Texas Constitutional Carry - Thoughts?

[Younggun]

Not sure what this statement means. Government facilities/buildings already can't be limited unless there are 'court' facilities involved. (Agree, 'school' gun-free zones need to be worked on...).
But concerning the vast majority of what *I* think you're talking about, that's PRIVATE PROPERTY even though they may be open for business to the public. I'm a big believer in the supremacy of private property rights and I sure wouldn't want the government mandating who I have to let onto my private property (even though they do it, in the case of race discrimination). And this argument of trying to hold the shop owner responsible for one's safety against an armed robber is just ridiculous: no one forced you to go into their shop. The solution seems clear to me: don't patronize their establishment (vote with your feet; go somewhere else). Oh... and leave one of those cards to help them see the light!



Sent from my Apple thang using Tapatalk

And this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Taylor C]

Could you share more information? I know it will probably not pass. My main issue with current Texas gun laws is that 18-20 year olds aren't able to get a license to defend themselves which I find unconstitutional. This bill would allow that age group to express their right to carry which is why I find it most important.

 

[Tcruse]

Not sure what this statement means. Government facilities/buildings already can't be limited unless there are 'court' facilities involved. (Agree, 'school' gun-free zones need to be worked on...).
But concerning the vast majority of what *I* think you're talking about, that's PRIVATE PROPERTY even though they may be open for business to the public. I'm a big believer in the supremacy of private property rights and I sure wouldn't want the government mandating who I have to let onto my private property (even though they do it, in the case of race discrimination). And this argument of trying to hold the shop owner responsible for one's safety against an armed robber is just ridiculous: no one forced you to go into their shop. The solution seems clear to me: don't patronize their establishment (vote with your feet; go somewhere else). Oh... and leave one of those cards to help them see the light!



Sent from my Apple thang using Tapatalk

The state law about government property only applies to state and local, not places federal properties.

I have no problem with a business choosing to not allow guns in their business, however, when they do so the effectively removing my ability to defend myself both at their business and travel to/from their business. So, like in some other states we need a law to specifically make the person that controls "No Gun Zones" liable for damages (both physical and punitive) should someone be harmed because of the policy.
Federal Changes:
We also need to lower the age to purchase handguns from FFL from 21 to 18 and allow purchase in other than home state.
Universal reciprocity is probably first on the list at the federal level.
Remove SBR/AOW and suppressors from NFA

 

[Younggun]

We already make property owners liable for enough stupid crap.

Instead of making them liable for the actions of a criminal, just don't shop there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Vaquero]

Don't forget the dress code.

 

[Taylor C]

The state law about government property only applies to state and local, not places federal properties.

I have no problem with a business choosing to not allow guns in their business, however, when they do so the effectively removing my ability to defend myself both at their business and travel to/from their business. So, like in some other states we need a law to specifically make the person that controls "No Gun Zones" liable for damages (both physical and punitive) should someone be harmed because of the policy.
Federal Changes:
We also need to lower the age to purchase handguns from FFL from 21 to 18 and allow purchase in other than home state.
Universal reciprocity is probably first on the list at the federal level.
Remove SBR/AOW and suppressors from NFA

Lowering the age is what I want to see most. My age group isn't given the freedom of bearing arms to defend ourselves in public areas which is a violation of the 2nd amendment in my opinion. When a court ruled that the definition of "militia" in the 2nd amendment was any able bodied person capable of being called to service, wouldn't that include 18 year olds?

 

[SidewaysTA]

^Oh grow up...































J/K

 

[45tex]

If you choose to use your private property to offer products or services that draw the public to your private property, then you owe the public some measure of security since you enticed them with your offerings. Restricting their legal and specifically mentioned Constitutional right to keep and bear arms makes you responsible for their safety. If you don't want any of them to carry then don't invite them upon your private property. You make your property public, that's your choice. At that point you private property rights become public property rights. But greedy people want it both ways.

 

[Bithabus]

Absolutely a license should not be required! You don't need a license to exercise your right to free speech or due process, so why should you need one to exercise your right to bear arms?

 

[Younggun]

If you choose to use your private property to offer products or services that draw the public to your private property, then you owe the public some measure of security since you enticed them with your offerings. Restricting their legal and specifically mentioned Constitutional right to keep and bear arms makes you responsible for their safety. If you don't want any of them to carry then don't invite them upon your private property. You make your property public, that's your choice. At that point you private property rights become public property rights. But greedy people want it both ways.

A business owner doesn't owe the public anything.

"enticed them your offerings"...Seriously, are we talking about a shop down the road or a pedovan? Anyone who has the intelligence to carry the firearms also has the ability to make a risk assessment and decide if reward is worth the risk.

A business is most definitely not public property. And it has nothing to do with "greedy people". Unless being able to control your own property is now considered "greedy". But that idea is about as far left as left can get, only separated from communism by still admitting ownership.

 

[Dawico]

A business owner doesn't owe the public anything.

"enticed them your offerings"...Seriously, are we talking about a shop down the road or a pedovan? Anyone who has the intelligence to carry the firearms also has the ability to make a risk assessment and decide if reward is worth the risk.

A business is most definitely not public property. And it has nothing to do with "greedy people". Unless being able to control your own property is now considered "greedy". But that idea is about as far left as left can get, only separated from communism by still admitting ownership.

I agree. Whatever that shop sells is available down the road too.

 

[Ranger550]

Lowering the age is what I want to see most. My age group isn't given the freedom of bearing arms to defend ourselves in public areas which is a violation of the 2nd amendment in my opinion. When a court ruled that the definition of "militia" in the 2nd amendment was any able bodied person capable of being called to service, wouldn't that include 18 year olds?

Yes it would, although "being called into service" and being drafted into the armed forces is two different things.

A Militia would be voluntary action by the individual, hopefully at least practiced enough to be a real threat
to the enemy, IMO.

Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are —

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
​

 

[texasjohnboy]

I think that HB560 would be a better bet this session. After a few years of no restrictions for LTC holders, you'll have a better shot at constitutional carry.

 

[MississippiRifleman]

I support it wholeheartedly, because in the last analysis, why should we be forced to submit to onerous scrutiny, largely worthless blocks of "instruction" and then pay for a right that every criminal gets to exercise for free? The classes and testing for the LTC are a joke, and don't do a single thing to prepare anyone for the responsibility of carrying a firearm. It's just a "check the box" formality that serves as yet another obstacle to be placed in the path of the law-abiding citizen seeking effective means of self-defense.

Criminals don't bother with permits, background checks, purchase requirements or any of the other "crime fighting" measures that are supposed to "reduce gun violence." Placing restrictions on the law-abiding only serves to empower criminals and bureaucrats, and I think we should do away with all that.

It's time to stop begging the government to sell us rights that were already ours to begin with.

 

[TheDan]

It's time to stop begging the government to sell us rights that were already ours to begin with.

Yep

 

[Se7en62]

Yes it would, although "being called into service" and being drafted into the armed forces is two different things.

A Militia would be voluntary action by the individual, hopefully at least practiced enough to be a real threat
to the enemy, IMO.

Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are —

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
​

Texas has it's own referendums regarding it's militia, both organized and unorganized. They read similarly though.

 

[Se7en62]

Here's a good article on the upcoming legislature regarding Constitutional Carry. If it's ever had a chance of passing, now is the time. LTC's came without any hiccups whatsoever...no blood baths...no John Wayne style draws on Congress...notta.

That said, I'm not holding my breath anymore. I'm waiting on my LTC to come in the mail, because I'm tired of waiting on legislature like this to pass and I'm also tired of leaving several hundred dollars worth of firearms in my truck when I'm traveling or shopping.

 

[sam.collins18]

I support it, I mean I know a ton of people who carry guns in their car everyday


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[satx78247]

Taylor C,

AGREED 100%.
Personally, I'd like to see the Congress & the 50 States STRIKE DOWN every single anti-2nd Amendment law/regulation, USA-wide.

The fact that since WWII that only TWO "mass shooting incidents" have occurred outside the so-called "Gun Free Zones" should tell any thinking person that EVERY "Anti-gun Law" is FOOLISH & CONTRARY to both REALITY & COMMON SENSE.

yours, satx

 

[satx78247]

Younggun,

While you are FREE to hold ANY opinion (including that the Earth is FLAT and/or that "little green men from Mars" are walking about in your neighborhood), The US Supreme Court has held that any commercial enterprise is a PUBLIC ACCOMODATION & therefore such places may NOT lawfully discriminate against gun-owners or anyone else. = That is FACT & facts are in every case superior to unsupported opinions.

Further, the SCOTUS as held for over TWO CENTURIES that commercial property owners are RESPONSIBLE under civil law to protect "invitees" (An invitee is any person who is on the premises of a commercial property for any otherwise lawful reason.) from "all hazards", including criminal acts, "which may be reasonably be foreseen as potential & present hazards".

yours, satx