Constitutional Carry confusion leading to increased arrests in the Lone Star State?

[Tnhawk]

Who the **** said anything about a grocery store? I am concerned about any place where children are grouped together with few avenues of escape. I happen to like the current restrictions, if you don't , then talk to your reps and get the law changed.
Here let me spool you up to an even higher rpm! I also like the current restrictions on fully automatic weapons

Your particular like of restrictions should not infringe another's Constitutional rights. My father continually said no one needed a handgun, but it's my right to own the number and type of guns that I choose.

 

[Coyote9]

Ummmm, about that. One of my favorite things to do is visit the Ox Ranch out past Junction to drive and shoot their tanks and arty. And that’s after a career controlling airstrikes.

Drive and Shoot Real Tanks - Drivetanks.com

Drive and shoot real tanks! The World's premier living military history adventure. Experience the historic and rate anti-tank guns and machine guns.

www.drivetanks.com

If I could swing it, I’d also own a warbird and a jet warbird or three. Instead I just have to settle with CAF flights on fighters and bombers.

Commemorative Air Force Central Texas Wing | WWII Era Hangar and Museum - Home of 'That's All Brother' and the Yellow Rose

www.centraltexaswing.org

But confusing gun free zones with providing actual protection for vulnerable people is emotion and not logic based thinking.

Wow I have seen that onTV and looks like a hoot and a half! I'll bet that driving one of his tanks on a public road is against the law and bringing one armed into a city would certainly violate current laws regarding automatic weapons. Aircraft of any design are legal to own ... carrying 500 or even just 250 pound bombs is not and my comment was ARMED which means like with bullets and bombs and missiles and such

 

[Coyote9]

Your particular like of restrictions should not infringe another's Constitutional rights. My father continually said no one needed a handgun, but it's my right to own the number and type of guns that I choose.

Yep it is my opinion only, fortunately , there are enough voters who agree to make those laws and courts to back the laws up, to maintain some restrictions on weapons .... for now at least. One of my concerns with BATFE is that their chicken shit nit picking will result in a swing of the pendulum back to the pre-1930's

 

[Coyote9]

Hey folks, as much as I have enjoyed being the pop up target the last few days... I am no longer watching or following this thread.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Wow I have seen that onTV and looks like a hoot and a half! I'll bet that driving one of his tanks on a public road is against the law and bringing one armed into a city would certainly violate current laws regarding automatic weapons. Aircraft of any design are legal to own ... carrying 500 or even just 250 pound bombs is not and my comment was ARMED which means like with bullets and bombs and missiles and such

You’d be wrong. I can legally walk down Main Street, TX with a multi-stamp full auto suppressed machine gun and be perfectly legal.


There are also several companies with private air forces that drop live bombs as contract training aids in the US.

Inside The World's Only Privately Owned F-16s That Are Flying As Advanced Aggressors

Top Aces has used major upgrades to turn some of the oldest F-16s around into the most potent private aggressors on the planet.

www.thedrive.com

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Don't forget hand grenades....

 

[MountainGirl]

Hey folks, as much as I have enjoyed being the pop up target the last few days... I am no longer watching or following this thread.

Sorry to see you leave the thread.

The real target, though, is the 2nd Amendment, and there is no "But" in it. Once even the tiniest "common sense" cracks open the door, all kinds of foul can and will slither in. This one has to stay shut. End of. My opinion. Your opinion is otherwise, and that's fine.

Can't and wont speak for others, but I'm not running.

Best of luck, stay safe.
But not too safe.

 

[ldaniel]

Thanks for that link, appreciated.

That said - there's one thing that doesn't make sense, to me.


View attachment 365960


Without getting into the weeds here - why would the same reasoning that keeps an LTC from carrying NOT also apply to a non-LTC person?

Anyone's reply would be most welcome.
Thanks!

If you haven't gotten a reply yet, The 30.06 and .07 signs apply only to those that are licensed to carry (LTC) and carrying a firearm. So if you are not LTC and carrying a firearm, those signs don't apply to you. Go to YouTube and search for US Law Shield and find the videos they did on this subject. The lawyers also said if the 06 and 07 signs also has Handguns prohibited or a variant of this, or a gun-buster symbol included on the signs, it may be sufficient notice to permit-less carriers. They said there needs to be a court case to resolve this.

 

[toddnjoyce]

If you haven't gotten a reply yet, The 30.06 and .07 signs apply only to those that are licensed to carry (LTC) and carrying a firearm.

HANDGUN. Not firearm, HANDGUN. Both in the licensing context and the trespass warning context. If there are only .06/.07 signs, I can legally open carry a rifle, shotgun, AOW, or hand grenade until I’m asked to leave.

 

[Coyote9]

You’d be wrong. I can legally walk down Main Street, TX with a multi-stamp full auto suppressed machine gun and be perfectly legal.


There are also several companies with private air forces that drop live bombs as contract training aids in the US.

Inside The World's Only Privately Owned F-16s That Are Flying As Advanced Aggressors

Top Aces has used major upgrades to turn some of the oldest F-16s around into the most potent private aggressors on the planet.

www.thedrive.com

Yes and that is my point, every case you mentioned is FULLY licensed and therefore intensive background checked... I am all for that! It is only the unrestricted proliferation of machine guns and destructive devices (cannons) which I oppose.

 

[Coyote9]

HANDGUN. Not firearm, HANDGUN. Both in the licensing context and the trespass warning context. If there are only .06/.07 signs, I can legally open carry a rifle, shotgun, AOW, or hand grenade until I’m asked to leave.

If you are caught with a hand grenade you will go directly to jail without passing GO or collecting $200

 

[ZX9RCAM]

 

[Wiliamr]

I am just going to carry a big stick.

 

[candcallen]

It's very disappointing to see people so willing to abdicate others rights for the feelz of security provided by those who want to destroy those rights by any means necessary.

Background checks and Licenses do not constrain evil or protect children or old ladies from harm. They offer neither cover nor concealment. They only serve to erode your rights like water washing away the banks of a river one grain of sand at a time. Eventually the flood of tyranny will drowned us all.

 

[seeker_two]

Yes and that is my point, every case you mentioned is FULLY licensed and therefore intensive background checked... I am all for that! It is only the unrestricted proliferation of machine guns and destructive devices (cannons) which I oppose.

 

[candcallen]

Chick a chick ahhhh..

Dumb dumb.

 

[easy rider]

WE all agree that individual nuclear weapons are a bad idea I am guessing 95% of Americans don't want me flying a Phantom around with Mark 82 s or driving a M-60 tank around town fully armed and ammoed up. Therefore we are disagreeing only on the type of weapons which should be restricted. You may draw your line where ever you like and I'll draw mine at the current restrictions on fully automatic weapons. I do think that the whole SBR thing and mag capacity are over reach by government and maybe even the sawed of shot gun.
I have owned 4 machineguns, they were fun toys just not worth the hassle, I was never bothered by ANY LEO always some smart ass guy at a range or a gunshow.(SAR).
SO yes, I support the 2nd BUT so call me Elmer

Show me where in the 2nd Amendment it says anything about the government restricting any arms. I take restriction as infringement. While morally I don't think people should have nuclear weapons, I don't see where owning them is against the Constitution.

Roads can be restricted to the type of vehicles. Roads are taxpayer funded, so tanks tearing them up is probably not a good idea. Since the people are the militia mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, I can't believe that when it was written they had meant that the people should have lesser arms than a standing military. How many privately owned cannons were used in the Revolutionary War?

 

[easy rider]

Who the **** said anything about a grocery store?

I did. It's all about context.

 

[MountainGirl]

Show me where in the 2nd Amendment it says anything about the government restricting any arms. ....

It says it right there in the 2nd Amendment. It says they CANT.

Enjoying your posts, btw.

 

[TxPython357]

Show me where in the 2nd Amendment it says anything about the government restricting any arms. I take restriction as infringement. While morally I don't think people should have nuclear weapons, I don't see where owning them is against the Constitution.

Roads can be restricted to the type of vehicles. Roads are taxpayer funded, so tanks tearing them up is probably not a good idea. Since the people are the militia mentioned in the 2nd Amendment, I can't believe that when it was written they had meant that the people should have lesser arms than a standing military. How many privately owned cannons were used in the Revolutionary War?

The founding fathers didn't make it #2 for nothing. The original intent was so that we could protect ourselves from them, them being an overreaching and tyrannical government, both forign and domestic. Dementia Joe and the rest of the gun grabbers would have you believe it is for self protection and hunting when nothing could be farther from the truth. Letters between the founding fathers bares this out, and if memory serves are well addressed in the Federalist Papers as well.