TexasCHLforum.com

Dave2 wrote:

snorri wrote:

texasjeep44 wrote:Like it or not that is the way it is. If you want to change the law, work towards that goal, but just because you don't like a law doesn't mean it shouldn't be followed or that it should be overlooked because you don't agree with it or it didn't hurt anyone.

That type of thinking is for criminals

Like Oskar Schindler. And the Underground Railroad in the USA.

You're seriously comparing helping jews escape the holocaust and slaves gain their freedom to... concealed vs open carry?

I think the comparison intended was the restoration of constitutional carry, period. Not degrees or variations in how that is exercised. As an aside, I wonder how different the history would have been had the Polish and German Jews had resisted the laws and retained their weapons, even in the face of arrest or armed conflict?

That said, we have a legislative process to accomplish our goals. Failing that, passive resistance (civil disobedience).

Back then the constitution allowed slavery. Right now, the constitution says the right to own and carry arms shall not be infringed. So the people violating the second amendment are, in some sense, worse than the slave owners.

Oh, please. This discussion is very close to invoking Godwin's law.

- Jim

I think snorri already did. Does this forum honor the corollaries? If so, we need to start a new thread.

Evil people violate the rights of others. There are degrees of evil, but evil is evil.

Ameer wrote:Evil people violate the rights of others. There are degrees of evil, but evil is evil.

How does any of this apply to "Spotted CHL - little let down"?

You're a smart guy. You'll figure it out.

Whatever we may think of these laws—and I detest them—they were made by democratically elected legislatures, signed into law by democratically elected governors or presidents, and for the most part upheld by appeals courts.

The voters had every opportunity for over 150 years to vote in someone else, and it has not happened.

- Jim

snorri wrote:

texasjeep44 wrote:Like it or not that is the way it is. If you want to change the law, work towards that goal, but just because you don't like a law doesn't mean it shouldn't be followed or that it should be overlooked because you don't agree with it or it didn't hurt anyone.

That type of thinking is for criminals

Like Oskar Schindler. And the Underground Railroad in the USA.

Good point. (I started writing this before there were any responses but I have taken far too long so the below has some duplication.)

I believe that we have an obligation to follow legitimate authority's legitimate requests. Anything that is unethical or immoral is not a legitimate request in my book. It is not unethical or immoral to carry a weapon concealed as opposed to openly in the course of daily life. If you don't like the law, by all means, work to change it. In the mean time, a legitimate authority has made a legitimate request (that you follow this law, even if you think it is a poor law) and I believe there is an obligation to follow it as long as it stands and as long as it remains a morally neutral issue.

Some people would believe so strongly that the federal government could not legitimately make such a request and their consciences would be so strongly set on that that for those few, it would be a moral evil to oppose their consciences. Even still, it would be prudent in such a circumstance to comply with a morally neutral request from an illegitimate authority than to take on the inordinate risks associated with not doing so. But some people feel so strongly convinced that something is wrong that they feel a need to bring attention to the issue, even at the risk to their own life or freedom. They wouldn't sloppily let it slip at a petting zoo. They'd be marching around openly passing out fliers in front of the legislative offices or some equivalent. The guy the OP saw was just apathy for the laws, which is a bit of a let-down. Doing the best at what you believe in is admirable and being sloppy clearly isn't the best.

Situations such as murder, genocide, human trafficking, eugenics, and the like are morally evil so no one can make a legitimate request that you participate in them. As such, comparing a morally neutral request (concealed carry) to a morally evil request is not a fair comparison. To clarify, I think it was a fair point to make to the above poster who made no allowance for disobeying laws which require participation with evil. The obvious conclusion that slavery was acceptable to not participate in and so concealed carry doesn't require citizens' respect, either, is one I would reject.

These philosophical questions are difficult.

History will write you down as a dead saint, a dead martyr, a dead criminal, a dead terrorist, or a dead kook.

Please note the common thread.

- Jim

Nothing is certain but death and taxes.

I knew that judges and DA's could carry but I did not know that they could do it openly. Do they get some kinda badge or something to put on their belt when they carry openly? OK, when I think about it, DA's may have a badge because of their position, but how about judges? Sorry if this is a bit off topic - just curious.

I don't know if Texas judges have badges.

For some years now, judges and prosecutors are supposed to get a CHL. However, they have been allowed to carry a weapon probably since the most recent Texas Constitution was drafted. [PC 46.15(a)(4)]

Also note when looking at PC 46.15 that they are exempt from 46.02 and 46.03, the same as cops.

- Jim