Would You Favor Special Privilege?

[The Annoyed Man]

.....The requirement to have a license to carry if you want the “free” exercise of your RKBA is a fact of life.....

Sadly, that is true. And for that very reason I would get the enhanced LTC if offered. I'm not willing to wait it out to see if we ever get our intended rights back and doubt we'll live long enough to see gun free zones eliminated. I spend enough time at my son's school that I wouldn't hesitate one extra day to get in line for the enhanced version.

Even though I disagree 100% with the premise, I want the benefit and would gladly give up the dollars, time and ammo to get it.

I can understand that completely. If something like that were passed, I would probably pursue it too, for the same reasons. The justification is the same as for why I got my CHL/LTC in the first place....didn’t want to HAVE to do it, but DID do it so that I could carry most places without fear of arrest. But, until such a political crime of tiered licensing occurs, it is a better use of our time, effort, and money to work toward the goals of increasing the places we can carry under our current licenses (which is an achievable goal in the next 1 or 2 legislative sessions if we are smart about it), and to keep pushing for some kind of Constitutional Carry passage in the future. That would be a trend away from regulation (read that as “infringements”), instead of adding a layer of complexity to the existing infringements, which would be a trend toward additional infringements.

I wasn’t around at the time of her tenure in the legislature, and it has been communicated to me by someone in the logic of whose opinions I have confidence, that Suzanna Gratia Hupp wasn’t always the most politically effective advocate for gun rights - meaning not that she wasn’t a vocal supporter, but that she sometimes got hoist by her own petard, as they say. Whether this is entirely true or not, I do not know. But what I do know is that was absolutely right on when she said:

How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.

The fact is, you could apply that standard to how the US Congress has trampled on ALL of our rights. Is Federal Asset Forfeiture consistent with 4th Amendment?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Well, that’s not what happens when some hick highway patrol officer doesn’t like the cut of your jib and decides that the emergency cash you brought on your trip which he found in your motor home along with a .357 revolver (but no drugs) because he used the “I smell marijuana” pretext for a Terry stop and searched your motor home without your permission OR a warrant. The fact that you’re retired and have no “visible means of support” (while you’re on vacation, no less) is suspicious. When he asks how you support yourself, and you say you have retirement accounts, he takes your bank cards, swipes them, and drains your accounts into the Pooville city coffers. Then he impounds your motor home on the notion that it must have been acquired with unlawfully gained money.....again, “because he smelled marijuana.” It ends up costing you a minor fortune and 2 or 3 years wending your way through the courts to get any of your property or money back, because SCOTUS - the “Defender of the Constitution” - has allowed the gov’t to construct such a Byzantine system for private citizens who themselves have never been charged with, let alone convicted of a crime, to recover their confiscated assets, which were taken under “civil (not criminal) asset forfeiture laws”. And by the time you reach an agreement, you never get it all back. They used some of the money to buy new computers for the squad cars. They sold your expensive motor home at auction for half its actual value and used some of the money to buy a couple of armored vehicles from the fedgov’t (for their little town of 10,000 people). They used some of the money to buy updated radar guns. They used some of it to fund the annual police and fireman’s annual picnic. By the time you win your case, your assets are long gone. So they offer to settle. They’ll give you back 40¢ on the dollar, if you will just walk away. If not, they’ll use their city attorney to keep this in the courts until they bleed you dry.

THAT is what the federal gov’t and the govts of most states think of your 4th Amendment rights. I completely understand that they’ve gotten away with it with full blessing of SCOTUS, so it is “constitutional”. But the FACT is, when SCOTUS arrived at that decision, they had to completely ignore the OBVIOUS intent of the founders, plainly written in the text of the 4th Amendment. Let’s apply a paraphrasing of Hupp’s words to the 4th Amendment:

How a politician stands on the 4th Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.

......or......

How a politician stands on the 4th Amendment tells you how he or she views Constitution of the United States… as a sacred and reliable framework for the limitation of gov’t growth and protecting the rights of The People, or as a bludgeon against an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and kept in the dark about their rights.

You can look at our government today, at virtually any level, and make that comparison with regard to ANY of your natural or God-given rights, which belong to you for the simple reason that you are alive and breathing.....and no other reason. Does the way they treat YOU personally in YOUR life reveal that they view you as “as a trustworthy and productive citizen”, or does the way they treat YOU in YOUR life personally reveal that they view you as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of? Those rights are YOURS. They are NOT gov’t permissions.

So, I follow the existing rules, under protest, and do the best job I know how of avoiding lawless behavior on my own part. But that does NOT mean that I will support ANY tweaking of the laws to make me jump through additional hoops and pay additional money, just so that I can expand my right to keep and bear arms, a right which is not to be “infringed” upon in the first place - NOT BY ANYBODY - unless I have received my Constitutionally mandated due process, and have been accused, tried, and convicted in a court of law of a disqualifying crime.

The more layers of crap they pile on good, decent people, just so that those people can have what the Founders originally intended for them to have - and all done simply because they do not view those people as unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of - the closer we get to it being time to burn this thing to the ground and start over.

As anyone who moved here from either the east or west coasts can tell you, Texas - as a general thing - is better governed than those coastal states. But even Texas is not perfect; and the demonstrable fact that people who have jumped through the licensing hoops to gain the exercise of their right to carry a firearm have a better crime record as a class than those people whose very job it is to enforce the law and fight crime, and yet they cannot carry their firearm into all the same places as those enforcers of the law, is proof positive that Texas still has a ways to go to be TRUE defenders of the Constitution. Partial defenders is better than confirmed oppressors such as California’s gov’t, but just because we’re better than California, it does not follow that we’re good enough.

“Good enough” means we have Constitutional Carry - pretty much anywhere we want except maybe inside of a prison. “Good enough” means that not one more resident of Texas is EVER subjected to civil asset forfeiture without FIRST having been accused, tried, and convicted of a crime in a court of law. Etc., etc.

So NO. I will NOT support legislation that would add an additional layer of “my gov’t doesn’t trust me” to the already existing infringements. We either stand for Liberty, or we don’t. I choose to stand for it. And I will continue to stand for it until gov’t gets all of it right.

(I’m ba-ack! )

[Odiferous]

So when we have LTC and LTC+, we'll need more signs to prohibit LTC+ concealed and open carry. Maybe we should just require the entire penal code posted in 1" letters.

[treadlightly]

The philosophical arguments have been well put. Here's a practical concern.

If there is a line between some rights and more rights, that line is going to move over time.

Which way do you suppose it might go? Would the legacy LTC holder lose or gain rights over time?

The risk of death by gunfire in an armed society, at least in our armed society, is preferable to risking lost liberty. Constitutional carry and due process for me.

Besides, if you want to make society safer, the first thing to do is enforce the law, not shackle the law abiding.

It's easy enough to break the law, anyway. Today, I saw a government sign near the edge of town I'd never thought about before.

Right there, on the way to the Walmart, is a sign that says "45" in large print, "speed limit" in somewhat smaller lettering. I assume they mean roughly 850 fps.

I was OK this morning, my 1911 comfortably cocked and locked, but I've carried a 9mm right past there hundreds of times!

[The Annoyed Man]

The philosophical arguments have been well put. Here's a practical concern.

If there is a line between some rights and more rights, that line is going to move over time.

Which way do you suppose it might go? Would the legacy LTC holder lose or gain rights over time?

The risk of death by gunfire in an armed society, at least in our armed society, is preferable to risking lost liberty. Constitutional carry and due process for me.

Besides, if you want to make society safer, the first thing to do is enforce the law, not shackle the law abiding.

It's easy enough to break the law, anyway. Today, I saw a government sign near the edge of town I'd never thought about before.

Right there, on the way to the Walmart, is a sign that says "45" in large print, "speed limit" in somewhat smaller lettering. I assume they mean roughly 850 fps.

I was OK this morning, my 1911 comfortably cocked and locked, but I've carried a 9mm right past there hundreds of times!

For the win.

[jmra]

Here is a link to AR’s law if anyone is interested.
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/ ... HB1249.pdf

If I’m reading this correctly, a sign that can be read from a distance of “10 feet” stating that firearms are not allowed would prevent a license holder from entering armed. The 10 feet requirement seems subjective. I didn’t read very far, but what I did read didn’t state specific wording. Not sure if a gun buster sign is sufficient notice or not. License holder must notify a home owner they are carrying before entering armed.

Overall, I’d take current Texas law over AR enhanced carry.

BTW, looks like the enhanced carry training won’t be available until spring of 18. State police have not even developed the program yet.

Just another example, IMHO, of how though not perfect, TX LTC is a lot better than many out there.

[rdcrags]

.....The requirement to have a license to carry if you want the “free” exercise of your RKBA is a fact of life.....

Sadly, that is true. And for that very reason I would get the enhanced LTC if offered. I'm not willing to wait it out to see if we ever get our intended rights back and doubt we'll live long enough to see gun free zones eliminated. I spend enough time at my son's school that I wouldn't hesitate one extra day to get in line for the enhanced version.

Even though I disagree 100% with the premise, I want the benefit and would gladly give up the dollars, time and ammo to get it.

I can understand that completely. If something like that were passed, I would probably pursue it too, for the same reasons. The justification is the same as for why I got my CHL/LTC in the first place....didn’t want to HAVE to do it, but DID do it so that I could carry most places without fear of arrest. But, until such a political crime of tiered licensing occurs, it is a better use of our time, effort, and money to work toward the goals of increasing the places we can carry under our current licenses (which is an achievable goal in the next 1 or 2 legislative sessions if we are smart about it), and to keep pushing for some kind of Constitutional Carry passage in the future. That would be a trend away from regulation (read that as “infringements”), instead of adding a layer of complexity to the existing infringements, which would be a trend toward additional infringements.

I wasn’t around at the time of her tenure in the legislature, and it has been communicated to me by someone in the logic of whose opinions I have confidence, that Suzanna Gratia Hupp wasn’t always the most politically effective advocate for gun rights - meaning not that she wasn’t a vocal supporter, but that she sometimes got hoist by her own petard, as they say. Whether this is entirely true or not, I do not know. But what I do know is that was absolutely right on when she said:

How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.

The fact is, you could apply that standard to how the US Congress has trampled on ALL of our rights. Is Federal Asset Forfeiture consistent with 4th Amendment?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Well, that’s not what happens when some hick highway patrol officer doesn’t like the cut of your jib and decides that the emergency cash you brought on your trip which he found in your motor home along with a .357 revolver (but no drugs) because he used the “I smell marijuana” pretext for a Terry stop and searched your motor home without your permission OR a warrant. The fact that you’re retired and have no “visible means of support” (while you’re on vacation, no less) is suspicious. When he asks how you support yourself, and you say you have retirement accounts, he takes your bank cards, swipes them, and drains your accounts into the Pooville city coffers. Then he impounds your motor home on the notion that it must have been acquired with unlawfully gained money.....again, “because he smelled marijuana.” It ends up costing you a minor fortune and 2 or 3 years wending your way through the courts to get any of your property or money back, because SCOTUS - the “Defender of the Constitution” - has allowed the gov’t to construct such a Byzantine system for private citizens who themselves have never been charged with, let alone convicted of a crime, to recover their confiscated assets, which were taken under “civil (not criminal) asset forfeiture laws”. And by the time you reach an agreement, you never get it all back. They used some of the money to buy new computers for the squad cars. They sold your expensive motor home at auction for half its actual value and used some of the money to buy a couple of armored vehicles from the fedgov’t (for their little town of 10,000 people). They used some of the money to buy updated radar guns. They used some of it to fund the annual police and fireman’s annual picnic. By the time you win your case, your assets are long gone. So they offer to settle. They’ll give you back 40¢ on the dollar, if you will just walk away. If not, they’ll use their city attorney to keep this in the courts until they bleed you dry.

THAT is what the federal gov’t and the govts of most states think of your 4th Amendment rights. I completely understand that they’ve gotten away with it with full blessing of SCOTUS, so it is “constitutional”. But the FACT is, when SCOTUS arrived at that decision, they had to completely ignore the OBVIOUS intent of the founders, plainly written in the text of the 4th Amendment. Let’s apply a paraphrasing of Hupp’s words to the 4th Amendment:

How a politician stands on the 4th Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.

......or......

How a politician stands on the 4th Amendment tells you how he or she views Constitution of the United States… as a sacred and reliable framework for the limitation of gov’t growth and protecting the rights of The People, or as a bludgeon against an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and kept in the dark about their rights.

You can look at our government today, at virtually any level, and make that comparison with regard to ANY of your natural or God-given rights, which belong to you for the simple reason that you are alive and breathing.....and no other reason. Does the way they treat YOU personally in YOUR life reveal that they view you as “as a trustworthy and productive citizen”, or does the way they treat YOU in YOUR life personally reveal that they view you as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of? Those rights are YOURS. They are NOT gov’t permissions.

So, I follow the existing rules, under protest, and do the best job I know how of avoiding lawless behavior on my own part. But that does NOT mean that I will support ANY tweaking of the laws to make me jump through additional hoops and pay additional money, just so that I can expand my right to keep and bear arms, a right which is not to be “infringed” upon in the first place - NOT BY ANYBODY - unless I have received my Constitutionally mandated due process, and have been accused, tried, and convicted in a court of law of a disqualifying crime.

The more layers of crap they pile on good, decent people, just so that those people can have what the Founders originally intended for them to have - and all done simply because they do not view those people as unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of - the closer we get to it being time to burn this thing to the ground and start over.

As anyone who moved here from either the east or west coasts can tell you, Texas - as a general thing - is better governed than those coastal states. But even Texas is not perfect; and the demonstrable fact that people who have jumped through the licensing hoops to gain the exercise of their right to carry a firearm have a better crime record as a class than those people whose very job it is to enforce the law and fight crime, and yet they cannot carry their firearm into all the same places as those enforcers of the law, is proof positive that Texas still has a ways to go to be TRUE defenders of the Constitution. Partial defenders is better than confirmed oppressors such as California’s gov’t, but just because we’re better than California, it does not follow that we’re good enough.

“Good enough” means we have Constitutional Carry - pretty much anywhere we want except maybe inside of a prison. “Good enough” means that not one more resident of Texas is EVER subjected to civil asset forfeiture without FIRST having been accused, tried, and convicted of a crime in a court of law. Etc., etc.

So NO. I will NOT support legislation that would add an additional layer of “my gov’t doesn’t trust me” to the already existing infringements. We either stand for Liberty, or we don’t. I choose to stand for it. And I will continue to stand for it until gov’t gets all of it right.

(I’m ba-ack! )

Strong letter to follow?

[The Annoyed Man]

Strong letter to follow?

Who in Austin would listen? I know that MY rep won’t.

[Abraham]

Specious Privilege?

Introducing even greater bureaucracy?

No, NO THANKS!

[bblhd672]

I’ll take “TAM’s Posts” for 20 Alex!

I am glad to have you back in full throttle posting again!

[jason812]

Shall not be infringed...

[oljames3]

Shall not be infringed...

[karder]

The poll responses are not mutually exclusive.
No, I don't think anyone should have to have a different license to carry in more places.
Yes, I would get an enhanced license if it was available and enabled me to carry legally in more places.

Same here.

[ninjabread]

LTC should have the same carry restrictions as LEO who are not "engaged in the actual discharge of the officer's duties while carrying the weapon" but it might require a pro gun legislature to pass that.

[LDB415]

I suspect a fair number of those choosing option 3 might also choose option 1. I would be a 1 and 3 if that were an option.