TexasCHLforum.com

I've heard the argument that it only applies to carrying a handgun, but the literal text suggests otherwise. Also, the supreme court last year stated that in (Massachusetts?) it was illogical that citizens could use lethal force, but are not allowed less-than-lethal force alternatives. I believe that is a different situation than Texas because Massachussets did not allow any form of less-than-lethal defense weapons, while Texas allows both peoper spray and tasers.

Tylerscott20 wrote:I've heard the argument that it only applies to carrying a handgun, but the literal text suggests otherwise. Also, the supreme court last year stated that in (Massachusetts?) it was illogical that citizens could use lethal force, but are not allowed less-than-lethal force alternatives. I believe that is a different situation than Texas because Massachussets did not allow any form of less-than-lethal defense weapons, while Texas allows both peoper spray and tasers.

The entire "prohibited weapons" laws, are all based on the same premise, and that is trying to make an inanimate object illegal, to try to control behavior. As with anything else, making a tool, or implement illegal, does not prevent someone from using it, or anything else irresponsibly. By law, I can't carry an ASP, because it is designed to be used as a striking weapon. However, I can walk down the street with a hammer, and do just as much if not more damage, to a person, and it only becomes illegal, when used in such a manner. If someone is going to violate the law regarding assault, or murder, what difference does it make what weapon they use?

I also agree that if I am legally able to carry my gun, even a long gun, with no LTC, why would a metal rod, be illegal?

Jusme wrote:

Tylerscott20 wrote:I've heard the argument that it only applies to carrying a handgun, but the literal text suggests otherwise. Also, the supreme court last year stated that in (Massachusetts?) it was illogical that citizens could use lethal force, but are not allowed less-than-lethal force alternatives. I believe that is a different situation than Texas because Massachussets did not allow any form of less-than-lethal defense weapons, while Texas allows both peoper spray and tasers.

The entire "prohibited weapons" laws, are all based on the same premise, and that is trying to make an inanimate object illegal, to try to control behavior. As with anything else, making a tool, or implement illegal, does not prevent someone from using it, or anything else irresponsibly. By law, I can't carry an ASP, because it is designed to be used as a striking weapon. However, I can walk down the street with a hammer, and do just as much if not more damage, to a person, and it only becomes illegal, when used in such a manner. If someone is going to violate the law regarding assault, or murder, what difference does it make what weapon they use?

I also agree that if I am legally able to carry my gun, even a long gun, with no LTC, why would a metal rod, be illegal?

If you go back and read my earlier posting perhaps ( and I say that I am not sure ) you can legally carry a baton.

rotor wrote:

Jusme wrote:

Tylerscott20 wrote:I've heard the argument that it only applies to carrying a handgun, but the literal text suggests otherwise. Also, the supreme court last year stated that in (Massachusetts?) it was illogical that citizens could use lethal force, but are not allowed less-than-lethal force alternatives. I believe that is a different situation than Texas because Massachussets did not allow any form of less-than-lethal defense weapons, while Texas allows both peoper spray and tasers.

The entire "prohibited weapons" laws, are all based on the same premise, and that is trying to make an inanimate object illegal, to try to control behavior. As with anything else, making a tool, or implement illegal, does not prevent someone from using it, or anything else irresponsibly. By law, I can't carry an ASP, because it is designed to be used as a striking weapon. However, I can walk down the street with a hammer, and do just as much if not more damage, to a person, and it only becomes illegal, when used in such a manner. If someone is going to violate the law regarding assault, or murder, what difference does it make what weapon they use?

I also agree that if I am legally able to carry my gun, even a long gun, with no LTC, why would a metal rod, be illegal?

If you go back and read my earlier posting perhaps ( and I say that I am not sure ) you can legally carry a baton.

Perhaps, but it only applies to someone with an LTC, who is actually carrying a handgun. While I don't know that all LEO, or prosecutors would agree, my point was, that anyone can walk down main street, with a 12 gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot, even if they are not an LTC holder, but they cannot carry an ASP. How do they justify the legislation? The whole idea is ludicrous.

They aren't as convenient to carry as an ASP baton, but both swords and spears are included in knife reform. If you carry a spear, the law doesn't limit you to poking attackers with the pointy end.

ninjabread wrote:They aren't as convenient to carry as an ASP baton, but both swords and spears are included in knife reform. If you carry a spear, the law doesn't limit you to poking attackers with the pointy end.

Poniards and Sarissas too? Dirks, daggers?