Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Constitutional Carry to fail in the Texas Senate?

Ol' Dan and Grabbott are both backed in a corner on this one.

If they don't do their jobs, they know their careers in Texas politics will be over. So they put on a fake smile and tell us all what a big promoter of the 2nd Amendment they are.

I think citizens have put enough pressure on them that they see the way the wind blows, and have to go with it.

I'll put my flame suit on.

I'm not for the passage of this bill. We had a concealed carry system that worked well, wasn't broken and provided basic training to ensure safe handling, storage and education of laws pertaining to the use of deadly force. In addition, the law enforcement agencies voiced their own opposition to it. All this talk about supporting our law enforcement agencies in contrast to the defund movement, but then you push for a bill that our law enforcement agencies denounce because it will impact their safety and make their jobs harder.

With the passage of this law you're risking an increase in events that will polarize the views against gun ownership. Including more unnecessary/unlawful armed confrontations and firearm theft.

You're creating a problem where one did not exist.

There's SO much wrong with what you say. I'm not even going to get into the whole statement.

But the first mainstream media lie you repeat is that Texas law enforcement is against this.

The fact of the matter is, that MSM made a big deal out of LIBERAL CITY police chief's being against it. They are liberals. Dallas, Austin...

The second fact is that 83% of Texas county sheriff's SUPPORT Constitutional carry.

Here's the poll article. https://www.brettsanders.me/exclusive-83-of-texas-sheriffs-support-constitutional-carry/

So your statement about "our law enforcement agencies denounce it" is pure BS.

How about we have LESS goddam govt interference and regulation?

When you have to jump through hoops and PAY for a constitutional right, it ceases to be a "right" and becomes a privilege.

Try again.

BTW, are you an LTC instructor?

There's SO much wrong with what you say. I'm not even going to get into the whole statement.

But the first mainstream media lie you repeat is that Texas law enforcement is against this.

The fact of the matter is, that MSM made a big deal out of LIBERAL CITY police chief's being against it. They are liberals. Dallas, Austin...

The second fact is that 83% of Texas county sheriff's SUPPORT Constitutional carry.

Here's the poll article. https://www.brettsanders.me/exclusive-83-of-texas-sheriffs-support-constitutional-carry/

How about we have LESS goddam govt interference and regulation?

When you have to jump through hoops and PAY for a constitutional right, it ceases to be a "right" and becomes a privilege.

Try again.


He's right you know.

Who's right?

Where has this happened?

What does the data show in states that have constitutional carry?

It hasn't.

20 other states have Constitutional Carry.

There has been no bloodbath. No running gun battles down Main Street.

Probably see a dip in the crime rate though.


I'd like to see the training and marksmanship certificates of the CRIMINALS who carry.... They are armed. Why punish the law abiding? Even the playing field. Quit making criminals out of citizens who want to protect themselves.

You

Yeah, why not require a masters degree in English Literature to be licensed for free speech, or in Theology to practice freedom of religion?

My home state of Wyoming has had constitutional carry for a few years and I haven’t noticed the streets being any more bloody than they used to be.

Wyoming has very little violent crime compared to Blue states. Armed robberies, carjackings, home invasions, etc are quite uncommon, almost unheard of. Our children play in their front yards , our old folks go for evening walks in the neighborhood, kids walk to school, for the most part we are a peaceful place. Wonder why that is, could it be that most of us are armed? If you stop and search 10 random vehicles, you will get at least 5 firearms and the sweet little old lady sitting next to you in the church pew has a revolver in her purse.

100% opposite of reality right here.

This is way more true than they wanna believe. Rural conservatism does not cover one city of hippies. and Texas has got its share of hippies in Austin and the college towns. Add the DFW and not conservative at all

As you are doubtless aware Vermont has always had constitutional carry, whereas adjacent New York State has always had the Sullivan law strictly restricting handgun possession.

I’d like to say that Vermont is demonstrably safer than comparable areas of Upstate NY but I doubt you’ll find that is so. The moral of that story being that gun laws or the lack thereof have a minimal effect on violent crime.

OTOH as previously pointed out here those states that have switched over to constitutional carry have seen no spike in violence either. So there’s no reason not to allow law abiding citizens their full rights in this regard.

I'm not trying to start an argument with you, but did you actually read the Brett Sanders survey/article you provided the link for, or just the title and parts of the article the author chose to highlight? I've been out watching my kids rodeo all day and I might be lacking some comprehension, but the title of the article doesn't seem to match the content.

My take away is that 66% of Sherriff's actually voted "NO" to allowing a law abiding person to carry open or concealed without a license (Question 1). It's only when it's phrased as "constitutional carry" that it gets an 83% approval (Question 2). Which means, the Sherriff's may not know what "constitutional carry" is and just support the buzzword.

Look deeper in the article and you'll see the actual questions and responses.
Question 3 says 88.5% of sheriff's do not believe a CHL infringes on our unalienable right to bear arms.
Question 4 says 60% support open carry. However,
Question 5 says 88.7% of sheriff's believe a CHL should be required for open carry.

I do agree with others that the litmus test may be the history of what has happened in other states when constitutional carry has been allowed. I still think we had a CHL concealed/open carry system that wasn't broken.

And NO, I'm not a CHL instructor.

That was actually back in 2015 when CC was up in legislation but failed to get out of committee.

This time, currently, polls through the Sheriff's Association of Texas show a majority of sheriff's supporting HB1927.

They do want the senate amendments about not expunging the records of those caught and convicted of UCW previously, and want certain misdemeanors in the past 5 years to disqualify carriers.

In Texas, you are already allowed to carry a handgun in your vehicle, and carry a long gun outside your vehicle.

But put a 1911 in your holster, you are UCW (Unlawfully carrying a weapon?)

No sense in it.

The criminals are armed. The illegals invading our country are also armed. Gun control laws don't affect them. Just the law abiding.

Texas should have been leading the nation in Constitutional carry, instead of being 21st to pass it.

The problem is the state has no business demanding that we ask them permission to exercise a constitutional Right. It worked fine in Texas until Reconstruction and the Constitution of 1869 stepped over that line. If some LEO's don't like it then they are free to turn in their badge and gun and find another line of work.

But that's become the problem with all of the US. Our media and political parties have caused many to polarize to the lunatic fringe of the far left and far right, when the majority of us probably land somewhere in between. I'd be willing to bet the majority of Americans would classify themselves as socially moderate and fiscally conservative. But yet, neither party seems to propose legislation that plays between the 40 yard lines. That's what's created our inability to be able to legislate anything and instead resort to legislative actions. Each group looks for the chance for an advantage to then stick their thumb in the eye of their opponent with legislation that's in the extreme. Then leaving that legislation open for retribution and reversal if the pendulum ever swings in the other direction.

That's been my argument that the current TX CHL process (that IMO) was played between those 40 yard lines. It the past years in TX, we've allowed public carry of long guns, we've passed the castle doctrine that extends your "castle" to include your vehicle. We've passed concealed carry with a CHL and then we passed open carry with a CHL. Why not leave it with that? To paraphrase the words and thoughts of Ronald Reagan, "I'd rather get most of what I want, then go off the cliff with my flag flying and getting noting." The CHL appeased the concerns of the other side and the current concerns the sheriff's association and others have of "Constitutional Carry". I don't buy the argument that TX law enforcement approves of constitutional carry. In fact, after continued research, it looks like the sheriffs association and many other TX law enforcement agencies keep asking for more amendments so they can give constitutional carry their tepid approval. Quite frankly, those amendments which include prohibitions for those with certain prior misdemeanors, put back in place many of the restrictions of the previously haggled CHL legislation.

The existing CHL had some added benefits, it required firearm training, proficiency training, fire arms storage training, de-escalation training and review of the laws that pertain to the use of deadly force. What's wrong with that? We ask that same training (and more) of our law enforcement officials. As established by SCOTUS rulings, rights are not absolute and have some restrictions and caveats. Aren't many of this same group advocating for voter ID laws? How is this much different? You want someone to show their qualified to vote, but the same preface doesn't apply to someone showing their basic ability to handle a firearm safely while walking amongst us in public?

If we keep fighting our battles on the extremes, we'll always have extreme battles to fight. It seems like we already had this battle won, but decided to poke the other side in the eye and then wonder why they want to fight (or resurrect this battle in a future fight).

I'm done posting on this thread.

The Other Side doesn’t need to be poked to make it come after us, it will never stop anyway.

A license is just that, a LICENSE. Miss a few child support payments/alimony/etc, and all the sudden, the govt says you can’t protect yourself/hunt/fish/drive/cut hair......