TexasCHLforum.com

Sometimes, as I contemplate the antics of Congress, I wonder if the Founders would have been wiser to provide "Congress shall pass no law." and leave it at that.

Mel wrote:

Richbirdhunter wrote:

I know we're late to the OC party in Texas being the 45th state to allow some form of OC, but are we #1 in distress over it ? Did the other 44 states that already allow OC go through these same pains?

No! Those other states didn't have "OCT"!

Bingo! When Oklahoma passed OC, I never saw any OC advocates carrying long guns into businesses and forcing businesses to take a stand. They never made the national news... yet OC still passed in Oklahoma. Very few businesses posted signs in OK to restrict carry, yet here in Texas, signs have been going up for weeks. This is evidence that OCT did more harm than good.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:1) Must a citizen support another citizen's right to say anything, anywhere and any time in order to not be considered "almost a 1st Amendment supporter?

NO. Speech has limits. The 1A limits what the government can regulate with respect to speech. The 1A does not limit what citizens can regulate with respect to private property. Saying you support limits on speech does not make you almost a 1A supporter.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: 2) Must the government refrain from passing any laws, rules or regulations that limit speech in any fashion?

No. Governments have passed laws, rules, and regulations limiting speech. I am fine with this. Why wouldn't I be?

chuckybrown wrote:So, if one agrees with CC, but not OC....is it possible to be a partial 2A supporter?

In other words....can someone support 2A rights....but only to a certain extent...i.e. not exercising 2A rights that might make others "uncomfortable"?

I'm curious, because I think you're either all in, or you're not.

No flames wanted, just honest discourse.

Happy 2016!

Sometimes people ask questions, and the implication is that there IS an answer out there; in many cases there isn't. This isn't a math problem.
It's not written in some holy book that it is or isn't "possible to be a partial 2A supporter."

That being said, I certainly think it's possible. I would choose not to open carry at a child's birthday party, but that doesn't mean I'm anti-2A. You would do so, however, according to your post.

koine2002 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

koine2002 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:How about applying this same question to the 1st Amendment? Should we be a bit to say anything anywhere we want? Some seem to want to limit when and where I practice my. Christian faith. What about free association and gathering?

Can you only be partially for the 11st Amendment at times and in certain places or do you have to be for it "all in" anytime anywhere?

The first amendment does not say that a homeowner or a business has to allow you to exercise the freedoms of the first amendment. It says, "Congress shall make no law..." No one, not even the government, has to give anyone a platform for exercising our first and second amendment rights. Government just cannot prevent us from exercising those rights should we choose to do so. Our rights are those of a negative nature (what a government can't stop us from doing or make us do). They are not those of a positive nature (what a government must provide people with). Positive right always mean the end of negative rights. Positive rights are what has taken over western Europe and Canada.

I'm a pastor, an evangelical, and as theologically conservative as they come. I, however, do not expect that the local store has to allow me the use of their property to evangelize. If they allow other types of speech but not mine, so be it. That's their prerogative as a non-government entity. I do expect, however, the that the city not prevent me from doing so in a city park if it allows all other forms of speech. Free and voluntary association does not mean that Billy Bob's Barbecue needs to provide their space for a church meeting. However, it does mean that the government cannot prevent us from gathering or prevent Billy Bob's from allowing us to meet at their facility. The right to peaceful assembly does not mean that a shopping mall has to allow a group of protesters to stage a protest in their mall. It does, however, mean that the government cannot prohibit such protests. I see the second amendment in the same way. The moment we make the constitution, and our rights, about what we must provide for each other is the moment we have lost our liberty. I'm essentially just a consistent Libertarian.

Your argument is entirely outside the context and premise of this thread and discussion.

How about answering my question that I posed to anygun? This discussion is about all or nothi and all in or all against?

I answered the question with a lengthy explanation. No, one does not need to be "all in" (any gun anywhere) to be a second amendment supporter. I don't like the government forbidding me from possessing or carrying a weapon. However, I will fight tooth and nail for the rights of private property owners as well. "My house my rules." Taking away that right is akin to taking property without due process. The second amendment is not the only right that exists. The moment we decide an individual has to provide everyone a platform to exercise their right to bear arms (or any other right for that matter) is the moment we despise liberty.

Gotcha. I guess you lost me with the 6 point sermon when a three point sermon would have sufficed. (just a little preacher joke that me and my pastor share)

chuckybrown wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I believe that the 2nd Amendment right is ought to be unlimited. Balanced against that, I believe that some portion of the time, its full expression isn't wise. That is why I am glad that OC passed, but also why I won't be doing it myself most of the time.

I feel the same way about free speech too.

.....we have free speech, but "we shouldn't yell FIRE in a movie theater" either.

TAM, you nailed the answer for me. Thank you.

Happy new year!!

You're welcome, and Happy New Year to you too.

jed wrote: But to some, this may seem like political correctness. It is not PC, it's common sense and good judgment.

OP wrote:So, if one agrees with CC, but not OC....is it possible to be a partial 2A supporter?

In other words....can someone support 2A rights....but only to a certain extent...i.e. not exercising 2A rights that might make others "uncomfortable"?

I'm curious, because I think you're either all in, or you're not.

No flames wanted, just honest discourse.

Happy 2016!
Chuckybrown

If you mean people in general, I take offense. If you mean politicians, I think some are partial supporters.

Just because I most likely will never OC does not mean I am not a full 2A supporter. How can I CC 24/7 and not be a full supporter? Just because I see totally no need for me to OC at wally world, HEB, whataburger or anywhere else, does not mean I do not support OC or 2A. OC is great with a large dose of common sense and good judgment (which OCT has none). OC has caused us to lose more CC locations. The right to OC has infringed on the right to CC. This is not because of OCT, they just expedited the OC info to businesses. If not for OCT, starting today businesses would be freaking out every time they see someone OCing. Then they would have gradually been informed if 30.06/07. OCT just sped the process along.

On a personal note, I am so sick of reading about OC. Charles may need to rename this forum to TexasOCforum.

I'm done ranting.

I hope everyone has a very Happy New Year!!

Re: "shout fire in theater"........ Ordinances against shouting fire in theaters aren't really a restriction on free speech. I've given this example many times: It is totally legal to shout fire in a theater, if there actually IS a fire in the theater. It's analog would be municipal ordinances against firing a gun inside the city limits. You can't do it just to celebrate the amount of beer you've had to drink, but you CAN lawfully fire your gun in self-defense inside city limits. Laws against doing either - shouting fire unnecessarily inside a theater, or shooting your gun unnecessarily inside city limits - are not a restrictions on either the 1st or 2nd Amendment, because you still CAN do either if the situation actually calls for it.

Being in favor of laws to restrict the shouting of fire in theaters, or the shooting of guns inside city limits does NOT make you "anti" anything except irresponsibly dangerous behavior. What you do out in the middle of the country where your actions can hurt nobody else is entirely your own business. You want to paint your head blue and shoot out your home's windows? Go right ahead..........as long as your bullets aren't going to come down into someone else's property or person. One can can be BOTH completely committed to protecting both the 1st and 2nd Amendments AND completely committed to preventing dangerous behavior by foolish people from putting the health and lives of other people in danger. A general rule of thumb with ANY right is that the free exercise of your rights end where they impede the free exercise of someone else's rights which may conflict with your own...... and visa versa. In public settings, where the rights of one bump into the rights of another, compromise is required. This is particularly true when the unrestricted exercise of your rights may be harmful without just cause to the OTHER person's health. Carrying your gun around - concealed or openly - doesn't threaten my life or health, so by all means go ahead and do it. But randomly shooting your gun into the air most certainly does place the health/life of anyone within range of those bullets at significant risk, and you have no right place to my life at risk just so you can shoot your gun into the air. These are just extreme examples, but there are others......for instance the age-old debate between gun-rights and property-rights. People who do not recognize the need for compromise in such public policy situations simply haven't reached adulthood yet. If that fits someone on this forum reading these words, don't be offended. Instead, grow up.

Why? Because as sure as God made little green apples, your karmic debt will come back to haunt you when you crap on other people in the pursuit of your rights. When you crap on the rights of others in pursuit of your own, please shut up and don't complain when someone craps all over your rights and nobody comes to your defense. And that goes for pro-gun people as much as it does anti-gun people. It is easy to say that a right not exercised is a right soon lost.......and that IS true.......but it is a lot harder (and more adult) to ALSO defend the rights of others while defending your own. NONE of this works if we are not willing to go that extra mile to defend the rights of others, EVEN when it conflicts with the free exercise of our own. A libertarian society (AKA "Classical Liberalism") is not possible when people are not willing to restrain their own behaviors for any reason whatsoever. Nature abhors a vacuum, and in a vacuum of virtuous self-restraint, the substitute for that self-restraint becomes lots of laws.....and we all know how that works out in the end. If you don't know how that works out, take a look at the world around us today. The Shelob's web of laws we labor under today are all the result of people failing to live virtuous lives. If you want to see the removal of laws which restrain your rights, START by practicing SELF-restraint. While virtue may mean different things to different people, some virtues are consistent regardless of world view. Theft, whether it is by armed robbers or government officials (but I repeat myself) is wrong - whether you are religious or atheist. That we labor under a government today which seeks to justify theft is a direct result of people abdicating their own obligations to behave virtuously - both in their personal individual behaviors, and in their public participatory political behaviors. Adults behave virtuously in the defense of liberty........ALL liberty. There have been fewer examples of a lack of virtuous self-restraint in recent public life than the inane behaviors of OCT and OCTC.

Another mark of adulthood is being able to admit either when your cause was wrong, or if not wrong, then when you've screwed up in its defense and/or promotion. (Honesty is a virtue; Intellectual honesty is one of the highest virtues.) The cause of Open Carry was not a wrong cause; but the leadership of OCT and OCTC definitely screwed up in how they promoted it. Their fecklessness very nearly LOST open carry for Texans. Instead of being adult enough to admit they screwed up with their tactical errors in pursuit of a worthy strategic goal, they very nearly killed it. Instead of having the intellectual integrity to admit their screw up, they STEAL credit for its passage from those people who actually did the HARD work of convincing legislators—who may not have been initially so inclined at the time—that it was time to pass OC. Nobody likes a thief, and nobody likes a lying thief. OCT's leadership are thieves for stealing credit for the work done by others; and they are liars for promoting their thievery as political wisdom. They are guilty of the political equivalent of stolen valor. It's disgusting, no matter who does it, and no matter the cause or reason.

OCT leaders maintain that their demonstrations served to "educate" Texans about open carry. Well, in a way, they are correct. They DID educate Texans. They taught a HUGE percentage of the 97% of Texans who do NOT have a license to carry, many of who are already uneasy with the 2nd Amendment, that gun-owners are crazy people who don't know how to act virtuously in public. By linking pro-gun activism to a lack of virtue through their irresponsible behavior, they did nothing but give gun-grabbers ammunition to use against us for the next couple of decades.

I wish each and every one of you a happy, safe, calm, and virtuous new year.

chuckybrown wrote:So, if one agrees with CC, but not OC....is it possible to be a partial 2A supporter?

In other words....can someone support 2A rights....but only to a certain extent...i.e. not exercising 2A rights that might make others "uncomfortable"?

I'm curious, because I think you're either all in, or you're not.

No flames wanted, just honest discourse.

Happy 2016!

yes it is. You often see this in Fudds. They are all about their pump shotguns and hunting rifles but think there is no use for semi autos. In my opinion they can be just as bad for our rights as antis. The antis use these Fudds in their propaganda by using them as "pro-gun" who support restrictions.

Don't be a Fudd. For myself I'm not going to OC but if someone else wants to go ahead. I'm not against it. Instead we need to go for Constitutional carry. Criminals don't get a permit/license yet we have to pay a poll tax.

cyphertext wrote:

LSUTiger wrote:

cyphertext wrote:

LSUTiger wrote:
And before the anti-OCT/OC crowd chimes in I must say that while OCT's cause is righteous I disagree with much of their tactics. But rights not exercised are rights lost.

I think you will find that most agree with you here about the cause vs. tactics. However, I don't believe that the 2A gives you the right to carry your AR 15 into the local Chipotle... As you stated, that right is there to protect against tyranny, and I haven't witnessed an tyrannical oppression at my local Starbuck's. Look at the Battle of Athens... Those men took up their arms when it was necessary to insure their county election was without corruption. Once order had been restored, the arms were put away... not paraded down at the local cafe. Time and place.

When I'm sitting at the cafe and some terrorist or other crazy wants to have his/her 15 minutes of infamy at decides to shoot the place up I 'd rather have a rifle handy than just a puny handgun.

How's the saying go, "a pistol is just so you can fight your way back to the rifle you should have never left behind "

Rifles meant for defense against tyranny and oppression can also be used against other everyday threats and are what I'd rather have in a defensive situation. That's a true tactical advantage.

Your argument is silly.

So you carry a rifle everywhere you go? I don't. That isn't practical. We are not at a point in this country where I live in fear and feel the need to carry an AR 15 and a 210 round load out everywhere I go. That day hopefully will never come. Today, I am quite comfortable with my Sig P290 and 7 round capacity. And I don't believe that the 2A trumps property rights.

I never said that 2A rights trump property rights just pointing out the validity of carrying a long gun for self defense

Carrying an AR15 with a 210 rd loadout is legal whether it's cc or oc. the only thing that makes it impractical is the response of the sheeple who pee their pants when they see it and the police who are not worthy of the badge if they can't fully support and respect people's 2A right.

What makes you comfortable leaves me feeling uncomfortably under prepared.

Remember San Bernadino?

2A supporters come in all stripes -- from rabid absolutists (Everyone should Always have multiple guns on them and the Government can't do anything to stop them) to the aforementioned Fudds whose support is largely based on having and using game-getting guns in-season. While not totally an absolutist myself, their stance is both irritating in the bravado often expressed and correct from the perspective of history. A monopoly of force inevitably results in individual rights being trampled -- an eventuality the Founders clearly understood and the reason for the Second Amendment to our Constitution. The "danger" I see with the Fudds is their apparent willingness to "compromise" again and again as long as the results don't affect their ability to go afield a few times a year. The resolve of the anti-gun element is consistent, and they fully understand the strategy of incrementalism, so such compromises only result in further compromises until the right has been limited out of existence. There are droves of Fudds out there, and at least some of them might be sympathetic to a broader reading of the Second Amendment than they typically espouse, but the challenge is to win them over. Too few people today bother with history and the lessons we should have learned from it.

LSUTiger wrote:

cyphertext wrote:

LSUTiger wrote:

cyphertext wrote:

LSUTiger wrote:
And before the anti-OCT/OC crowd chimes in I must say that while OCT's cause is righteous I disagree with much of their tactics. But rights not exercised are rights lost.

I think you will find that most agree with you here about the cause vs. tactics. However, I don't believe that the 2A gives you the right to carry your AR 15 into the local Chipotle... As you stated, that right is there to protect against tyranny, and I haven't witnessed an tyrannical oppression at my local Starbuck's. Look at the Battle of Athens... Those men took up their arms when it was necessary to insure their county election was without corruption. Once order had been restored, the arms were put away... not paraded down at the local cafe. Time and place.

When I'm sitting at the cafe and some terrorist or other crazy wants to have his/her 15 minutes of infamy at decides to shoot the place up I 'd rather have a rifle handy than just a puny handgun.

How's the saying go, "a pistol is just so you can fight your way back to the rifle you should have never left behind "

Rifles meant for defense against tyranny and oppression can also be used against other everyday threats and are what I'd rather have in a defensive situation. That's a true tactical advantage.

Your argument is silly.

So you carry a rifle everywhere you go? I don't. That isn't practical. We are not at a point in this country where I live in fear and feel the need to carry an AR 15 and a 210 round load out everywhere I go. That day hopefully will never come. Today, I am quite comfortable with my Sig P290 and 7 round capacity. And I don't believe that the 2A trumps property rights.

I never said that 2A rights trump property rights just pointing out the validity of carrying a long gun for self defense

Carrying an AR15 with a 210 rd loadout is legal whether it's cc or oc. the only thing that makes it impractical is the response of the sheeple who pee their pants when they see it and the police who are not worthy of the badge if they can't fully support and respect people's 2A right.

What makes you comfortable leaves me feeling uncomfortably under prepared.

Remember San Bernadino?

While it is legal, it is very impractical due to more than "response of the sheeple"... but let's look at that response first... Let's think about San Bernadino. You walk into the room wearing your vest with 210 rounds and your rifle slung across your chest at the low ready from a single point sling... I have no way of knowing what your intentions are. To use your terms, a "sheepdog" would plug you right there when you walked in, as you are an unknown threat to the flock.

Besides making others uncomfortable, a rifle and ammo is heavy and cumbersome. With my handgun, it is still on my hip when I sit down at a table at a restaurant... where is your rifle? You have to unsling it, and put it somewhere which equates to more handling of the rifle... or more opportunity for negligent discharge.

I can see the logic of carrying a rifle and ammo in the trunk of your car, if you feel so inclined... but if I am with my family, and we make it out of the danger zone to our car, then we are leaving. I don't carry with the intention of being the hero.

And if we are going to throw out incidents that have very low odds of you being involved in them as San Bernadino as support, then remember Garland? One officer with a pistol took down two terrorists armed with AKs.

Heck, another Texas lawman took down an active shooter from 100 yards away with his pistol, while holding horses in the other hand.

Middle Age Russ wrote:2A supporters come in all stripes -- from rabid absolutists (Everyone should Always have multiple guns on them and the Government can't do anything to stop them) to the aforementioned Fudds whose support is largely based on having and using game-getting guns in-season. While not totally an absolutist myself, their stance is both irritating in the bravado often expressed and correct from the perspective of history. A monopoly of force inevitably results in individual rights being trampled -- an eventuality the Founders clearly understood and the reason for the Second Amendment to our Constitution. The "danger" I see with the Fudds is their apparent willingness to "compromise" again and again as long as the results don't affect their ability to go afield a few times a year. The resolve of the anti-gun element is consistent, and they fully understand the strategy of incrementalism, so such compromises only result in further compromises until the right has been limited out of existence. There are droves of Fudds out there, and at least some of them might be sympathetic to a broader reading of the Second Amendment than they typically espouse, but the challenge is to win them over. Too few people today bother with history and the lessons we should have learned from it.

Good luck winning anyone over using insults such as "Fudds".

Good luck winning anyone over using insults such as "Fudds".

I certainly agree that insulting someone will never help win them over. While I might recognize someone as having the opinions of a Fudd, I certainly would never refer to them in that manner in any discourse with them.

Middle Age Russ wrote:[quoteGood luck winning anyone over using insults such as "Fudds".]

I certainly agree that insulting someone will never help win them over. While I might recognize someone as having the opinions of a Fudd, I certainly would never refer to them in that manner in any discourse with them.

I agree. The name-calling isn't warranted, but the fundamental concept is valid. I had an assistant once (R.I.P.), an old guy in his 70s who had been an avid deer hunter for some 50-60 years. Him and his old buddies bought a big deer lease every year, bagged a bunch of deer, he had mounts in his house, the whole nine yards. But he'd probably never been near a handgun in his life. Once I commented to him how some idiots wanted to ban handguns, and he got fired up and said "well, they should ban'em, good heavens, too many people out there shootin' each other, there's no use for those stupid things." End of conversation.

chuckybrown wrote:So, if one agrees with CC, but not OC....is it possible to be a partial 2A supporter?

In other words....can someone support 2A rights....but only to a certain extent...i.e. not exercising 2A rights that might make others "uncomfortable"?

I'm curious, because I think you're either all in, or you're not.

No flames wanted, just honest discourse.

Happy 2016!

Your question is based on a false premise. The second amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is not an infringement of the 2nd Amendment to require that you carry openly. (At one time concealed carry was illegal because that's what bad people did.) It is also not an infringement of the 2nd Amendment to require you to carry concealed. (Later open carry was also considered a bad thing.) Note that the amendment does not say "the right to carry openly" shall not be infringed. Your right is to keep and bear, but the manner of keeping and bearing is not stated in the amendment. That is left up to Congress and the States.

So someone could be a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment yet also support making open carry illegal. The concept of "constitutional" carry is one that was made up recently by 2nd Amendment "activists" trying to push the envelope. From the very beginning of our nation governments have passed laws that impacted who could own guns and how they could be used. So the idea that government can't make any laws regarding firearm ownership or possession doesn't pass the history test. Colonial Firearm Regulation