Alternate views of unlicensed carry not appreciated here - but here is one

[toddnjoyce]

I...T IS the idiots who concern me...other citizens could watch them just a little closer and be aware of possible danger....then those who encounter them can see that the "idiot" is armed...

So, a scarlet I for those somebody deems an ‘idiot’? Personally, everybody I encounter is an idiot until proven otherwise. Even the most highly skilled practicitioners of any thing can and do things idiotically.

 

[gll]

So, a scarlet I for those somebody deems an ‘idiot’? Personally, everybody I encounter is an idiot until proven otherwise. Even the most highly skilled practicitioners of any thing can and do things idiotically.

Stapp’s Ironical Paradox, was formulated by Colonel John Paul Stapp and says “The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle.”

 

[Coyote9]

What is logical about prohibiting an individual from carrying a firearm in a school or government building? What makes these places special to the point of banning someone from being able to defend themselves there?

If you're going to say "because its where children gather" - don't they gather in shopping malls, parks, sporting venues, churches, and other places? If the media and politicians are to be believed, schools are dangerous because of the chance of a "mass shooting" taking place - so being able to be armed as a law abiding individual, you have a better chance at defending yourself and those children from a murderous maniac.

If you're going to say "because it increases the chances of an accidental shooting" - yes it does, simply because there's a gun present. The applies to literally everywhere there are firearms and ammunition in close proximity. But other states allow for carrying into schools, even bright blue liberal lefty Oregon, and this was a non-issue. I carried every time I picked my kid up, had a meeting with the teachers, or attended school functions, 100% legal. Other people I knew likewise carried. There were no issues. In the 19 years I've been carrying a firearm, I've never heard of an accidental shooting in a school there.

Moving beyond schools to government buildings - again, what makes them special? People need to go in and out of government offices for all matter of business - tax offices, DMV's, paying their water/light/gas bills, etc. Are these places, most of which have no security, any less likely to be targets for violent maniacs? I'd say they'd be a more likely target, because people can be pushed over the edge into violent action because of perceived mistreatment by the government. As an innocent party, I'd prefer the right and ability to defend myself in these places, rather than being disarmed and left to be another statistic. Government employees are no more special than any one else. The ONLY government owned/operated places I'm OK with being disarmed are secure areas of jails, because not even the corrections officers inside the jails are armed, and they have layers of security to get through before someone is likely to go on a killing spree.

My only issue with this bill is that it further enhances the penalties for being caught carrying in a place with a no-guns sign (and I take offense to it being criminalized in the first place) - making it a strong felony. Places with 30.06/07 and soon to be .05 signs should be made civilly liable for injury or death occurred by violence in these places, and be required to provide secure, safe storage for firearms in order for the criminal penalty to be enforced. I'm fine with there being a trespass charge associated IF you are found to have a firearm, asked to leave, and you don't. But simply making it a felony to carry into a business that posts the sign? That's bogus. Hopefully a bill to reverse such penalties or drop them to misdemeanors is in the works.

Since you chose to answer your own question, I'll not bother sharing an opposing view which you'll likely ignore anyway

 

[Sasquatch]

Since you chose to answer your own question, I'll not bother sharing an opposing view which you'll likely ignore anyway

So you don't have an argument other than the ones I already covered?

 

[benenglish]

So, a scarlet I for those somebody deems an ‘idiot’?

What's that old joke?

 

[jrbfishn]

I agree with a lot of your points, certainly the felony charge for carrying a firearm into a "signed" building is way bogus! AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID!!! No laws will prevent criminals from behaving like criminals (only harsh punishments do that) . Restricting concealed carry to those individuals who have passed a background check and have had some training will reduce (not eliminate) the risk of "going to guns" by people who act without thinking and surprising the victims. When a person who I recognize as being armed comes in range, I watch him- I track him and I think about how I'll kill him- if he should become a threat. That is easier with open carry
Schools: I am okay with WELL trained teachers and security carrying arms (preferably concealed).
I am MOST CERTAINLY opposed to angry parents walking the halls to confront some teacher for some perceived injustice being armed!
These are hard choices, and we could exchange scenarios both experienced and imagined with equal accuracy all day... Texas has had a gradual reduction in firearm assaults thoughout my lifetime (gang violence excluded), and I am confident that it will continue to decline whether this law passes or not. I have "gone to guns" as a civilian in Texas once and drawn in defense twice when just the presentation stopped the confrontation. I am a huge proponent of the responsible carrying of firearms- also a huge proponent of practice, training and situation awareness.
NOTE: I just bought a Kimber Micro 9 for my !8 yr old grand daughter who has been shooting since 8. She refused the pistol because her 20 year old boyfriend is fascinated by guns and she sees him as too irresponsible to be around firearms! If a teenager can realize that some folks should be restricted from lethal weapons why do some adults think that is not reasonable?

If your 18 year old granddaughter thinks her older boyfriend is too irresponsible to be around guns, she needs a new boyfriend or some brains. Let me get this right. She trusts him around knives, with a car, around hammers and baseball bats? All things that can kill. But not guns?
Is she retarded or just a morally superior SJW?
Either way, she has no right making moral decisions for other people.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[toddnjoyce]

What's that old joke?

Exactly what went thru my mind when I was composing my post.

 

[Coyote9]

If your 18 year old granddaughter thinks her older boyfriend is too irresponsible to be around guns, she needs a new boyfriend or some brains. Let me get this right. She trusts him around knives, with a car, around hammers and baseball bats? All things that can kill. But not guns?
Is she retarded or just a morally superior SJW?
Either way, she has no right making moral decisions for other people.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Well since she graduated a year early from high school, and can read and understand written statements without viewing them though biased lenses, then she is not retarded- MISTER- call me what you want but leave insults to my family out of it! She chose not to have a firearm around him, she made no decisions for anyone else. AND neither can YOU!

 

[Coyote9]

It was no

What's that old joke?

it was not Foxworthy who joked "here's your sign " it was another of his pals whom I forget

 

[Coyote9]

So you don't have an argument other than the ones I already covered?

I have stated my position as clearly as I am able to do so- again: I support open carry by legal firearm owners, I support concealed carry by trained and background checked legal firearm owners. No "argument" or rational will change your mind and I quit chatting about this 10 minutes ago when a member started insulting my family.
Fair winds to you

 

[Coyote9]

Been following this group for a few years - I think. Usually commenting on revolvers and the like. I stay away from the political side usually, because it is obvious from the responses here that differing view points are not appreciated. Texas Gun Talk is an echo chamber of sorts. We just want to read/hear what we believe and get attaboys for making inflammatory comments and the like. I get it.
But anyway, I have been a carry permit holder for at least 10 years. I have been a gun owner since sixth grade.
When it comes to the Second Amendment, I support it, but I accept that there are aspects of it that are open to interpretation. Most only cite the last part of the amendment - the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Rarely do I see a reference to the very first statement of the amendment - "A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state." That is definitely up for interpretation, at least in my mind.
And the right to bear arms is not a God-given right. Can't find that in the Bible anywhere.
With that being said, and I know many or most on this forum are already seething with rage if they have read this far, I am not a fan of unlicensed carry in Texas. The current system works well. Very well in my mind. Carry permit holders, as a class, are the most law-abiding group of citizens in the state statistically. When I encounter an open carry person, it is highly likely in my mind that the person has passed a couple of background checks when he bought his/her firearm and when he/her obtained their carry permit and likely a few times in between. Of course there is not guarantee of such or that the person is legally carrying his firearm on his hip. But I will imagine or hope for the better.
This Texas-based writer and a correspondent for the conservative magazine the National Review makes a lot of good points that open-minded gun owners should at least read.
Constitutional Carry - Maybe Not

Holy Sh#$t Batman! YOU were right! Now I am getting my grand daughter insulted by TGT member...

 

[Coyote9]

A h yes the Ol' "Well Regulated" angle. You do realize that "Well Regulated" is not what the modern meaning is correct? The 18th century definition is well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined .
Anti- 2nd Amendment people will use this argument and when it's picked apart, they move to the next angle, by the end of the conversation, the real truth about how the feel about the 2nd Amendment is revealed.

While you may have prejudged the whole group about differing opinions on the 2nd, your preface is flawed from the very beginning, so it's not that it's a differing opinion, it's just that you're flat out wrong. You're using a neo liberal anti-2nd talking point that is rooted the destruction of the 2nd. I will gladly listen to your point of view if you can provide any historical writings from our founders that state that the personal ownership was discouraged. If this were true, they would have enforced it this way, in fact it was quite the opposite and wide ownership of large arms and weapons was favorable to the free man and free state. They truly didn't like the idea of a regular standing army. Furthermore, every man from the ages of 17-45 is considered part of the non regular militia.

It's well documented in other states, that there is no noticeable change in gun offenses that have Constitutional carry. This angle usually comes from an emotional stance and not well founded. It's pretty funny that people think a CHL or LTC gives you training. The absolute only thing I learned in that class was law. It is NOT firearms training.



So let me get this straight, you're challenging the idea of personal ownership, but yet you subscribe to your way modern regulation to own and carry? The dance of contradictions?

 

[DoubleDuty]

Been following this group for a few years - I think. Usually commenting on revolvers and the like. I stay away from the political side usually, because it is obvious from the responses here that differing view points are not appreciated. Texas Gun Talk is an echo chamber of sorts. We just want to read/hear what we believe and get attaboys for making inflammatory comments and the like. I get it.
But anyway, I have been a carry permit holder for at least 10 years. I have been a gun owner since sixth grade.
When it comes to the Second Amendment, I support it, but I accept that there are aspects of it that are open to interpretation. Most only cite the last part of the amendment - the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Rarely do I see a reference to the very first statement of the amendment - "A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state." That is definitely up for interpretation, at least in my mind.
And the right to bear arms is not a God-given right. Can't find that in the Bible anywhere.
With that being said, and I know many or most on this forum are already seething with rage if they have read this far, I am not a fan of unlicensed carry in Texas. The current system works well. Very well in my mind. Carry permit holders, as a class, are the most law-abiding group of citizens in the state statistically. When I encounter an open carry person, it is highly likely in my mind that the person has passed a couple of background checks when he bought his/her firearm and when he/her obtained their carry permit and likely a few times in between. Of course there is not guarantee of such or that the person is legally carrying his firearm on his hip. But I will imagine or hope for the better.
This Texas-based writer and a correspondent for the conservative magazine the National Review makes a lot of good points that open-minded gun owners should at least read.
Constitutional Carry - Maybe Not

Uh the Supreme already upheld that it is two separate and distinct parts.And it is working just fine in the 20 states that have it.

 

[Coyote9]

I honestly don't understand why some believe limiting where you can carry is "logical" or as some call it, 'common sense.' If you're willing, I'd genuinely love to hear your thoughts on these points. My core feelings seem to be validated by the fact these carve-outs are in fact some of the most frequently chosen targets by evildoers. The gun-free zone signs are like magnets to people wanting to inflict as much pain and suffering as possible.


Again, I would love to truly understand your thoughts here. Maybe I take a more realistic view of how law actually works, but words on paper only work for people who have read them, understand them, and care to follow them. Those people are the exact opposite of the ones the law is allegedly restricting. Laws can't stop crimes, they can only provide repercussions for violating them.

To be more clear, if I happen to carry beyond a gun-free zone sign for whatever reason, I have zero intent or desire to harm anyone or anything. But, the net result is I'm still technically a potential criminal only because someone's feelings might be hurt if they knew. I mean I violated a law that intends to "keep people safe" so I'm obviously a bad person. Yet if a murdering psychopath walks past a gun-free zone sign with a hammer on his tool belt, he has committed NO crime at all until he starts bludgeoning people with it. So while he's a good guy until deemed otherwise by his actions, I'm an assumed bad actor only because I am carrying a scary thing.

Absolutely correct, criminals and people with criminal intent will not be effected by written laws, however a few school examples: situations which escalate to guns, accidents or the theft of a firearm by a student from a carrying individual would be prevented. I think those areas where people congregate and stress, depression, hostility and /or confrontation is common should be considered for limited firearm access. Courtrooms, police stations, riots are a few. These are complex issues best discussed face to face over a beer. (and after a few responses I have received, without weapons)

 

[AndrewBuda]

I used to view shall issue CC as a reasonable compromise even if less than ideal - but my experience watching my wife try to get hers as an Australian citizen here legally with a green card in the midst of Covid only drove home how necessary Constitutional Carry is. Shall issue works well enough for those of us actively involved in shooting and motivated to jump through the bureaucratic hoops, when that bureaucracy is working. Unfortunately even shall issue becomes a nightmare to navigate when the hoops of the LTC have to get lined up with immigration hoops, when DPS is backlogged from Covid related kinks in the system, and when background checks have to get triple verified across multiple countries.

I understand being uncomfortable with certain folks carrying guns - unfortunately I have no control over the behavior of the people I don't want carrying and the hurdles we impose on ourselves as (mostly) law abiding gun owners only stop us - not those we're uncomfortable around.

 

[FireInTheWire]

I love threads like this....

 

[Coyote9]

I had a cousin killed in a gunfight when he was 14, I had a friend shot dead by accident when he was 11, I agree that Texas LTC class is a joke and provides little to NO training. I advocate real training for carrying :safety, liability, legally,and mechanics ; and prohibiting people with a history of violence from carrying firearms outside their homes (background checks). I have drawn and fired once in Dallas when attacked by 4 carjackers, I have drawn two more times in self defense and wished I had been armed on two other occasions when threatened by armed individuals and groups. I remember gunshows in the 70's and 80's where gunfire was a common occurrence, now it is rare- people can be taught.

 

[Polkwright]

You can go back to wherever the hell you came from too pal

I rest my case.

 

[Brains]

Absolutely correct, criminals and people with criminal intent will not be effected by written laws, however a few school examples: situations which escalate to guns, accidents or the theft of a firearm by a student from a carrying individual would be prevented.

Citations, please.
I can't seem to find reports of school encounters where a parent or teacher escalated to using a gun.
I can't seem to find reports of students stealing the gun from a person carrying.
I can't seem to find reports of accidental school shootings by an adult carrying a gun.

I CAN find reports where kids and adults alike have made the choice to travel TO a prohibited location with the express intent of killing people. If I recall correctly, homicide is already well understood to be illegal.

I think those areas where people congregate and stress, depression, hostility and /or confrontation is common should be considered for limited firearm access. Courtrooms, police stations, riots are a few. These are complex issues best discussed face to face over a beer. (and after a few responses I have received, without weapons)

So then ... You hold the belief that an otherwise law abiding citizen would, if confronted with a stressful but non life threatening situation, attempt to shoot his or her way out of it? To state it more bluntly, you believe people lack the ability to rationally choose their reaction and will instead go straight to guns for all conflicts?

Some locations may perhaps warrant controls (jails is a good example), but I don't see post offices, schools, sporting events, and such among them. Guns are already permitted in the most stressful/confrontational part of a school anyway, the car rider pickup/dropoff, and you don't see Karen dropping Mary because she cut in line.

 

[popper]

Coyote I would respectfully suggest your G.D. find a different boyfriend - and it's NOT about guns. The gun problem is she is 18 and can't legally have one but he can. So basically you give it to him.
Tried to get my kid's H.S. principal on the phone only to find out he just got shot by gal who was ticked he suspended her son. DSID teacher walks 'problem' kid around the metal detector, kid shoots teacher dead. It happens, no law will prevent it. Laws can only punish after the fact.
Anyone who thinks a law will protect them from injury needs to grow up. I did email Sen. asking why the CLEAT, etc. would/did not provide details (stats) on injury A.D., bystander injury due to discharge. I also asked how many LEO walking the beat that would contact 'possible' carry outside of vehicle or building. No answer. Reason for the question - how many injury due to 'ineffective' training? C.C., is it really an increased risk for LEO? My guess, NO. The point I see those against C.C. is they don't want 'gang-bangers' to be able to legally carry. So they can prosecute! Nothing to do with public safety. You might question the last statement but no response to the question of how many state/local prosecutions of illegal guns this year? No answer! South Dallas had DPS removed as (I assume) too many guns taken off the street - but NO (that I can find) prosecutions. So basically confiscation is the LE approach.