It's not "vernacular". Perhaps those of you living under tyranny forget, but there is a world of difference between carrying as a free man on one's own prerogative, and between being considered a criminal if one does not first beg permission from the beneficent state.
Or do you imagine that only 3% of Texans own guns? The fact remains that every Texan with a firearm but no permit is being denied the right to engage in behavior he has every right and ability to engage in. The fact remains that thousands of Texans experience a "chilling effect" on their willingness to exercise their fundamental rights, either out of poverty, the ignorant-but-all-too-common assumption that they will be denied a permit, or their unwillingness to place yet one more aspect of their life under government purview.
I'm glad for the progress y'all are making, but rights are far too important a concept to water down in the name of self-congratulation over a half-victory. And yet, that is exactly what I see folks doing.
No sir, I don't believe that's what people are doing. I'm under no illusions about what was or wasn't accomplished. I don't believe others are, either. However, it's insulting and inflammatory for someone to come here and call our accomplishment "nothing" and make other down-putting comments.
Furthermore, while I agree that when a license is required it can't really be accurately described as restoration of liberty/right, if we wanted to start drawing lines it wouldn't even be quite that simple as whether or not a license is required.
Currently LGOC is unlicensed in Texas, but many were, in essence, denied that right through fear of repercussions created by police making threats of arrest, etc, even though it is plainly legal and no license is required. In that case, it might be said we weren't in liberty even though the state didn't demand we acquire a license prior to engaging in the activity. In another recent case, officers improperly confronted OC activists and then the police in a statement on the confrontation they created made a comment about how they weren't informed of the walk or the group's affiliations beforehand. Another encroachment on liberty, even though a license isn't required, as the police implied that unless they're notified beforehand the person engaged in the activity might be subject to harassment from officers.
Point is, if we really wanted to start talking about what constitutes restoration of the right, I don't think it is so cut and dry as whether or not the state requires a license. They have many other methods of encroachment, and I suspect we could find cases of those other methods being put to use in plenty of other states that have unlicensed carry.
So, it's one thing to casually point out the difference between a licensed and unlicensed victory. It's another thing, and a thing worth being rebuked for, to try and urinate on other's victories, call them nothing, and otherwise try to put down those making progress in a state that's seen none in a very long time. ETA I had no problems, whatsoever, with
your post. I'm just trying to explain why someone might have responded to your post as they did, after having other's impolite posts in this thread.
. I've seen posts about people wearing "Concealed Carry Permit" badges - but never a post about an indication of a lack of a permit 