Will we ever get constitutional carry?

[jordanmills]

Mandatory training and licensing with fees and all as a condition to carry is about as constitutional as a poll tax.

 

[KAK]

I also think that citizens should be able to buy a NEW full auto firearms. Not old prebans that cost an arm and a leg. I would totally be carrying a glock 18.

 

[MR Redneck]

Make optional the license, background check, class and shooting test of the CHL and let everyone carry under current CHL laws if they can legally possess a firearm but also with the less restrictive traveling\other exemptions. And I do think 30.06 signs should sill be posted if you'd want to.

As for police stops, You don't need a CHL now to conceal in your home, place of business and car, on the way to the range etc so how would this be any different than stopping someone who can legally own a gun and is carrying legally but without a license?

Dont leave shit out Mate.
Lets not forget you dont need a CHL to carry while traveling. You dont need a CHL to carry while in rout to a gun range. You dont need a CHL while your engauged in a "gun" sporting event.
Folks, I carry a lot of the time. I do not have a Texas CHL. I do not carry under the "permission" of a CHL. I have been caught before but nothing became of it. The only time I have been arrested on a gun related charge was by some dumbass rookie cop who didnt know crap. I had a gun in my pocket inside of my vehicle. I actually had a conversation with the police cheif about it and applauded the effort he made to "correct" this problem within his department. It is a Police officers responsibility to know the law's just like it's our's to abide by them. Nothing I do is illegal. The day I get treated like a criminal while exercising my right within the legal means of the Texas Penal Code will be the day yall see me file against the state.
The comment that keeps reacurring about what the Cops are going to do, well I simply expect the cops to enforce the law. If Cop gives you crap simply because your exercising your right, I dont think those kind people should be Cops.
And yes I also think people should reserve the right to post 30.06 signs, if it's their property.

 

[Texan2]

I also think that citizens should be able to buy a NEW full auto firearms. Not old prebans that cost an arm and a leg. I would totally be carrying a glock 18.

I have no opinion on FA being available to those who can legally buy firearms. For most carrying one would be more liability than its worth....KAK, with age and experience you will probably come to see that.

 

[MR Redneck]

I have no opinion on FA being available to those who can legally buy firearms. For most carrying one would be more liability than its worth....KAK, with age and experience you will probably come to see that.

Ha! I agree! How bout that??
Yea I think I should be able to buy all the full auto stuff I want without all the BS invlolved, but I wouldnt carry those weapons around. Full auto for self defence seems a little unecessary to me unless you live near the border or in Houston.

 

[Texan2]

You are responsible for every bullet that leaves that gun.

 

[txinvestigator]

As for police stops, You don't need a CHL now to conceal in your home, place of business and car, on the way to the range etc so how would this be any different than stopping someone who can legally own a gun and is carrying legally but without a license?

If one were carrying openly; would a LEO be able to detain you simply to determine your "legal status to ". If not, how would that "legally able to posses" be enforced.

Also, I am just throwing out questions and thoughts. I am not expressing an opinion, yet.

 

[Stumpy]

The question is impossible to answer. No one has a crystal ball. However, I predict this thread becomes one of the arguments for what you call constitutional carry, wit a few rants thrown in for good measure. lol

ditto

 

[zembonez]

WOW.

I'm impressed boys! This thread has remained civil. Maybe it's because Alan banned half of the crowd that used to go off in every thread.

 

[MR Redneck]

If one were carrying openly; would a LEO be able to detain you simply to determine your "legal status to ". If not, how would that "legally able to posses" be enforced.

Also, I am just throwing out questions and thoughts. I am not expressing an opinion, yet.

With legal open carry, why would a LEO even need to concern himself with the pratice? I only see police intervention being necessary if someone is doing something wrong. I would expect a Cop to do something if a person is a known criminal or something.

 

[MR Redneck]

WOW.

I'm impressed boys! This thread has remained civil. Maybe it's because Alan banned half of the crowd that used to go off in every thread.

You tryin to start somethin?

 

[London]

We seem to be getting friendlier and friendlier gun laws in Texas (and the south in general) as the years go on.

I predict we will have constitutional carry within 20 years. The track record of it's success in other states is going to have to so well established that almost no one can argue against it before we get it, though.

 

[matefrio]

If one were carrying openly; would a LEO be able to detain you simply to determine your "legal status to ". If not, how would that "legally able to posses" be enforced.

Reasonable grounds for detention isn't that someone is OCing a gun in a location that is permitted and doing nothing else wrong. Just like police can't stop every car to check and see if they are stolen. Can they check every cellphone users for stolen phones?

Why would anyone think that the laws would need to be changed where they loose any current freedoms\rights just because they have a gun on their person?

A police officer can stop and ask a person who is open carrying to account for themselves.

They can disarm someone for their own safety if they feel threatened.

If they have reasonable grounds for believing someone is not behaving in accordance to laws they can detain a person for the purpose of a search. "Hey, didn't I know you from the state pen when I worked there?"

I would suspect at that time they'd run a criminal history check.

If a person is carrying illegally and it's found they were not stopped and searched\background checked under reasonable grounds for doing so they'd be let go for the crime as the gun would be poisoned fruit just like today.

If someone is stopped, detained and searched\background checked and there was not reasonable grounds for doing so could sue just like today.

We have states where OC is legal and there doing us a favor writing the book on such things. I'd bet, if the law were passed, there'd be quite a few asked to visit TX and talk brass and tacks over OC and lessons learned with law enforcement here.

 

[willygene]

How would you have this accomplished? Eliminate 46.02 of the Penal Code? Are you OK with the current state and federal restrictions on "possession"?

I assume you want no licensing. So could a Peace Officer then stop you and run a background if he observed you carrying a handgun? How exactly would the "legally able to posses a firearm" be enforced?

Well let's say convicted felons would be out, but then are you afraid to be around armed people if so then why be in law enforcement you are a very intelligent man but your to literal and I think you are afraid of an armed public I am not I wish more of the public who are not criminals were armed you still wouldn't have to do away with chapter 46 of the penal code just a little rewrite of it I used to teach it I know it well my self it wouldn't take much work, infact less than fighting it

 

[KAK]

I have no opinion on FA being available to those who can legally buy firearms. For most carrying one would be more liability than its worth....KAK, with age and experience you will probably come to see that.

I know that every bullet is a liability. but as with anything you can train to make extremely effective use out of it. I would be confident that at 7 yards I could put them on target. I can shoot my g17 extremely fast. out a little farther, turn the f/a off. Close encounter knife fighting range i cant think of a more effective cc weapon.

I know I would certantly try, If it seemed too dangerous I would just carry it on s/a, nothing wrong with options.

 

[M. Sage]

So could a Peace Officer then stop you and run a background if he observed you carrying a handgun? How exactly would the "legally able to posses a firearm" be enforced?

A: Show me probable cause first. Presence of a firearm alone is not probable cause. Open carry of a firearm in an open carry state is not probable cause.

B: The same way that the CHL law is enforced now. Someone does something that does give you probable cause, you detain or arrest and investigate and find a restricted person in possession. Seems awful straight forward to me...

I am not fine with the current limitations but I accept them with the exception of the vawa limitations that raise a misdemeanor to essentially a felony.

The constitution should be amended to allow open and or concealed carry of a firearm or knife or sword. Hell, through a switchblade in there. The only prohibited weapons should be nuclear bombs and nerve gas.

This pretty much eradicates 46.

Ditto this for me.

Mandatory training and licensing with fees and all as a condition to carry is about as constitutional as a poll tax.

+1. I honestly don't see the difference between poll taxes and CHL requirements.

I also think that citizens should be able to buy a NEW full auto firearms. Not old prebans that cost an arm and a leg. I would totally be carrying a glock 18.

I wouldn't carry a full auto. I asked Texascop2 in another thread to enumerate the legitimate uses of full auto when he said he has an M4 as a patrol rifle. He kind of skipped and said "pretty much never", which is correct enough. I'll admit it - my question was a trap (sorry dude, I still love you! ).

There are exactly 3 uses for full auto:
Initiating contact in an ambush.
Breaking contact in an ambush.
And for weapons designed for prolonged full auto fire, suppressing fire.

You're responsible for every round that leaves the tube. Every. One. While there could be some small argument made for LE to have full auto in the second case (and only then in wilderness environments), overall there is no reason for LE to have access to the added liability of FA.

From a practical, daily use standpoint, FA isn't useful and is more a liability than anything.

 

[matefrio]

Dont leave shit out Mate.
Lets not forget you dont need a CHL to carry while traveling. You dont need a CHL to carry while in rout to a gun range. You dont need a CHL while your engauged in a "gun" sporting event.

Dude, read my post.. You even quoted it...I said "let everyone carry under current CHL laws if they can legally possess a firearm but also with the less restrictive traveling\other exemptions."

 

[SC-Texas]

If one were carrying openly; would a LEO be able to detain you simply to determine your "legal status to ". If not, how would that "legally able to posses" be enforced.

Also, I am just throwing out questions and thoughts. I am not expressing an opinion, yet.

Nope. It's none of their damned business. It would not constitute p.c. In any shape or form.

 

[txinvestigator]

Well let's say convicted felons would be out, but then are you afraid to be around armed people if so then why be in law enforcement

I am not IN law enforcement. And why make this personal? I am ONLY asking questions. Good Grief. BTW, I am around armed people pretty much every day.

you are a very intelligent man but your to literal

Yes, I am, but nowhere in this thread have I been "literal" at all.

and I think you are afraid of an armed public

You think really wrong and are not paying attention. Again, we are discussing ideas, but thanks for trying to make this personal.

you still wouldn't have to do away with chapter 46 of the penal code just a little rewrite of it I used to teach it I know it well my self it wouldn't take much work, infact less than fighting it

OKAAAAYYYY..................

 

[txinvestigator]

Nope. It's none of their damned business. It would not constitute p.c. In any shape or form.

I would prefer it that way. But, how would the "legally able to possess" law be enforced?