Texas open carry bill has changes

samzheresamzhere BannedPosts: 10,923 Senior Member
Here's a fairly straightforward article about the progress of the Texas open carry (OC) for handguns bill, which originated in the Tx house, and now the senate has amended the bill and sent it back to the house for approval.

The amendment that is making waves in the senate is this: The amendment severely limits LEOs from stopping anyone who is open carrying for just that single act, to check if the person is licensed.

Texas does not have "constitutional carry" and the new OC bill only allows OC for licensed people. The new bill changes the existing concealed carry law such that it essentially strikes out the word "concealed" but still requires a license to carry, concealed or open.

Therefore, people just can't OC under the new bill unless they've got the license. And yes, existing concealed licensees will automatically be allowed OC.

Problem is, if you don't have a license, you can't carry, open or concealed (handguns only -- Tx law already allows OC of long guns). So how is a LEO going to know if the guy wearing a gun it a holster is licensed or not? The only way is to stop and ask.

So this new amendment in the main prevents LEOs from asking for the license, if the person isn't carrying in a restricted place or doing something that's fishy. Critics of this amendment say (and I think correctly) that this essentially is a backdoor way of allowing "constitutional" carry -- not needing a license at all.

Now I totally understand those who support constitutional carry and tend to agree that this is okay. But fact is simply that Texas law does not allow that sort of handgun carry. Whether the law about this is a breach of the 2nd Amendment is another matter.

But point is, IF you don't have constitutional carry here in Texas, and this new open carry law passes, where OC is only allowed if you're licensed, then how is a LEO going to know who's licensed or not? And if this new bill is passed, LEOs cannot just stop and ask if someone has a license.

You can see the problem here, and it's how a well-meant law change can invoke real problems. If the bill passes and becomes law, under the effect of the new amendment, LEOs have no way of knowing whether the person carrying is properly licensed.

A real conundrum. And it's similar to this: How does a LEO know if the person driving a vehicle has a valid driver's license? So you can see the dilemma caused by the change to the law without also just going ahead and allowing constitutional carry.

Another point is this: If we DO allow constitutional carry, what about thugs and criminals with felony conviction records, who want to OC a pistol? What prevents a thug and known felon from carrying openly too? How can LEOs stop this if they aren't allowed to stop an OC person and check their IDs?

Comments please?

And here's the link:

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Texas-Senate-OKS-open-carry-legislation-6282299.php

Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
«13

Replies

  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 6,944 Senior Member
    Here's a thought: Cops get to shake you down if they think you've committed an ACTUAL crime - you know, stealing stuff, assaulting people, and endangering folks - rather than harassing people for merely walking around with a hunk of metal on their waistband. The typical cop would agree that they've got better things to do with their time than apprehend individuals that are not engaged in the doing of dirty deeds.

    To what degree do you need Big Brother's permission to mind your own business and defend your ability to do so? Properly licensed? "Papers please" might sound a little strange with a Texas accent, but Nazis are Nazis, even if they aren't speaking German.

    As to constitutional carry and folks with prior felony convictions, my attitude is pretty simple: if society deems it safe to let them out of prison, then they should be free to buy all the double-edged, brass-knuckled, spring-assisted, silenced, select-fire, belt-fed, water-cooled, flame-throwing, rocket-propelled, grenade-lobbing implements they can afford without showing a single piece of ID. Here's the thing: THEY'RE CRIMINALS! They do not care about restrictions, so the only freedoms you're insisting on restricting in your attempt to limit criminal access are your own. With that established, if you get caught using those toys irresponsibly against someone without justification, the legal system will send you off to terraform Pluto.

    There's this whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing our legal system is SUPPOSED to run on. Be nice if it actually did. After almost of quarter century of being a firearms professional in the People's Republic of California, I'm more than a little tired of being punished for what I MIGHT do.:bang:

    The only problem I see is when an otherwise upstanding person who doesn't want to ask "Mother May I?" in order to carry plugs an assailant in an otherwise totally legitimate self defense scenario. The only people who will come under legal scrutiny under current Texas enforcement restrictions will be those who draw and use. . . Which I guess is a start, as it will force the question of "what ACTUAL crimes have been committed here?"
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,054 Senior Member
    Lee Weems, who is now the Chief Deputy of my county, teaches classes on Interacting with Armed Citizens. It's a three hour course, which I haven't attended yet, but basically the SCOTUS says firearms do not have an exception to the 4th Amendment. (Search and Seizure.) Which doesn't mean you can't be questioned if you open carry (or CCW) following the laws of your state.

    He's got a blog and would probably answer questions if you ask them...about GA.

    I dislike OC a LOT. Those in favor of it say if it becomes accepted, people will get used to it. Back about a month ago, I saw a guy at a restaurant who looked like a biker with a J-frame on his side. He was with an even scuzzier looking guy and a woman. I happened to know guy number two who is a nice person...ugly, but nice. I wasn't offended at all, nor did I feel threatened. Nor did customers call the cops on them. The revolver was visible but somewhat discreet.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    So this new amendment in the main prevents LEOs from asking for the license, if the person isn't carrying in a restricted place or doing something that's fishy. Critics of this amendment say (and I think correctly) that this essentially is a backdoor way of allowing "constitutional" carry -- not needing a license at all.

    If a person has not committed a crime, or is not suspected of having committed a crime, or there is not credible circumstantial evidence that he is conspiring to commit a crime, he should be left alone, period. Back door, or not, Texas should not be one of the states that punishes law-abiding citizens for what criminals do. Police can still examine someone who looks too young, as they might with a driver who can't see over the steering wheel. If another citizen complains, and has credible concerns about another persons legal right to carry a gun, that can be investigated under the same guidelines as any other complaint might be.

    I can see where a policeman would be nervous about some of the people he will see carrying, but he will adapt, just like he adapts to all of the other rules he disagrees with, and find work - arounds for the stuff he feels most strongly about.

    I personally think that the overwhelming majority of felons won't be hunting ways to draw attention, and won't take a chance on getting busted, for no reason.
  • LMLarsenLMLarsen Senior Member Posts: 8,337 Senior Member
    We have had OC in Virginia for years, and in all that time I've seen maybe one person do it in society (as opposed to going hunting or to the range).

    Personally I'm on the fence about it. I have no problem at all with someone doing it legally, but as others as stated, I prefer the discretion of concealed carry. Having said that, I have a big problem with these yahoos who go to Starbucks with an AK slung on their back, just because they can. I believe they do more harm than good to the perceived image of "normal" gun owners and carriers.
    “A gun is a tool, no better or no worse than any other tool: an axe, a shovel or anything. A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that.”

    NRA Endowment Member
  • N320AWN320AW Senior Member Posts: 648 Senior Member
    Never heard of Constitutional carry. What might that be?
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,651 Senior Member
    N320AW wrote: »
    Never heard of Constitutional carry. What might that be?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • N320AWN320AW Senior Member Posts: 648 Senior Member
    Buford wrote: »
    Thanks. Almost sounds like it would be better just to get a permit instead of taking a chance with LE issues.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Bigslug wrote: »
    Here's a thought: etc etc

    But Big, tell us what you REALLY think, okay? (ha ha). Strong post, dude.

    I wouldn't call a cop a Nazi if he's doing his job. If his job entails asking about a firearm on your hip, that's not his decision -- it's the law where he works.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    N320AW wrote: »
    Never heard of Constitutional carry. What might that be?

    Briefly, it's the idea that the 2nd amendment is absolute (shall not be infringed), and therefore you can carry a firearm of any type anywhere you want, concealed or open.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,054 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    Briefly, it's the idea that the 2nd amendment is absolute (shall not be infringed), and therefore you can carry a firearm of any type anywhere you want, concealed or open.

    Not what the link said. It said "handguns" and specifically says it does not apply to long guns. Whether this is right I don't know.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • bowserbbowserb Member Posts: 277 Member
    Last info I saw said the version going back to the House gives police the ability to stop and ask for a license any time they see an open carried handgun. That was from Guns Over Texas Radio on 5/23. Has something changed? Session ends 6/1.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    "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." - Ayn Rand
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,054 Senior Member
    The way I understand it, the cops can ask, but can't demand. Not like a driver's license, which is a privilege, the ownership/bearing arms is a right. A cop or anyone else can ask anything of anybody.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • timctimc Senior Member Posts: 6,583 Senior Member
    Here is a thought, They can still ask you for ID and if they run your license plate or drivers license I believe it will still it will flag you have a CHL.
    timc - formerly known as timc on the last G&A forum and timc on the G&A forum before that and the G&A forum before that.....
    AKA: Former Founding Member
  • bowserbbowserb Member Posts: 277 Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    The way I understand it, the cops can ask, but can't demand. Not like a driver's license, which is a privilege, the ownership/bearing arms is a right. A cop or anyone else can ask anything of anybody.
    I just read here...http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=HB910 and frankly I feel for our elected reps in Austin. Not easy for me to find anything, although I don't have a staff to read for me. One adopted amendment that I find disturbing, even though I haven't read about it elsewhere, allows cities of over 750,000 to prohibit open carry. Austin, El Paso, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio...all liberal city governments that are likely to take notice. Houston's fat lesbian anti-gun mayor will almost certainly jump on that one.

    The section dealing with police stops is here. The original House version specified that the police cannot stop someone who is openly carrying simply because he is openly carrying. The amended version removed that language, stating essentially that probable cause is required under the law already. Personally, I have no problem with that with our current local, county, and state police agencies. Once we get the Obama National Storm Troopers in place, though, it's another ball game. Here's the language I found:

    "The committee substitute to H.B. 910 removes language from the House's engrossed version
    providing that the police cannot stop someone who is openly carrying and demand to see
    identification simply because the person is openly carrying. This language was redundant,
    because basic principles of constitutional law already establish that the fact that a person is
    engaged in an activity that is only legal with a license is not sufficient cause for the police to stop
    the person. All police detentions require reasonable suspicion of criminal activity at a minimum,
    and that will remain the case for people who openly carry in Texas after this bill becomes law."
    "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." - Ayn Rand
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    timc wrote: »
    Here is a thought, They can still ask you for ID and if they run your license plate or drivers license I believe it will still it will flag you have a CHL.

    Correct. If the cops run your driver's license, if you also have a CHL it will pop that up on the screen.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Not what the link said. It said "handguns" and specifically says it does not apply to long guns. Whether this is right I don't know.

    The link may have specified handguns but the concept of "constitutional carry" has no such limitations and theoretically allows open carry of any firearm. I didn't read the link.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • bowserbbowserb Member Posts: 277 Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    Correct. If the cops run your driver's license, if you also have a CHL it will pop that up on the screen.
    Wasn't the point that a LEO may or may not stop you when he sees your openly carried handgun? He would not likely have seen your auto license plate (and it might not be in your name anyway), and he certainly wouldn't have seen your driver's license.

    The question is would he have grounds to stop you when he sees your open carried handgun. I expect that early on, there may be a fair amount of such inquiries. They might even be disguised as a friendly inquiry about how long you have had that nnnn gun or how you like it. I remember some years ago my wife told me she was stopped on her motorcycle by HPD for no reason other than the cop (I distinguish between a reasonable police officer and a jerk cop here) wanted to confirm to his partner that he had spotted a woman riding a motorcycle, and he checked her license to confirm she had a motorcycle endorsement.

    Probable cause may get tested quite a few times in the beginning. We all know who is going to be suspect...we would consider them suspicious if we saw them, too. This assumes the bill gets to the governor by June 1, of course. Effective date if it passes and is signed, is 1/1/2016.
    "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." - Ayn Rand
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,054 Senior Member
    Since carrying a weapon (in circumstances we're talking about) is not a crime, then there's no PC to ask for a permit. Me, I'd gladly show my license, but then I wouldn't openly carry so a cop wouldn't know I had one.

    In GA, there is no link to a carry license and a driver's license.

    These ass holes who walk around with ARs strapped on their backs to cause confrontations with cops need to get a life. I think these are less common these days, or we don't hear much about them. I've never seen one except on TV.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • bowserbbowserb Member Posts: 277 Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Since carrying a weapon (in circumstances we're talking about) is not a crime, then there's no PC to ask for a permit. Me, I'd gladly show my license, but then I wouldn't openly carry so a cop wouldn't know I had one.
    In GA, there is no link to a carry license and a driver's license.
    These ass holes who walk around with ARs strapped on their backs to cause confrontations with cops need to get a life. I think these are less common these days, or we don't hear much about them. I've never seen one except on TV.
    Open carry is going to be new in Texas (if it happens), and there will be a lot of adjustment I think, including LEOs who may see probable cause more readily than they should. Like you, I see the new law as just one less thing to worry about--accidental exposure of my concealed handgun will not matter. I couldn't agree more about the AR idiots, who probably did more to hurt the image of gun owners than Bloomberg could ever do!
    "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." - Ayn Rand
  • shootbrownelkshootbrownelk Senior Member Posts: 2,017 Senior Member
    N320AW wrote: »
    Never heard of Constitutional carry. What might that be?

    Basically, it's what we have here in Wyoming. Open carry or concealed with no permit needed. I always thought Texas was a "Pro-Gun" state. WTH?
  • bowserbbowserb Member Posts: 277 Member
    Basically, it's what we have here in Wyoming. Open carry or concealed with no permit needed. I always thought Texas was a "Pro-Gun" state. WTH?
    Like some other states, Texas has some large cities. Austin, Dallas, Houston, El Paso, San Antonio. Big cities tend to have many minorities, meaning large populations of welfare takers. Welfare takers always vote Democrat. Even though there may be many conservatives, they're way outnumbered by the welfare class. Yes, if they were smart, they'd know that they are being kept on welfare by the Democrats. Nonetheless, as in New York, New Jersey, California, Oregon, Washington, and even your southern neighbor Colorado, the big cities have excess control. Houston's fat lesbian mayor regularly attends liberal events with her "first lady" (I wish I were joking, but that's what she calls her). Every summer, there are a couple hundred free lunch and afternoon snack stands put up in all the minority areas, for anyone who says he or she is under 18 to get fed at Houston taxpayer expense. Of course, this is great for the food stamp recipients, because they can get their kids fed there for free and then use food stamps to buy laundry detergent which they sell in the supermarket parking lot for half price or less to go back and buy beer and liquor.

    It is the same I imagine in all the large cities. Vote buying is done with many subtle mechanisms. How many votes do you think are purchased with the $2 Billion of taxpayer money this year spent on free cell phones? Meanwhile the toll road into town has just gone up to $7 each way for five miles. Working people foot the bill for nonworking people whose only job is to vote Democrat. In turn, the Democrat politicians are pushing the left wing policies. If we get open carry, it will be a surprise. Then of course, the aforementioned cities, under Democrat control, will immediately pass laws to not allow open carry in their cities. That's how the left works. The jobs are in the cities, and so are the nonworking people. Working people have one or two kids; nonworking have five or six. It's not going to get better.

    I'm glad for the people who live in the still free states. Enjoy it while you can. I'll bet no one thought Colorado would turn Democrat. Look north. Montana is next. Eventually, they'll get you too.
    "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." - Ayn Rand
  • N320AWN320AW Senior Member Posts: 648 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    The way I understand it, the cops can ask, but can't demand. Not like a driver's license, which is a privilege, the ownership/bearing arms is a right. A cop or anyone else can ask anything of anybody.

    Couldn't figure out a way to post a thought without attaching it to someone else's thoughts. Gene, I guess you're it tonight! :wink:

    Someone is not required to provide a drivers license UNLESS he was seen driving a car. Maybe I didn't understand your "PRIVILEDGE" wordage.

    I would like for anyone to tell me WHY, in an open carry State, would anyone choose to carry a gun on their belt for all the world to see? Simple question.

    I'm talking what I would call casual carry, not on the way to the shooting range or hunting. You know . . . grocery store, Wal-Mart etc.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    N320AW wrote: »
    I would like for anyone to tell me WHY, in an open carry State, would anyone choose to carry a gun on their belt for all the world to see? Simple question.

    I'm talking what I would call casual carry, not on the way to the shooting range or hunting. You know . . . grocery store, Wal-Mart etc.

    I can't figure it out either. I am okay with open carry as being legal, but I myself have zero interest in doing so. It would attract unwanted attention. And I'm talking as you are, about "casual" carry, not while on the way to the range or coming back from hunting, but just heading over to Kroger to buy some peanut butter or whatever.

    My constant gripe is the restriction about carrying in a tavern (the law says more than 50% of gross revenue from liquor sales) so restaurants that serve booze are okay, even bars attached to a restaurant if in the same open space, but not in a bar per se.

    Reason is that I love blusey rock and there are a number of fine local bands who play such, and I'm regularly going to hear them at whatever music venue bar. And the real danger isn't in the bar of course -- it's when I'm headed to the parking lot at 130am.

    And I totally understand the reason for the restriction -- drunk guys trying to shoot it out -- but in truth, law abiding concealed carry permit holders are very very unlikely to do something like that.

    The thing about open carry is this: a typical cop seeing a guy with a pistol on his hip is certainly going to wonder "Is this guy a good dude or a thug?" and will have no way to stop and ask for a permit, as I understand the law.

    And yeah, I understand the concept of "constitutional carry" and realize that some here would not want any restrictions on carry whatsoever. I don't know if this includes a felon, because if there is "total" constitutional carry, then "shall not be infringed" also includes not restricting a felon from carrying either, since there can be NO restriction. If this isn't accurate with the constitutional carry folks, please 'splain why a convicted felon can be forbidden carrying if the right is indeed absolute. Absolute has no modifiers by its own definition.

    So you're a street cop and you see a thuggish looking guy strolling along in the ghetto with a pistol strapped to his waist. What do you do if the open carry law also restricts your stopping and asking for his permit if he otherwise isn't doing anything wrong. I am conflicted on how the street cop should deal with this, and I really don't know what will be done under those circumstances.

    Any suggestions?

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,054 Senior Member
    N320AW wrote: »
    Couldn't figure out a way to post a thought without attaching it to someone else's thoughts. Gene, I guess you're it tonight! :wink:

    Someone is not required to provide a drivers license UNLESS he was seen driving a car. Maybe I didn't understand your "PRIVILEDGE" wordage.

    There is no such thing as a right to drive a car. That's what I mean by privilege.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,261 Senior Member
    Don't take the bait, Gene- - - -don't feed the :troll:!
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • N320AWN320AW Senior Member Posts: 648 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    The way I understand it, the cops can ask, but can't demand. Not like a driver's license, which is a privilege.

    This sentence is what confused me. You say "Not like a drivers license." Is there some difference here? When you say "Not like a drivers license." this appears to mean, in your context, that a citizen HAS to produce a license (drivers) on demand! If so . . . not correct.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,051 Senior Member
    N320AW wrote: »
    This sentence is what confused me. You say "Not like a drivers license." Is there some difference here? When you say "Not like a drivers license." this appears to mean, in your context, that a citizen HAS to produce a license (drivers) on demand! If so . . . not correct.
    Depends on the situation. If the officer doesn't think you have a valid purpose for being there, I'm sure they can construe this to allow you to be forced to produce identification:

    Under 16-11-36. Loitering or prowling

    (a) A person commits the offense of loitering or prowling when he is in a place at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity.

    (b) Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether alarm is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon the appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstances make it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this Code section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this Code section if the law enforcement officer failed to comply with the foregoing procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person was true and would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,352 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    There is no such thing as a right to drive a car on government roads. That's what I mean by privilege.


    FIFY

    I understood your meaning and am only nitpicking for clarity's sake. If somebody has the time, money, land and gumption to build their own road, have at it and drive all you want. Hell, they can even text while driving if they care to!
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,054 Senior Member
    "So you're a street cop and you see a thuggish looking guy strolling along in the ghetto with a pistol strapped to his waist. What do you do if the open carry law also restricts your stopping and asking for his permit if he otherwise isn't doing anything wrong. I am conflicted on how the street cop should deal with this, and I really don't know what will be done under those circumstances."

    What does "thuggish-looking" have to do with it? Draws a conclusion based on the way someone looks rather than the actions which someone does, which can lead to PC. Combine that (which on its face, is not a crime) with "in the ghetto" (which is not a crime) and you've got a profile that will cause some bad case-law. Got to have more than that. And keep up with court decisions that forbid profiling, racial or otherwise.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,054 Senior Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    FIFY

    I understood your meaning and am only nitpicking for clarity's sake. If somebody has the time, money, land and gumption to build their own road, have at it and drive all you want. Hell, they can even text while driving if they care to!

    For legal purposes, that's not "driving."
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
«13
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.