Constitutional carry coming to Texas

[jsimmons]

Is constitutional carry the biggest priority for 2017, or is it removal of prohibited places? In a perfect world we would do both, but as everyone saw this session, even with super majorities of Republicans in both chambers there is only so much that will get done.

I can see arguments for either of these being the priority for 2017. On the side of CC, it's a valid argument that Texans should not have to ask permission from the state to excersize a constitutionally guaranteed right. A pay to play system discriminates against the poor and creates a privledged class.

Arguing that some Texans do not qualify for a CHL, but still should have the right to carry is a BAD idea. The left would jump all over that argument.

On the side of removal of prohibited places is the argument that we are considered responsible citizens 99% of the time, but not when we go to a sporting event, or go vote? It makes no sense to allow me to be armed in a cafe in the small suburb where I live, but I must be disarmed walking back to my car after attending an Astros game in downtown Houston. Common sense would tell you which situation carries the greatest possibility for needing protection.

Again, if we lived in a perfect world, both of these measures would be well received by the legislature. But, in the world we live in we may have to choose which of these has a better chance of passage and is worth the political capital. I know there are those who are going to jump all over me because both of these issues are wrongly prohibiting people from excersizing their 2A right. Many will argue that we should DEMAND that the legislature restore all of our rights, but the reality is that we will not get everything we demand, regardless of it being the right thing to do.

Just because someone can't "legally" concealed carry, doesn't mean they should have their rights infringed. I say restore our constitutional rights FIRST, and then worry about prohibited places.

 

[jsimmons]

Anti-gun Congress Critter, "In 2015 you asked for Constitutional Carry and you got Constitutional Carry. Now you want to argue that we should allow you to carry a gun in a Post Office. Why? You say that you have Constitutional Carry so why are you now wanting something beyond the Constitution?"

Average American voter, "Geez, they already got Constitutional Carry....why should I vote for another 'right' when they said back in 2015 that they got 'Constitutional Carry'. Why isn't the Constitution enough? Why do they want more?"

How do you argue against that? After all it is you that will jump up and down and exclaim, "Yay! We got Constitutional Carry finally!", right?

Because the 2nd amendment doesn't say "...shall not be infringed (except for arbitrarily selected gun-free zones)." We don't have constitutional carry until ALL restrictions are lifted on the keeping and bearing of arms.

 

[Count]

Constitutional carry terminology works..... What politician would argue that they are against something "Constitutional"? It worked very well this year in Maine, West Virginia, Kansas, New Hampshire, Montana,....... Interesting thing is Maine is heavily democrat and still passed..... So, when you have a terminology that sells well for both sides, you stick with it..... We are on the right track in Texas. Governor Abbott is better than Perry and Lt gov Dan Patrick is better than Dewhurst.... Open carry with a license is better than no open carry at all..... Campus carry is better than no campus carry at all..... We are winning...... We will be ripe for Constitutional carry in 2 years....... (our legislature only meets every 2 years...)