TexasCHLforum.com

I'll take seriously the criticism of her showing the gun she carries, as soon as it comes from someone who also provides the 911 tape of them calling in to demand the arrest of gun store employees openly carrying, or gun show patrons toting handguns around without benefit of a CHL.

chabouk wrote:I'll take seriously the criticism of her showing the gun she carries, as soon as it comes from someone who also provides the 911 tape of them calling in to demand the arrest of gun store employees openly carrying, or gun show patrons toting handguns around without benefit of a CHL.

Um, in gun stores, that is private property. If the property owner allows open-carry, I don't believe there is any harm. Gun shows? Not sure of what laws apply there, but you can bet if it were illegal, SOMEBODY would have called them on it.

Why are you so set in excusing her actions?

Supply the 911 tape? Are those even available? 911 is for emergencies, and I don't believe either of your examples rise to the level of an emergency. A simple call to the police (non-911) should be all it takes if either of those activities are illegal.

So who called the cops on her? Anyone? is it too late?

sjfcontrol wrote:

chabouk wrote:I'll take seriously the criticism of her showing the gun she carries, as soon as it comes from someone who also provides the 911 tape of them calling in to demand the arrest of gun store employees openly carrying, or gun show patrons toting handguns around without benefit of a CHL.

Um, in gun stores, that is private property. If the property owner allows open-carry, I don't believe there is any harm. Gun shows? Not sure of what laws apply there, but you can bet if it were illegal, SOMEBODY would have called them on it.

There have been a ton of threads on the forum about this. There is no exception to either 46.02 or 46.035 for "with the owner's permission", nor for "attending a gun show".

Why are you so set in excusing her actions?

I'm not excusing. I'm pointing out that what she did is exactly as illegal --no more, no less-- as gun store employees who open carry, or non-CHLs who carry a handgun into a gun show.

Is that only "technically illegal"? Yes, in all three cases. Is anyone going to prosecute? Of course not. Should the law be clarified? Absolutely.

In the meantime, all the hand-wringing is pointless, and sounds like a petty attempt to discredit the candidate with the strongest gun rights principles.

I haven't decided whether or not to vote for Medina. I will not vote for either Perry or KBH, but I decided some time back to never again vote against a candidate. If it turns out that a vote for Medina would just be a vote against the other two, then I'll stay home.

Chabouk is right. There is no exception.

The gun store employees open carrying - breaking the law.

Ever go over to your buddy's house and shown him your new 1911? - You broke the law. (Full disclosure: I've done that.)

Has your dog ever done his business in someone else's yard? You broke the law.

The list can go on and on.

With the myriad oppressive laws and regulations in this country, none of you law-and-order types can go a week without somehow, some way breaking the law.

Perspective. Perspective.

Maybe we should change the wording of the popular saying "an armed society is a polite society" to that of "an armed society is a polite but an amoral society.

And obviously it make no sense whatsoever to hold the lawmakers to a higher standard.
OK -- I give up. Y'all win. Lets ALL go out and brandish our firearms at will. After all, we're all felons anyway.

joe817 wrote:Maybe we should change the wording of the popular saying "an armed society is a polite society" to that of "an armed society is a polite but an amoral society.

I personally would not equate being strictly law-abiding with being moral. They can be exclusive of one another.

Purplehood wrote:

joe817 wrote:Maybe we should change the wording of the popular saying "an armed society is a polite society" to that of "an armed society is a polite but an amoral society.

I personally would not equate being strictly law-abiding with being moral. They can be exclusive of one another.

I quite agree Purplehood. I was attempting to make tongue in cheek humor.....that obviously wasn't.

Purplehood wrote:

joe817 wrote:Maybe we should change the wording of the popular saying "an armed society is a polite society" to that of "an armed society is a polite but an amoral society.

I personally would not equate being strictly law-abiding with being moral. They can be exclusive of one another.

In fact, it could be argued that you only have to follow 10 "laws" to be moral. The Government has issued a few more than that...

I understand joe817. I often have the same issue.

bdickens wrote:With the myriad oppressive laws and regulations in this country, none of you law-and-order types can go a week without somehow, some way breaking the law.

Perspective. Perspective.

If you've ever read (or seen) Les Miserables, you saw what happens when someone can't accept that what's illegal isn't always wrong, and what's wrong isn't always illegal: Javert (the cop) couldn't accept it when strict enforcement of the law created an injustice, but he had devoted his entire life to strict enforcement, so he killed himself.

I just heard about a new book coming out, called "Three Felonies a Day". The title is a bit tongue in cheek, but the premise is that a businessman can't go through his day without committing three felonies, mostly without even knowing it.

There's also the well-known quote from Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged: "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

chabouk, et al:

More from Ayn Rand:

The question isn't who is going to let me;
it's who is going to stop me.

We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion:
the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases,
while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage
of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.

Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights:
it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.

SIA

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:chabouk, et al:

More from Ayn Rand:

The question isn't who is going to let me;
it's who is going to stop me.

We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion:
the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases,
while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage
of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.

Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man's rights:
it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against legally disarmed victims.

SIA

Yea...ok...sure.

I hope none of you law-and-order types are planning on voting for KBH, either.