Petition to Open Carry In Texas

[BersaMan II]

http://www.petitiononline.com/texasoc/petition.html

[Xander]

Yet another re-post.

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... hp?t=11375

[Doug.38PR]

I was signature 125. Already been posted.

I agree, carry should be open and without a licence...in fact, open or concealed should be without a license for anyone who wants to.

[txinvestigator]

I don't care if there is open carry in Texas or not, so I have no dog in this fight.

That said, I refuse to put my name, and therefore my reputation, on something that is full of lies, misleading statements and done in the same manner the anti's do when they want things.

1. Every individual has the right and responsibility to defend their self against unjustified threats of death or serious bodily injury.

2. The Constitution of the United States guarantees the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.

3. Criminals are not deterred by rules, regulations, and laws forbidding the possession of weapons. A man bent on mass murder will not be stopped by a rule forbidding him to have a gun. what has this to do with OPEN carry? If you want UNLICENSED CARRY, then call it that.
4. It is well known that the requirement to conceal a handgun for the purpose of protecting self, friends, and family can be difficult especially in Texas with our extreme heat since a person will usually have to wear a jacket to properly conceal a handgun and to avoid "printing." No one has to worry about "printing" now, and I carry a full sized pistol all summer with shorts and a t shirt. I know MANY people who do the same
5. The requirement to conceal a handgun can make it difficult to draw the weapon should the life of the carrier or the life of someone else be in danger. More Bull. I draw plenty fast, and from covered. So do the people I know who carry, of course, we don't just strap our guns on a hope we can draw fast if we ever need to. We train

6. A criminal will not open carry a weapon because he does not want to draw attention to himself. We believe that a citizen openly carrying a handgun lawfully will be a deterrent for crime. well, if open carry becomes second nature and no one notices, then criminals will not mind open carrying as no one will give them any attention. Also, there is NO evidence that open carry deters crime. I can recall where people carrying open have been crime targets7. Ten states including Arizona, Alaska, Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, Virginia, Vermont, and Wyoming all allow open carry of handguns without a license. Twelve states including Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, and Tennessee allow open carry of handguns with a license. In fact, Texas is one of only SIX states in the entire United States that completely bans open carry of handguns. outright lie. Texas does NOT outright ban the open carry of handguns. Of the 8 allowances where people can carry a handgun, one REQUIRES the gun to be carried in plain view, two require concealed carry, and the rest are silent.

And I would have to see proof of the laws in those states that allow such open carry.

8. In these states, Open carry is very common and it does not alarm law enforcement or other citizens. I have spoken to people from other states who tell me that OC is allowed, but UNCOMMON, and others tell of the alarn it causes.

If you want open carry, argue the 2nd amendment POV. But don't stoop to lefty tactics of misleading statements and lies.

[jazr45acp]

I have to disagree about open carry without a license. If you don't have to obtain a license then you don't demonstrate any proficiency which all CHL holders must in order to pass. Too many folks wouldn't bother educating themselves in the laws, I think. I believe in the 2nd Am. whole heartdly, but I don't believe it applies to all folks. Some people just don't have any business near a firearm let alone handle one. If you don't believe me, visit Dietz's gun range on any given day and you'll see what I'm talking about. This is just my opinion on the matter.

[Renegade]

These are spam postings, and they should be deleted.

[KBCraig]

If you've been convicted of a felony or a class A or B misdemeanor in the past 5 years, or are mentally incapable or have EVER been convicted of drug possession, you should NOT be allowed to carry a handgun, or purchase one

1) Why not?

2) So, you support infringing RKBA?

[shaggydog]

2) So, you support infringing RKBA?

Yes, however the word "moderate" would be better used.

[seamusTX]

I have to disagree about open carry without a license. If you don't have to obtain a license then you don't demonstrate any proficiency which all CHL holders must in order to pass.

From the sixth day of creation until the early 1900s, anyone could carry a weapon in the United States with no permit.

- Jim

[txinvestigator]

I have to disagree about open carry without a license. If you don't have to obtain a license then you don't demonstrate any proficiency which all CHL holders must in order to pass.

From the sixth day of creation until the early 1900s, anyone could carry a weapon in the United States with no permit.

- Jim

While I am not arguing carry at all with this post, just because something is done for a long time does not mean it is right. See slavery and segregation, women not being allowed to vote, etc.

I also am not equating firearm carry with those things, just pointing out that "because we have always done it" does not a valid argument make. ;)

[nitrogen]

If you've been convicted of a felony or a class A or B misdemeanor in the past 5 years, or are mentally incapable or have EVER been convicted of drug possession, you should NOT be allowed to carry a handgun, or purchase one

So Martha Stewart and G. Gordon Liddy are both dangers to society because of their crimes, and should be denied their right to carry?

Being convicted of a crime doesn't automatically make you dangerous. Embezzling money, comitting stock fraud or insider trading doesn't make you a danger to society. Being convicted of these crimes should not automatically forfeit your rights to self defense.

[seamusTX]

While I am not arguing carry at all with this post, just because something is done for a long time does not mean it is right.

That is a valid point. Thanks for the opportunity to elaborate.

In the days when there were few to no regulations on weapons (I'm including handguns, long guns, knives, and swords), the rates of violent crime generally were so low we could only dream about them today. The violent crime rate in the U.K. in the years around 1900 was the lowest ever achieved, and they had no "gun control" laws.

Brigands were a problem for travelers in uninhabited places, because victims could not summon help; but travelers were able to defend themselves and advertise that capability (A.K.A. riding shotgun).

Violent crime was not a problem in an armed population.

"Gun control" was a reaction to the problem of rising crime rates, but it did nothing to reduce the crime rate. It still doesn't. That's why cities like Washington, D.C., New York, and Chicago have such high crime rates.

- Jim

[Renegade]

If you've been convicted of a felony or a class A or B misdemeanor in the past 5 years, or are mentally incapable or have EVER been convicted of drug possession, you should NOT be allowed to carry a handgun, or purchase one

So Martha Stewart and G. Gordon Liddy are both dangers to society because of their crimes, and should be denied their right to carry?
.

I do not think he meant what he wrote. ANY drug conviction is a forever disqualifier, but felonies over 5 years are OK? For example, 16 yo tried as adult for MJ possession and is convicted is forever barred, but guy who murdered someone (with gun no less), is OK to carry 5 years after conviction....

[carlson1]

Yet another re-post.

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... hp?t=11375