Texas to allow unlicensed carrying of handguns(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
Texas to allow unlicensed carrying of handguns
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-57239610
183 comments
Just yesterday night I saw this story about a "road rage" incident:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/05/22/califo...
The fact that carrying is so prevalent in Texas is one reason I'm always polite on the road and don't flip people off. You never know when someone is just going to lose it, but to be honest, a car is a deadly weapon as it is. It's just a good idea to avoid confrontations with strangers.
I've noticed that the homeless population in Texas is much less aggressive than in Chicago and San Francisco and New York. My pet theory is that when any citizen might be armed, it promotes a type of herd immunity against assault. I don't carry, personally, but as far as the aggressive homeless man is concerned, or the road rager is, I might be armed.
I like that, and I like this law.
I've noticed that the homeless population in Texas is much less aggressive than in Chicago and San Francisco and New York. My pet theory is that when any citizen might be armed, it promotes a type of herd immunity against assault. I don't carry, personally, but as far as the aggressive homeless man is concerned, or the road rager is, I might be armed.
I like that, and I like this law.
>I like that, and I like this law.
Are you able to imagine the reverse? where instead of some insane person losing it and addressing some ugly words at you he will just kill you, your family will probably won't like the it anymore.
Are you able to imagine the reverse? where instead of some insane person losing it and addressing some ugly words at you he will just kill you, your family will probably won't like the it anymore.
That would be very bad indeed, but it's also a situation that is statistically more likely to happen in California than Texas, just to add some perspective.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terr...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_terr...
Violent crime (which is a very broad spectrum of crimes, most not life threatening. Spitting on someone. A bar fight. And more severe violence) is slightly higher in California.
Gun crimes are way higher in Texas. Over 50% higher than California. Aren't all those guns supposed to cow the criminals?
Gun crimes are way higher in Texas. Over 50% higher than California. Aren't all those guns supposed to cow the criminals?
Are "gun crimes" a thing? Isn't that covered by violent crime? It expected that violent crime uses a weapon of convenience and since CA restricts firearms, then firearms figure less often in violent crime.
What's clear from the statistics is, restricting firearms did not make a statistical difference for violent crime in CA.
What's clear from the statistics is, restricting firearms did not make a statistical difference for violent crime in CA.
Well yes, gun crimes are a thing. They are tracked separately. They have separate penalties.
And there are loads more of them in Texas than California. Is it because "CA restricts firearms", then you're countering the guy above who claimed that Texas is a more peaceful society because of all of those guns.
For that matter, Texas has more murders per capita than California. For all you hear about the wild streets of San Francisco, the crazy gangs of LA, etc... more murders in Texas.
For that matter, NYC violence "exploded" over the past year. New York state still has less murders per capita than Texas despite a catastrophically bad year.
Ouch. Guess those guns aren't keeping everyone safe. In reality they end up getting used to murder people.
And there are loads more of them in Texas than California. Is it because "CA restricts firearms", then you're countering the guy above who claimed that Texas is a more peaceful society because of all of those guns.
For that matter, Texas has more murders per capita than California. For all you hear about the wild streets of San Francisco, the crazy gangs of LA, etc... more murders in Texas.
For that matter, NYC violence "exploded" over the past year. New York state still has less murders per capita than Texas despite a catastrophically bad year.
Ouch. Guess those guns aren't keeping everyone safe. In reality they end up getting used to murder people.
Comparing the murder rate of two random states with different gun laws doesn't actually tell us anything about the effects of gun laws on the murder rate. Would love to know how a comment based on the same logic arguing the reverse would do on HN. Brazil has way more restrictive gun laws then the US and way more murders. "Ouch." Guess those guns are in fact keeping everyone safe.
The thread started where a person used stats to prove his point and someone else pointed out that the stats are prove the reverse... so conclusion in US laws of statistics do not apply.
As a constructive thing, I suggest we figure out why the gun crime stats from 2 different states or from same state but different time are wrong or partially wrong.
As a constructive thing, I suggest we figure out why the gun crime stats from 2 different states or from same state but different time are wrong or partially wrong.
This is an interesting and new take. So to be clear, we should take someone's vague hand-wavy claims about it being better, but we should refute actual empirical metrics. Okay.
Not sure how they're two "random" states when they're specifically the states the person I replied to used as their example. Though generally, the more gun permissive a state is, the worse their murder rate is.
Though I'm not sure Texans should feel great about your belief that we should lump Texas in with Brazil more than California. I mean, both are states in a rich, first world nation, and many on here are claiming Texas is a utopia compared to California. Instead we need to grade it on a curve where it's actually Brazil. "Ouch."
Not sure how they're two "random" states when they're specifically the states the person I replied to used as their example. Though generally, the more gun permissive a state is, the worse their murder rate is.
Though I'm not sure Texans should feel great about your belief that we should lump Texas in with Brazil more than California. I mean, both are states in a rich, first world nation, and many on here are claiming Texas is a utopia compared to California. Instead we need to grade it on a curve where it's actually Brazil. "Ouch."
In practice this is something we simply do not have enough data points on (places where the population is armed). It’s easy to speculate one way or another, but you are only legally protected in self defense, not homicide. I’m not convinced that people being armed would increase homicide rate, could just as easily decrease it (ie Cold War effect).
As the original comment poster mentioned cars are lethal weapons as well, and you don’t see many intentional hit and runs. Guns are very loud and you’re not likely to go unnoticed committing gun violence.
Personally I don’t know that it is a good thing to have everybody armed, but it really is on nobody but yourself to protect yourself and your dependents. To this end, I carry (and recommend others carry) pepper spray, which is very effective in non-lethally disabling an agitator in self defense without the mental or legal burdens and pains of injuring or killing another human being.
(Disclosure: I used to work in EMS, violence is everywhere in different forms. Additionally I own a shotgun for the sole purpose of hunting food, and I think the idea of “keeping it handy for self defense” is the dumbest home protection idea I’ve ever heard; you’re more likely inflict accidental self harm keeping a weapon handy in the house or carrying it than safely locked up)
As the original comment poster mentioned cars are lethal weapons as well, and you don’t see many intentional hit and runs. Guns are very loud and you’re not likely to go unnoticed committing gun violence.
Personally I don’t know that it is a good thing to have everybody armed, but it really is on nobody but yourself to protect yourself and your dependents. To this end, I carry (and recommend others carry) pepper spray, which is very effective in non-lethally disabling an agitator in self defense without the mental or legal burdens and pains of injuring or killing another human being.
(Disclosure: I used to work in EMS, violence is everywhere in different forms. Additionally I own a shotgun for the sole purpose of hunting food, and I think the idea of “keeping it handy for self defense” is the dumbest home protection idea I’ve ever heard; you’re more likely inflict accidental self harm keeping a weapon handy in the house or carrying it than safely locked up)
>you are only legally protected in self defense,
From what I seen in US you can kill anyone if you then can argue that "I was afraid for my life" and you are white and have some money.
I am not sure how exceptional this cases are though. But if this laws are what the citizens want then I am not against it, just the argument I responded felt wrong.
From what I seen in US you can kill anyone if you then can argue that "I was afraid for my life" and you are white and have some money.
I am not sure how exceptional this cases are though. But if this laws are what the citizens want then I am not against it, just the argument I responded felt wrong.
> As the original comment poster mentioned cars are lethal weapons as well, and you don’t see many intentional hit and runs.
All hit and runs are intentional, but the only intent required is foe the “and run” part. Because intent for the “hit” isn’t part of the crime, and its already a serious felony where injuries occur, its rarely worth the effort to try to ascertain or prove intent for the “hit” case.
OTOH, its worth noting that thr same political faction behind loosening gun carry restrictions has also been actively working to loosen restrictions on intentionally hitting people with cars, in direct response to people committing criminal homicide that way.
(Weirdly, its also the faction that likes to pretend to be “pro-life”.)
All hit and runs are intentional, but the only intent required is foe the “and run” part. Because intent for the “hit” isn’t part of the crime, and its already a serious felony where injuries occur, its rarely worth the effort to try to ascertain or prove intent for the “hit” case.
OTOH, its worth noting that thr same political faction behind loosening gun carry restrictions has also been actively working to loosen restrictions on intentionally hitting people with cars, in direct response to people committing criminal homicide that way.
(Weirdly, its also the faction that likes to pretend to be “pro-life”.)
It may be that the “run” part is intent in the legal sense, but I meant using a “hit and run” as a a tool of intentional homicide.
There are plenty of other ways to harm or kill people out there. More terrifying are those in which the victim lives but is intended to be permanently injured (such as vitriol or poisoning).
There are plenty of other ways to harm or kill people out there. More terrifying are those in which the victim lives but is intended to be permanently injured (such as vitriol or poisoning).
[deleted]
Insane people may kill you, and your family whether this law exists or not.
It is not the same if an insane person enters my home or a school with a pocket knife. And I am thinking at "temporary" insane people, like the ones that after the girlfriend dumps them they go at her work place/home and kill everyone they find including children. Same dude without a gun will do 1-x less damage.
But if the citizens decided this is what they want I am not arguing against that. Just feels weird to hear someone say : "beggars will be nicer since they know I might have a gun" but not also consider the reverse "me, my family will have to be more cautios since anyone could have a gun".
But if the citizens decided this is what they want I am not arguing against that. Just feels weird to hear someone say : "beggars will be nicer since they know I might have a gun" but not also consider the reverse "me, my family will have to be more cautios since anyone could have a gun".
Sane people make irrational decisions in the heat of the moment. Shooting you could be that decision. But hey, it could be crazy person too so no big.
Politeness and civility should not be enforced by fear.
The "we'll be civil through guns" argument is profoundly destroyed by every possible empirical metric, yet somehow it always makes an appearance in every gun advocacy post.
People are much more civil, social and considerate in virtually every other Western nation than in the gun crazed United States. The people who want to carry a gun are overwhelmingly the problem, and now you've armed them.
Is there ever going to be a point where people stop believing the nonsense?
There is a bit of a paradox that the people who eschewed masks, think COVID is a hoax or overblown/no risk, etc, are the ones sure they need to carry a gun at all times lest some sort of movie scenario erupt in front of them. It is fundamentally broken logic.
People are much more civil, social and considerate in virtually every other Western nation than in the gun crazed United States. The people who want to carry a gun are overwhelmingly the problem, and now you've armed them.
Is there ever going to be a point where people stop believing the nonsense?
There is a bit of a paradox that the people who eschewed masks, think COVID is a hoax or overblown/no risk, etc, are the ones sure they need to carry a gun at all times lest some sort of movie scenario erupt in front of them. It is fundamentally broken logic.
You're polite on the road so people won't murder you. Read that back a few times. You feel your life is at stake if you get upset while driving. That's good?
There's something to be said when one claims they like homeless people acting a certain way.
I think some people summarise that as "an armed society is a polite society" but it seems more like "a fearful society is a repressed society". In some countries the populace is oppressed by the fear of an authoritarian government, in others they're oppressed by the fear of the person stood next to them. An authoritarian government could be considered preferable as at least they are more predictable than random strangers.
[deleted]
aweiland(1)
This road rage incident occurred in California, which has some of the strictest gun regulations in the country.
And some of the lowest Per Capita gun deaths.
Stop using anecdotes as data.
Stop using anecdotes as data.
But is so with gun murders? According to this chart (2015 data) is it not one of the lowest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...
however it did seemingly fall in rank if not numbers from 2010
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_Uni...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...
however it did seemingly fall in rank if not numbers from 2010
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_Uni...
2/3rds of gun deaths are suicides, and so any differential in the firearm suicide rate will tend to swamp differences in the firearm homicide rate.
[1] puts CA as 3.4 gun homicides per 100,000 people per year, and TX at 3.2. Top of the list is DC at 16.5 (and then LA at 7.7), bottom of the list is VT at 0.3.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_Uni...
[1] puts CA as 3.4 gun homicides per 100,000 people per year, and TX at 3.2. Top of the list is DC at 16.5 (and then LA at 7.7), bottom of the list is VT at 0.3.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_Uni...
The most ridiculous thing I've heard about all week
Arizona had the similar provisions for years without any major drawback. It's only ridiculous when you are not used to it
Call me an out of touch west coast liberal, but I personally would prefer that I don't regularly encounter people carrying a weapon capable of killing me. This isn't a war zone.
You're not wrong. This state is getting worse all the time. A little kid was shot an killed because his mom flipped someone off for cutting her off. The kid's last words were something like. "mommy. my tummy hurts."
Last I checked, they still hadn't caught him. This is not a state where more guns us going to make things better. It's a state that very clearly represents the temperature of the country: financially strong liberal strongholds arm wrestling with the government around them. (Abbott and Patrick don't hold back on how much they hate Austin.) We're just going to shoot at each more and scream Castle Doctrine about it.
Last I checked, they still hadn't caught him. This is not a state where more guns us going to make things better. It's a state that very clearly represents the temperature of the country: financially strong liberal strongholds arm wrestling with the government around them. (Abbott and Patrick don't hold back on how much they hate Austin.) We're just going to shoot at each more and scream Castle Doctrine about it.
Liberal strongholds tend to be soft on crime. When your response to someone who assaults another person "just because" is a slap on the wrist, it's no surprise they move on to more heinous crimes.
"But the guy didn't kill anyone, he deserves a second chance" -- right. And the rest of us deserve some safety from people like him.
You can't ban your way to more safety if you can't reasonably control the thing that you're banning. The US government can't reasonably control who has a gun in this country, that's just a fact and it will not change as long as the second amendment is a thing.
What you can do is adjust sentencing standards so that the people who are at highest risk of re-offending in a violent way are locked up.
"But the guy didn't kill anyone, he deserves a second chance" -- right. And the rest of us deserve some safety from people like him.
You can't ban your way to more safety if you can't reasonably control the thing that you're banning. The US government can't reasonably control who has a gun in this country, that's just a fact and it will not change as long as the second amendment is a thing.
What you can do is adjust sentencing standards so that the people who are at highest risk of re-offending in a violent way are locked up.
I find it bizarre that your stance on civil liberties allows people to carry a gun freely but is totally OK with totally taking away someone's freedom for years or decades because they are supposedly a threat to public safety.
> I find it bizarre that your stance on civil liberties allows people to carry a gun freely but is totally OK with totally taking away someone's freedom for years or decades
What is bizarre? Freedom, personal responsibility, and the right to defend oneself are not mutually exclusive. Your freedom is yours to lose, and that happens when you infringe on other peoples' right to freedom.
> because they are supposedly a threat to public safety.
Strawman. You take away someone's freedom because they committed a crime of some kind and are likely to be a violent re-offender. Most likely that means they committed a violent crime in the first place, and were just lucky to not have killed someone. That sort of determination requires looking at the totality of circumstances, too, not just checking a couple boxes.
What is bizarre? Freedom, personal responsibility, and the right to defend oneself are not mutually exclusive. Your freedom is yours to lose, and that happens when you infringe on other peoples' right to freedom.
> because they are supposedly a threat to public safety.
Strawman. You take away someone's freedom because they committed a crime of some kind and are likely to be a violent re-offender. Most likely that means they committed a violent crime in the first place, and were just lucky to not have killed someone. That sort of determination requires looking at the totality of circumstances, too, not just checking a couple boxes.
SF and NYC are supported by the government around them, and look at the explosion of violence and crime in those cities over the past year. Not so in Austin.
You're not from around here, are you?
Then you should probably move to a country whose founding document doesn't explicity state that citizen rights to bear arms shall not be infringed.
I live in California, which is part of that country, and bans open carry. Why would I need to move to another country for sensible gun laws? I believe there is a balance which respects the second amendment (which I support!) while also placing reasonable restrictions on purchasing and carrying guns. Guns are extremely serious things, and just because I support the right of gun ownership doesn't mean that I support the totally unrestricted right of anyone to buy any gun at any time and bring it anywhere.
Let me post the whole second amendment for you:
`A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.`
Your interpretation above, of an individual right to bear arms, derives from DC vs Heller ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) which is relatively new: 2008.
It also doesn't comport with the contemporary writings of the framers, nor the fact that the term "militia" in the constitution refers to the National Guard, which was at the time imagined as a body made up of all able bodied men between 18 and 45 years old. Additionally, at the time, only men were considered "the people".
`A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.`
Your interpretation above, of an individual right to bear arms, derives from DC vs Heller ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller) which is relatively new: 2008.
It also doesn't comport with the contemporary writings of the framers, nor the fact that the term "militia" in the constitution refers to the National Guard, which was at the time imagined as a body made up of all able bodied men between 18 and 45 years old. Additionally, at the time, only men were considered "the people".
Are you in favor of banning knives?
Knives of a certain design (switchblades) and lengths? Absolutely.
You don't need a switchblade to kill somebody. A steak knife or a filet knife will do just as well. Should we ban those, too?
[deleted]
We should (imho) enact reasonable regulation that balances rights with citizen safety in a country where people need to be told not to fill plastic bags with gasoline and there is a widespread belief that there are microchips in vaccines.
Screwdrivers, tent stakes, bottles of propane, battery powered circular saws... you can kill somebody very easily with just about everything they sell at Home Depot, and many of them are far more effective than a knife.
[deleted]
In cities that works because you can get police response in minutes. Not so in the country.
So you support unincorporated areas having conceal and carry without a permit but letting cities regulate it?
Yes, if that's what the residents want. Similar to how some businesses don't allow weapons, that could just begin at the city line.
Cool. I agree with that.
Do you have a study or evidence to support this belief or is it just your intuition? Arizona is on the high end for age adjusted gun related deaths in the US.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_U...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_U...
I'd be interested to see that data broken down further by homicide vs suicide.
If you look at this data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_Uni...
it seems that murder rates do not corelate with the total firearm death rate.
If you look at this data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_Uni...
it seems that murder rates do not corelate with the total firearm death rate.
Seems to not be supported by the evidence.
States that do not allow unlicensed carry of handguns have lower per capita gun death.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-deaths-...
States that do not allow unlicensed carry of handguns have lower per capita gun death.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-deaths-...
All gun deaths, or just gun crimes?
Well, the gun control argument is that guns are inherently dangerous, far moreso than lawn darts or kinder eggs, which are currently banned for sale in the US.
A gun is far more likely to kill a member of your own family than it is to protect a member of your family in a violent altercation.
Furthermore, evidence from the lowest crime and gun death countries around the world seem to indicate the gun ownership is strongly negatively correlated with gun crimes and gun death, unsurprisingly.
It's strange that folks epistemic horizon ends at the border.
A gun is far more likely to kill a member of your own family than it is to protect a member of your family in a violent altercation.
Furthermore, evidence from the lowest crime and gun death countries around the world seem to indicate the gun ownership is strongly negatively correlated with gun crimes and gun death, unsurprisingly.
It's strange that folks epistemic horizon ends at the border.
Nah, it’s just ridiculous. I had to move away from my home state recently because I’m a member of a contentious minority and, after the legislature there passed a similar measure, I was becoming increasingly afraid that I’d be shot in broad daylight by someone who didn’t like the look of me.
Where are attacks like that increasingly happening aside from SF and NYC?
SF and NYC have some of the lowest per capital gun violence rates in the country.
> The most ridiculous thing I've heard about all week
Indeed. The fact that we have to pass State laws to reaffirm rights that are explicitly outlined in the Constitution is truly ridiculous.
Indeed. The fact that we have to pass State laws to reaffirm rights that are explicitly outlined in the Constitution is truly ridiculous.
Does the Constitutional right to bear arms on an individual level apply to nuclear, chemical, and biological arms, or is it limited in some capacity not explicitly outlined in the wording of the Second Amendment?
I'm in favor of private ownership of all these, the citizen not having committed any violent crime. Otherwise is instituting thought crime. It says "shall not be infringed". I'm not sure how people misinterpret that.
A world where my mentally ill neighbor can nuke the town when he gets pissed off is not really one I'm interested in living in, and I doubt it's a scenario the Founders envisioned.
The First Amendment has similarly strong wording, but we permit government consequences for certain forms of speech/expression like libel, fraud, screaming in front of someone's house at 3am, etc.
The First Amendment has similarly strong wording, but we permit government consequences for certain forms of speech/expression like libel, fraud, screaming in front of someone's house at 3am, etc.
> A world where my mentally ill neighbor can nuke the town when he gets pissed off is not really one I'm interested in living in, and I doubt it's a scenario the Founders envisioned.
This is a strawman, mentally ill individuals who have been diagnosed as such are already barred from possessing firearms.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons
edit: To the downvoters, can you explain why?
This is a strawman, mentally ill individuals who have been diagnosed as such are already barred from possessing firearms.
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons
edit: To the downvoters, can you explain why?
> This is a strawman, mentally ill individuals who have been diagnosed as such are already barred from possessing firearms.
So, shall be infringed in certain scenarios?
So, shall be infringed in certain scenarios?
The infringement is limited to a very specific class of people who are a small subset of the general population. Consider that convicted felons may not own firearms, is that an infringement? I would argue that it is not, as you lose certain rights when you are convicted, just as you lose certain rights when you are deemed to be mentally ill or of unsound mind.
In other words, we agree "shall not be infringed" has exceptions, and are just haggling over where the line is.
Your wording is misleading. That applies to people who have been court committed (even the majority of hospitalizations are voluntary or tagged 'voluntary' as a courtesy), or deemed 'mentally defective' by a court. That is a much higher bar than what you wrote. There are plenty of people with mental health diagnoses who have never been court committed.
Obviously agree with you, though we dough have corresponding laws with guns i.e. brandishing, pointing or shooting at someone is a direct threat causing potential harm similar to libel or threatening someone. Simply possessing a weapon is not automatically a threat to someone else, it takes action. As far as nukes etc., legally not considered arms, but munitions so you do not have a right to have them.
The “right” for individuals to walk around armed all the time was invented by gun manufacturers and legal activists within the past few generations. That it is now taken as some historical/constitutional standard is due to an incredibly successful propaganda/marketing effort.
The constitutional amendment is about a “well-regulated militia”. The purpose was common defense against military invasion, not citizens having intramural shoot-outs.
The constitutional amendment is about a “well-regulated militia”. The purpose was common defense against military invasion, not citizens having intramural shoot-outs.
> The constitutional amendment is about a “well-regulated militia”. The purpose was common defense against military invasion, not citizens having intramural shoot-outs.
DC vs Heller disagrees
DC vs Heller disagrees
[deleted]
Nope. This is simply factually incorrect.
Take the Pennsylvania constitution, written also in 1776 (by many of the same authors, as we know, as the federal constitution). They also have a "2a" clause. Below:
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state"
There is simply no other way to interpret it -- the 2a was meant as an individual right to own common-use firearms.
Anyone who says otherwise, and is educated on the matter, is lying.
Take the Pennsylvania constitution, written also in 1776 (by many of the same authors, as we know, as the federal constitution). They also have a "2a" clause. Below:
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state"
There is simply no other way to interpret it -- the 2a was meant as an individual right to own common-use firearms.
Anyone who says otherwise, and is educated on the matter, is lying.
Please explain how this harmonizes with the “well regulated” clause of the second amendment.
> Please explain how this harmonizes with the “well regulated” clause.
The full wording of the 2nd amendment is:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The phrase "well regulated" means "well supplied", as in lots of guns and ammo, i.e. ready for battle, It does not mean "lots of government regulations" to restrict the rights of individuals to bear arms. The mention of the militia is an additional reason for the people to bear arms beyond their intrinsic individual right.
The full wording of the 2nd amendment is:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The phrase "well regulated" means "well supplied", as in lots of guns and ammo, i.e. ready for battle, It does not mean "lots of government regulations" to restrict the rights of individuals to bear arms. The mention of the militia is an additional reason for the people to bear arms beyond their intrinsic individual right.
That's an, ahhh, "interesting" reinterpretation of the phrase. I'm sure it's an attractive understanding if it suits your political stance, but I don't see any support for it in the dictionary...
The Supreme Court of the United States agrees[1] with that definition:
> Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).
[1]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
> Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights§13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).
[1]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
You originally said "The phrase 'well regulated' means 'well supplied', as in lots of guns and ammo", but your quote says it means "the imposition of proper discipline and training".
It doesn't seem like they agree with you?
I'd be much more comfortable with gun ownership requiring "proper discipline and training".
It doesn't seem like they agree with you?
I'd be much more comfortable with gun ownership requiring "proper discipline and training".
Worth pointing out the “minority” in the case represent far more Americans than the court’s “majority” appointed by people who lost the popular vote.
> Worth pointing out the “minority” in the case represent far more Americans than the court’s “majority” appointed by people who lost the popular vote.
That's neither relevant nor true.
The case, D.C. v. Heller[1], was decided 5-4 with Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, representing the majority.
Scalia (1986) and Kennedy (1987) were nominated by President Reagan who had won the 1984 election with 58.8% of the vote (v.s. 40.6% for Mondale).
Thomas (1991) was nominated by President Bush who had won the 1988 election with 53.4% of the vote (vs. 45.6% for Dukakis).
Roberts (2005) and Alito (2005) were nominated by President Bush who had won the 2004 election with 50.7% of the vote (v.s. 48.3% for Kerry).
Not some, __all__, of the justices that decided that case were appointed by Presidents who had won both the popular vote and the electoral college.
Not that it matters though. A justice appointed by a President who only wins the electoral college is just as much as a justice.
That's neither relevant nor true.
The case, D.C. v. Heller[1], was decided 5-4 with Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, representing the majority.
Scalia (1986) and Kennedy (1987) were nominated by President Reagan who had won the 1984 election with 58.8% of the vote (v.s. 40.6% for Mondale).
Thomas (1991) was nominated by President Bush who had won the 1988 election with 53.4% of the vote (vs. 45.6% for Dukakis).
Roberts (2005) and Alito (2005) were nominated by President Bush who had won the 2004 election with 50.7% of the vote (v.s. 48.3% for Kerry).
Not some, __all__, of the justices that decided that case were appointed by Presidents who had won both the popular vote and the electoral college.
Not that it matters though. A justice appointed by a President who only wins the electoral college is just as much as a justice.
And none of that is relevant to the point that your quote from the Supreme Court doesn't even remotely support the interpretation you claimed.
I was responding to the nonsensical and incorrect argument about the makeup of the court that decided Heller.
A militia is made up of ordinary citizens. It’s armaments are those of its members. It’s not a separate body. For it to be in working order, the populace are the ones that need to be armed and their right to bear those arms must not be infringed.
Note that the militia angle is merely an additional reasoning for why those rights exist. It’s an example, not a precondition.
A militia is made up of ordinary citizens. It’s armaments are those of its members. It’s not a separate body. For it to be in working order, the populace are the ones that need to be armed and their right to bear those arms must not be infringed.
Note that the militia angle is merely an additional reasoning for why those rights exist. It’s an example, not a precondition.
Surely judicial decisions shouldn't be dictated by "the popular vote" anyway.
But then, one of the tragedies of modern America is that the Supreme Court seems to have become as much a political entity as a judicial one.
But then, one of the tragedies of modern America is that the Supreme Court seems to have become as much a political entity as a judicial one.
[deleted]
Along with about 15 other states at this point, and growing.
For those unaware,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry
[deleted]
Also in Texas: "Texas bans the possession of or promoting the use of more than six dildos."
https://www.chron.com/politics/texas/article/In-Texas-even-p...
https://www.chron.com/politics/texas/article/In-Texas-even-p...
I would love to have been a fly on the wall listening to that debate about the cut-off for how many dildos are acceptable Maybe this is buried deep on C-SPAN somewhere.
The law, written in 1973 at a time when the U.S. Supreme Court was dealing with obscenity laws and cases from around the country, takes a tough stance on people who have the device.
igetspam(1)
I mean, at one time?
Looks like they need to Share the Safety:
https://theyesmen.org/share-the-safety
https://theyesmen.org/share-the-safety
Somewhat relevant (based on European views on American gun control I guess): In Norwegian, "Texas" is an expression for something crazy.
https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/yall-norwegians-...
https://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/yall-norwegians-...
I'm a Norwegian citizen and a Texan and I can tell you that at least in my own personal contact with this phrase I feel it was way more influenced by the popular "cowboys and indians" western imagery than it does with contemporary modern Texas politics itself.
That's correct. But the etymology is kinda "people riding around on horses and shooting wildly in the air", and allowing easier access to guns kinda reminded me about that.
Indeed. And I have certainly on occasion myself heard Norwegians use the phrase in this sort of way.
My main point is that although the linked article describes the phrase more or less accurately, I can't tell you how many times I've come across articles (typically written by Americans, not uncommonly writers based in Austin) that assume that the phrase's entire origin is contemporary political commentary on modern Texas (despite the phrase predating e.g. George W. Bush's administration -- the first time I saw a wave of these articles -- by decades). In truth the average Norwegian (unless they're in the oil business and have made frequent trips to Houston) doesn't know a whole lot about Texas, just as the average American doesn't know a whole lot about Norway.
RE: Gun control laws themselves, Norway is an interesting place. The laws themselves are strict compared to the USA, and in particular Texas, but there's also a LOT of what we would call "Gun Nuts" (such as my cousin, who is a speed-shooter). I would say Norway -- at least among my more rural relatives -- has a pretty big "Gun Culture", but it manifests pretty differently from how it plays out in the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Norway
My main point is that although the linked article describes the phrase more or less accurately, I can't tell you how many times I've come across articles (typically written by Americans, not uncommonly writers based in Austin) that assume that the phrase's entire origin is contemporary political commentary on modern Texas (despite the phrase predating e.g. George W. Bush's administration -- the first time I saw a wave of these articles -- by decades). In truth the average Norwegian (unless they're in the oil business and have made frequent trips to Houston) doesn't know a whole lot about Texas, just as the average American doesn't know a whole lot about Norway.
RE: Gun control laws themselves, Norway is an interesting place. The laws themselves are strict compared to the USA, and in particular Texas, but there's also a LOT of what we would call "Gun Nuts" (such as my cousin, who is a speed-shooter). I would say Norway -- at least among my more rural relatives -- has a pretty big "Gun Culture", but it manifests pretty differently from how it plays out in the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Norway
[deleted]
I love how in some American cartoons/comedy movies there's always a salesman selling some extremely powerful/dangerous widget saying something along the lines of "This here bad boy is illegal in 49 states ... except Texas" :D
There's several concealed carry shall-issue and non-prohibitive may-issue nations in the EU including: Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Czech Republic. All of which have low per-capita firearm deaths relative the the United States. I think this is more related to the old school "wild west" image of Texas than anything else.
Useful map of regulations in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation...
Useful map of regulations in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation...
> There's several concealed carry shall-issue nations in the EU, including Poland, Estonia, and the Czech Republic.
This is misleading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation...
"Gun ownership in Poland is regulated and requires a permit to own or possess firearms. Permits are granted for specific purposes, such as self-defense, sports, hunting, collecting etc. and shall issue except the ones for self-defense, which may issue."
Very, very different than Texas.
This is misleading.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overview_of_gun_laws_by_nation...
"Gun ownership in Poland is regulated and requires a permit to own or possess firearms. Permits are granted for specific purposes, such as self-defense, sports, hunting, collecting etc. and shall issue except the ones for self-defense, which may issue."
Very, very different than Texas.
I've never mentioned that these nations would let you carry unlicensed. There's several on that list which will, after being licensed, let you carry. Estonia comes to mind.
The objective here is not to mislead, however as neither a lawyer, nor a member of any of those nations, I will get it wrong in some spots.
The objective here is not to mislead, however as neither a lawyer, nor a member of any of those nations, I will get it wrong in some spots.
Even in the "Wild Wild West" most towns had laws regarding firearms. I can understand and support licenses that require training (though previously in Texas was minimal at best) and concealment, but open carry with almost zero restrictions or education is plain dumb. Most law enforcement organizations and pretty much anyone who operates any kind of business was against this, but the governor and legislature could care less.
If you are a police officer in a dangerous situation now you just shoot even more often as you have no idea who is good or bad. If you are intent on robbing someone, now you know who to shoot first. Now if you are angry you just whip it out and blast away. The idea that if everyone has a gun no one will shoot you is ignoring human ability to not think. I also wonder how many will wind up being shot by their own firearm or shoot themselves by accident since many will have zero clue how to properly care for and handle it.
If you are a police officer in a dangerous situation now you just shoot even more often as you have no idea who is good or bad. If you are intent on robbing someone, now you know who to shoot first. Now if you are angry you just whip it out and blast away. The idea that if everyone has a gun no one will shoot you is ignoring human ability to not think. I also wonder how many will wind up being shot by their own firearm or shoot themselves by accident since many will have zero clue how to properly care for and handle it.
We have the same thing here in Missouri. We've had it for decades, and it seems to work fine for us. In the rural parts of the state, police response times can be 30+ minutes. While deer hunting one time, I had to call an ambulance and met halfway with them because it would have taken too long for them to reach us otherwise without a helicopter. In such an environment, ubiquitous firearms dissuade brigands and robbers from wreaking havoc.
Part of why this is such a contentious issue is because the needs of different parts of the country vary so drastically. (Ignoring cultural differences for now) Rural America is vastly different from urban America, Texas is different from NY or CA. We need to have the capacity to acknowledge and accept these differences and stop trying to force the other side into a box that works for your area, because it might not.
Part of why this is such a contentious issue is because the needs of different parts of the country vary so drastically. (Ignoring cultural differences for now) Rural America is vastly different from urban America, Texas is different from NY or CA. We need to have the capacity to acknowledge and accept these differences and stop trying to force the other side into a box that works for your area, because it might not.
And tech people want to move here because of lower taxes?
People on this website won't approve, but that's also partly by design. One of the purposes of the legislation is to stem the tide of Californian migration. I mean this post sincerely.
Texan here. I hope it convinces some bad apple transplants to leave. There is one person here who said they moved from the Bay area to Texas, but that person is condescending, demeaning, and racist, while claiming to speak as a Texan in their comments in this thread.
I hope those people don't turn Texas into the state that they left, which they left for a reason.
I hope those people don't turn Texas into the state that they left, which they left for a reason.
I can see this is quickly going to become a "hate on Texas" thread, rather than considering why Texas is doing this, which I think has some very legitimate ground.
Texas seems to generally recognize that when power is concentrated into a point, that power is almost certainly abused, and is incredibly dangerous. It harks back to the old phrase "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
It really is simple; Texas generally fears a tyrannical government more than they fear a random shooting. So they give freedom to guns to spread out power. While certainly not risk-free, I think it's a legitimate stance.
It really is simple; Texas generally fears a tyrannical government more than they fear a random shooting. So they give freedom to guns to spread out power. While certainly not risk-free, I think it's a legitimate stance.
> Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely
You could definitely say this about their self contained power grid.
If Texas was so interested in spreading out power, then surely they would be more willing to trust their elected, representational Federal government instead of having a Texas specific version of everything?
> Texas generally fears a tyrannical government more than they fear a random shooting
Why do you think this is the case?
You could definitely say this about their self contained power grid.
If Texas was so interested in spreading out power, then surely they would be more willing to trust their elected, representational Federal government instead of having a Texas specific version of everything?
> Texas generally fears a tyrannical government more than they fear a random shooting
Why do you think this is the case?
Well put
Most people prefer safety over freedom because they take freedom for granted.
Hi. Texan here. You are wrong. The state gov markets that because they use FUD to keep special interests happy. This is a marketing move. There's no data that shows having more drunk drivers (we have the most, last I checked) carrying guns is going to make anything safer. In fact, the rate in gun violence in this state is on the rise. Abbott and Patrick don't give two shits sbout Texans. They like cash.
Both can be true. Texas fears too much centralized power and Abbott likes cash. Texans put up with the latter because of the former.
It's a legitimate stance, but Texas exists in a union with total freedom of movement, so other states with the equally legitimate stance of "gun violence is worse than a licensing authority" have a right to be concerned. It's like one table in a restaurant voting to give themselves the right to smoke and play loud music, or something. I'm not saying Texas is definitively wrong, we have a federal constitution and in some sense we have already decided on this as a nation, I just want to point out that it's more complicated than "Texas can do what it wants".
[deleted]
Freedom from gov’t very relative in Texas
“Texas Governor Abbott says he will sign a bill that prevents cities from defunding police”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-defund-police-bill-abbott...
“Gov. Greg Abbott signs 'fetal heartbeat' bill banning most abortions in Texas”
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/state/2021/05/...
Freedom lists like this could go on for pages.
“Texas Governor Abbott says he will sign a bill that prevents cities from defunding police”
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-defund-police-bill-abbott...
“Gov. Greg Abbott signs 'fetal heartbeat' bill banning most abortions in Texas”
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/state/2021/05/...
Freedom lists like this could go on for pages.
> Texas generally fears a tyrannical government more than they fear a random shooting. So they give freedom to guns to spread out power.
When Texas Governor Abbott prohibited local counties, cities, towns, districts and public health agencies from making their own decisions about face masks, how is that "spreading out power" to avoid the dangers of centralized "tyrannical government"?
https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-issues-execu...
When the centralized state government forces cities and counties to remove voting locations, that's not "spreading out power".
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-houston-greg-abbott...
When Texas Governor Abbott prohibited local counties, cities, towns, districts and public health agencies from making their own decisions about face masks, how is that "spreading out power" to avoid the dangers of centralized "tyrannical government"?
https://gov.texas.gov/news/post/governor-abbott-issues-execu...
When the centralized state government forces cities and counties to remove voting locations, that's not "spreading out power".
https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-houston-greg-abbott...
[deleted]
The federalist system in the US states power originates in the people as represented by the State governments. The Federal government has its powers delegated to it by the States. Local government similarly have their power delegated to them by the state.
Thus there is no hypocrisy in a state governor wanting less local power and more state power. In this framework, The State is after all the atomic point where no further decentralization is possible.
Thus there is no hypocrisy in a state governor wanting less local power and more state power. In this framework, The State is after all the atomic point where no further decentralization is possible.
But Texas does have a tyrannical government and gun ownership does nothing to prevent tyrannical governments. If anything, gun owners have historical been those swayed by fake news and populists, so they will probably be the instrument a tyrannical government uses to establish power and crush democratic opportunity. Unless you allow citizens to own ICBMs and AC-130s, a civilian insurrection will never "defeat" a tyrannical government. Especially in the modern age.
"Texas seems to generally recognize that when power is concentrated into a point, that power is almost certainly abused"
In this situation, the gun is power, and thus the gun is abused.
In this situation, the gun is power, and thus the gun is abused.
Ironically, the biggest risk of a tyrannical government I can see is coming from the people passing these laws and the people likely to buy the guns.
The headline is misleading, it is unlicensed _concealed carry_ that is being legalized, from what I can tell. I don't know Texas gun laws but I suspect its already to open carry without a licenses. Also the article mentioned that Texas already has unlicensed carry of rifles. Again, while this is true, it doesn't strike me as uncommon in the US. I line in New Mexico, and yes, we're less restrictive of costal states but we also have unlincesed open carry, and unlincensed rifle carry. Concealed carry in NM does require a permit, but its pretty easy to get.
The article gave me the feeling on non-americans writing about america--they focus on what is unusual to them, without necessarily realizing that some of it is pretty common in the US, with our lax gun laws.
The article gave me the feeling on non-americans writing about america--they focus on what is unusual to them, without necessarily realizing that some of it is pretty common in the US, with our lax gun laws.
Yeah, this is what happens when you don't have "natives" writing articles. It also shows a lack of research because they really don't survey the other states to see where Texas is at on the spectrum of laws (hint - following others). It really does have a "the colonists are getting rowdy" vibe.
Where I live in rural New Mexico, near Arizona, open carry is astoundingly common to this California escapee. The other day I had a neighbor, an electrician and his assistant, and a gravel truck driver on my lot on the same day, and all were open carrying pistols. Three were from Arizona, one from New Mexico. People don't even blink at that around here.
A concealed carry permit in New Mexico may be easier (or just possible) to get than in other states, but it still took me about 4 hours of driving, 6 hours of class time and maybe 8 hours of managing extensive paperwork. Then it expired in a year and I was faced with doing most of that over again, so didn't bother. In Arizona the only reason to get a permit is to have reciprocal rights in some other states. I just wanted one to make it legal to carry a loaded gun in my pack on hikes, mostly to defend my dog from coyotes.
A concealed carry permit in New Mexico may be easier (or just possible) to get than in other states, but it still took me about 4 hours of driving, 6 hours of class time and maybe 8 hours of managing extensive paperwork. Then it expired in a year and I was faced with doing most of that over again, so didn't bother. In Arizona the only reason to get a permit is to have reciprocal rights in some other states. I just wanted one to make it legal to carry a loaded gun in my pack on hikes, mostly to defend my dog from coyotes.
This is unusual to a lot of Americans too. I didn't know it was legal anywhere in the country to carry any kind of gun without a license.
Here are some fun anecdotes that may shock a lot of non Americans (and some urban Americans):
My dad first took me shooting around 6 or 7 years old. I shot my first 12 gauge shotgun at around 10 or 11 years old, and I kept a deer rifle in my room from age 15(I didn't have ammo). At 17, I bought an AK47 semi-automatic rifle, and got my first handgun at 19. I regularly conceal carry a 9mm pistol and I don't have a license, though I do have training from a very young age and plan to get a conceal carry permit just because. I plan to raise my daughter similarly.
I live in rural Missouri. Most kids and young adults don't get an AK47, but otherwise my story isn't unusual around here.
My dad first took me shooting around 6 or 7 years old. I shot my first 12 gauge shotgun at around 10 or 11 years old, and I kept a deer rifle in my room from age 15(I didn't have ammo). At 17, I bought an AK47 semi-automatic rifle, and got my first handgun at 19. I regularly conceal carry a 9mm pistol and I don't have a license, though I do have training from a very young age and plan to get a conceal carry permit just because. I plan to raise my daughter similarly.
I live in rural Missouri. Most kids and young adults don't get an AK47, but otherwise my story isn't unusual around here.
LOL I'm from a Northern California suburb and have a very similar experience. No AK, but I did get a 12 gauge for my 12th birthday (grew up hunting upland game birds) and got my grandfather's .30-.30 passed down to me when I was 13.
That's cool! Was your experience typical for the region?
In my city, no. In my county, yes. Not many kids hunted at my school(s), but in the neighboring city, their high school had marksmanship, sporting clay, and hunting clubs sponsored by the school.
Come to think of it, the only friends I had growing up that were into hunting/ angling/ bushcraft were the ones I met through the Boy Scouts.
Come to think of it, the only friends I had growing up that were into hunting/ angling/ bushcraft were the ones I met through the Boy Scouts.
It is not unusual. There are around 15 states with constitutional carry and CCW reciprocity laws and counting. Additionally, the vast majority of states that do have CCW licensing requirements are loosening the requirements for approval. Not training requirements, mind you, but the requirements for your "reason." Hell, even in CA there are only 3 counties that aren't "shall issue" at this point. Even LA loosed restrictions like 2 months ago.
> I didn't know it was legal anywhere in the country to carry any kind of gun without a license.
Have you heard of hunting? There are millions of people carrying their firearms around in the wilderness every year.
> I didn't know it was legal anywhere in the country to carry any kind of gun without a license.
Have you heard of hunting? There are millions of people carrying their firearms around in the wilderness every year.
Yes, I just assumed you needed a license to carry the gun, and maybe a hunting license to use it on animals. I haven't tried hunting so I haven't needed to look into the laws.
I think this is generally the problem. People make assumptions about "the way things are" based on limited perception or their local area and proceed to act like it's unusual on the internet, which gives these author's and articles a pass in our minds.
At least 20 states are Constitutional Carry as of 2021: http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php (there's a fantastic gif there - I honestly wish there were similar gifs for other state-by-state law changes)
And IIRC there's more states that have enacted CC in 2021 before Texas, bringing the total to ~23.
And IIRC there's more states that have enacted CC in 2021 before Texas, bringing the total to ~23.
Here's a map of what states allow open carry, it is definitely more than you imagined.
https://opencarry.org/maps/map-open-carry-of-a-properly-hols...
and here's the Wiki article for concealed carry in each state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_...
and a useful guide for state by state reciprocity of concealed carry permits.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_m...
https://opencarry.org/maps/map-open-carry-of-a-properly-hols...
and here's the Wiki article for concealed carry in each state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_...
and a useful guide for state by state reciprocity of concealed carry permits.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_m...
That's a shame that the news hasn't given you that information during one of the many times "guns" have hit the news. I really think someone is going to have a field day taking in the local laws & statistics and matching it to news items to give people a much more informative news stream.
I remember on my first year here in Texas, driving by Arlington's city hall and there were a bunch of second amendment rights guys protesting outside, armed to the teeth with assault rifles and camo pants.
The police in their HQ right across the street didn't seem bothered by it so I assumed it must be legal.
The police in their HQ right across the street didn't seem bothered by it so I assumed it must be legal.
Let's go! Wild west pimp style!
Its truly amazing the number of states going constitutional carry, and I look forward to it being nation wide.
Congrats
Its truly amazing the number of states going constitutional carry, and I look forward to it being nation wide.
Congrats
Note that 20 other states already have permitless legal carry. Vermont is one of the longest-running states to allow it.
Texas is actually not one of the more permissive states when it comes to firearm laws. Everyone just thinks it is because of the "don't mess with texas," "wild west" image they like to maintain.
Texas is actually not one of the more permissive states when it comes to firearm laws. Everyone just thinks it is because of the "don't mess with texas," "wild west" image they like to maintain.
Uninformed people
So concealed carry needs license but if you want to carry without license it should be open carry?
Oregon has had open carry forever. I accidentally let my CCW expire a couple of years ago so now when I have a firearm with me for whatever purpose (usually working in the great outdoors) I now carry it openly so as to not leave it in my car. Hardly anyone gives me a second look. I will probably renew my permit at some point though as when you open carry you always have to be alert to someone attempting to steal your firearm.
Except for Portland, Beaverton, Eugene, etc.
And state law is about that change to allow the locality to make it easier to toss you in jail.
And state law is about that change to allow the locality to make it easier to toss you in jail.
This is a good thing.
Just want to point out the law allows unlicensed carrying of a concealed firearm, keyword here is concealed.
It is my understanding you already can walk around with a firearm anywhere in most US states that don't ban firearms as long as is not hidden from view, all this law changes is the requirement to get a license if you intend to walk around with a firearm concealed.
It is my understanding you already can walk around with a firearm anywhere in most US states that don't ban firearms as long as is not hidden from view, all this law changes is the requirement to get a license if you intend to walk around with a firearm concealed.
This is great news. The right to bear arms is literally the second amendment.
I think a lot of people would prefer safety over freedom but that's not really what America is about.
I think a lot of people would prefer safety over freedom but that's not really what America is about.
Since my main source of others' opinions is HN, I was under the impression that most people thought America was about writing as many laws as it takes to minmax every aspect of society and the economy.
Many people are big fans of government engineering of society to suit their tastes.
And to be fair that's kind of why govt exists.
The problem comes in when someone's viewpoints are overridden by another group. How do people respond?
Do we accept that government sometimes works in other people's favor but they're still our countrymen and have good intentions even if they disagree with ours?
Or do we demonize the opposition?
Nowadays people tend to demonize.
And to be fair that's kind of why govt exists.
The problem comes in when someone's viewpoints are overridden by another group. How do people respond?
Do we accept that government sometimes works in other people's favor but they're still our countrymen and have good intentions even if they disagree with ours?
Or do we demonize the opposition?
Nowadays people tend to demonize.
I thought this was a little weird when I heard about it. Nearly a million Texans had concealed carry permits anyways. It doesn't mean you can carry a gun everywhere, there are signs (30.06 and 30.07) banning concealed and open carry in places like stores. The permit just means that concealed carriers had to take a class so they know the law. Kind of a no brainer.
But then I watched a video by a police officer talking about how on stops, officers would draw weapons on cars they pulled over registered to CCP owners and I kind of understood why they want to get rid of it. Can you imagine, every time you get pulled over you get guns pointed at you...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLWdrshPXFU
But then I watched a video by a police officer talking about how on stops, officers would draw weapons on cars they pulled over registered to CCP owners and I kind of understood why they want to get rid of it. Can you imagine, every time you get pulled over you get guns pointed at you...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLWdrshPXFU
> But then I watched a video by a police officer talking about how on stops, officers would draw weapons on cars they pulled over registered to CCP owners and I kind of understood why they want to get rid of it.
This feels so backwards to me. The law abiding citizens that made the effort to comply with the law are subject to more scrutiny and harsher treatment than not.
This feels so backwards to me. The law abiding citizens that made the effort to comply with the law are subject to more scrutiny and harsher treatment than not.
> Can you imagine, every time you get pulled over you get guns pointed at you
There is a sizable percentage of people in this country who already live this reality.
There is a sizable percentage of people in this country who already live this reality.
I assume you mean racial minorities? No reason to beat around the bush. It's definitely true that black men are pulled over way more than white guys. My brother would always get harassed by police when he was riding with my friend. They see a white kid and a black kid in a car and pull them over for stuff like "Suspicious right turn", "Driving under the speed limit" and "I couldn't see your seatbelt."
I don't know about drawn weapons though. The only time anyone I know was pulled over at gunpoint (Felony stop) was my Dad because his White Toyota "Matched the description" of another vehicle. (And like 100,000 others) I don't know what it is like in the cities.
I don't know about drawn weapons though. The only time anyone I know was pulled over at gunpoint (Felony stop) was my Dad because his White Toyota "Matched the description" of another vehicle. (And like 100,000 others) I don't know what it is like in the cities.
As European, that shocked me more is the phrase of the Democrat senator:
"If I sit down at a restaurant with a gentleman or a woman who has a holster on their side and a gun in it, I want to know that person is well-trained in the use of that gun"
Europeans won't sit down at restaurant with people with guns. No matter how trained they are.
"If I sit down at a restaurant with a gentleman or a woman who has a holster on their side and a gun in it, I want to know that person is well-trained in the use of that gun"
Europeans won't sit down at restaurant with people with guns. No matter how trained they are.
This is considered on topic why again?
It's interesting, however it is rightly flagged. The comments and voting in this thread are ridiculous.
My family left Richardson Texas in the mid 80's. Among my few vivid memories of being there are seeing gun racks on cars, holsters on angry parents at the grocery store, cigarettes everywhere (that was nationwide), and my parents being visibly anxious of strangers. I didn't really comprehend the cold war at that age, so I conflated the weapons posturing of US and Russia with the weapons posturing of everyday people in the town. In many ways it still feels similar, if we all have deadly weapons ready to fire we'll have peace. Billboards and tv commercials for everything from used cars to boots glorified the outlaw vigilante. The reality in public places felt like one loud person could turn a place into a circular firing squad at any time.
As a Texan, I am dumbstruck by the often austere nature of the state legislature.
I think the concealed handgun license (CHL) is the backbone of Texas gun-culture. Where someone goes from “regular citizen” to very adept at handing firearms and additionally having an understanding of the laws and regulations for those firearms.
CHL holders are a very real force in Texas. This feels like 2 steps backwards; it even feels like it caricatures the “John Wayne Texas” that so many imagine. Perhaps Texas feels like the “crazy drunken uncle Yosemite Sam” for some states. But hopefully anyone who has been to SXSW or the Super Bowl a few years back, or to Houston for business...hopefully you have seen that beyond the boots and funny accent most of Texas is not that different from other states.
So even though it’s legal, living in urban Dallas, TX - I have never seen a long barrel weapon held by non-law-enforcement in public. This is a very good thing in my personal opinion.
Plenty have brought up the Joe Rogan quote of “people in Texas are nice because you never know who is carrying [a gun]”. In my opinion this observation suffers from “correlation is not causation.”
Texas culture transcends my fear of being shot - which I almost never dwell on. Texas people are fierce practitioners of rugged individualism. With that, comes a bit of “don’t tell me what to do”, and as the belt-buckle of the Bible-belt there is a real culture of Protestantism that permeates more than meets the eye.
TLDR; Texas legislature tries to out Texas the rest of Texas.
I think the concealed handgun license (CHL) is the backbone of Texas gun-culture. Where someone goes from “regular citizen” to very adept at handing firearms and additionally having an understanding of the laws and regulations for those firearms.
CHL holders are a very real force in Texas. This feels like 2 steps backwards; it even feels like it caricatures the “John Wayne Texas” that so many imagine. Perhaps Texas feels like the “crazy drunken uncle Yosemite Sam” for some states. But hopefully anyone who has been to SXSW or the Super Bowl a few years back, or to Houston for business...hopefully you have seen that beyond the boots and funny accent most of Texas is not that different from other states.
So even though it’s legal, living in urban Dallas, TX - I have never seen a long barrel weapon held by non-law-enforcement in public. This is a very good thing in my personal opinion.
Plenty have brought up the Joe Rogan quote of “people in Texas are nice because you never know who is carrying [a gun]”. In my opinion this observation suffers from “correlation is not causation.”
Texas culture transcends my fear of being shot - which I almost never dwell on. Texas people are fierce practitioners of rugged individualism. With that, comes a bit of “don’t tell me what to do”, and as the belt-buckle of the Bible-belt there is a real culture of Protestantism that permeates more than meets the eye.
TLDR; Texas legislature tries to out Texas the rest of Texas.
One important thing to note which may be lost in the headline, this is for concealed carrying and not open carry. That said, as someone who in the past 5 years went through the process of getting licensed to carry in my state I think the mandatory "firearm safety" course was something interesting and honestly vital. While I want to avoid getting too far into the muddy waters of high profile "dumb civilian" incidents involving firearms, they all could have been avoided if people had paid more attention to this.
If you are considering carrying in a state with constitutional carry, please research the following. Civil liability in a situation where firearms are used, for instance if you discharge your weapon and damage a car, you are probably on the hook for that. There is no situation ever where your weapon should not be concealed and you aren't shooting someone directly. You should only fire your weapon if you can argue before court that your firing of that weapon was necessary to prevent you or someone else being killed or gravely injured. Don't be an idiot, avoid creating dangerous situations, even if you survive and stay out of prison they'll ruin your life. You pay your own legal fees regardless of if you were in the right.
No warning shots or fancy attempts to hit somebody in the legs rather than the center of mass, those could hit bystanders instead or result in a jam. Brandishing a weapon means someone else (including police) could assume you are an active shooter and shoot you. Ever showing your weapon or signalling you have a weapon means that should a bad situation arise, an active shooter would shoot you first likely before you could respond. Do not ever display you have a firearm in the form of bumper stickers on your car, your car will get robbed and now criminals have your guns. The same goes for your house.
In summary, keep the gun in your pants. Only remove it while firing into someone else's chest if there is no other option to prevent someone from dying or getting killed.
With all that said, while I theoretically agree with the idea of "constitutional carry", I'm not sure if I would have learned all of this if my state had this.
If you are considering carrying in a state with constitutional carry, please research the following. Civil liability in a situation where firearms are used, for instance if you discharge your weapon and damage a car, you are probably on the hook for that. There is no situation ever where your weapon should not be concealed and you aren't shooting someone directly. You should only fire your weapon if you can argue before court that your firing of that weapon was necessary to prevent you or someone else being killed or gravely injured. Don't be an idiot, avoid creating dangerous situations, even if you survive and stay out of prison they'll ruin your life. You pay your own legal fees regardless of if you were in the right.
No warning shots or fancy attempts to hit somebody in the legs rather than the center of mass, those could hit bystanders instead or result in a jam. Brandishing a weapon means someone else (including police) could assume you are an active shooter and shoot you. Ever showing your weapon or signalling you have a weapon means that should a bad situation arise, an active shooter would shoot you first likely before you could respond. Do not ever display you have a firearm in the form of bumper stickers on your car, your car will get robbed and now criminals have your guns. The same goes for your house.
In summary, keep the gun in your pants. Only remove it while firing into someone else's chest if there is no other option to prevent someone from dying or getting killed.
With all that said, while I theoretically agree with the idea of "constitutional carry", I'm not sure if I would have learned all of this if my state had this.