Poll: Constitutional Carry for Texas

[jordanmills]

75% for.

Who wants to take bets for the TSRA stopping the line that their (our) membership opposes it as a whole? That's what I though.

[Liberty]

I don't recall anyone claiming that the TSRA or its membership is opposed to constitutional carry.
while 75% might be believe that it is a good idea, the poll doesn't address the issue of how we get there. Polls have been taken on this forum that indicate that at best we aren't willing to sacrifice current bills, to push for constitutional carry, or open carry.

I believe its also worth noting that constitutional carry isn't just about Open carry.
To tell the truth I am disapointed that 25% of people actually oppose constitutional carry. I think we have some work to do in our own house educating folks what The 2nd ammendment and the constiution really mean. We will never win this one until we are more united.

[Charles L. Cotton]

75% for.

Who wants to take bets for the TSRA stopping the line that their (our) membership opposes it as a whole? That's what I though.

Liberty is right, TSRA has never said "our membership opposes it as a whole" so why claim it has? What I have stated is that TSRA Members have not indicated a desire for the organization to support open-carry, and that informal discussions by Howard Nemerov with TSRA Members at one Annual Meeting indicated Members seem to be split on open-carry.

It's interesting to see open-carry supporters limit "constitutional carry" to open-carry. As Liberty also said, "constitutional carry" is far more than open-carry. "Concealed-carry" is also protected by the Second Amendment. If and when we ever get to true "constitutional carry," then the phrase "shall not be infringed" will become a reality and criminal laws will focus on bad acts, not the tools used to commit those acts. Penal code provisions like Texas Penal Code Chp. 46 will be repealed, as will many federal laws. Of course, this is simply my view of that the constitution demands. Unfortunately, the only opinions that matter in terms of controlling our lives are those nine on the United States Supreme Court. The only backup plan is to increase our efforts to educate the general public on firearms and their usage and recruit them to our side of the issue. If we are successful, and we better be, then the Second Amendment can be amended in the event we see Heller and/or McDonald overturned. Remember, we won by a very thin 5/4 margin and the loss of even one of the 5 Justices who voted with the majority could be a disaster. Ginsburg and Bryer are both calling to overturn Heller, though not in those precise terms.

Secondly, the votes of 102 people here on TexasCHLforum do not represent the wishes of 37,000 TSRA Members.

Chas.

[Texas Dan Mosby]

Absolutely.

[TxDrifter]

I agree with having it as such, but other states may still limit it and our ability to carry there because of it. Maybe retain the CHL permit for those that would prefer to have reciprocity ability as well until those states wake up.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I agree with having it as such, but other states may still limit it and our ability to carry there because of it. Maybe retain the CHL permit for those that would prefer to have reciprocity ability as well until those states wake up.

If unlicensed carry is passed, Texas will still issue CHLs for reciprocity and NICS exemption purposes.

Chas.

[jordanmills]

75% for.

Who wants to take bets for the TSRA stopping the line that their (our) membership opposes it as a whole? That's what I though.

Liberty is right, TSRA has never said "our membership opposes it as a whole" so why claim it has? What I have stated is that TSRA Members have not indicated a desire for the organization to support open-carry, and that informal discussions by Howard Nemerov with TSRA Members at one Annual Meeting indicated Members seem to be split on open-carry.

It's interesting to see open-carry supporters limit "constitutional carry" to open-carry. As Liberty also said, "constitutional carry" is far more than open-carry. "Concealed-carry" is also protected by the Second Amendment. If and when we ever get to true "constitutional carry," then the phrase "shall not be infringed" will become a reality and criminal laws will focus on bad acts, not the tools used to commit those acts. Penal code provisions like Texas Penal Code Chp. 46 will be repealed, as will many federal laws. Of course, this is simply my view of that the constitution demands. Unfortunately, the only opinions that matter in terms of controlling our lives are those nine on the United States Supreme Court. The only backup plan is to increase our efforts to educate the general public on firearms and their usage and recruit them to our side of the issue. If we are successful, and we better be, then the Second Amendment can be amended in the event we see Heller and/or McDonald overturned. Remember, we won by a very thin 5/4 margin and the loss of even one of the 5 Justices who voted with the majority could be a disaster. Ginsburg and Bryer are both calling to overturn Heller, though not in those precise terms.

Secondly, the votes of 102 people here on TexasCHLforum do not represent the wishes of 37,000 TSRA Members.

Chas.

I know of a several members, myself included, who have emailed the TSRA and received snarky emails back saying that it's not supported and the TSRA won't bother. I'll likely not renew my membership because of this sort of attitude and responsiveness.

What does the bit about the constitutionality of concealed versus open carry have to do with what I posted? This is exactly the kind of missing or muddling the issue that I feel takes the place of responsiveness at the TSRA.

[Charles L. Cotton]

75% for.

Who wants to take bets for the TSRA stopping the line that their (our) membership opposes it as a whole? That's what I though.

Liberty is right, TSRA has never said "our membership opposes it as a whole" so why claim it has? What I have stated is that TSRA Members have not indicated a desire for the organization to support open-carry, and that informal discussions by Howard Nemerov with TSRA Members at one Annual Meeting indicated Members seem to be split on open-carry.

It's interesting to see open-carry supporters limit "constitutional carry" to open-carry. As Liberty also said, "constitutional carry" is far more than open-carry. "Concealed-carry" is also protected by the Second Amendment. If and when we ever get to true "constitutional carry," then the phrase "shall not be infringed" will become a reality and criminal laws will focus on bad acts, not the tools used to commit those acts. Penal code provisions like Texas Penal Code Chp. 46 will be repealed, as will many federal laws. Of course, this is simply my view of that the constitution demands. Unfortunately, the only opinions that matter in terms of controlling our lives are those nine on the United States Supreme Court. The only backup plan is to increase our efforts to educate the general public on firearms and their usage and recruit them to our side of the issue. If we are successful, and we better be, then the Second Amendment can be amended in the event we see Heller and/or McDonald overturned. Remember, we won by a very thin 5/4 margin and the loss of even one of the 5 Justices who voted with the majority could be a disaster. Ginsburg and Bryer are both calling to overturn Heller, though not in those precise terms.

Secondly, the votes of 102 people here on TexasCHLforum do not represent the wishes of 37,000 TSRA Members.

Chas.

I know of a several members, myself included, who have emailed the TSRA and received snarky emails back saying that it's not supported and the TSRA won't bother.

I'd really like to see those emails. I cannot imagine Alice Tripp responding that "TSRA won't bother" or anything close to that. I certainly never responded to any of the very very few emails I received about open-carry during the one year I was Exec. Director. Regardless of the few emails you mention, this doesn't address the your claim that TSRA has stated that "our membership opposes it [open-carry] as a whole."

Chas.

[TrueFlog]

It's interesting to see open-carry supporters limit "constitutional carry" to open-carry. As Liberty also said, "constitutional carry" is far more than open-carry. "Concealed-carry" is also protected by the Second Amendment. If and when we ever get to true "constitutional carry," then the phrase "shall not be infringed" will become a reality and criminal laws will focus on bad acts, not the tools used to commit those acts.
Chas.

For the record, not all OC supporters limit Constitutional carry to OC - I certainly don't. You may have spoken with others who do, but as you've aptly noted, the few don't always accurately reflect upon the many.

[Bart]

We have unlicensed carry in motor vehicles thanks to MPA. That's more proof that respecting civil rights doesn't cause blood in the streets.

We need to keep moving the ball forward to roll back their immoral and unconstitutional human rights violations, because the enemies foreign and domestic haven't turned from their evil ways. The proof is shown by the proposed anti-BoR legislation and the hate-filled propaganda from them this past week.

[LikesShinyThings]

My thought: Bad Guys will carry a gun whether it is legal or not. The only people the carry laws (or any other laws, for that matter) affect are the law-abiding ones. All others do what they want regardless of the laws. Let's remove one more barrier. Every single one of us carries with us, every day, the CAPABILITY to harm others in one fashion or another (knives, fists, etc). It is the INTENT which makes a person dangerous. And that intent does not come from the availability of a weapon. It comes from a mental decision.

As for the comment by at least one poster about not liking having gone thru the process to legally be licensed to carry, only to have the law change and have everyone able to carry - Really. Get over it. Celebrate the fact that more law-abiding people would be able to defend themselves when they previously couldn't afford the time/money/etc to get legally licensed. More guns in the hands of the law-abiding will make for a safer society.

[Beiruty]

It is also very not wise, to let anyone carry when they have no clue when one can use deadly force, where he can legally carry AND do not have basic gun handling and shooting experience. If you leave the scene so many much wide open, irresponsible gun handling and misuse by the naive people will lead to the Antis to pile up pressure to paddle back on gun rights.

[LikesShinyThings]

It is also very not wise, to let anyone carry when they have no clue when one can use deadly force, where he can legally carry AND do not have basic gun handling and shooting experience. If you leave the scene so many much wide open, irresponsible gun handling and misuse by the naive people will lead to the Antis to pile up pressure to paddle back on gun rights.

The same could be said about allowing uninformed people to vote, and yet we do... and look what havoc can be caused by that. I don't hear anyone screaming about issuing licenses to vote. (Hmmm... how about applying a simple intelligence test before allowing one to vote. Don't pass, don't vote.... I can hear the screams of discrimination from here.)

Your argument brings up the question of basic responsibility. I don't say you can't carry, but if you are going to carry, recognize the implications. And if you break the law, or use deadly force when it isn't legally allowed, you better be prepared to sit your rear in prison for the sentence you receive. The idea of punishing someone by denying their rights simply because of what they MIGHT do ... well, if I were to subscribe to that theory, I know a whale of a lot of people who wouldn't be allowed to drive. I just can't subscribe to it. That is getting too Big Brother-ish. Punish the behavior if/when it is shown to be in need of punishment.

[Beiruty]

It is also very not wise, to let anyone carry when they have no clue when one can use deadly force, where he can legally carry AND do not have basic gun handling and shooting experience. If you leave the scene so many much wide open, irresponsible gun handling and misuse by the naive people will lead to the Antis to pile up pressure to paddle back on gun rights.

The same could be said about allowing uninformed people to vote, and yet we do... and look what havoc can be caused by that. I don't hear anyone screaming about issuing licenses to vote. (Hmmm... how about applying a simple intelligence test before allowing one to vote. Don't pass, don't vote.... I can hear the screams of discrimination from here.)

Your argument brings up the question of basic responsibility. I don't say you can't carry, but if you are going to carry, recognize the implications. And if you break the law, or use deadly force when it isn't legally allowed, you better be prepared to sit your rear in prison for the sentence you receive. The idea of punishing someone by denying their rights simply because of what they MIGHT do ... well, if I were to subscribe to that theory, I know a whale of a lot of people who wouldn't be allowed to drive. I just can't subscribe to it. That is getting too Big Brother-ish. Punish the behavior if/when it is shown to be in need of punishment.

As for Voting, I assume that one of the duties of public schools is to teach something about the Political System in US, what does mean to vote and how to value the words of the politicians. Also, the public are so much bombarded with Political Campaigns and and Daily feed of political news that makes the ignorance of for whom to vote is questionable. Most likely, politically naive people are brainwashed to vote according to whcih channel they do watch most, MSNBC/CNN/ABC or Foxnews.

I wished that gun safety is taught at school. Starting from Mid school at age of 15.

[LikesShinyThings]

I wished that gun safety is taught at school. Starting from Mid school at age of 15.

Except - 15? Why wait that long. Basic safety (NRA's Eddie Eagle - Stop, Don't Touch, Leave the area, Tell an adult) can easily be taught in kindergarten. By the time they are 8, or maybe 10, lots of kids are responsible enough to safely fire a gun, given proper education in the matter.