Texas open carry bill has changes

13»

Replies

  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 14,834 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    If the right is totally un-infringed, then it follows logically that even convicted felons can openly carry firearms. Am I correct on that? If not, then let me know, okay?

    Not quite Sam....a convicted felon cannot own or be in possession of a firearm...consequently he can't open carry one.

    We went through this in Kansas when constitutional carry was signed into law...one must be able to LEGALLY OWN a firearm before one can tote it around....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    Not quite Sam....a convicted felon cannot own or be in possession of a firearm...consequently he can't open carry one.

    We went through this in Kansas when constitutional carry was signed into law...one must be able to LEGALLY OWN a firearm before one can tote it around....

    I'm well aware of this, and yeah I know that a convicted felon cannot possess a firearm in most states.

    My question is this: For those who are persuaded that "constitutional carry" represents a total and unimpeachable and unimpeded right to possess and carry fireaarms (per the "shall not be infringed" clause), do these same folks who feel that total constitutional rights for carry and possession is unimpeachable also agree that felons can have firearms?

    I myself do NOT believe in "total" constitutional carry, along the general lines of Holmes' comment that "the right to free speech does not permit a person to cry 'fire' in a crowded theater" and therefore this inalienable right is indeed limited in certain circumstances.

    My query is directed to those who believe in the "total" right for carry regardless: Can a convicted felon be allowed to carry openly or however else possess and keep firearms?

    And yes, Texas law is the same regarding felons possessing firearms, unless given a pardon. For which I agree, but just want feedback from those who believe in "total" right to possess.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 23,897 Senior Member
    Sam:
    In some states felons can go to court and get gun rights restored.

    NC is such a state, but, it probably won't happen. Also, I doubt a Sherriff would issue a CCW permit.
    A Veteran is someone that served in the Military, it does not matter where they served.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    NN wrote: »
    Sam:
    In some states felons can go to court and get gun rights restored.

    NC is such a state, but, it probably won't happen. Also, I doubt a Sherriff would issue a CCW permit.

    Yes I know this too. It's also the same in Texas, where a felon can get a pardon or the equivalent.

    But that's not my question.

    My question is: For those who totally support the "shall not be infringed" concept of constitutional carry, do they think that a felon is okay to have and carry openly a firearm, no pardon or special measures needed?

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • NNNN Senior Member Posts: 23,897 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    Yes I know this too. It's also the same in Texas, where a felon can get a pardon or the equivalent.

    But that's not my question.

    My question is: For those who totally support the "shall not be infringed" concept of constitutional carry, do they think that a felon is okay to have and carry openly a firearm, no pardon or special measures needed?
    Then I do not
    A Veteran is someone that served in the Military, it does not matter where they served.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    NN wrote: »
    Then I do not

    Agree as well. Yes we have certain rights. And those are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. But there is a balance and we can't use our free speech to slander someone or to incite riot or turmoil (shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater being the great point that Holmes made). Likewise our total right to bear arms sometimes "can" be infringed, and we can lose that right if we're a felon and whatever. Same maybe for carrying a firearm into certain restricted areas, too.

    For many years, the Supreme Court has worked to provide a balance between individual rights and group safety and reasonable real life applications, way back since judicial review, Marbury v Madison I think was the case.

    We may not agree with every decision the court makes but the process of this review and judgment is amazing, and it's such a great tenet to our freedom. We're so damn lucky to be here and not stuck into some dictatorship or fiefdom.

    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: 10,045 Senior Member
    I thought I DID answer the question. Wait and let the situation develop. I'm not sure how this was misread, I suspect a lack of careful reading or a disregarding of the rather clear answer. In regards to case law, which iis pretty well covered in the links I posted.
    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: »
    Seems that, with the premise that there must be a license to carry, the open carry law is properly defined now.

    I agree that the new law is clearer than it would have been with the added amendment. I just would have preferred that it be a back door toward "constitutional carry."

    Constitutional carry is defined differently by nearly every state that claims to have it, and when Texas finally gets around to it, the debate about felons will likely be the main issue, once a majority of politicians agree that law abiding citizens can be trusted not to draw their guns every time they disagree with someone.

    I haven't decided what I think about allowing felons to legally possess firearms, yet. For the time being, I like it that felons get part of their citizenship rights revoked. It's not that I believe rehabilitation is impossible - it's just that I don't believe psychiatrists and psychologists should be the ones to decide whether or not it has actually occurred. Mostly, it doesn't happen, but the 'experts' keep pretending that it does, at the public's expense. Maybe a hearing before an already seated grand jury, to hear testimony from prison guards, could restore a felon to citizen status, or something similar. But I'm really tired of mental health professionals guessing wrong.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 14,834 Senior Member
    I would think it has to do with the crime....there is a huge difference between violent and non-violent felonies...If you used a gun to commit a violent crime I believe your gun owning days should be over. There's some leeway for non-violent felonies...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Agree with both bis and Jay, that right to carry isn't actually absolute but can be limited. How and when is a matter for debate, of course.

    By the way, a new bill was passed and sent to the gubernator who will also sign this, allowing carry by license holders on public university property. Maybe this will help limit the many sexual assaults on campus, since it's a "gun free" zone, thugs are magically stopped by invisible electronic force shields that prevent them from entering. Not.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    Agree with both bis and Jay, that right to carry isn't actually absolute but can be limited. How and when is a matter for debate, of course.

    I think the language in the constitutional carry law should be very straight-forward and unambiguous, that anyone whose citizenship rights (or lack thereof ) don't prohibit it, may carry a gun. The rights of citizenship, and how they are removed and restored, should be a separate issue because it affects more things than just guns.

    Of course, there is little chance that a gun law would come out of the Texas legislature in that form, so, as usual, we celebrate whatever gains are possible. To me, a law that limits the rights of a 'full citizen' turns that right into a privilege, and opens the door for activist politicians to violate the intent of the law. They do this in big cities everywhere, but it has been limited, in Texas...so far.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,259 Senior Member
    Why isn't there a licensing procedure to comply with before we exercise the rights guaranteed by the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights? Nobody stands at the church door demanding to see my "worship" license. Even convicted felons have the right to a speedy trial, and to confront their accusers if they're charged with another crime. Why does exercising the right guaranteed by the 2nd. Amendment need to be infringed? I don't see anywhere in the text of the amendment where it says "shall not be infringed- - - - -except- - - - -". Some meddling politician helped the camel stick his nose under the 2nd. Amendment tent!
    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
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,045 Senior Member
    Well, even the Bill of Rights have limits on them. (Except maybe the 5th.) You give up certain rights if you commit crimes, 2nd Amendment, just like you give up the right to freedom when you commit certain crimes. Personally, I don't think (for example) a child molester should have the right to own a gun. Not because he necessarily used a gun to commit his perverted crime, but because he doesn't DESERVE to own a gun. He doesn't deserve to live, but that's not the way the law is written.

    The right to keep and bear arms is an absolute right and should be reserved to people who do not commit felonies. Not just armed felonies, but any felony that leaves a victim without something to which he's entitled, whether that be property or an emotional state which the perp violates.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    So, Gene, we're in general agreement -- there are certain situations in which you might lose that "shall not be infringed" right to bear arms. None of our constitutional rights are 100% absolute but nearly so, and the Supremes should see that these right are upheld whenever possible.

    And Teach, I totally understand the "license to worship" argument. But here's my question to you: Let's say that it's a law that a convicted felon cannot possess a firearm. Question 1: Should there be ANY limitations on possession and carry of a firearm? In summary, could a convicted felon be denied this right?

    Second: If we see a Crips-color wearing dude walking along with a pistol on his side, does a cop have a right to ask or stop or otherwise inquire about this behavior? Myself, I think yes, but you may think it's okay and the cop cannot ask or inquire. Yes or no? (not trying to pick a fight, just asking whether the right to open carry is inalienable or not, as you see it.)

    Regardless of the merits or defects of constitutional carry, IF you have a law that requires possession of a permit before you can open or concealed carry, then the cops DO need the authority to stop and check. Which the Tx legislature has added to the bill. Understand, I'm talking about WITHIN the concept that the law does require a permit to carry. If there is no permit requirement, it's another matter entirely as I see it.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    I sometimes wonder about that paying your debt to society statement, a man spends 20 years in a Federal prison, his debt to society is paid, right ?
    Not quite... is that not a bit hypocritical ?
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    DoctorWho wrote: »
    I sometimes wonder about that paying your debt to society statement, a man spends 20 years in a Federal prison, his debt to society is paid, right ?
    Not quite... is that not a bit hypocritical ?

    I tend to agree, first offense of course. Human beings screw up, do dumb things. I pretty much feel that IF the guy is not hardcore and IF he kept his nose clean in stir, he should be given a chance to restore his rights. Early release for good behavior, probation for a couple years, and if he stays outa trouble, he's clean and good to go.

    2nd felony? Naw. And of course same for 1st offense if it's major crime, murder or aggravated rape, brutal thuggery, etc.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 Senior Member
    I for one eliminated "paying ones debt to society and all similar phrases out of my usage.
    I have no issues with crime & punishment, I simply dislike the hypocritical aspect of the statement, if a person can be punished in perpetuity for a crime committed, punished well after the term of incarceration, why say they paid their when debt when obviously they have not or can not ?

    you have not paid your debt to society if you are still getting punished or damaged.

    I think if people thought more about the personal cost of crime, there would be fewer criminals.
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
  • bowserbbowserb Member Posts: 277 Member
    I guess my concern would be that a convicted felon released from prison may or may not have really served his term of punishment. With our federal courts finding that a prison at 90% of capacity is unacceptable (while military quarters at 125% of capacity is OK), and requiring a release of prisoners, I'd rather we didn't re-arm convicted felons. We have convicted murderers getting out of prison after seven or eight years on a life term. I would subscribe to getting gun rights back when the time of the original sentenced prison term is up, not when paroled. So a life sentence means you get your gun rights back when you're dead.

    The Second Amendment applies to citizens whose rights and responsibilities are in balance. The recidivism rate of convicted felons is such that arming a paroled felon seems like giving him or her tools to resume criminal behavior. Yes, that is oversimplifying, but that's what the courts have left us, since they no longer feel it is necessary for criminals "to do the time for the crime!" Yes, a hard core criminal can still get a gun, but why make it easy?
    "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
  • DoctorWhoDoctorWho Senior Member Posts: 9,496 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.

    No, a drivers license is not a privilege, it is a purchased instrument for the purpose of identifying people who have passed minimum state requirements for operating applicable motor vehicles, for operating motor vehicles on public non exempt roads.

    While a drivers license is not a privilege or granted boon, the activities relating to driving enjoy constitutional protection, your ability to travel etc and the ordinary civil rights all apply, a wedge exists between a right and the States power to demand proof of identity and qualification for many activities normally considered a right.
    "There is some evil in all of us, Doctor, even you, the Valeyard is an amalgamation of the darker sides of your nature, somewhere between your twelfth and final incarnation, and I may say, you do not improve with age. Founding member of the G&A forum since 1996
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.