Interesting News on Open Carry.....

[APatriot]

MY
:sign0101:

 

[majormadmax]

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.

True, but in San Antonio that long arm cannot be loaded and you can sure as hell bet that you'll be "checked" numerous times if you tried it.

Sec. 21-16. - Carrying loaded rifle or shotgun. It shall be unlawful for any person, other than duly authorized peace officers, to carry a loaded rifle or shotgun on any public street within the city or in a motor vehicle while the same is being operated on any public street within the city. (Code 1959, § 26-28)

Plus, if it causes a public disturbance there may be other ramifications if you tried it.

So sure, it may be legal, but it isn't the best idea...

 

[Texan2]

i have yet, to see where paying a tax to exercise our rights/duties is constitutional.

You choose not to see that which is right in front of you.....you are in denial....you think you have a right to do anything and everything. Reading Black's Law Dictionary for an hour a day while you were incarcerated has done nothing but make you dillusional.
have a good day.

Mods, I meant all of the above in a good way.....

 

[jsimmons]

I would love it they pass the Az style open carry law, where everyone that can own a gun can carry one.

+1

Having to get a CHL in order to open carry is STILL requiring us to buy our rights back.

It doesn't make sense to require a permit.

 

[jsimmons]

They parking lot deal would be great. Wonder if it would be forced to supercede private corporations internal rules. My employer has a no weapons on company property clause.

I work Randolph AFB. A lifting of employer parking lot bans has absolutely no affect on me. I also can't freely carry to/from work because I can't enter the base with a weapon.

 

[mike75925]

apatriot, if my posting on your thread is an offense, i will gladly make a thread. i did presume that it would be fine to talk on legislative acts on this thread, though my contributions are not what you meant when starting this thread. texascop2, black's law dictionary, the one i used anyway, was sectioned by rights. you want to know about a certain right, go to page so and so.

 

[mike75925]

i always thought it funny, that you had to call the base armory to come and collect your weapon, before entering the base, and contact them again when you went to leave, if you wanted your weapon back. when my bro was in the army (bootcamp), they carried their rifles, but if they were caught with ammo as well, i think he said, they were booted.

 

[jsimmons]

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's 30 rounds of ammo, man. How many do you think you need? BTW, you can probably get a two-magazine pouch, even for the G19.

 

[jsimmons]

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.

Mike, two words, dude - white space. Have pity on us.

 

[AresV]

That's 30 rounds of ammo, man. How many do you think you need? BTW, you can probably get a two-magazine pouch, even for the G19.

It's not all about how many projectiles you can put down range at the BG. You have to be accountable for your shots, this is not a war zone where collateral damage is somewhat acceptable.

It's about stopping the threat and being able to engage the BG from greater distances.

 

[TexasRedneck]

AresV - if you can't stop the threat with 2-4 rounds, you have NO business squeezing a round off, IMO - because that means you do NOT have a clear target.

 

[jsimmons]

It's not all about how many projectiles you can put down range at the BG. You have to be accountable for your shots, this is not a war zone where collateral damage is somewhat acceptable.

It's about stopping the threat and being able to engage the BG from greater distances.

You're not providing anything I would consider to be new info. I assume everyone here is savvy as to what it's all about. However, you came across like you were concerned that a single spare 15-round mag wasn't enough. I carry a 1911 and no spare mags. The way I got it figured is that if I'm in so bad a situation that seven well-placed shots don't do the job, a spare mag wouldn't help me anyway. My primary strategy is to not get into that kind of situation to begin with.

 

[AresV]

AresV - if you can't stop the threat with 2-4 rounds, you have NO business squeezing a round off, IMO - because that means you do NOT have a clear target.

Again, it's not about the quantity of ammo available, it's the ability to engage the BG at greater distances and stop the threat in a swift and definitive manner.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Again, it's not about the quantity of ammo available, it's the ability to engage the BG at greater distances and stop the threat in a swift and definitive manner.

No, sir - because if he's at a greater distance, it's up to LEO's to deal with the threat. Because you're not going to be close enough to KNOW what is going on.

 

[AresV]

You're not providing anything I would consider to be new info. I assume everyone here is savvy as to what it's all about. However, you came across like you were concerned that a single spare 15-round mag wasn't enough. I carry a 1911 and no spare mags. The way I got it figured is that if I'm in so bad a situation that seven well-placed shots don't do the job, a spare mag wouldn't help me anyway. My primary strategy is to not get into that kind of situation to begin with.

I was unaware it was my job to provide new info nor was it my intention to sound as if I didn't believe that 30 rounds was enough ammo.

I would love to avoid that situation as well but unfortunately, it's not really up to us now is it? I don't think anyone who has ever been present during an active shooter situation was a willing participant other than the BG and the first responders.

 

[AresV]

No, sir - because if he's at a greater distance, it's up to LEO's to deal with the threat. Because you're not going to be close enough to KNOW what is going on.

Unfortunately by the time the dispatched officers arrive the situation will likely be over and the number of victims will be high. As a police officer myself I hope that people do not sit and wait for officers to arrive on scene in an active shooter situation. If so, they do so at their own peril. And should I find myself in that situation, on or off-duty, I WILL GET close enough to know what is going on (again, this is another reason a rifle would be nice).

Consider this - The best case scenario for response time is 60-120 seconds. It takes time for a call to come into 911, get routed to a dispatcher from a call taker, get dispatched to officers, and then for officers to arrive on scene. A whole lotta bad can happen in that time frame. Personally I am not going to wait and allow innocent people to die because of my lack of action.

This highlights a larger problem inherent in our society - everyone thinks the police will swoop in and save the day in situations like this - everyone just wants to wait until we get there and just worry about themselves in the meantime. What is wrong with an armed citizen stopping a BG's murderous rampage before officers can get there? Does that person put him/herself at risk in doing so? Absolutely. However, they may save the lives of numerous others in the process.

100 years ago, there were no mass active shooter situations. Why is that? Probably because everyone was armed and if some nut came into the saloon where you were and started shooting people he was put down ASAP by ANYONE who was armed. No one ran outside and screamed "Sheriff!" and waited until the law got there. They took care of the problem right then and there. What has happened to cause people to lose this instinct in our society? Have we become so self-centered that we have no concern for anyone other than ourselves and our immediate families?

The best thing to do in a situation is the right thing. The second best thing to do in a situation is the wrong thing. The WORST thing to do in a situation is NOTHING.

ETA: It is not the job of the police to protect you - the SCOTUS has even ruled on it in a couple of cases. People should attempt to regain their humanity and come to the defense of others from time to time instead of only worrying about themselves (and their families).

Would I love to be able to teleport myself to the exact time and place where a crime is occurring and stop the BG in the act? Sure, that would be great. Unfortunately this isn't Star Trek and we don't have that luxury. I would much prefer to find out that someone stepped up to the plate and stopped the BG in the act than arrive on scene and find out that everyone did NOTHING but cover their own butts and wait for us to arrive.

ETA 2 : BTW, I am all for open carry. I believe the positive benefits far outweigh the negatives. And no, I'm not worried about people carrying guns in the open. If they want to kill you then they're going to do it anyway, regardless of the law on how to properly carry a firearm.

 

[txinvestigator]

AresV - if you can't stop the threat with 2-4 rounds, you have NO business squeezing a round off, IMO - because that means you do NOT have a clear target.

That is really not true. There are many, many instances of people taking direct hits and not stopping their violent attacks.

 

[mike75925]

white space?

 

[TexasRedneck]

That is really not true. There are many, many instances of people taking direct hits and not stopping their violent attacks.

<sigh> It's also true that they've been stopped by a single .22 round. Is a rifle round that's going to overpenetrate and continue on downrange a better choice?

 

[RetArmySgt]

white space?

White space is the
{
}
space between words.

What they are saying is the same that has been said several times, Spaces and paragraphs make it easier to read and you might get people to read it then.