerce and therefore do not get to claim that nullification of rights, correct? idiots are resilient because not many people want innocent blood on their hands. idiot, imbecile and one other similar term are terms associated with maturity. the highest age attributed these terms, if i recollect correctly, was 12 years of age. would any of you kill someone who was even 45years old, if their mental facilities were that of a prepubescent child? i would hope not. if the person in question were trying to kill you, you normally are justified in returning fire. i've heard that police departments direct their officers to shoot to kill. it is said that they do this to avoid the immediate legal ramifications of a bad shoot. in watching target practice, nearly everyone aims for the head or heart of the sihlouette. so this is true of nearly everyone that shoots. true, shooting someone in the arm or leg may not incapacitate them enough to be able to flee safely, and depending on your beliefs, you are not to maim. it is also true, that to aim and hit something no bigger than a pencil in diameter, at any distance, is quite hard. especially, if it is moving. common modes of transportation of the day? hmm, atv's, motorcycles, cars, trucks and to a lesser degree aircraft. on aircraft, ultralights are not licensed. i am unaware if they have an ultralight helo. the reasons for licensing on cars and other auto's, is for commercial/public use. ultralights carry a max pax of two. but, the most common ones, carry a single soul. if you are being paid to transport, or are otherwise making money from activities on the road, you are said to need a license. but for private travel, you do not. a sailboat 14' and under you do not need a license. a row boat, the same. for some reason, they want a license if you attach a motor, though. i have not looked into the marine aspects of travel, i am just going off of what my uncle has told me concerning boats. the reasonable regulations there, could be that you need a life preserver, or as a waiver, do a swim test. one of the main reasons for all of these laws to safeguard all of us, is that, if we all started having our freedoms, as they were meant to be, and many of us died in our exercising of those, where would the governments get money from? the happier a people are, the more productive they are. how do you get happy people? by less restriction.

I stopped after "what is fixed"........these posts are painful to try and read.

 

[cougartex]

 

[txinvestigator]

PM sent.

Based on your PM, your concern over not being able to carry a rifle is not really related to legal issues......

You could have posted your reply here. It would be useful for the other members...

 

[Wolfwood]

hehe anyone can carry a rifle. not alot of folks do though, to heavy, and i have a feeling you'd be hassled quite a bit.

as i understand it is non regulated.

 

[majormadmax]

That strikes me as quite bizzare.

Same here, it conjures up mental images such as...

I'm not against being armed to be prepared, but there are limits and the chances of requiring such firepower at the mall is not likely...

 

[West Texas]

Thanks for passing some this way...

 

[TexasRedneck]

Thanks for passing some this way...

Whar's mine?!?!?

 

[Dcav]

Popcorn and beer great combo lol

 

[mike75925]

i agree, i missed a few words, probably some punctuation, some capitalization and did not adhere to the postscribed format. i have yet to see anyone show a SC case where licensing rights is constitutional. i have yet, to see where paying a tax to exercise our rights/duties is constitutional. and, as yet, i have no evidence from anyone that the right to travel is 'false doctrine.' all i've read is, he's a dimwit, joker etc. have any of you naysayers looked up any/all of the cases of which i speak (in black's law dictionary)? if not, your condemnation is unwarranted. though, i normally welcome challenges of this sort, talking to brick walls is against the odds. of course, there is the possibility, that some of you have been taught, shall we say, differently. play your trump against the constitution, and let's see where things end up. there is more than enough case law to prove both points. those points being: that, we do as citizens, have the right to keep and bear arms uninfringed, and that we have the right to travel by the means of the day.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

Um, maybe I missed something but, did some of you really not know that it is perfectly legal in the state of Texas to carry long guns in public? Of course, there are restrictions such as certain types of places where carry of ANY type of firearms are not allowed (federal buildings, etc). Technically speaking it's legal, it's just not something people exercise often, so most people just aren't aware.

This is why I tell people they need to seriously re-think their priorities and learn how to rock and roll and be proficient with a handgun. It's what you will be most likely to have on you or have accessible a majority of the time (for most people), and if you need it you damn sure want to be effective with it as pistols are anemic.

 

[RetArmySgt]

Um, maybe I missed something but, did some of you really not know that it is perfectly legal in the state of Texas to carry long guns in public? Of course, there are restrictions such as certain types of places where carry of ANY type of firearms are not allowed (federal buildings, etc). Technically speaking it's legal, it's just not something people exercise often, so most people just aren't aware.

This is why I tell people they need to seriously re-think their priorities and learn how to rock and roll and be proficient with a handgun. It's what you will be most likely to have on you or have accessible a majority of the time (for most people), and if you need it you damn sure want to be effective with it as pistols are anemic.

Yes its perfectly legal but id love to see you walk down the steet downtown with a rifle slung and not take a load of shit for it.