# Open Carry is in trouble!



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Seems the law enforcement has persuaded the legislature to pull back on open carry. They want the provision that prevents LE from questioning a person carrying with no probable cause removed. And the legislature has agreed to.


----------



## HoustonKid (Dec 29, 2005)

I am a fan of concealed carry. All for it. I am not a fan of open carry. I think it creates too much of an opportunity for crazy individuals or bad guys to get someone's gun. Weapon retention is a very important skill. To wear a weapon on your hip for all to see and to have the awareness to retain that weapon is a tall order for average Joe citizen. Heck, it is hard for police who are trained and wear level III retention holsters to keep theirs sometimes.


----------



## Lagunaroy (Dec 30, 2013)

HoustonKid said:


> I am a fan of concealed carry. All for it. I am not a fan of open carry. I think it creates too much of an opportunity for crazy individuals or bad guys to get someone's gun. Weapon retention is a very important skill. To wear a weapon on your hip for all to see and to have the awareness to retain that weapon is a tall order for average Joe citizen. Heck, it is hard for police who are trained and wear level III retention holsters to keep theirs sometimes.


So how do you feel about the 2nd Amendment, the 4th Amendment, that pesky 10th Amendment? As written or as modified by you?


----------



## cadjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

Good move. Open carry is a sign of mental instability in my book. Throw them on a car hood and see if they are as big a man as they think they are. 90% of people dumb enough to open carry will cry like babies. Let the ones that don't cry go about their business...


----------



## Lagunaroy (Dec 30, 2013)

cadjockey said:


> Good move. Open carry is a sign of mental instability in my book. Throw them on a car hood and see if they are as big a man as they think they are. 90% of people dumb enough to open carry will cry like babies. Let the ones that don't cry go about their business...


Lol, and your state issued medical qualifications are what? Are you a MD, dentist, vet, curandero, brujo?


----------



## MikeV (Jun 5, 2006)

Doesn't surprise me that the legislature would cave in to whatever law enforcement wants. The lawmakers will explain away the last minute changes that they listened to law enforcement. Sounds like the NSA; who cares about that pesky probable cause stuff? lol


----------



## Lagunaroy (Dec 30, 2013)

Pick up the phone and tell your rep that there is no but...

Like your job then approve open carry.


----------



## JamesAggie (Jun 28, 2012)

We might as well let them just pull us over while driving to make sure we have drivers licenses.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

This is just my opinion on open carry, I think with the number of vehicle break-ins, more weapons will be in the hands of criminals. More weapons in vehicles=more theft. Vehicle break-in's seem to be a very low priority and more of a insurance responsibility than Law Enforcement. Even if the criminals don't get weapons out of every vehicle, the break-ins will increase because of the low risk of getting caught vs the higher payout.

I'm also not comfortable with groups gathering and exercising their Right to open carry. It don't matter to me if it's a NRA, KKK, Black Panther or Religious group. If they gather to march down a street just because they can, if you allow one group, then you must allow all groups.

I see posts all the time about how people have lost common sense, is this really a topic we want to add to the problems?

I don't see it as a Constitution issue. It's to me, a common sense issue. Just because you can do something, don't mean you should.

I like the idea of concealed carry. I like the idea of having a tool for protection in the event you need it. 

I know other States allow open carry, hopefully if it is legal here, the thrill will pass and it will not be a issue.

Hopefully those who wish to exercise their Rights, also exercise the common sense we are missing.


----------



## loco4fishn (May 17, 2010)

*To be honest...*



JamesAggie said:


> We might as well let them just pull us over while driving to make sure we have drivers licenses.


Driving is a privlige(spelling). The right to bear arms is a right, not a Privlige. They are better off pulling people over checking for DL, than asking everyone carrying why they are carrying. It's my right. My .02


----------



## Chuck (May 21, 2004)

I am not a fan of open carry either. And I would not mind the cops being able to ask to see my permit and hope the bill is amended to allow them to do that.


----------



## Jaysand247 (Aug 19, 2012)

I will still conceal carry. But I have no problem with open carry if that's how you want to carry. But I'm not one to force my "opinion" on others like it's the law.


----------



## Wade Fisher (May 22, 2006)

I prefer to not identify myself in a group as being armed, but don't mind if others do. Just my opinion


----------



## pocjetty (Sep 12, 2014)

bill said:


> This is just my opinion on open carry, I think with the number of vehicle break-ins, more weapons will be in the hands of criminals. More weapons in vehicles=more theft. Vehicle break-in's seem to be a very low priority and more of a insurance responsibility than Law Enforcement. Even if the criminals don't get weapons out of every vehicle, the break-ins will increase because of the low risk of getting caught vs the higher payout.
> 
> I'm also not comfortable with groups gathering and exercising their Right to open carry. It don't matter to me if it's a NRA, KKK, Black Panther or Religious group. If they gather to march down a street just because they can, if you allow one group, then you must allow all groups.
> 
> ...


 Here's the problem with that, Bill. One end of the political spectrum uses those arguments to their very one-sided advantage.

"Just because you CAN bring an American flag to school on Cinco De Mayo, it doesn't mean you SHOULD. (And since you persist in doing what you shouldn't, we're going to punish you for it.)"

"Just because you CAN sell guns online, doesn't mean you SHOULD do it." (And since you keep doing it, we're going to close down your ability to take credit cards.)

I could go on and on, but you get the point. You may have a knee-jerk reaction to it, but I know you get it. Rights are funny things. Once you establish the ability to abridge them, it gets easier and easier to find more "exceptions" to abridge them further. That's the way the game is played. "Would you allow us to ignore the Fourth Amendment in the even of a deadly epidemic? How about following a bombing at a marathon? How about..." until it simply doesn't exist, in practice anymore.

Look carefully. You've already accepted the notion of getting rid of the right to peacefully assemble, if it involves groups that YOU personally find objectionable. Embrace that idea, and it's only a matter of time before someone (with real power) decides that a group you do favor isn't acceptable. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. Then it just becomes a question of who has the power to get rid of whom. Do you really want to take a chance of being on the losing end of that? If not, you should consider protecting the things you disagree with, just as strongly as the ones you do agree with.

The simple fact is, the bad guys have all the guns they need right now. The bit about people leaving their guns in their cars just doesn't carry much weight. Everyone has a cell phone. Are people leaving them in their cars responsible for a lot of extra crime? Are "bad guys" getting them and causing a bunch of accidents, due to texting while driving? Somehow I don't see criminals breaking into every car, in the hope that some open-carry person left a gun in there.

You're against open carry. I get it. I even understand that it makes you uneasy. I get a little uneasy thinking about some people carrying. But there are a lot of good arguments in favor. And there is no denying that in the places that guns are most regulated, crime runs rampant. The gun control people try and spin the facts, but there is no denying that it is cause-and-effect.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Chuck said:


> I am not a fan of open carry either. And I would not mind the cops being able to ask to see my permit and hope the bill is amended to allow them to do that.


Next step is "show me your papers". Just like **** Germany.


----------



## Jungle_Jim (Nov 16, 2007)

Lots of statist lackeys on 2cool


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

loco4fishn said:


> Driving is a privlige(spelling). The right to bear arms is a right, not a Privlige. They are better off pulling people over checking for DL, than asking everyone carrying why they are carrying. It's my right. My .02


The 4th covers unreasonable search. I have a right to travel without being pulled over just because.


ChuChu said:


> Next step is "show me your papers". Just like **** Germany.


And most are just so accepting of that, its a crying shame.


----------



## Jungle_Jim (Nov 16, 2007)

Chuck said:


> I am not a fan of open carry either. And I would not mind the cops being able to *ask* to see my permit and hope the bill is amended to allow them to do that.


 They won't be asking anything, they will be ordering.

I find it funny that many here think a terrible thing happened when the police seemed to have lumped all the bikers into one group but at the same time don't mind the same police to have the ability to lump law abiding gun owners in the same crowd as the crooks. Liberty is hard and people just don't seem to get it....


----------



## Ranger327 (May 8, 2012)

Jungle_Jim said:


> Lots of statist lackeys on 2cool


Yes and a **** shame.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

So if a gang bang looking thug is walking down my street with a gun strapped to his side, the cops couldn't ask him if he has a permit to carry?


----------



## Lagunaroy (Dec 30, 2013)

pocjetty said:


> Here's the problem with that, Bill. One end of the political spectrum uses those arguments to their very one-sided advantage.
> 
> "Just because you CAN bring an American flag to school on Cinco De Mayo, it doesn't mean you SHOULD. (And since you persist in doing what you shouldn't, we're going to punish you for it.)"
> 
> ...


Excellent, I was writing an email to my Rep., I am just sending your post. Thank You!


----------



## Jungle_Jim (Nov 16, 2007)

poppadawg said:


> So if a gang bang looking thug is walking down my street with a gun strapped to his side, the cops couldn't ask him if he has a permit to carry?


If they have no probable cause a crime has been committed then they have no reason to stop him.... In America we don't stop and detain people because they don't look like us.... Freedom, how does it work?


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Jungle_Jim said:


> If they have no probable cause a crime has been committed then they have no reason to stop him.... In America we don't stop and detain people because they don't look like us.... Freedom, how does it work?


 hmm. Huge packs of armed gang bangers. What could possibly go wrong.


----------



## Jungle_Jim (Nov 16, 2007)

poppadawg said:


> hmm. Huge packs of armed gang bangers. What could possibly go wrong.


I see you moved the goal post but it doesn't matter. By huge packs of gang members do you mean a large group of hunters all dressed in camo gathered at the store on Saturday morning? Because under your idea that could be the same thing right? 
This is how we take away rights a little at a time. We see a group we don't like and we pass laws to effect that group not realizing that when power changes hands we become the targeted group. Meanwhile our founding fathers are spinning in their graves...


----------



## Ranger327 (May 8, 2012)

poppadawg said:


> hmm. Huge packs of armed gang bangers. What could possibly go wrong.


They are already armed


----------



## Jungle_Jim (Nov 16, 2007)

Ranger327 said:


> They are already armed


Yep, but that doesn't fit the statists agenda. I am so saddened that grown men, Texans, don't see it. I feel like I am on a board with Chuck Schumer.


----------



## rookie06 (Oct 1, 2005)

poppadawg said:


> hmm. Huge packs of armed gang bangers. What could possibly go wrong.


So you're saying the gang bangers aren't armed now? Will open carry change that?

To the one's against open carry due to weapon retention, is that an issue in all the other states who have open carry? And I pose that as a serious question. I haven't done any research to see if people are getting their weapons taken away. I'm only assuming it's not a problem or it would be in the news and it would be a big red flag that politicians jump all over trying to stop the bill.


----------



## Jungle_Jim (Nov 16, 2007)

rookie06 said:


> So you're saying the gang bangers aren't armed now? Will open carry change that?
> 
> To the one's against open carry due to weapon retention, is that an issue in all the other states who have open carry? And I pose that as a serious question. I haven't done any research to see if people are getting their weapons taken away. I'm only assuming it's not a problem or it would be in the news and it would be a big red flag that politicians jump all over trying to stop the bill.


The retention issue is a strawman argument. None of the 36 states with open carry have an epidemic of people getting their guns taken away. Green to you.


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

poppadawg said:


> hmm. Huge packs of armed gang bangers. What could possibly go wrong.


Care to cite an example from any of the states that allow open carry? Just one will do.


----------



## JamesAggie (Jun 28, 2012)

loco4fishn said:


> Driving is a privlige(spelling). The right to bear arms is a right, not a Privlige. They are better off pulling people over checking for DL, than asking everyone carrying why they are carrying. It's my right. My .02


You are 100% correct, but I should be protected from unreasonable search while legally doing either. I for one will still continue to conceal, but those that open carry should not be detained by police because they choose to.


----------



## rookie06 (Oct 1, 2005)

poppadawg said:


> So if a gang bang looking thug is walking down my street with a gun strapped to his side, the cops couldn't ask him if he has a permit to carry?


What would you define as the appropriate dress for someone to wear while they're out walking thru your (or anyone elses) neighborhood? Would slacks and a button down shirt make them acceptable to carry? I'm sure a business man has never shot anyone, right?


----------



## Country Boy (Aug 15, 2008)

I spend a lot of time in Oklahoma and Arizona. Not one time have i ever seen someone open carry. Your imagination is taking control of some of you.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

rookie06 said:


> What would you define as the appropriate dress for someone to wear while they're out walking thru your (or anyone elses) neighborhood? Would slacks and a button down shirt make them acceptable to carry? I'm sure a business man has never shot anyone, right?


 If he has his pants down around his knees and and has guns strapped to his body, he is in the wrong neighborhood. Throw his *** in jail. I am perfectly good with that


----------



## rookie06 (Oct 1, 2005)

poppadawg said:


> If he has his pants down around his knees and and has guns strapped to his body, he is in the wrong neighborhood. Throw his *** in jail. I am perfectly good with that


Wow. I can't stand the saggy pants either, but I don't think it warrants jail! I guess since I wear boots and jeans I run the risk of being thrown in jail for being an ignorant *******??? Guess I don't understand your logic.


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

poppadawg said:


> If he has his pants down around his knees and and has guns strapped to his body, he is in the wrong neighborhood. Throw his *** in jail. I am perfectly good with that





rookie06 said:


> Wow. I can't stand the saggy pants either, but I don't think it warrants jail! I guess since I wear boots and jeans I run the risk of being thrown in jail for being an ignorant *******??? Guess I don't understand your logic.


No logic involved, he's a big government statist.

For the record, that amendment that was added in was stupid. An officer cannot stop you for no reason even when open carrying.


----------



## Jungle_Jim (Nov 16, 2007)

txjustin said:


> No logic involved, he's a big government statist.
> 
> For the record, that amendment that was added in was stupid. An officer cannot stop you for no reason even when open carrying.


Will someone post a copy of the amendment please?


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

txjustin said:


> No logic involved, he's a big government statist.
> 
> For the record, that amendment that was added in was stupid. An officer cannot stop you for no reason even when open carrying.


_But law enforcement groups rallied strong opposition, demanding lawmakers take out a provision restricting police powers to question people carrying weapons, asking them for their licenses if they had no other reason to stop them.
_


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

While I agree that what the LE are asking for is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and won't stand up to a challenge in court, someone will have to spend the money to prove it.

This amendment to the open carry bill will result in constant harassment of legal open carry in small towns where the LE knows who has a license and who doesn't. The Gonzales PD already has a reputation for questionable searches. Example: a man walking on the wrong side of the road was detained and searched.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

pocjetty said:


> Here's the problem with that, Bill. One end of the political spectrum uses those arguments to their very one-sided advantage.
> 
> "Just because you CAN bring an American flag to school on Cinco De Mayo, it doesn't mean you SHOULD. (And since you persist in doing what you shouldn't, we're going to punish you for it.)"
> 
> ...


I'm not following your response to me. I didn't say any of those things.

It's not about Flags but interesting because some on here feel a US Service Man should be sent before a Court Martial for having a flag bumper sticker.

I didn't say anything about selling guns, online or in person. Yet I have personally removed some off 2cool that were illegal. I'm not in Law Enforcement but I do hold the best interest of 2cool.

It's not a knee-jerk reaction. This has been my position for many years. I would suggest if anyone has a knee-jerk reaction, it's the ones who want open carry, got a tease and now upset it could be changed.

Rights are not funny. Lawyers and politicians try their best to make them muddy or irrelevant. I'm not even sure what your referring to with the 4th Admendant and a deadly epidemic?

I did not say anything about getting rid of the right to peacefully assemble. I said; I was not comfortable with groups openly carrying weapons and IF they are allowed, then they ALL must be allowed. I'm all in favor of them gathering and in the same stance, I do not support their reason or their group...just the fact they should be allowed to gather.

Simple fact, bad people have weapons and this IMO will allow them to get even more access. We can read on 2cool every year dozens of vehicles get broken into, that is just a fact. It stinks and worse when weapons are stolen. Law Enforcement is not taking a active approach in stopping it other than the random chance they happen to roll up during the crime. Just about everyone knows where the worst places are and there will be more people become victims in those locations. Reality is it could happen anywhere.

I'm not following your cell phone analogy. I would guess people actually take more care of their phones than they would weapons. They won't go without their cell phones but leave a weapon inside their vehicle. I have read on 2cool, someone leaves their gun in their vehicle while parked in their driveway and some criminal breaks in and now it's on the street.

I'm not in favor of gun control, I even stated those who wish to do so, do so responsibly.

A weapon is nothing more than a tool. It's a tool if needed, I hope I have access to at that time. I even went on to acknowledge other States that allow open carry. I don't know of any time a crime has been prevented by someone exercising their right to open carry. Now you could make a valid case for crimes prevented from people who have a concealed carry. You might be able to stretch and say a crime was prevented because of the people who were present and openly carried. Not sure how you could prove something never happened and give it a reason why.

So, this is just my opinion. It won't change my thinking, legal or illegal. I have no need to advertise but if someone does choose to exercise their option to openly carry, I may or may not exercise my right to not be present. I think others will share my thoughts with the safety of their families. Businesses will be exercising their rights to prohibit carrying weapons in their place of business...just thinking about their insurance and the lawyers salivating at the chance to profit off others suffering. So in effect, those who wished to conceal carry for protection have now become criminals if they wish to shop or leave the weapons in the vehicles or at home. That is not making anyone safer, just giving the green light to more criminal activity.

I also want to add in that in States where open carry is allowed, I'm not aware of any High Noon Western Shootouts. So, that's not really an issue for me. I also don't believe Rights not exercised are Rights lost. It's a choice, they are not lost. I do believe if someone is legally openly carrying and for whatever reason Law Enforcement is called, if LEO's want to arrest the person, they will find a reason.

So that's my final opinion. It's never changed anyones mind that is pro open carry and they have never made a valid argument to change my mind. Nothing to gain and everything to lose.


----------



## donf (Aug 8, 2005)

Open Carry is Not in trouble, it will pass and Abbott will sign it.
And as stated above, and confirmed by my Oklahoma buddy," yea, we've had open carry for years, and nobody does it".


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

donf said:


> Open Carry is Not in trouble, it will pass and Abbott will sign it.
> And as stated above, and confirmed by my Oklahoma buddy," yea, we've had open carry for years, and nobody does it".


Open carry IS in trouble. It has been sent to a joint committee and it is very likely it will die in committee. I believe this has been the plan all along. Legislators can go home and say "we tried".


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

bill said:


> I'm not following your response to me. I didn't say any of those things.
> 
> It's not about Flags but interesting because some on here feel a US Service Man should be sent before a Court Martial for having a flag bumper sticker.
> 
> ...


I will NEVER support the stripping down of my Constitutional rights. This law is to allow us to exercise the Right we already have and Texas has stolen from us. It is my choice to opt out of exercising that right but its NO ONE'S LEGAL RIGHT to invalidate the Constitution. It says I have the right to keep and BEAR arms. No where does it say bear them under my shirt, in my waistband, etc., etc., etc. Doesn't mention concealed anywhere. Why Texas hasn't been slapped down by SCOTUS is alarming to me. I personally will never open carry .. at least I have no intentions of it ... but I 100% support the RIGHT to open carry that our state has stripped us of. I am tired of having my Rights doled out as privileges by power grabbing legislators.

LEO trying to add their two cents just tells us how power hungry and Gestapo-ish our PD's have become.


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

I don't understand what the objection is to having LEO ask you to see your carry permit if you are walking around with a pistol on your hip? If you are stopped by LEO now you have to show them your license right?


----------



## Crowhater (Jul 21, 2014)

People kill me. lolololol Its not their place to let us open carry or not, its our Second Amendment right. You are so use to them walking all over your rights that you act like they did you a favor when they let you keep one.

I don't care what anyone thinks about open carry, its my right!!!! If you don't like it don't carry, its called FREEDOM! You are free to not carry and you are free to complain about the people that do carry. 

I bet there is more than one person that wishes they had a weapon at Lubys back in the day.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

bigfishtx said:


> I don't understand what the objection is to having LEO ask you to see your carry permit if you are walking around with a pistol on your hip? If you are stopped by LEO now you have to show them your license right?


Yes, with probable cause. Read the fourth amendment to the US Constitution.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

Crowhater said:


> People kill me. lolololol Its not their place to let us open carry or not, its our Second Amendment right. You are so use to them walking all over your rights that you act like they did you a favor when they let you keep one.
> 
> I don't care what anyone thinks about open carry, its my right!!!! If you don't like it don't carry, its called FREEDOM! You are free to not carry and you are free to complain about the people that do carry.
> 
> I bet there is more than one person that wishes they had a weapon at Lubys back in the day.


Powerful testimony!!


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

Ruff Neck said:


> I spend a lot of time in Oklahoma and Arizona. *Not one time have i ever seen someone open carry.* Your imagination is taking control of some of you.


Just curiosity..but that is my question..

How many of you 2cool posters* plan* on 'open carrying' your pistol when/if the law is changed ???


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Tortuga said:


> Just curiosity..but that is my question..
> 
> How many of you 2cool posters* plan* on 'open carrying' your pistol when/if the law is changed ???


Only on my own property. But the law will make it more comfortable in summer and will cover my butt if someones accidentally sees my firearm.


----------



## JamesAggie (Jun 28, 2012)

ChuChu said:


> Only on my own property. But the law will make it more comfortable in summer and will cover my butt if someones accidentally sees my firearm.


The law was already modified so that is ok.


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

ChuChu said:


> Only on my own property. But the law will make it more comfortable in summer and will cover my butt if someones accidentally sees my firearm.


You can already open carry on your own property. I do all the time.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

JamesAggie said:


> The law was already modified so that is ok.


No, the law says concealed. Yes, I can open carry on my own property. I guess I should have not typed that, but that IS the only place I will open carry.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

bigfishtx said:


> You can already open carry on your own property. I do all the time.


I guess I should have not typed that, but that IS the only place I will open carry.


----------



## JamesAggie (Jun 28, 2012)

ChuChu said:


> No, the law says concealed. Yes, I can open carry on my own property. I guess I should have not typed that, but that IS the only place I will open carry.


Accidental exposure is ok. Open carry is still illegal. Should have been more specific I guess.


----------



## mstrelectricman (Jul 10, 2009)

I didn't read all these but Spirit and Crowhater have it right. The gestapo have NO RIGHT to tell us how to carry our weapon. It's already given to us by the 2nd but we have to constantly fight to keep it.

JOIN THE NRA! That is the best thing you all can do to keep the libs at bay.


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

Tortuga said:


> Just curiosity..but that is my question..
> 
> How many of you 2cool posters* plan* on 'open carrying' your pistol when/if the law is changed ???


I will in certain instances.


----------



## Jungle_Jim (Nov 16, 2007)

bigfishtx said:


> I don't understand what the objection is to having LEO ask you to see your carry permit if you are walking around with a pistol on your hip? If you are stopped by LEO now you have to show them your license right?


They have to have a valid reason to stop you. They can't just pull over people and ask for their CHL. That is the difference.


----------



## Grumpy365 (Oct 21, 2010)

Tortuga said:


> Just curiosity..but that is my question..
> 
> How many of you 2cool posters* plan* on 'open carrying' your pistol when/if the law is changed ???


When it is more comfortable than concealed carry.


----------



## Goooh (Jun 6, 2013)

bigfishtx said:


> I don't understand what the objection is to having LEO ask you to see your carry permit if you are walking around with a pistol on your hip? If you are stopped by LEO now you have to show them your license right?


You are not required to show an idea if a cop asks just to ask, and you aren't legally required to carry a driver's license unless operating a motor vehicle.


----------



## Crowhater (Jul 21, 2014)

When the law passes I will open carry 24/7. I do not care one bit what the rest of the world thinks about it! 3 family members are LEO and I don't want any of them to have the right to stop me and ask me any questions. If I'm not breaking any laws, Law enforcement has no right to detain me, I do not have to answer any of their questions! 

Law enforcement believes they have the right to apply the law or bend it to suit their needs and this is what causes people to lose trust in them.


----------



## Lagunaroy (Dec 30, 2013)

Tortuga said:


> Just curiosity..but that is my question..
> 
> How many of you 2cool posters* plan* on 'open carrying' your pistol when/if the law is changed ???


Open carry only at, democrat party fund raising events, lgbt celebration events, la raza events, oh yea one more picketing with my usw brothers.

Did I miss anything!


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

So the bottom line is;

State Rights vs Federal vs Constitution

It's not new, we even had a war over it. Only the topics and positions change. Gay Marriage, Marijuana, Open Carry or even Ownership of firearms, abortion going back to Slavery. It seems some like the idea behind the Constitution as long as it's something they support. 

Feds take a position, people say it's up to each State. State takes a position, people say it's in the Constitution. Constitution supports the States and people are still upset.


----------



## monkeyman1 (Dec 30, 2007)

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Country Boy (Aug 15, 2008)

mstrelectricman said:


> I didn't read all these but Spirit and Crowhater have it right. The gestapo have NO RIGHT to tell us how to carry our weapon. It's already given to us by the 2nd but we have to constantly fight to keep it.
> 
> JOIN THE NRA! That is the best thing you all can do to keep the libs at bay.


Lifetime member brother. Anyone not a member should join now. It's one of our only voices.


----------



## pipeliner345 (Mar 15, 2010)

bill said:


> This is just my opinion on open carry, I think with the number of vehicle break-ins, more weapons will be in the hands of criminals. More weapons in vehicles=more theft. Vehicle break-in's seem to be a very low priority and more of a insurance responsibility than Law Enforcement. Even if the criminals don't get weapons out of every vehicle, the break-ins will increase because of the low risk of getting caught vs the higher payout.
> 
> I'm also not comfortable with groups gathering and exercising their Right to open carry. It don't matter to me if it's a NRA, KKK, Black Panther or Religious group. If they gather to march down a street just because they can, if you allow one group, then you must allow all groups.
> 
> ...


Well said bill. I agree myself. Open carry for the masses is not a good idea in my opinion. a would be thug who had nothing to lose could just shoot first and get that out of the way if your (open printing).
Concealment could very well give you the few seconds you may need.


----------



## rookie06 (Oct 1, 2005)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *bill*  
_This is just my opinion on open carry, I think with the number of vehicle break-ins, more weapons will be in the hands of criminals. More weapons in vehicles=more theft. Vehicle break-in's seem to be a very low priority and more of a insurance responsibility than Law Enforcement. Even if the criminals don't get weapons out of every vehicle, the break-ins will increase because of the low risk of getting caught vs the higher payout.

I'm also not comfortable with groups gathering and exercising their Right to open carry. It don't matter to me if it's a NRA, KKK, Black Panther or Religious group. If they gather to march down a street just because they can, if you allow one group, then you must allow all groups.

I see posts all the time about how people have lost common sense, is this really a topic we want to add to the problems?

I don't see it as a Constitution issue. It's to me, a common sense issue. Just because you can do something, don't mean you should.

I like the idea of concealed carry. I like the idea of having a tool for protection in the event you need it.

I know other States allow open carry, hopefully if it is legal here, the thrill will pass and it will not be a issue.

Hopefully those who wish to exercise their Rights, also exercise the common sense we are missing._



pipeliner345 said:


> Well said bill. I agree myself. Open carry for the masses is not a good idea in my opinion. a would be thug who had nothing to lose could just shoot first and get that out of the way if your (open printing).
> Concealment could very well give you the few seconds you may need.


Why would open carry lead to more vehicle break-ins? I realize some people leave guns in their vehicles, but in regards to the open carry issue, wouldn't their gun be on their person? I just don't see how open carry would put more guns in vehicles. You can already carry in your vehicle, so what's the difference?

How is open carry for the masses not a good idea? Other than your opinion - which I'm all for you having. Again, what issues do the states that allow open carry have? Are people going around shooting each other old west style in the streets? I think if there were that big an issue, those states would change/eliminate the law.

Not sure what your scenario about a thug just shooting you and you would have more time if it was concealed. How would you have more time? If someone walks up to you and puts a gun in your face to rob you, are you really going to try and go for your concealed gun or in that moment will you just put your hands up and give him what he wants? Don't know too many people that would go for a gun when they have one already pointed in their face. I would think just the opposite of your statement - If a thug sees you carrying a gun, he may not want to take his chances either and go on down to road to someone easier. Just my .02


----------



## mikedeleon (Aug 9, 2010)

bill said:


> So the bottom line is;
> 
> State Rights vs Federal vs Constitution
> 
> ...


Well said.


----------



## Main Frame 8 (Mar 16, 2007)

I don't care to draw any unneeded attention to myself. I also won't be walking around flashing huge sums of cash, expensive jewelry, et al. No need to be a walking advertisement for thieves.


----------



## GuyFromHuntsville (Aug 4, 2011)

Main Frame 8 said:


> I don't care to draw any unneeded attention to myself. I also won't be walking around flashing huge sums of cash, expensive jewelry, et al. No need to be a walking advertisement for thieves.


Can't tell that by your avatar


----------



## Part Timer (Jul 2, 2012)

I dont get why this is always a debate. Its simple. 

Never should anyone who is pro-gun ownership argue to have more restrictions on legal gun owners.


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

Part Timer said:


> I dont get why this is always a debate. Its simple.
> 
> Never should anyone who is pro-gun ownership argue to have more restrictions on legal gun owners.


They are arguing over having less restrictions!


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

I have always understood that the US Constitution was the law of the land and no state could pass a law that took away our rights as American citizens. If the states can remove our constitutional rights what is the purpose of having them? They are rights, not privileges to be revoked by states on a whim. Texas stomped on our rights when they banned open carry to begin with, shouldn't Heller have kicked this law to the curb? I am a fan of concealed carry, I have a "never let them see your hand" mentality, but I 100% support anyone who is a legal gun owner open carrying where they want.


----------



## Part Timer (Jul 2, 2012)

bigfishtx said:


> They are arguing over having less restrictions!


I dont think you read what i wrote right, or maybe i didn't word it right.

Over half of people on here that claim to be pro gun, are argue that they want the government to put more restrictions on them by not passing open carry, or passing it but being able to unlawfully ask us to prove we are legal. "Them" being legal gun owners. Its a ridiculous thought, but yet it happens every time the argument (or topic) is brought up.:headknock

It has nothing to do with whether or not you will open carry, it has everything to do with the government slowly taking away our rights, then slightly giving them back, then seeing what they can take away again without us pushing back. Its conditioning people and its obviously working. Its crazy to step back and look at whats going on.


----------



## mstrelectricman (Jul 10, 2009)

Part Timer said:


> I dont think you read what i wrote right, or maybe i didn't word it right.
> 
> Over half of people on here that claim to be pro gun, are argue that they want the government to put more restrictions on them by not passing open carry, or passing it but being able to unlawfully ask us to prove we are legal. "Them" being legal gun owners. Its a ridiculous thought, but yet it happens every time the argument is brought up.:headknock
> 
> It has nothing to do with whether or not you will open carry, it has everything to do with the government slowly taking away our rights, then slightly giving them back, then seeing what they can take away again without us pushing back. Its conditioning people and its obviously working. Its crazy to step back and look at whats going on.


This is it in a nutshell. Heck no I won't open carry but I'll be dam if I'm a sheeple!

Sorry Bro, must spread.


----------



## GuyFromHuntsville (Aug 4, 2011)

mstrelectricman said:


> This is it in a nutshell. Heck no I won't open carry but I'll be dam if I'm a sheeple!
> 
> Sorry Bro, must spread.


I got him for you.


----------



## mstrelectricman (Jul 10, 2009)

pocjetty said:


> Here's the problem with that, Bill. One end of the political spectrum uses those arguments to their very one-sided advantage.
> 
> "Just because you CAN bring an American flag to school on Cinco De Mayo, it doesn't mean you SHOULD. (And since you persist in doing what you shouldn't, we're going to punish you for it.)"
> 
> ...


Must spread.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

bill said:


> So the bottom line is;
> 
> State Rights vs Federal vs Constitution
> 
> ...


Not to be argumentative, but to correct you because you are wrong , you cannot group same sex marriage, marijuana, abortion or slavery into the same group as anything to do with firearms.

The founding father in The Bill Of Rights specifically state and express that we have God given rights and these particular ten will be held by all Americans. They didn't give us these rights, we already had them, they just enshrined them in the Constitution to be respected and honored as sacred.

These ten Amendments, our Bill of Rights, expresses and validate the bare minimum rights ALL Americans are born with. Courts and eventually laws and amendments have addressed the topics you added as society has changed. But only firearms are in the original Bill of Rights. Lumping them with other topics lessens their importance to America's foundation and fundamental building blocks.

Laws that affect firearms affect the rights my forefathers enshrined as being sacred enough to be enumerated and I will argue to the grave against having that Right infringed upon. Do I think people should walk around armed like in the Old West? Oh heck no. But in states that do permit it I've personally never seen it. Its not whether you do or do not open carry .. its whether you can or cannot open carry. The laws of a state should not infringe on your Rights as an American citizen.

Thirty one states have open carry ... how often have your read news reports of law abiding citizens shooting it out in the streets ... or watched video of thugs mugging people carrying guns so they could steal them? If it was a happening thing, I assure you MSM would be reporting it.

Bill, you remind me of Daddy and his views. He griped all the time about those nuts walking around with guns. We argued this topic frequently.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

Do you believe and support State Rights?

This is not a 2nd Amendment issue as no one is trying to take firearms.

I suggest it would fall in the 14th Amendment and is a State issue.

Same sex marriage, marijuana, abortion or slavery are examples of conflict between the Feds and States. You have to either support the Feds or the States.

Federal law does not restrict the open carrying of firearms in public, although specific rules may apply to property owned or operated by the federal government.

For Texas, it's a handgun issue and not a long gun issue. We have concealed carry and IMO, the best recourse for self defense. I even acknowledged there are no documented old west gunfights in States that allow open carry.

In response to your claim, Thirty-one states allow the open carrying of a handgun without any license or permit, although *in some cases the gun must be unloaded. *You left that part out. A unloaded gun is useless IMO.

I could go on and give more examples of how it's a waste of resources and even creates a dangerous situation. How many 911 calls will be made...Man with a gun..little details are known/given and it has responding Officers on edge and driving more risky to arrive. What could be worse, in some States, the Police are not allowed to question the individual. That is something I can not understand.

It really don't matter to me, legal or not. I won't advertise, it's my choice. You do what you wish. This will not be solved online. I will be calling 911 when I see someone walking down the street with a weapon. It's not my job to approach them or ask them questions. I would consider someone walking down the street with a weapon in the open, looking for attention or trouble or worse. Again, that's just my opinion and nothing you or anyone says will change it. I have heard this debate more times than I care and the argument never changes anyones mind...pro/con. It's not personal to anyone on here. Texas for has sure robust gun culture. I made referance back to the USA having went to war, I should have been more clear and said it was really the Reconstruction after the Civil War that put Texas on the non-open carry side. But going back to 1871, even then the law was not really clear and at best selectively enforced. You had a lot of Confederate sympathizers, who suddenly found themselves living among freed slaves....and that was a violent time in Texas. Now please correct me, I'm not a history expert. Even after the Republicans that the Feds helped into power were gone and the Democrats took over...they kept the ban over fears of armed blacks. Then in true politician measures, used more loopholes (they love that word) to allow their friends to carry and arrest their enemies or opposition. The other States at the time never bothered to address the issue. So, it's not like they were superior or had some revelation, they just in fine political nature, kicked the can down the road, so to speak 

I see, support the NRA. I agree. But again, correct me, Texas is considering the outline that Oklahoma used. Their NRA President or Director or whatever, said about open carry...why give away an edge.

Gov Abbott said if Massachusetts can do it, so can Texas...or something along those lines. I don't remember everything. But what I remember is Massachusetts, their Director laughed when suggesting Texas follow their model. They have reserved the rights in Cities, discretion to allow open carry. You are welcome to search out their local law enforcement for yourself. I would guess you don't see people walking around with guns.

So, this topic has been covered in the Jungle once or twice over the years  I'm trying to remember things the best I can.

I'm not a history expert, dang sure not a legal expert and I support the 2nd Amendment. I just don't understand the need for open carry. I also know, there will be some who skip what I wrote and only focus on that last sentence.


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

bill said:


> Do you believe and support State Rights?
> 
> This is not a 2nd Amendment issue as no one is trying to take firearms.
> 
> ...


This is absolutely a 2A issue. I appreciate your opinion even though I don't agree with it.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

txjustin said:


> This is absolutely a 2A issue. I appreciate your opinion even though I don't agree with it.


Agree. Arms does not stipulate long gun or handgun. 
Now, waiting for the moron to follow with open carry of an RPG.


----------



## pknight6 (Nov 8, 2014)

Jungle_Jim said:


> If they have no probable cause a crime has been committed then they have no reason to stop him.... In America we don't stop and detain people because they don't look like us.... Freedom, how does it work?


If a certain segment of society, who doesn't look like me, is responsible for 80% of violent crime, then yes, the police should be able to use profiling as a crime fighting tool.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

txjustin said:


> This is absolutely a 2A issue. I appreciate your opinion even though I don't agree with it.


You don't count because you against everything your not in favor of j/k LOL

Add more so I can make up my mind. You can not just make a claim and not support it. Spirit did add in the Heller case. Not sure I would use that one because it was decided by the SC the Second Amendment conveyed an individual right to gun ownership and that to protected possession of guns in the home (on review, handguns to be protected by the historical extent of the Second Amendment's purpose).

The next case (McDonald) where Judge Alito responded with the Fourteenth Amendment and fully applied to the states. 5-4 vote


----------



## Main Frame 8 (Mar 16, 2007)

GuyFromHuntsville said:


> Can't tell that by your avatar


 If I was toting her around, the attention wouldn't be on me. :rotfl:


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

pknight6 said:


> If a certain segment of society, who doesn't look like me, is responsible for 80% of violent crime, then yes, the police should be able to use profiling as a crime fighting tool.


Ask about Terry Stops


----------



## Won Hunglo (Apr 24, 2007)

I did not see this coming. Did Jew?


----------



## Jungle_Jim (Nov 16, 2007)

pknight6 said:


> If a certain segment of society, who doesn't look like me, is responsible for 80% of violent crime, then yes, the police should be able to use profiling as a crime fighting tool.


Having a gun in the open is not profiling. *** are you even talking about? What happens when the group you don't like is in charge and treating you like that? Don't you see the slippery slope that erosion of rights creates. First it's them, then it's another group, then it's you...


----------



## Spartan Handgun Training (May 28, 2014)

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/28/cop-stop-language-stripped-open-carry-bill/

www.spartanhandguntraining.com


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Spartan Handgun Training said:


> http://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/28/cop-stop-language-stripped-open-carry-bill/
> 
> www.spartanhandguntraining.com


sad politics at work, as usual.


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

spurgersalty said:


> sad politics at work, as usual.


If this doesn't get passed (open carry in any form) I will fervently campaign against my representatives (one voted against it Wednesday). This will likely make me go full blown 3rd party.


----------



## Shooter (Jun 10, 2004)

*0pen carry*

I have no problem with open carry.


----------



## donf (Aug 8, 2005)

As I stated earlier, not in trouble 
A controversial provision, which law enforcement officials have said would allow criminals to carry firearms without repercussions, has been removed from a key gun bill, lawmakers confirmed Thursday. 

Without the language limiting the power of police officers to ask those openly carrying guns to present their permits, the legislation allowing license-holders to openly carry handguns is expected to have the votes to pass both chambers.

"The Dutton/Huffines amendment is dead," said state Rep. Alfonso "Poncho" NevÃ¡rez, an Eagle Pass Democrat who took part in the negotiations over House Bill 910."There's nothing more to do. That was the only bit of housKeeping required.


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

Lagunaroy said:


> So how do you feel about the 2nd Amendment, *the 4th Amendment, that pesky 10th Amendment?* As written or as modified by you?


 I'm not sure what the highlighted portion above has to do with HoustonKid's comments at all.



bill said:


> This is just my opinion on open carry, I think with the number of vehicle break-ins, more weapons will be in the hands of criminals. More weapons in vehicles=more theft.


 I'm not sure what this comment has to do with open carry at all. It is already 100% legal to carry weapons in your vehicle, and everyone does.


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

donf said:


> As I stated earlier, not in trouble
> A controversial provision, which law enforcement officials have said would allow criminals to carry firearms without repercussions, has been removed from a key gun bill, lawmakers confirmed Thursday.
> 
> Without the language limiting the power of police officers to ask those openly carrying guns to present their permits, the legislation allowing license-holders to openly carry handguns is expected to have the votes to pass both chambers.
> ...


Filibusters on the way...

This bill is in trouble.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

txjustin said:


> Filibusters on the way...
> 
> This bill is in trouble.


Where did you see this, Justin?


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

txjustin said:


> Filibusters on the way...
> 
> This bill is in trouble.


How can it be filibustered if it already passed a senate vote and is in committee?


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

Part Timer said:


> I dont think you read what i wrote right, or maybe i didn't word it right.
> 
> Over half of people on here that claim to be pro gun, are argue that they want the government to put more restrictions on them by not passing open carry, or passing it but being able to unlawfully ask us to prove we are legal. "Them" being legal gun owners. Its a ridiculous thought, but yet it happens every time the argument (or topic) is brought up.:headknock
> 
> It has nothing to do with whether or not you will open carry, it has everything to do with the government slowly taking away our rights, then slightly giving them back, then seeing what they can take away again without us pushing back. Its conditioning people and its obviously working. Its crazy to step back and look at whats going on.


I understood what you were alluding to. My thought is if you have NO OPEN CARRY now, and you pass either version, technically it is LESS restrictions, that is why I said people are arguing over less restrictions. I think we pretty much agree though.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

ShadMan said:


> I'm not sure what this comment has to do with open carry at all. It is already 100% legal to carry weapons in your vehicle, and everyone does.


It's my opinion, nothing more.

No, not everyone carries and yes they get left in vehicles. But I suggest there will be some that strap up and head out only to find the destination prohibits weapons or they simply choose to leave the weapon inside their vehicle once they arrive and see no one else carrying. They can change their mind. Fact is, there are many places you don't leave expensive coolers or rod/reels in your vehicle. Vehicle break-ins happen often. Firearms are stolen now from people leaving them inside their vehicles. It's a low risk, high yield for criminals.

I think this will be more of a fad than anything else.

I said before, don't matter to me one way or the other. I won't open carry. I will avoid places where those who wish to do so. I think businesses will take a stand and it's their right to do so. Some will openly accept them and try as hard as possible to get some type of coverage. It's also going to be their choice and right to do so. But it's about their bottom line. Smaller business might gain some customers but larger businesses, like malls ect will to what they have to depending on their customers reactions. There might even be rallies or calls for boycotts and that's fine as well. I think there will be Cities that will try and make their own decisions. I think this is far from over, no matter if it gets signed or not.


----------



## donf (Aug 8, 2005)

txjustin said:


> Filibusters on the way...
> 
> This bill is in trouble.


Nope, not correct, no filibusters, bill is in committee, and the bill is not in trouble.


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

bigfishtx said:


> How can it be filibustered if it already passed a senate vote and is in committee?


If I'm not mistaken since the House stripped the amendment it has to pass both chambers, again.

http://texascarry.org/1/post/2015/05/hb-910-texas-carry-urgent-update-on-open-carry.html

And Don, I hope what you say is correct and I'm incorrect. This needs to get to Abbott's desk.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

The bill has been negotiated by the joint committee and has to go to both houses and then to the governor. Midnight Sunday is the drop dead date.


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

bill said:


> It's my opinion, nothing more.
> 
> No, not everyone carries and yes they get left in vehicles. But I suggest there will be some that strap up and head out only to find the destination prohibits weapons .


Same thing happens with concealed carries all the time.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

ELIGIBLE AT 7:40 PM MAY 29, 2015:

HB 910 Phillips / Flynn / White, James / Riddle / Guillen / et al.
Relating to the authority of a person who is licensed to carry a handgun to openly carry a holstered handgun; creating criminal offenses.


----------



## Lagunaroy (Dec 30, 2013)

ShadMan said:


> I'm not sure what the highlighted portion above has to do with HoustonKid's comments at all.
> 
> See if this helps, he wants to modify 2A to fit his opinion, should we modify 4A to be supportive of unreasonable searches in certain instances? Now, to 10A, already efforts are underway to modify that, http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/08/the-aca-and-the-tenth-amendment/
> 
> ...


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

Again, I still don't see why people keep saying 2nd Amendment.

The Constitution clearly gave this authority to the States. Each State has in turn either acted or not acted but it was all a States decision. This is not in any way a ownership issue. The Supreme Courts have backed this position up as well. 

The 7th and 9th Circuit Courts ruled that States must either issue a permit to conceal or open for self defense outside the home but is not required to do both. It was left to the States to decide on how permits were to be issued.

If a 2nd Amendment issue could be made, then why in all the years has none of the money used on Lawyers ever tried to use it?


----------



## jmbrittain (May 28, 2011)

My right trumps your dead! I paid for it in blood.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Lagunaroy (Dec 30, 2013)

Bill,

I understand your view, don't agree with it, that's ok with me. We are just gonna disagree on this.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

jmbrittain said:


> My right trumps your dead! I paid for it in blood.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Very well given speech and it was directed at the people who were voted into office. It addressed a situation that the far left took advantage of for personal and political reasons. It took a lot of courage for him to get up there and give the speech.

I don't see the connection to that horrible situation and Texas.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

Lagunaroy said:


> Bill,
> 
> I understand your view, don't agree with it, that's ok with me. We are just gonna disagree on this.


It's all good. I don't expect anyone to change their mind. I believe in and support the Constitution. I don't pick and chose parts.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics...h-Agreement-on-Open-Carry-Bill-305397311.html


----------



## bigfishtx (Jul 17, 2007)

Sounds like it will become law along with the provision t allow LEO to ask for your Carry ID.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

bigfishtx said:


> Sounds like it will become law along with the provision t allow LEO to ask for your Carry ID.


 There's no provision that "allows" that: the amendment that was stripped just specifically disallowed that: of course, it's pretty redundant once you get down to it, the Fourth Amendment does the same thing if the LE in question will actually follow their oath.. That was a lot of the early argument against the amendment, that it really doesn't do anything for citizens that isn't already protected by the constitution; the supporters of the amendment were really just firing a shot across the bow of Art Acevedo and others that nobody with a brain expects to honor that oath, that it wouldn't be tolerated.
Acevedo has already pretty much said that he's planning on just instituting a de facto prohibition against Open Carry in his jurisdiction, just by directing officers to harass open carriers with "Show me your license" to the point where it's just not worth the hassle to carry..
It's still got two legislative votes and a signature to go to "become law".. The way things have gone over the last two weeks, I'd by no means consider it a lock at this point.


----------



## jmbrittain (May 28, 2011)

Bill I'm using it as an example, the law is as the law is written. If people are seemingly ok with the 2A being tampered with but not ok with the 1A being tampered with how can we ever expect to reach a compromise? Why should I have to sacrifice certain liberties that I swore an oath to defend? If people want to revamp the 2A then why not revamp all.. Let's see how many stand with that. It's illegal to burn the U.S. Flag & step on it. 
(a) and 
(1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the 
floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(2) This subsection does not prohibit any conduct consisting of the disposal of a flag when it has become worn or soiled.

Yet Supreme Court ruled it your 1st Amendment right to be able to do so.. 
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag enforced in 48 of the 50 states. Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority in holding that the defendant Gregory Lee Johnson's act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Johnson was represented by attorneys David D. Cole and William Kunstler.

So you want a law that a cop had to check my ID to see if I'm legal to carry when the 2A gives me the right to do so? Where's the fairness? Where's the equality? 

I took an oath to defend the constitution, I served for 8yrs it makes my blood boil to see someone desecrate the flag yet I fought to give them the right to do that. So if I step off your right step off mine. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## V-Bottom (Jun 16, 2007)

Good.....


----------



## Jungle_Jim (Nov 16, 2007)

V-Bottom said:


> Good.....


I'm pretty sure that if anything needs to be banned it's you.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

dwilliams35 said:


> There's no provision that "allows" that: the amendment that was stripped just specifically disallowed that: of course, it's pretty redundant once you get down to it, *the Fourth Amendment does the same thing if the LE in question will actually follow their oath.. That was a lot of the early argument against the amendment, that it really doesn't do anything for citizens that isn't already protected by the constitution;* the supporters of the amendment were really just firing a shot across the bow of Art Acevedo and others that nobody with a brain expects to honor that oath, that it wouldn't be tolerated.
> Acevedo has already pretty much said that he's planning on just instituting a de facto prohibition against Open Carry in his jurisdiction, just by directing officers to harass open carriers with "Show me your license" to the point where it's just not worth the hassle to carry..
> It's still got two legislative votes and a signature to go to "become law".. The way things have gone over the last two weeks, I'd by no means consider it a lock at this point.


but, doesn't a chl holder have to show his license now if he is stopped and carrying? how does that protect one when open carrying if and when this gets passed? the cop can make up any scenario he wants to justify stopping and checking someone OCing without the Dutton and Huffhines amendments riding the bill.
with them(Dutton/Huffhines am.) still attached, they are obligated to not stop and detain/question someone OCing.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

spurgersalty said:


> but, doesn't a chl holder have to show his license now if he is stopped and carrying? how does that protect one when open carrying if and when this gets passed? the cop can make up any scenario he wants to justify stopping and checking someone OCing without the Dutton and Huffhines amendments riding the bill.
> with them(Dutton/Huffhines am.) still attached, they are obligated to not stop and detain/question someone OCing.


 That's pretty much always been the case, and always will. Fabrication of probable cause, even at its most minor levels.

As far as a CHL holder showing his license: that's IF he is stopped: the key part there is why you're stopped. The Amendment (and the constitution) basically just say you can't be stopped just for funsies: you're carrying on a legal activity, and there's no reason for you to be questioned, and put in a position to have to show that ID. Get pulled over, you're still showing it. Jaywalk, you're still showing it. Walking down the street with a gun? Shouldn't have to: no hint of a law being broken there.


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

Both chambers passed the bill supposedly.

Off to Abbott.


----------



## bigl (Mar 3, 2008)

Open carry just cleared the legislature and headed to the Govenor for his signature.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

dwilliams35 said:


> That's pretty much always been the case, and always will. Fabrication of probable cause, even at its most minor levels.
> 
> As far as a CHL holder showing his license: that's IF he is stopped: the key part there is why you're stopped. The Amendment (and the constitution) basically just say you can't be stopped just for funsies: you're carrying on a legal activity, and there's no reason for you to be questioned, and put in a position to have to show that ID. Get pulled over, you're still showing it. Jaywalk, you're still showing it. *Walking down the street with a gun? Shouldn't have to: no hint of a law being broken there*.


obviously so, but, the fact of the matter is, some blowhard lib like Acevedo will have his goons out checking everyone that decides to OC. because of that, someone(more than likely many) will be stopped and harassed. the only way to curtail that would be civil rights suits, which would take deep pockets, or, the amendments that were thrown out to appease the LEO lobbyists.


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

bigl said:


> Open carry just cleared the legislature and headed to the Govenor for his signature.


Abbott already tweeted it is headed to his pen.


----------



## mstrelectricman (Jul 10, 2009)

Gotta love it!


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

jmbrittain said:


> If people are seemingly ok with the 2A being tampered with but not ok with the 1A being tampered with how can we ever expect to reach a compromise? Why should I have to sacrifice certain liberties that I swore an oath to defend? If people want to revamp the 2A then why not revamp all.. Let's see how many stand with that.
> 
> So you want a law that a cop had to check my ID to see if I'm legal to carry when the 2A gives me the right to do so? Where's the fairness? Where's the equality?


The 1st Amendment is not absolute, either. You cannot scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for example.

Also, the 4th Amendment is the one that protects you against a cop asking you for your ID without probable cause, not the 2nd.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

jmbrittain said:


> Bill I'm using it as an example, the law is as the law is written. If people are seemingly ok with the 2A being tampered with but not ok with the 1A being tampered with how can we ever expect to reach a compromise? Why should I have to sacrifice certain liberties that I swore an oath to defend? If people want to revamp the 2A then why not revamp all.. Let's see how many stand with that. It's illegal to burn the U.S. Flag & step on it.
> (a) and
> (1) Whoever knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the
> floor or ground, or tramples upon any flag of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
> ...


I understand what your saying. The point I keep trying to make is this is not a 2nd Amendment issue. It's not been argued as a 2nd issue. It is in the Constitution that the States reserve the details. Each State has done so. The 7th and 9th Circuit says the same and the SC has said the same.

If we are going to cover the 2nd Amendment, does it exclude anyone? The NRA was going to argue it does not, I'm not sure what ever happened in the case. So many get going and disappear before appeals can be heard. Are there different classes of people and the Constitution cover them? Is the Constitution for "All the People"? The NRA was wanting a decision on minors. Their position was it should be legal for minors to carry handguns away from their home. See the problem? Minors can not purchase a handgun. I believe it's legal for them to own one at their home. Nothing in the Constitution says to exclude Minors. Clearly the States have taken the position on age requirements.

It's a mute point now since it's passed and will be signed. Now the details of how to get permits and can local authorities be able to decide if they want to allow open carry in their Cities/Counties ect.


----------



## jmbrittain (May 28, 2011)

ShadMan said:


> The 1st Amendment is not absolute, either. You cannot scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for example.
> 
> Also, the 4th Amendment is the one that protects you against a cop asking you for your ID without probable cause, not the 2nd.


Yes the 4th protects from search & seizure but the 2nd give me right to own & bear. So if the 2nd gives me the right to carry how then does a cop have the right to ask for a permit to make sure I'm legal to carry?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jmbrittain (May 28, 2011)

bill said:


> I understand what your saying. The point I keep trying to make is this is not a 2nd Amendment issue. It's not been argued as a 2nd issue. It is in the Constitution that the States reserve the details. Each State has done so. The 7th and 9th Circuit says the same and the SC has said the same.
> 
> If we are going to cover the 2nd Amendment, does it exclude anyone? The NRA was going to argue it does not, I'm not sure what ever happened in the case. So many get going and disappear before appeals can be heard. Are there different classes of people and the Constitution cover them? Is the Constitution for "All the People"? The NRA was wanting a decision on minors. Their position was it should be legal for minors to carry handguns away from their home. See the problem? Minors can not purchase a handgun. I believe it's legal for them to own one at their home. Nothing in the Constitution says to exclude Minors. Clearly the States have taken the position on age requirements.
> 
> It's a mute point now since it's passed and will be signed. Now the details of how to get permits and can local authorities be able to decide if they want to allow open carry in their Cities/Counties ect.


Bill I like your point and I agree with you in most of it. This was my argument last night with a few LEO's. I just try to get people to see all sides instead of staying closed minded. I will comply with LEO unless it's gone to far, like harassment. Which is what this is opening the door for. I'll even give you green Bill because we can see both sides. Thanks for the debate I always enjoy these.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

jmbrittain said:


> Yes the 4th protects from search & seizure but the 2nd give me right to own & bear. So if the 2nd gives me the right to carry how then does a cop have the right to ask for a permit to make sure I'm legal to carry?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They don't have that right currently, nor will they after this passes. The 4th Amendment protects you from that. Someone tried to tack on an amendment to this bill to specifically prohibit cops from asking for your license, but it's not necessary. It's already a Constitutional violation for them to do it without probable cause.


----------



## donf (Aug 8, 2005)

ShadMan said:


> They don't have that right currently, nor will they after this passes. The 4th Amendment protects you from that. Someone tried to tack on an amendment to this bill to specifically prohibit cops from asking for your license, but it's not necessary. It's already a Constitutional violation for them to do it without probable cause.


Absolutely correct, the cop,stop,provision was a a necessary appeasement to get this bill passed, which, as of a few hours ago, is a done deal.
As for our original,poster, as I said twice now, the bill was never in trouble. 
Not even close.


----------



## Tucsonred (Jun 9, 2007)

Gov. Abbott just tweeted that the open carry law has passed both the Tx House and Senate. Next stop is his pen!


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

Hot Dang !!! Now our 'poster boys' can strap on a couple of six-guns..and we will all feel safer....:rotfl:


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

ShadMan said:


> They don't have that right currently, nor will they after this passes. The 4th Amendment protects you from that. Someone tried to tack on an amendment to this bill to specifically prohibit cops from asking for your license, but it's not necessary. It's already a Constitutional violation for them to do it without probable cause.


Not really sure that is acurate. Terry Stops, like I had posted ealier, allows Law Enforcement to stop someone for just reasonable suspicion. The police may briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop#cite_note-3 the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspectâ€™s outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be â€œarmed and dangerousâ€
If the Police are actually searching for a weapon, then it's referred as a "Stop and Frisk". During that "patdown" as some call it as well, if any contraband is found, then the police can and will arrest. That is covered under plain feel doctrine. The Courts have also upheld that the person(s) in question must identify themselves to the police. The Courts were clear it did not violate the 4th as far as unreasonable searches and went on to cover it did not violate the 5th on self incrimination. The Courst also covered that during a traffic stop, the Officers can have the driver and all passengers exit the vehicle without additional justification by the Officer (but there are some States that require additional requirements). If police reasonably suspect the driver or any of the occupants may be dangerous and that the vehicle may contain a weapon to which an occupant may gain access, police may perform a protective search of the passenger compartment. The plain view doctrine goes into details about the situation when a warrant would be required.


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

Id be all for this if it weren't for all the stupid people. Unfortunately I think they out number the people with common sense. Just look how people drive on any major highway. Heck look at the picture above.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Tortuga said:


> Hot Dang !!! Now our 'poster boys' can strap on a couple of six-guns..and we will all feel safer....:rotfl:


Only legal if they have a CHL.


----------



## Chuckybrown (Jan 20, 2012)

ChuChu said:


> Only legal if they have a CHL.


No......you DON'T have to have a CHL to carry a long gun.....


----------



## ShadMan (May 21, 2004)

Bill, the officer would need to reasonably believe you are engaging in criminal activity. If open carry is legal, that alone cannot be the reason for them to ask for identification or a license. They will have to have some other reason for probable cause.

I have no doubt there will be some gray areas come to light in the months following the law going into effect until the courts establish some precedents.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Chuckybrown said:


> No......you DON'T have to have a CHL to carry a long gun.....


Tortuga's comment was:

Hot Dang !!! Now our 'poster boys' can strap on a couple of six-guns..and we will all feel safer....

My reply to Tortuga was: Only legal if they have a CHL.

Enough explanation?


----------



## donf (Aug 8, 2005)

Tortuga, 
Do you ever get tired off having your *** reamed by our enforcement and validation of the constitution or do you just like it?


----------



## boltmaster (Aug 16, 2011)

End of this thread....open carry passed today and is headed for the gov's desk


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

ChuChu said:


> Only legal if they have a CHL.





Chuckybrown said:


> No......you DON'T have to have a CHL to carry a long gun.....


No.1...why would you assume they DON'T have a CHL ??

No.2...if they don't have a CHL...they can easily get one with a hundred dollar bill
and four hours of their 'busy' schedule....


----------



## mstrelectricman (Jul 10, 2009)

donf said:


> Tortuga,
> Do you ever get tired off having your *** reamed by our enforcement and validation of the constitution or do you just like it?


He's a t-sipper! We all know that = LIBERAL!

Just jackin wit ya Mr. Doyle.:rotfl:


----------



## oc48 (Aug 13, 2005)

cops will have the right to briefly detain you if you are open carrying to check for your license. some of you guys need to go read the bill.

Personally, if I didn't sell all my guns and I still concealed carried, I would be happy about this since it would protect you in case you print and/or if you accidentally show your 'concealed' weapon.


----------



## Spartan Handgun Training (May 28, 2014)

oc48 said:


> cops will have the right to briefly detain you if you are open carrying to check for your license. some of you guys need to go read the bill.
> 
> Personally, if I didn't sell all my guns and I still concealed carried, I would be happy about this since it would protect you in case you print and/or if you accidentally show your 'concealed' weapon.


Open carry was meant for convenience not shock value. so you didn't have to cover up when you got out of your car to pump gas at 3 am.

As of Sept 1st 2013, "accidental display" of a handgun by a CHL holder was changed to "intentional" unless you were defending yourself/or another from serious bodily injury or death.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

ShadMan said:


> Bill, the officer would need to reasonably believe you are engaging in criminal activity. If open carry is legal, that alone cannot be the reason for them to ask for identification or a license. They will have to have some other reason for probable cause.
> 
> I have no doubt there will be some gray areas come to light in the months following the law going into effect until the courts establish some precedents.


The Court Rulings disagree. Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause are two very different things.

I think someone on here posted about a group of people, all openly carrying, were standing in front of a bank...you can count of the Police stopping them and asking questions.

I don't approve of Terry Stops but they have been used and the results have been lower crime.

I support the State of Texas for their decisions. I don't have to like it but I support it. To me, that's all that matters. A State issue. I hope I'm wrong on more weapons finding their way into criminal hands. I hope I'm wrong on lots of things.

I wonder how the different Cities and Counties react, will they even be allowed? If allowed, it could be tricky. Ton of questions in my mind. Guess we will see


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

oc48 said:


> cops will have the right to briefly detain you if you are open carrying to check for your license. .


If this is the case, then I am OK with the bill, Roy.... My objection was to not have any way to determine if the carrier HAD a CHL or was a baddie on his way to kill or rob somebody.

I thought that had been deleted from the bill....


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

[_QUOTE=donf;13844377]Tortuga, 
Do you ever get tired off having your *** reamed by our enforcement and validation of the constitution or do you just like it?[/QUOT_E

Don..I guess I am just a cantankerous old fart who has lived too long, and seen too much.. Too many dreams shattered...Too many beliefs butchered...

As far as the Constitution...it's a pretty good read...but it has taken
it's share of licks during my lifetime... Just tired of seeing the 
"Rule of Law" changed almost daily...

Mea Culpa....


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Tortuga said:


> If this is the case, then I am OK with the bill, Roy.... My objection was to not have any way to determine if the carrier HAD a CHL or was a baddie on his way to kill or rob somebody.
> 
> I thought that had been deleted from the bill....


They took it out, then put it back after the Austin Police Chief and others complained.


----------



## Main Frame 8 (Mar 16, 2007)

Well, let's see some selfies of your new open carry poses.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Main Frame 8 said:


> Well, let's see some selfies of your new open carry poses.


.


----------



## Main Frame 8 (Mar 16, 2007)

spurgersalty said:


> .


 Need a tad more flash.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

I might get banned or mobbed by beautiful women, considering weapon placement and allhwell:


----------



## Main Frame 8 (Mar 16, 2007)

spurgersalty said:


> I might get banned or mobbed by beautiful women, considering weapon placement and allhwell:


 I kick arse with my open carry and I ain't skeered to show it. :rotfl: :texasflag
Merica!!!!!


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

bill said:


> I don't approve of Terry Stops


Would you want an officer to make a "Terry stop" on someone snooping around your house at 0200 hours while wearing dark clothing, or should he go about his business and hope the guy doesn't steal anything?


----------



## MikeV (Jun 5, 2006)

teeroy said:


> Would you want an officer to make a "Terry stop" on someone snooping around your house at 0200 hours while wearing dark clothing, or should he go about his business and hope the guy doesn't steal anything?


Surely you are not equating someone "snooping around your house at 0200 hours while wearing dark clothing" with someone who open carries in broad daylight? In the first you have reasonable suspicion, in the latter you have none.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

teeroy said:


> Would you want an officer to make a "Terry stop" on someone snooping around your house at 0200 hours while wearing dark clothing, or should he go about his business and hope the guy doesn't steal anything?


You could have at least quoted my full sentence.
I don't approve of Terry Stops *but they have been used and the results have been lower crime.*

If you would like to start a new thread, say in the Jungle, I would be happy to discuss the topic of Police abusing the Rights of People.

I support Law Enforcement and the jobs they do. But make no mistake, I feel they need to be held at a high standard when they abuse the power we entrust them with on a daily basis. I know racial profiling and profiling in general works but it comes with a very high price with harassment and police misconduct.
Terry Stops are effective but that's just a tool. Plenty of other tools like coerced confessions, for example â€" but because they are unconstitutional they cannot be used, no matter how effective.


----------



## jimtexas68 (May 13, 2012)

It passed.


----------



## iridered2003 (Dec 12, 2005)

i'd feel like a "chump" to open carry. people gonna look at you all funny and stuff and that's gonna feel strange. for each his own I guess


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

bill said:


> You don't count because you against everything your not in favor of j/k LOL
> 
> Add more so I can make up my mind. You can not just make a claim and not support it. Spirit did add in the Heller case. Not sure I would use that one because it was decided by the SC the Second Amendment conveyed an individual right to gun ownership and that to protected possession of guns in the home (on review, handguns to be protected by the historical extent of the Second Amendment's purpose).
> 
> The next case (McDonald) where Judge Alito responded with the Fourteenth Amendment and fully applied to the states. 5-4 vote


Bill in your previous post/response to me you said it wasn't 2A because no one was trying to take our guns. Its the bear part that affects open carry. Open carry is a removal of one's right to bear arms. Moot point since it passed but just now getting back to this thread.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

Kenner21 said:


> Id be all for this if it weren't for all the stupid people. Unfortunately I think they out number the people with common sense. Just look how people drive on any major highway. Heck look at the picture above.


The only difference will be some of those CHL holders you pass everyday driving crazy are simply going to open carrying instead of conceal carry after Jan. 1. Same people, same mentalities, nothing changes but where a CHL holders carries their weapon. They are already carrying.



Tortuga said:


> No.1...why would you assume they DON'T have a CHL ??
> 
> No.2...if they don't have a CHL...they can easily get one with a hundred dollar bill
> and four hours of their 'busy' schedule....


And a background check. Seemingly not too strenuous unless you get snagged. Its tougher than most think. But that other part you said IS true ... and you have to hit the target. 

And no it wasn't me. I haven't even gotten pulled over since 1978.


----------



## bill (May 21, 2004)

Spirit said:


> Bill in your previous post/response to me you said it wasn't 2A because no one was trying to take our guns. Its the bear part that affects open carry. Open carry is a removal of one's right to bear arms. Moot point since it passed but just now getting back to this thread.


I still do not believe it was a 2nd Amendment issue. TEXAS politicians passed the bill and the TEXAS Gov will/has signed it.

Each State has made their own decision on the topic.

If it was a Constitutional issue, then the SCOTUS would have ruled against every State, yet they ruled it was a State issue.


----------

