Open Carry In Texas

[Mike D]

Here's the text:

I'm fully aware of the text. I still don't see where it says you have the right to carry however you want.

[LostHawg]

sotx is right.

[LostHawg]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Mike I just can't say any more clearly than this already does. I'm sorry my posting the amendment offends you. I was just putting it there for reference, not in response to your post.

Seems the plight of the liberals and Brady's wife is a huge success!

[Mike D]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Mike I just can't say any more clearly than this already does. I'm sorry my posting the amendment offends you. I was just putting it there for reference, not in response to your post.

Seems the plight of the liberals and Brady's wife is a huge success!

I don't take any of this stuff personally. Just like you I am voicing my opinion.

The Brady comment is a bit ridiculous though. I am just as big a flag waver of the gun rights as anyone, I have plenty of them,have a CHL and know how to use them. But I can see no justification for open carry, especially the way that document is written.

[rosscardiackid]

Im still trying to figure out how to holster my bow and carry it. Hahaha I wont sign this due to I have seen some real yoyos with CHGL who dont know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of. Thats what scares me.

[Will Hunt]

I'm fully aware of the text. I still don't see where it says you have the right to carry however you want.

Since you wish to interpret the Constitution... where does it say that you do not have the right to carry however you want?

You see, that is the philosophical difference between Constitutionalists and others. How much do you interpret, tweak, discern, read into, or edit the constitution? Who should be able to edit or clarify the basis of our freedoms and why? Who has the ability to go back and decide what the founders of our very country, our government intended?

That is risky business, IMHO.

[sotx]

Im still trying to figure out how to holster my bow and carry it. Hahaha I wont sign this due to I have seen some real yoyos with CHGL who dont know which end of the gun the bullet comes out of. Thats what scares me.

The nuts you speak of already carry. By preventing this only the LAW ABIDING citizen is denied.

[LostHawg]

The nuts you speak of already carry. By preventing this only the LAW ABIDING citizen is denied.

Exactly.

Permitted carry, making it illegal to carry, etc, are merely "feel good" laws. They bear very little, if at all, on the facts.

[Mike D]

Since you wish to interpret the Constitution... where does it say that you do not have the right to carry however you want?

You see, that is the philosophical difference between Constitutionalists and others. How much do you interpret, tweak, discern, read into, or edit the constitution? Who should be able to edit or clarify the basis of our freedoms and why? Who has the ability to go back and decide what the founders of our very country, our government intended?

That is risky business, IMHO.

I have no desire to interpret the Constitution or Bill of Rights. I could say the same for you. Where does it say you have the right to carry arms as you see fit?

I don't necessarily have a problem with open carry. I personally wouldn't do it as I see no need or good reason to do so, but I don't necessarily have a problem with it if it were ever to be made legal. I can find no good reason or justification to openly carry.

[Will Hunt]

I have no desire to interpret the Constitution or Bill of Rights. I could say the same for you. Where does it say you have the right to carry arms as you see fit?

I don't necessarily have a problem with open carry. I personally wouldn't do it as I see no need or good reason to do so, but I don't necessarily have a problem with it if it were ever to be made legal. I can find no good reason or justification to openly carry.

Ahh... but you see, Mike, I am not attempting to interpret the Constitution. I am pointing out what it clearly states, nothing more or less.

I am neither adding to it by inferring more than it states, or taking from it by making my own interpretive exclusions.

You really can't say that I am doing any differently.

This is an interesting topic.

[TXJon]

I have no desire to interpret the Constitution or Bill of Rights. I could say the same for you. Where does it say you have the right to carry arms as you see fit?

You are missing the whole SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED part.

I could be wrong, but I thought one of the essential principles was that we all have the right to do absolutely anything that is not specifically prohibited.

The constitution does not say you have the right to vote, either, but I think you'd have a hard time finding someone who doesn't think they have that right.

[Felix40]

Infringe-to break (a law etc) or interfere with (a person's freedom or rights), to encroach upon
Bear-to hold or carry
As far as I can tell...citizens should be able to carry a gun with no "interference" or "encroachment" from ANY laws. Period. I would consider laws which force a person to carry a certain way, or limits the types of guns we can carry to be infringing on my rights.

ON the flip side...carrying a gun in the open may make a person a target(even though I dont think a simple robber really wants to kill anyone and would prolly avoid this situation entirely). But who says its the government's right to not let people make themselves targets? Anyone who has a gun should know the risks and do whatever is best for HIMSELF. I know that sounds dumb but its the truth. And besides...maybe if a bad guy shoots me first then one of you who CC would actually have time to dig into your ankle holster or reach down your pants and get something done!

[LostHawg]

They've been infringing since about the 50's.

Probably earlier when Earp made them disarm before entering Abilene, KS.

[rosscardiackid]

The nuts you speak of already carry. By preventing this only the LAW ABIDING citizen is denied.

So be it then I would rather be shot by a lawbreaking thug than law abiding dip who thinks hes a stud by carrying a gun and dont know how to use it or of course when.

[LostHawg]

I think you folks are actually missing the point. Half of us are talking about the rights given us by the 2nd Amendment, the other half are talking about their preferences. Furthermore, the ones who're adamant about restricting the right to arms will willingly jump behind the wheel of their vehicle after drinking a couple beers as if that's just fine and dandy.

The right to bear arms IS FACT in the 2nd Amendment. Whether you agree with it or not.

I'll tell you the BEST way to change it to be more suppressive/infringing too. Just keep voting in liberal Bradyists!