Open Carry - Just your opinions. Let's try not to debate just hear everyone out.

[MR Redneck]

Here is the problem with open carry in bars. Any drunk might want to either pick a fight or try to disarm you. I like the way Arizona passed their law. Only concealed carry in bars and you cannot be under the influence. Plus, Arizona makes their money on their permit, that way.

If a drunk does not know you are armed, they won't try to grab a gun they don't know is there. Heck, there are gonna be people armed legally or not. Only law abiding citizens care about breaking the law.

That makes a good point. Its a good thing we have a state like Arizona getting the job done. Gives us something to model ourself after.
It going to be real had for the Elitist to argue a good debate when the changes were after are already bing tried and tested in Arizona.
Those people out there are helping us more than most people could realize.

 

[randmplumbingllc]

That makes a good point. Its a good thing we have a state like Arizona getting the job done. Gives us something to model ourself after.
It going to be real had for the Elitist to argue a good debate when the changes were after are already bing tried and tested in Arizona.
Those people out there are helping us more than most people could realize.

That is what seems to happen. Arizona has "grapes". They "arn't scerrd" that "a few lefties" won't be happy about them trying to restore their rights and laws, to what most people in the state want and what the constitution intended.

Arizona is FAR from perfect, but Texas could take a few pointers from Arizona.

 

[Bithabus]

Texas does have better use of force laws though.

 

[MR Redneck]

Texas does have better use of force laws though.

And Mr. Perry help us get that. We know where he stand on defending your own...

 

[40Arpent]

I am genuinely disturbed by the fact that on a Texas gun forum some members are against unrestricted carry of firearms by Americans. The damage done to our nation by Liberalism is worse than I thought.

First, forgive me for not getting too much farther along in this thread than right here before posting, but it was too good of an opportunity for me to ask a couple questions. Again, let me apologize, because maybe somewhere between here and page 17, my questions have already been addressed.

Honestly and without contest to anyone's opinion, I am trying to figure out where I stand on the issue of "unrestricted carry." First, does unrestricted carry mean that anyone who can legally own a firearm would be entitled to carry it concealed, open, and/or generally in any manner they personally chose, without any kind of CHL-type licensing/proficiency requirements?

Thanks,
Pete

 

[Fisherman777]

First, forgive me for not getting too much farther along in this thread than right here before posting, but it was too good of an opportunity for me to ask a couple questions. Again, let me apologize, because maybe somewhere between here and page 17, my questions have already been addressed.

Honestly and without contest to anyone's opinion, I am trying to figure out where I stand on the issue of "unrestricted carry." First, does unrestricted carry mean that anyone who can legally own a firearm would be entitled to carry it concealed, open, and/or generally in any manner they personally chose, without any kind of CHL-type licensing/proficiency requirements?

Thanks,
Pete

Yes. Citizens who can legally own should be legally able to carry in any manner they wish and be responsible for getting training on their own without the government overlords mandating it.

 

[Bithabus]

First, does unrestricted carry mean that anyone who can legally own a firearm would be entitled to carry it concealed, open, and/or generally in any manner they personally chose, without any kind of CHL-type licensing/proficiency requirements?

That is what "unrestricted carry" means to me. Also involved would be the elimination of government defined "gun free zones".

 

[40Arpent]

That is what "unrestricted carry" means to me. Also involved would be the elimination of government defined "gun free zones".

I am completely behind the elimination of "gun free zones," no doubt about that one. Ok, so now that I understand what "unrestricted carry" means, help me out with a dilemma I have, as I try to figure out where I stand on this particular issue. I will use my neighbor as an example, though I know of plenty more people just like him. He can legally own firearms, but to put it succinctly, he is not the type of person I would want to be around if he was carrying a gun. He does not have what I consider a proper amount of training and/or knowledge to be able to use a firearm safely, especially if he were to use it in self defense. So, how do I get my head around the fact that if I support "unrestricted carry," then this moron, and many others like him, will be able to carry a firearm and potentially injure or kill innocent people? I realize that the CHL process doesn't do a whole lot in that reagrd, but it at least does something, no? Again, I am not contesting anyone's opinion, just trying to figure out my own...and I am not there yet.

Thanks,

Pete

 

[Bithabus]

Regardless of your level of training, I bet there are some people with more firearms training than you. Maybe they believe you don't have the proper training to be safe with a gun. Does this mean your rights should be restricted?

Arizona, Vermont, and Alaska already have unrestricted carry. Innocent people are not being killed by "morons".

To put it bluntly, your fears do not trump the right of another citizen to carry a self defense tool. If your neighbor does screw up and hurt an innocent then he should be utterly crushed, but until then you have to mind your own business. Even morons should not have to become victims.

Also remember that anyone can carry a gun whether they have a license or not. Plenty of good people don't get a CHL because they don't have the money or time. Thugs don't know the law and don't care, and carry anyway. Why should someone be penalized for following the law?

 

[40Arpent]

Thanks Bithabus, you make some very good points. I'm digesting. In the meantime, while I was waiting for your reply, my own questions made me think about (paraphrasing) "those who surrender liberty for security end up with neither." Again, thanks.

 

[MR Redneck]

Regardless of your level of training, I bet there are some people with more firearms training than you. Maybe they believe you don't have the proper training to be safe with a gun. Does this mean your rights should be restricted?

Arizona, Vermont, and Alaska already have unrestricted carry. Innocent people are not being killed by "morons".

To put it bluntly, your fears do not trump the right of another citizen to carry a self defense tool. If your neighbor does screw up and hurt an innocent then he should be utterly crushed, but until then you have to mind your own business. Even morons should not have to become victims.

Also remember that anyone can carry a gun whether they have a license or not. Plenty of good people don't get a CHL because they don't have the money or time. Thugs don't know the law and don't care, and carry anyway. Why should someone be penalized for following the law?

When I think about what everyone else is going to do, I have to relate to them as a Free Citizen with the same rights that I have. Im not going to tell anone what they should and shouldnt do. If people enjoy shooting firearms then im happy for them. If a person wants to carry a firearm to be able to defend themself's against the negative element, well I supporty them 100%.
Should I tell someone they need training, well Hell No! We are all adults here and part of being an adult is having enough sence and responsibility to make sure you can handly a firearm before you carry it.
Sure, there are a lot of people each of us knows who we dont think are very safe around guns. Hell, I know several CHL holders that I wouldnt want to be around because their idiots! I allow anyone to carry a gun on my property and it doesnt consern me one bit. Now if one of these idiots I know with a CHL shows up, Im going to make them put their firearm away. These idiots carry them in their pocket and constantly play with their gun! Thats just stupid.
I really dont consern myself with how responsible people are simply because Im not just fighting for Unrestricted Carry for people who have NOT committed a crime, Im also fighting for better punishment against those who do commit a crime or endanger someone.
To be a responsible Advocate of Freedom, you should also understand we need better laws that punish people who act out in a negative manner.
Take me for example, I have never had hunting training, firearms training, or any level of marksmanship training. I have shot guns with lots of people I know and usually show all of them up. I have stood beside Cops, FBI agents, and Game Wardens shooting. None of them had any consern about me not being safe. Matter a fact, I really enjoy shooting with other people because it gives me a idea as to how good I am. Now take all that and account for the fact that I never really had much to do with handguns untill a couple of years ago. Im a rifle kind of person. I never really liked hanguns but the more I shoot them, the more I like it. " Well, that only applies to 1911's because im just old school"...

The fact remains, What People do is their own business untill they affect me or you! Lets not throw rocks at people untill we have to.
I meet lots of people who dont know anything about guns. Im confident that people would take the time to make sure they can actually pull a trigger and hit a target. Anyone who's got enough desire to carry a defense weapon should know their going to be up shit creek if they accidentally shoot somebody.

 

[Cliffh]

While the CHL course does do something toward "training" a person, the course actually does very little. Since TX is a "Shall Issue" state the test is designed to be passed by almost anyone, in fairness to those who may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer. From what I understand, most instructors make sure the applicants know the answers before the test is passed out.

Personally, I feel this is a good thing. The test shouldn't even be required; since it is required it should be as easy to pass as possible.

But it really doesn't do anything toward making a CHL holder any more safe than the average Joe on the street (or next door).

Unrestricted or Constitutional carry is hard for most people to accept - it's too far from the norm that they've been trained to expect by the media, schools etc. That's why I urge everyone who isn't sure how they feel about unrestricted carry to take their next vacation in a state that allows at least open carry. That will give them a chance to see for themselves what it's like to actually see who's carrying instead of the "out of sight, out of mind" world they're used to.

 

[MR Redneck]

While the CHL course does do something toward "training" a person, the course actually does very little. Since TX is a "Shall Issue" state the test is designed to be passed by almost anyone, in fairness to those who may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer. From what I understand, most instructors make sure the applicants know the answers before the test is passed out.

Personally, I feel this is a good thing. The test shouldn't even be required; since it is required it should be as easy to pass as possible.

But it really doesn't do anything toward making a CHL holder any more safe than the average Joe on the street (or next door).

Unrestricted or Constitutional carry is hard for most people to accept - it's too far from the norm that they've been trained to expect by the media, schools etc. That's why I urge everyone who isn't sure how they feel about unrestricted carry to take their next vacation in a state that allows at least open carry. That will give them a chance to see for themselves what it's like to actually see who's carrying instead of the "out of sight, out of mind" world they're used to.

Those are wise words. Constitutional Carry " unrestricted" is what were suppose to have anyhow.
Vacationing or a weekend get away to a place like Arizona is well suggested.
Actually, I was planning another several day get away myself and I decided on Tuscon. I use to go to Corpus and go fishing around this time of the year on the " Captain Jack", but Coprus is nothing but a habbitat for criminals and illegals! My decision to go to Tuscon is a safer decision for me. I can arm myself without legislature restricting me, and carry just about anywhere. I would rather be in a place with Cartals and be able to arm myself , than be in Cartel/criminal/ illegal Corpus Christi and have the state of Texas restricting my rights to defend myself.
I love Texas, but i'll be the first to say I have seen better things in other places.
If unrestricted Carry was a negative thing, dont you think we would be hearing somethin form Arizona?

 

[Bithabus]

Tucson is great my family used to go there every year when I was a kid.

 

[MR Redneck]

Tucson is great my family used to go there every year when I was a kid.

Im actually going to visit Tomb Stone. They have some classic shows I want to see. They have a OK corral show and all kinds of good stuff.

 

[Bithabus]

Im actually going to visit Tomb Stone. They have some classic shows I want to see. They have a OK corral show and all kinds of good stuff.

Yep I've been there a few times. Sounds like a fun trip.

 

[M. Sage]

I am completely behind the elimination of "gun free zones," no doubt about that one. Ok, so now that I understand what "unrestricted carry" means, help me out with a dilemma I have, as I try to figure out where I stand on this particular issue. I will use my neighbor as an example, though I know of plenty more people just like him. He can legally own firearms, but to put it succinctly, he is not the type of person I would want to be around if he was carrying a gun. He does not have what I consider a proper amount of training and/or knowledge to be able to use a firearm safely, especially if he were to use it in self defense. So, how do I get my head around the fact that if I support "unrestricted carry," then this moron, and many others like him, will be able to carry a firearm and potentially injure or kill innocent people? I realize that the CHL process doesn't do a whole lot in that reagrd, but it at least does something, no? Again, I am not contesting anyone's opinion, just trying to figure out my own...and I am not there yet.

Thanks,

Pete

Hey, not everybody's got a college degree in English (heaven knows I don't!), but we don't put proficiency tests on your 1st Amendment rights. No class required to tell a police officer that you'd like a lawyer before saying another word (5A). No licensing needed to go to church (or not). The great thing about America is that anybody can talk, anybody can get themselves a blog or post on a site like this. Anybody can worship (or not) as they see fit. And so on and so forth. Our rights come from our humanity, not from the government. The Bill of Rights does not create a single right. It protects and recognizes rights that are the birthright of every human being.

Let me break out the big guns. Poll taxes have been ruled unconstitutional as they disenfranchise people. How is requiring a person pay for a class and then pay a fee for a CHL different? Reading tests were used to disenfranchise black voters. How is a training requirement different from this? The answer is that there is no difference. Constitutional rights are rights. You cannot discourage their exercise through mandatory "testing" and you certainly can't tax them.

Can you imagine the uproar if there was a tax (because that's what the CHL "fee" really is) to get a jury trial?! If there was a test required to be able to speak about political matters? If you had to get a license from the state to go to church!? There would be blood in the streets over some of those.

We either have the right to all of these things or we have the right to none of them.

 

[MR Redneck]

Hey, not everybody's got a college degree in English (heaven knows I don't!), but we don't put proficiency tests on your 1st Amendment rights. No class required to tell a police officer that you'd like a lawyer before saying another word (5A). No licensing needed to go to church (or not). The great thing about America is that anybody can talk, anybody can get themselves a blog or post on a site like this. Anybody can worship (or not) as they see fit. And so on and so forth. Our rights come from our humanity, not from the government. The Bill of Rights does not create a single right. It protects and recognizes rights that are the birthright of every human being.

Let me break out the big guns. Poll taxes have been ruled unconstitutional as they disenfranchise people. How is requiring a person pay for a class and then pay a fee for a CHL different? Reading tests were used to disenfranchise black voters. How is a training requirement different from this? The answer is that there is no difference. Constitutional rights are rights. You cannot discourage their exercise through mandatory "testing" and you certainly can't tax them.

Can you imagine the uproar if there was a tax (because that's what the CHL "fee" really is) to get a jury trial?! If there was a test required to be able to speak about political matters? If you had to get a license from the state to go to church!? There would be blood in the streets over some of those.

We either have the right to all of these things or we have the right to none of them.

A+ post!!

 

[Texas1911]

"those who surrender liberty for security end up with neither."

I've thrown out or yelled at cops, CHL holders, military, etc. you name it on the gun range for obviously stupid gun handling. Ultimately what remains common to all of these people is this:

1) They don't pay attention.
2) They don't care.
3) They have practiced poor gun handling enough that it's normal.

These people are not going to be fixed, or learn anything, from a simple CHL class. The CHL class is a dog and pony show for the right to carry. While people that do care, and do pay attention can gain some excellent info from the class, it's up to them to remain up to speed on current laws. In the end, you are changing nothing, and might as well just give the rebate retards their right to carry. Yeah, they'll probably end up shooting someone or themselves, but frankly that was going to happen anyways.

 

[MR Redneck]

I've thrown out or yelled at cops, CHL holders, military, etc. you name it on the gun range for obviously stupid gun handling. Ultimately what remains common to all of these people is this:

1) They don't pay attention.
2) They don't care.
3) They have practiced poor gun handling enough that it's normal.

These people are not going to be fixed, or learn anything, from a simple CHL class. The CHL class is a dog and pony show for the right to carry. While people that do care, and do pay attention can gain some excellent info from the class, it's up to them to remain up to speed on current laws. In the end, you are changing nothing, and might as well just give the rebate retards their right to carry. Yeah, they'll probably end up shooting someone or themselves, but frankly that was going to happen anyways.

The dumbest crap I ever seen anyone do with a gun was a Odessa City Cop! This guy had no clue!
The most responsible person I ever seen with a gun was a little kid at the range. The kid was simply professional .
I dont care who you are, you need to learn the most important thing about guns. That be respectfull of others.