Poll: Constitutional Carry for Texas

[Liberty]

Full constitutional Carry is just like Arizona, Vermont and Alaska have described it. This means no CHL classes required, Open Carry, Concealed carry. No testing, no tests of moral character, but Carry and gun ownership as The 2nd Amendment intended. Constitutional carry might mean more signs, It might mean that some CHL instructors would lose their primary income.
Are Texans more irresponsible than Vermonters? Do we believe that the 2nd amendment needs to have restrictions?
For purposes of this poll, we are only considering normal firearms. Not nukes or even grenades.
This really shouldn't be about OC, we've chewed on that issue enough, But the question really is are we willing to to accept the consequences of choice and freedom, or are we afraid to accept the 2nd amendment as it was intended?

[anygunanywhere]

You Betcha!

Anygunanywhere

[C-dub]

On principle I am for it, but I find myself thinking about a friend of mine that recently obtained her U.S. citizenship. She is very much against any sort of amnesty for illegals. She went through the process and did it the right way. I think I would feel a little resentful having gone through the process only to one day have anyone over 18 or 21 who can legally possess a gun be able to carry OC or CC without a license. It's not the same as amnesty for illegals, but it is similar. I would just have to get over it if it were to ever become reality for us Texans.

[OldSchool]

It would indeed make me nervous, as I feel I'm in a shooting gallery (with cars) every day just trying to drive home. Thinking about those bozos (nothing against Bozo, by the way) having guns would/will bother me even more!

However, we come from an open-carry state where we didn't ever think twice about it (different time, different place, I guess), so it wouldn't take too long to get used to it.

And, you could more easily spot the bozos who are carrying....

[srothstein]

Well, my first answer when I saw the poll was to say "Well, duh!" followed by a quick "Here's your sign". And then I saw the results tended to agree with me (11 yes out of 11 votes).

But then I thought about the tactics involved and I realized that this is, in all honesty, not a short term goal to work for. Yes, eventually I want to see it, and even more, but to get to it, we would have to take small steps. For the last couple sessions, we get a step or two closer each time, so I am confident of the long term answer. But I am afraid that if we tried to push for this too early, the anti's would be able to convince the majority of the sheep, who really don't care either way, that we are "gun nuts" and not in a pleasant friendly way. If we discuss this issue too early in the political process, it will cost us far more than just a few signs.

Remember, it took around 125 years for citizens to get some way to carry on a day to day basis (reconstruction to 1995 CHL law). Look how far we have come in that 15 years though. I can wait a few more sessions for the constitutional carry debate if we keep making some progress each time.

[Waco Kid]

Good luck stopping a tax revenue stream once it's started. People are willing to pay for the application, and then pay for the renewal. Wouldn't surprise me to see the state raise the license fees in order to increase revenue even further.

Once the gov't gets their grubby paws in your wallet, it's hard to shake 'em off...

[jimlongley]

No question about my feelings, I have said so over and over, Vermont style carry. I used to live in NY very close to VT and spent a lot of time traveling there.

[shootthesheet]

I am amused at the distrust some have in others where rights are involved. We have laws that cover illegal acts with any weapon. People, good or not, illegally carry guns without a license and have since this state joined the union. The poor cannot afford to spend money to buy the privilege as most of us can. Women are left vulnerable because they cannot get a CHL because of ignorant requirements or the cost. And if they start at the CHL process at the time they may need to carry it leaves them months without protection on the streets. That isn't even mentioning the seniors or the average guy that just trying to make a living.

I know the doubts because I have them too. But, the fact is many CHL holders don't know the laws any better than a non-CHL holder. I see the questions here all the time that blow my mind how a person could pass the class and still not know the basics or at least where to go to find it for themselves. It isn't necessarily the new license holders but those that have held one for years and still don't know.

I would tell CHL instructors to embrace Constitutional Carry as a possible money making opportunity. Start Texas gun law classes and sell it as what responsible people do. It is what a person should do that doesn't want a CHL but has the opportunity to exercise these rights. Give them a few hour course over gun safety and Texas law. You have the info you need already from the CHL handbook. Offer range time for extra money. Maybe even organize it so the non-CHLs are brought into your CHL class during the time relevant info on the law is taught. And, yes, out of state carry will demand a CHL so you will have money from that. NRANEWS.COM was reporting how Wisconsin may have right to carry at the beginning of 2011 now that they have a new governor. That means a very good chance we may see National Right To Carry before the 2012 elections.

We have our CHL system and laws in place and are well established as safe according to the data from TDPS. Did we have people shooting each other over road rage like the anti-gun people claimed? Did Texas turn into the Wild West like they said? Did Arizona or Alaska turn into a blood bath when they adopted Constitutional Carry? No, because criminals will be criminals and good people will be good people. Will innocent people be killed? Yes, just like they are today but not in any real increase in numbers. Good people already illegally carry and don't use those illegally carried guns unless they are forced. A man at my church was telling me how his wife carries a gun when she goes out of town, without a CHL. I would have never guessed that of her. Never. So, all I want to do is give people their rights back. More signs, I will shop elsewhere. I don't care because I will be exercising my rights and not just buying a privilege some hostile politician can take from me one day. I will also feel better knowing that those good people that happen to be poor and that college girl with the stalker ex-boyfriend can strap on a gun and defend themselves from the parasites that are going to feed on them if they don't. Forget the fear of God given freedom and let's insist on living like free people for a change.

[C-dub]

I know the doubts because I have them too. But, the fact is many CHL holders don't know the laws any better than a non-CHL holder. I see the questions here all the time that blow my mind how a person could pass the class and still not know the basics or at least where to go to find it for themselves. It isn't necessarily the new license holders but those that have held one for years and still don't know.

I, too, was a little disturbed at my own thoughts about allowing just anyone to carry a gun without a license. I started to think how hypocritical I was for wanting to deny someone else their constitutional right because I was in the "privileged" class of CHL holders. It does make me nervous, but like I said before, it is just something I'll have to get over if it ever happens.

As for your thoughts above, I'll have to disagree that CHL holders don't know the law any better than non-CHL holders. There are some misinformed CHL holders and some that have simply forgotten what they were, hopefully, taught in class. However, they at least know to ask those questions. Most nons still have their heads in the sand or are so against guns that they refuse to learn anything about them or their use. On the whole, I would put a group of randomly selected CHL holders up against a group of nons any day. There are non-CHL holders that are completely ignorant of gun laws and when the use of one is acceptable. Even the head of the DPS legal office can't get it right, but she's probably an anti.

[The Annoyed Man]

I voted "yes." At that time, the votes stood at 79% yes, 3% no, and 17% not sure, not counting my vote.

I'm not sure why 3% voted "no." I supposed they don't view the 2nd Amendment as a right, but rather as a privilege granted by government. That said, I actually do understand the 17% who aren't sure. No thinking man would have no reservations given the actually reality of a culture that is much more coarse and criminally minded today than it was at the time of the nation's founding.

People have to ask themselves: Is the Bill of Rights a list of natural rights with which we have been endowed by nature's God (as the founders would have termed it), or is it a list of permissions granted by government? In a nation where we now have several generations raised to believe that our safety and liberty comes from government, that can be a tough one to answer for a lot of people. Secondly, if the Bill of Rights is just that — a list of the natural rights of man rather than permissions granted by legislative fiat — then why would those rights not apply to someone who is here illegally? They may lose the expressions of those rights if they are deported to their nations of origin, but that doesn't mean that those rights do not exist. It only means that their nations of origin suppress those rights. (And by the way, I do not view the consequent deprivation of rights as an argument against the deportation of illegal immigrants. If they are going to remain or be deported, the answer has to be arrived at by means of legal argument relevant to standing immigration law.)

The Constitution clearly states that a citizen cannot be deprived of his/her rights except by due process. This is the rational for disenfranchising and disarming convicted felons. I find that Constitutional Carry respects that notion, because the idea of due process is already codified in the document.

However, I still maintain that the best way to arrive at Constitutional Carry is by means of a political progression of laws passed which incrementally expand the freedoms we enjoy, proving that blood will not run in the streets. Even Arizona had to arrive at Constitutional Carry by political progression. So for me, Constitutional Carry is a progressive goal, not a sweeping one.

[Rex B]

The most compelling reasons for me are:

1 - Shall not be infringed means what it says. Licensing requirements are infringements.
2 - The licensing system disenfranchises the poor, who are often those most in need of protection.

I live in a nice, very safe neighborhood. I can afford to. But I know people who have to live in more dangerous neighborhoods because that is where affordable rent is. there is a reason the rent is cheap - it's dangerous - but they can't afford to pay more, so they are stuck. even if I gifted someone like that with a handgun, the time and expense of obtaining a CHL would be a large burden. That's probably 2 weeks of groceries for a family of 4.

[shootthesheet]

The one truth I know is that humanity has not changed since Adam and Eve were booted from the garden. While the beginning generation of this country was smaller in population the same problems that exist now existed then. We have just had a couple hundred years to make those same bad actions more and more illegal and took away any real punishment. We have bread generations of criminals in the name of equality and fairness. Along the way we have restricted the innocent more and more while the criminals have been allowed to run free and do as they please. The people that wrote the laws of this country, in the beginning, knew the dangers of man. These men, in their wisdom, knew the risk of life and liberty was greater from a strong centralized government than from their fellow citizens. That is why they built this nation on freedom of the people over power of government. The majority that are good and decent people do not need any law restricting them. They govern themselves. When we adopted laws that punished the guilty and left the innocent alone we were truly a civilized nation. Thugs and criminals didn't know if the little old lady was going to pull out a gun and shoot them for their bad actions. Today, there is little doubt that that same senior is not armed and is venerable. Less restriction on the people means less crime. Less restriction takes away the "cool factor" for criminals carrying and using a gun when everyone has one. Is that a problem with those who do not want Constitutional Carry? I saw signs of it from some LEOs who thought only elite types like them should carry guns when CHL began. Something we all have to consider in my opinion.

What law does a person carrying a gun have to know? Is that information available? Can we use our knowledge to promote safety with the public? What does the State need to do to help educate people on the issue of carrying a gun? We have an advantage adopting Constitutional Carry that we did not when we started out with CHL. We have a foundation in CHL that we can build on and make sure the people of this state not only get their questions answered but what questions to ask. A percentage of people won't bother to learn anything as we know from CHL and everything else. Most will realize they have to much to risk not to learn what they need. Just like we did.

[RPB]

I originally voted "I"m not sure"
but want to change my vote after explaining why

For explanation:
Here's a post I just made in reply to iloveamerica2 (purportedly a teacher at A&M) at http://www.theeagle.com/local/A-amp-amp ... -on-campus" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

------
iloveamerica2
10:06 PM on December 17, 2010
... you guys scare me even more, geez....
How lucky for the kid with his fake gun on halloween, that neither of you were around....
---------
iloveamerica2
your toy/Halloween comment ... that's absurd. why would any CHL even draw a gun, and commit a criminal offense of intentionally failing to conceal, or fire (several more serious criminal offenses) on a person carrying a rifle on campus who was not posing a threat ... knowing full well that it's legal to carry a rifle around on campus and that there exists a Corps of Cadets as well as a shooting club?

Take a recent occurrence of say Colton Tooley, It's currently perfectly legal for CHLs to be armed on Campus, except inside buildings, and no CHL drew nor fired on Colton Tooley; he posed no threat. Now if you want to watch the Library video of him again, notice one of the final scenes near the elevator, where a guy is pushing a chair and Colton runs by him with his rifle. Watch closely and you may notice that man's hand goes to his waistband, but he does not draw out a gun ... there was no threat justifying the drawing of a weapon just because Colton carried a rifle into a building. My God, you make it sound like hundreds of thousands of CHLs are out here shooting are out here shooting citizens because they are going 30 in a 20 mph zone or violate some other minor law; we are not paid to be police, and that's not why we carry..


I'm just trying to figure out what occurred to the world between the time you could hand your 5-year old as gun so he'd be safe from critters going to the outhouse in the middle of the night, like when growing up in Houston there was a rattlesnake pit behind the church where kids were playing and we killed the snakes so the kids were safe and now; all I can think of is Height-Ashbury/Woodstock type people must have done something to affect their kids' minds a little ... MAYBE it is that fewer people your age were boy scouts or took shooting classes & practice at the YMCA than when I was a kid, or maybe we had more Northerners move into Texas than we realized. I really don't know what changed, but it's sad that some are so fearful of things they fear, yet oblivious to other things they should fear more..My knife, or a predominant murder weapon in Australia, scissors, or even my cane are more likely to kill than my gun, since neither makes a loud noise attracting attention of AID first responders to stop a person from bleeding out.

You might Google "Cane fighting" but try to make me leave my cane in the car due to your irrational fears, and expect an A.D.A. lawsuit.

I wish some Federal money could be applied to counseling phobic people with irrational fears...
--------------

People are "used to" seeing canes, knives, scissors at school, and didn't ban them.

SO, I on the basis of now believing that people are de-sensitized and do not fear big deadly knives worn by so many they'd call Redneck Cowboys BECAUSE they see them worn openly all the time ...... I'd vote in favor of open carry, hoping that people lose their irrational fears EVENTUALLY through de-sensitization. (Yes, I think more 30.06 type signs would go up for a while, but future generations might benefit)

However, I think it isn't THE most important issue on the table this session to me personally, I mean if it came down to choosing more places we could carry VERSUS open carry legislation, I'd push the more places first.

Just my opinion.

[Liberty]

I doubt if I could find a group of people any where who would be more in tuned with the 2nd amendment and the RKBA. Yet so far we have 25% who have doubts on whether it would be a good idea to allow constitutional carry.

The three states that have it don't seem to have issues with the law. Vermont is a very liberal state, Alaska and Arizona are REd states. Arizona is a very Urban state where most people live in one of the major citys.

We have a long way to go, when 25% of the most rapid of gun owners in Texas can't unqualifyingly accept the RKBA and constitutional carry.
I don't have the answers. but I see a huge problem. We will never get constitutional carry, until those of us who are against us are for us.

[MadMonkey]

It would indeed make me nervous, as I feel I'm in a shooting gallery (with cars) every day just trying to drive home. Thinking about those bozos (nothing against Bozo, by the way) having guns would/will bother me even more!

I would think that a person who would shoot someone over road rage might be carrying a gun regardless of the legality...