Texas is Going for Permitless Carry

[Hawkmoon]

You know what I think should be allowed?
 
You have an intersection, and there's basically gridlocked stop and go traffic.
 
The other side of the intersection is full. The light is green, but you sit, and wait for there to be room on the other side. Then Sumdood guns his Charger past you, and pulls up, actually in the intersection. If you're lucky, nobody else does, but some idiot is going to think that that is okay, and join him.
 
In the intersection.
 
And then traffic is REALLY blocked and snarled...
 
We should be allowed to execute them, and then auction their cars.

I am willing to sign a petition for your campaign. Is that just one plank in your platform, is is that your complete platform?

Either way, you have my vote.

[Fly320s]

We need just 5 more states to pass Constitutional Carry to have a simple majority.

Who's next?  FL, PA, NV are the top contenders in my book.  Maybe MI, OH, NC are next.

[230RN]

The streets of Kansas and Missouri only ran red for a couple days. Then we were all dead.

I assume that's a joke?

I don't get it.

[MechAg94]

We need just 5 more states to pass Constitutional Carry to have a simple majority.

Who's next?  FL, PA, NV are the top contenders in my book.  Maybe MI, OH, NC are next.

LA came very close to getting it passed.  A few legislators were bought off by the Gov. to prevent Veto override.  Maybe see what happens after the next election. 

[Ben]

We need just 5 more states to pass Constitutional Carry to have a simple majority.

Who's next?  FL, PA, NV are the top contenders in my book.  Maybe MI, OH, NC are next.

Nebraska is a rural state, what's going on there? Also Mississippi and Alabama. Aren't they filled with rednecks? I hate to say it, but I don't have high hopes for FL or NV at this time. I mean, if it got to the Governor's desk in FL, I bet he would sign, but it's the getting there.

[T.O.M.]

I doubt Ohio will go Constitutional carry.  DeWine won't sign, even if they get that far.

[Pb]

Also Mississippi and Alabama. Aren't they filled with rednecks?

In Alabama, the permit fees go to a slush fund for the sheriffs- that they can spend any way they want.  They raise a fuss every time it seems like Constitional Carry might pass.  There is one vile senator that keeps blocking it.

[BobR]

Nebraska is a rural state, what's going on there? Also Mississippi and Alabama. Aren't they filled with rednecks? I hate to say it, but I don't have high hopes for FL or NV at this time. I mean, if it got to the Governor's desk in FL, I bet he would sign, but it's the getting there.

If it were up to the Gov here in NV I am sure he would go door to door taking guns. NV is shading to the blue side of purple.

bob

[RocketMan]

We need just 5 more states to pass Constitutional Carry to have a simple majority.

Who's next?  FL, PA, NV are the top contenders in my book.  Maybe MI, OH, NC are next.

NC will never go Constitutional Carry.  We have a flaming leftist for a governor, and that is not likely to change.

[Hawkmoon]

We need just 5 more states to pass Constitutional Carry to have a simple majority.

Who's next?  FL, PA, NV are the top contenders in my book.  Maybe MI, OH, NC are next.

It won't happen in Pennsylvania. Philadelphia will see to that.

PA already has a watered-down version. Open carry is legal without a permit everywhere except in Philadelphia. The catch is that it's only good when you're walking. In a vehicle, you can't carry a loaded firearm without a license. And Philadelphia cops routinely ignore even the existing law and bust anyone they see open carrying.

[WLJ]

Constitutional Carry Bill Introduced Again in Florida…Is the Third Time the Charm?
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/constitutional-carry-billintroduced-again-in-florida-is-the-third-time-the-charm/

[BobR]

This type of statement pisses me off to no end. Whether the gun is concealed, open, with or without a permit doesn't mean squat. If a person is going to bad things they will be done. Yet they continue to use it in order to frighten the people who aren't bothered to learn the truth or just want to ignore it.

Griffith said another concern is that the law makes it more difficult for police to differentiate between a "good guy with a gun," and someone who may have bad intentions.

https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/in-depth/2021/08/24/406649/permitless-carry-in-texas-heres-what-you-need-to-know/

bob

[230RN]

I've always wondered about why concealed carry was soooo bad.  It's not like anyone who carries concealed is more likely to shoot the guy across the table for flipping an ace out of his sleeve.

[Pb]

I've always wondered about why concealed carry was soooo bad.  It's not like anyone who carries concealed is more likely to shoot the guy across the table for flipping an ace out of his sleeve.

It is an old idea that dates back to the 1800's at least.... honorable men carried their weapons in a open, manly manner.... cowards hid their guns.  CC bans started around the 1820's in the USA in some places, but open carry was pretty much unrestricted everywhere for a very long time.

[Pb]

I saw something interesting the other day; look at the list of US states by homicide rate for 2019:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The top five states with the lowest rates all have constitutional carry. 

[MechAg94]

This type of statement pisses me off to no end. Whether the gun is concealed, open, with or without a permit doesn't mean squat. If a person is going to bad things they will be done. Yet they continue to use it in order to frighten the people who aren't bothered to learn the truth or just want to ignore it.


https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/in-depth/2021/08/24/406649/permitless-carry-in-texas-heres-what-you-need-to-know/

bob

Innocent until proven guilty? 

More than likely, an officer who spends any time patrolling an area will already know who the problem people are.  Not to mention people who do bad things generally have done them before and have the criminal record to show for it. 

[230RN]

It is an old idea that dates back to the 1800's at least.... honorable men carried their weapons in a open, manly manner.... cowards hid their guns.  CC bans started around the 1820's in the USA in some places, but open carry was pretty much unrestricted everywhere for a very long time.

My first question is why a coward would be motivated to conceal --does it have anything to do with the notion that an "honorable man" won't  shoot an unarmed man?  A hangover from the code duelllo?

Isn't  it just as likely that a coward would want to carry openly?

Not to mention that our root edition of "common law" (~1791) does not imply that "...bear arms, shall not be infringed" means "...bear arms openly, shall not be infringed."

'Tis a puzzlement.

Terry, 230RN

[Pb]

Concealed carry bans started in the 1820s...

Before that, there were no bans on carry, open or concealed...

During the 1800's most courts ruled that open carry was protected by the constition, and CC was not (there were a few exceptions).

Given that at the time the Second was written, CC was unregulated everywhere, it is kind of an open question if they thought it was protected by the second or not...

[230RN]

But since they didn't specify any "manner of carrying," the default is "any method of carrying."  That means in your hat or in your jock strap.  To specify manner of carrying or "bearing"  would be an infringement.

And once again, I point out the stated purpose of the ten amendments was to cement these rights in writing:

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..."

I further point out that the Second Amendment is possibly the shortest and most concise statement restricting the power of government in the entire constitution, and was carefully thought out, phrased, and ratified, even after the Constitution itself was adopted.

It males me think they meant it.

There I stand.

Terry, 230RN

REF:
https://drexel.edu/ogcr/resources/constitution/amendments/preamble/

[Hawkmoon]

But since they didn't specify any "manner of carrying," the default is "any method of carrying."  That means in your hat or in your jock strap.  To specify manner of carrying or "bearing"  would be an infringement.

I understand your point, and I happen to agree. However, the supreme courts of multiple states disagree. Those courts have ruled that the states may regulate -- but not prohibit -- the carry of firearms. Therefore, if they wish to prohibit concealed carry, then open carry must be allowed. If they wish to prohibit open carry, then concealed carry must be allowed.

[230RN]

Me: "... was carefully thought out..."

How do you spell "infirinjmint'?

And the "supreme courts" of the states are not the "Supreme Court" ("SCOTUS") and are only ruling on their own constitutions.

And while the Bill of Rights was formally "incorporated to the States" only recently, that does not mean that it was not "incorporated to the States" in all the time before that.

Colorado has some weasel words in its "Bill of Rights" where, while prohibited from calling into question the right to keep arms, this does not mean that concealed carry can not be regulated. (The precise wording is not available to me at this instant.)

Clearly this is unconstitutional in light of the incorporation to the states of the second amendment... despite that Colorado's constitution was adopted in 1876, long before the federal supreme court only recently took up the question of incorporation to the states.

There I stand.

Terry, 230RN

[WLJ]

While at the same time if you attempt to put any, and I mean any, sort of restriction on abortion libs heads explode. Because, you know, abortion is a right guarantied by the constitution.

[230RN]

Oh, Jesis H. Krist, don't start that one.  Talk about thread tsunami. Not helpful, WLJ.

Maybe that's one of the ones which should be left to the states, or to the people.

Let that neverending issue be ended in this thread.  There are enough other forums to haggle out that question.

[Hawkmoon]

And the "supreme courts" of the states are not the "Supreme Court" ("SCOTUS") and are only ruling on their own constitutions.

Correct. And each of those state constitutions has a right to keep and bear arms provision that is close to the wording of the federal Second Amendment.

And while the Bill of Rights was formally "incorporated to the States" only recently, that does not mean that it was not "incorporated to the States" in all the time before that.

The Bill of Rights was incorporated only recently? Where'd you hear THAT?

Are you thinking of the fact that the McDonald decision ruled that the 2A applies to the states? That was 2010, so I guess that's comparatively recent. But that was only the Second Amendment. I'm pretty certain most of the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights had been incorporated long before the McDonald case.

[Pb]

In the 1800's there were some commentators that said the Second applied to the states, but most courts said it did not- however the Supreme Court actually said states could not disarm the citizens, as it would prevent them from serving in the militia, regardless of the second amendment.

The people who wrote the 14th amendment clearly stated they intended to protect the right to bear arms... black people were being disarmed and murdered, and the 14th amendment was intended to protect against this, among other things.

The courts, however, basically ignored the 14th amendment for a long time.  It wasn't until recently, as we know, that the 14th amendment was declared by the court to apply the Second to the states as well... it was a very, very tardy ruling.

Unfortunately, the courts are overwhelmingly packed with people who distain gun rights, and so these rulings have had almost no effect... and the supreme court has, as of now, basically done nothing about it.  We will see if this changes soon.