Constitutional Carry in Texas Shouldn’t Be Necessary…But We Live in the Real World

90

By Anner

Constitutional carry is very much in the news. Four states have adopted it so far in 2021 and Texas and Louisiana are currently moving constitutional carry bills through the legislative process.

It’s sad really. Constitutional carry laws shouldn’t be necessary at all. The right to keep and bear arms is clearly covered in the Second Amendment. But we live in the real world and ultimately constitutional carry is the best legislative solution short of state constitutional amendments. And since I got tired of having the same arguments over and over again, here’s why Texas (and every other state) needs constitutional carry.

First, a little background and some caveats:

  1. This comes from the perspective of a Texas resident, but I’ve lived all over the US and traveled the world. I’ve held concealed carry permits in several states, attended corresponding training and testing in some states, and simply showing the proper credentials in others. At one point, my father and I held FOID cards…oh, the authoritarian memories.
  2. Texas is in the middle of constitutional carry making its way between the Texas Senate and House…hopefully reaching the Governor’s desk soon. What follows may apply to your state as well; most of the arguments are state-agnostic.
  3. This is a lot of words. Per our usual arrangement, thank you for your patience.
  4. I’m aware I’m mostly preaching to the choir here, except for the couple of usual comment section trolls. I trust you’ll skewer them, as you always do. The intent of the article is to capture a (hopefully) thorough rebuttal of all common anti-constitutional carry and anti-Second Amendment arguments and misconceptions. Fudds gonna Fudd, but hopefully this rattles some Perazzi doubles and pre-’64 Winchesters collecting dust in mom’s basement.
  5. I’m a strict Second Amendment absolutist. The first argument below should clarify that, but any infringement is an infringement. The real purpose of Second Amendment is neutered if any infringement exists. Carry a Stinger missile through Central Park and admire the pigeon crap…just don’t bother anyone while you’re doing it. It should all be legal and entirely unrestricted.
  6. I’m no historian or lawyer, but I read a bit and love my state and country. Carry that Stinger at your own risk, and verify any/all laws applicable to your location prior to screwing it up.
  7. In several instances, especially discussing restoring the rights of convicted felons, I’ll speak to the ideal execution of ensuring the integrity of natural rights. Reality has a lot of holes to poke in those arguments and situations. However, a constitution is written to define the ideal nature of citizen-to-government interaction, not to address every contingency that could arise in the following centuries. I write in that same vein, to address arguments for and against the ideal execution of the US or Texas Constitution.

With all of that out of the way . . .

Natural Rights

Using the Federal Constitution as a foundation, the Bill of Rights were not written to provide rights, but to expressly acknowledge natural rights already possessed by all citizens. In fact, the Bill of Rights are 10 Constitutional amendments because the Founding Fathers didn’t think they were necessary. Acknowledging natural rights and freedoms might communicate that other, non-explicitly amended (or non-included) rights didn’t exist.

The Constitution was written to limit the power of the government. Anything not expressly included was intended to communicate that the government couldn’t do that thing.

The blossoming tumor of government agencies and bureaucratic nonsense of the past century or so would drive the Founding Fathers insane. That the Bill of Rights includes these 10 amendments was intended to make those rights extra special, even further beyond the reach of government to curtail.

The Federalist Papers, public correspondence from the Founding Fathers, and historically accurate definitions of words in common use at the time all overwhelmingly support this. Taking the Second Amendment in all of its proper context, it literally directs that the government can’t even think about restricting or regulating the weapons that the citizens can possess, carry, store at home, use on rabies-infested zombie-pigeons…zero infringements, period.

The Second Amendment’s purpose is to protect the people from the overreach of a tyrannical government, such as the government that the colonists had just defeated with personally-owned firearms and balls of steel. A well-armed populace keeps its leadership in check, unable to force its will on the people without the consent of the people.

Obviously, we’ve allowed that intent to get bulldozed by “empathetic” (power-hungry) legislators, Presidents, and Supreme Court Justices for centuries now, particularly after the Civil War and again in the last 80+ years. It’s sad when our “pro-Second Amendment” 4-D chess game involves conceding that a funky, over-priced plastic stock is actually a machine-gun.

Any Joe or Jane should be able to walk along Manhattan’s avenues with an actual M-16 slung across their back and be absolutely free to do so. As long as they don’t point it at someone (without due cause, such as to stop a crime) or commit an objective crime using that gun, no LEO or government entity should be able to stop them or curtail their activity.

Open carry
Dan Z for TTAG

Any infringement that allows the government to regulate the polite and free activities of its citizens is a long, slow path to tyranny. The Second Amendment literally protects the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, etc., and in the process protects our freedom.

The Public Safety Argument

One of the few basic (and constitutional) functions of government is to regulate negative externalities. If a business dumps nuclear waste into a river and poisons a town’s drinking water, the government has the authority to stop it and force a clean-up or restitution.

Along this line of thought, some argue that allowing everyone to carry guns without training or licensing will produce unmitigated risk to others in a public space, thus government regulation is a necessary public safety measure. You see this argument in the media ad nauseam.

There are now 20 states with constitutional carry laws on the books. When those states started the process of considering constitutional carry, the typical “blood in the streets” arguments appeared all across the news. It’s a well-documented narrative TTAG covers regularly. I’ve lived it while in Arizona and now Texas and witnessed the media coverage a dozen times for other states in the last decade.

Every time the predictions of doom have proven to be totally false. Criminal violence rates, rates of negative police/civil interactions, arrests related to firearm misuse, and any other available metric to capture the effects of enacting constitutional carry all showed the same thing: either zero significant change, or a mild decrease in violent or criminal behavior. Murder, assault, brandishing, etc. are still crimes, and if someone misuses constitutional carry in an illegal manner, a cop can still do their job and push it to the judicial system for prosecution.

In fact, with constitutional carry as the law, a LEO’s job (watching for crimes, arresting criminals) and the case for prosecuting illegal activity with a firearm is more clear-cut in court. Possessing the firearm in a public space isn’t even a factor, so it boils down to what the defendant actually did with it.

va capitol open carry
Open carry…formerly legal in the Virginia capitol. (Courtesy Jeff Hulbert)

That’s exactly how criminal trials should proceed. It cuts out one more “victimless” crime or add-on charge (merely possessing a firearm) and gets to the actual crime (Ex: the criminal used it to murder an elderly lady, and the criminal is now going to the fun-filled lethal injection table; the add-on charge of possessing a firearm isn’t a necessary discussion in court).

The Historical Argument

This one is really irrelevant considering the above, but it provides some context on how we got here. It shows that the last 150+ years haven’t been the norm, and they don’t meet the intent of a free and polite society. An Ammoland article states it way better than I can, in a Texas-specific context that likely applies to many states.

The TLDR version is that government has only ever placed more restrictions on firearms ownership and carry since the “clean slate” of our founding or the addition of new states. The only exception is the very recent (the last three decades) trend of relaxing restrictions in red states and turning zero-open/concealed-carry into may-issue or, more often, shall-issue.

The unfortunate irony of anti-Second Amendment legislation and court decisions is that most of them began as and currently are viciously racist:

  • Want to keep recently-freed black Americans from resisting indentured servitude, or keep them from suddenly migrating away from the farms they work? Solution: disarm them.
  • Want Bull Connor to wage war on black Americans in Birmingham, Alabama during the civil rights era? Solution: disarm them.
  • Want lynch mobs to exercise violent injustices against young black males? Solution: disarm them.
  • Want poor (“unclean!”) Americans to be unable to afford firearms and pregent then from upsetting the power structure? Tax the shit out of firearms ownership or use corrupt licensing schemes to either 1) not allow them to own guns, or 2) make them a felon if they carry anyway (NYC and New Jersey, you listening?).

Any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is an infringement designed to control either the whole of American society or specific minority groups (and that’s actual, hateful racism at work). This is what history shows us…and this is only the US. Take a look at the first steps Hitler, Mussolini, Castro, and Lenin took as they rose to power: Disarm the people that may someday not like how you rule them.

The ‘Training’ and ‘Cost’ Arguments

Some argue that mandated LTC training is necessary to prevent unsafe gun handling or stray rounds hitting innocent third parties. Or that the fees are a minor, necessary evil to sustain the licensing program.

I’ll concede one point: Even after constitutional carry is signed into law, keeping the LTC infrastructure and licensing fees is a necessary evil to allow residents to maintain reciprocity with other states. I’m not an expert on the current Texas constitutional carry law’s text (I read a couple of the original drafts, but it’s been amended since as it ping-pongs between the houses). However, I imagine it’s probably similar to Arizona’s in that it only allows residents of that state to carry without a permit.

I’ll continue to pay my LTC fee and do the paperwork every five or six years so I can travel to Florida and legally carry concealed through every state on the way. If, in the future, every state has constitutional carry and opens it up to all non-residents, then there could be an argument for letting your LTC permit expire. But I won’t because an LTC allows me to save some time at my local gun store. This line of reasoning has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not we need constitutional carry…we absolutely do.

Back to the training/licensing cost argument: Both points are totally irrelevant and clear Second Amendment infringements. By mandating training, the government exerts control over its citizens. Even if it’s a “shall issue” state, that’s still literally the government saying “We’ll allow you to bear arms…unless we find a reason not to.” And you never know when the political tides will turn and suddenly all LTC’s throttled back or revoked.

Constitutional carry removes the power from the government to dictate who has the right to keep and bears arms (semi-permanently…since again, the political landscape can change and the next legislative session could strike it down. The real way to do it is to amend the Texas Constitution to enact permanent constitutional carry).

That isn’t to say training is a bad thing. It’s a very good thing. I’ve personally instructed hundreds of first-time shooters over the years. Everyone from a class of military spouses (moms who wanted to train so they can defend their homes when dad deployed), to college kids trying out some guns before they purchased their first, to military shooting competition teams with an inventory of machine guns and government-purchased ammo.

Every one of them walked away having improved marksmanship, safer gun handling skills, better situational awareness, and with more experience and knowledge to make better purchasing decisions. It was all good training and a fun time, and further convinced them that responsibly owning and carrying guns was a good thing. My greatest instructional memories have been starting the day with a hesitant, insecure, and terrified grandmother…and then ending the day with her stating “this is fun, I see the value in this, and I have an idea of which one I want to buy.”

And as good as all that is, I would never mandate a single minute of training or licensing fees for anyone because of the risk of government over-reach into our personal lives.

It boils down to personal responsibility. LTC training is useful because it teaches you the applicable state laws and may keep you out of trouble, for instance, carrying in a place with a 30.06 or 51% sign. But knowing and following the law is an individual responsibility, and forcing government-regulated training to know the laws is stupid and an over-reach. I don’t need First Amendment free speech training, either.

Who should be able to carry?

This is a discussion I’m not done pondering, I’m open to input. Ideally, I see it this way: Any citizen walking the public streets should be able to carry anything, at any time.

Wait, does that mean convicted felons out on parole? Yes. The criminal justice system is intended to provide justice (the actual definition—getting what you deserve…not the bullshit perversion of leftist language over the last few decades). If a person commits a crime, is convicted, sentenced, and completes their sentence, then they should be admitted back to society as a free and full citizen.

If they’re not ready to re-enter society, if they’ve committed 69 armed robberies throughout their life and have no intention of stopping, why are they allowed back on the streets?

The procedures of the criminal justice system, its failures in policy and execution, are too far from my knowledge base to intelligently comment on proposed changes. But the intent, and all policies that follow, should drive to the same end: From the perspective of government policy, everyone walking the streets is presumed to be innocent and pure until observed or proven otherwise.

Idealism and reality certainly conflict here, but from a Constitutional perspective, I err on the side of idealism and freedom.

open carry constitutional
(AP Photo/Ted S. Warren)

I’m open to sound arguments on tempering the above with the nature of the conviction, but I have yet to hear one that doesn’t have me resorting to the fundamental nature of revoking and restoring freedom. If an individual is released from prison, it should be on the principle that they’ve been “rehabilitated” and not assessed to be a higher risk of committing crime (the same as convicted, or otherwise) than the average citizen. Otherwise, keep them locked up.

Additionally, as a practical matter, legally prohibiting an individual in a free society from possessing a firearm has stopped exactly zero people from obtaining them.

Another common issue is drug users, those who are mentally incompetent and/or a true danger to others in a public space, particularly with a Colt Python strapped to their hip. On this, reverting to Second Amendment absolutism, I re-state that crimes are crimes. Assault, murder, manslaughter, negligence leading to injury or death…all of those are still unprotected actions and should be met with LEO (or fellow citizen) intervention and then the judicial process, as required.

It’s a messier situation on which to theorize than just the Average Joe walking through Central Park with an M134 (heh), but if we’re drawing up policy that applies to all US citizens, then Second Amendment absolutism it is.

Let friends and family self-police their loved ones. Let all Americans exercise personal responsibility, and let law enforcement and the judicial system do their jobs in a just and moral manner. Creating policy to the contrary is in direct conflict with the ideals and explicit intent contained in our founding documents.

Conclusion

I whole-heartedly support constitutional carry. Not because I think it’s necessary; no law or amendment should actually have to be written to detail the natural state of a citizen’s life in the US.

The entirety of federal and state laws should be nothing more than a two-page list of such items as “don’t murder, steal, rape, or be a jerk”. Essentially the Ten Commandments and Golden Rule—wow, as though they were good rules thousands of years ago.

But because it has become necessary to establish the status quo, and to actively allow what is really a natural, God-given right, I say push hard to support every reinforcement of our natural rights.

Here’s what I hope happens: Constitutional Carry is the law. And yet people still sign up for training, LTC classes, whatever they think they need to be responsible gun owners and concealed carriers. Not because it’s mandatory, but because they’re responsible citizens who take the Constitution, firearms training, firearms safety, and personal responsibility seriously.

And then I hope everyone donates an arm, a leg, a kidney, and their wallets to good groups like SAF, GOA, JFPO, SFCC, FPC, etc.

90 COMMENTS

  1. “Let all Americans exercise personal responsibility …”

    Good luck with that one.

    I agree with all of this, but there is a huge gaping hole that needs to be filled for these arguments to be complete. And this is something that was taken from us in the 1960s.

    I’m talking about FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.

    As free individuals, we should be able to choose who we live with, marry, hire, rent to, serve, or otherwise associate with for ANY REASON. In fact, whatever reasons a person chooses to exercise their freedom of association are irrelevant. This is a core human right. When we have this freedom to choose who we associate with, we are not forced by government to deal with people who are dangerous, careless, irresponsible, stupid or otherwise antisocial.

    It is FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION that keeps us safe first and foremost. Remember the four stupids? Doing stupid things with stupid people in stupid places at stupid times. Well I want the FREEDOM to associate with people I think are stupid and do stupid things which will turn my place and times stupid.

    • the world became “unreal” in Amerika when the republic was destroyed in 1865. “we” became socialist, just like everybody else. Did YOU notice? Would you like to go back to Liberty? Have 10 laws that state, what the government CANNOT do to the citizen? I HAVE A DREAM

    • Just remember girls, wearing a gun outside the pants won’t make you look any thinner. BUT, what you slide into your holster can make you appear more attractive.

  2. Correction: Well I want the FREEDOM to NOT associate with people I think are stupid and do stupid things which will turn my place and times stupid.

    • Which includes the freedom to do…well…stupid things. Because the most valuable lessons we learn are often after doing those stupid things.

      • a smart man learns from his’s mistakes. A wise man learns from other’s mistakes. Few in Amerika are either smart of wise. Best be armed & ready

  3. Once TX gets on board, it’ll be like the fat kid finally getting onto the seesaw, and it’ll move quickly the other way, meaning more States will soon join. Once we get to 26 States, the argument blue-led holdouts (such as CA, NY, NJ, etc.) have against allowing their citizens to carry will begin to wither like a weed in the summer sun.

    • I doubt that getting to 26 will have much effect. However, getting to the low 30s would.

      It takes 38 states to ratify a Constitutional amendment. Once the number of states voting for Con-Carry threatens that magic number the pressure will be felt.

      SCOTUS is likely to notice. They are apt to reason that if the People of 37 states construe our Constitutional order to incorporate Con-Carry then it is hard to reason that such an order leaves states with the power to impose onerous requirements on carry. SCOTUS is likely to construe more and more prerequisites to permitting as infringements.

      The People of the 31 . . . 37 states will be increasingly desirous of carrying in the remaining 19 . . . 13 states; the political and economic pressure will be on to grant recognition/reciprocity. The legislatures of the residual states will begin to count down: 19, 18, . . . 13, 12. When they number only 12 then the 38 WILL have the power to adopt whatever Constitutional amendment they please and such legislatures will have lost the last of their power to regulate carry within their jurisdictions.

      Yet, bear in mind that the velocity of change is variable. The velocity of the movement to Con-Carry is accelerating. Now. And will continue for a few more years. But, then it will decelerate as fewer Shall-Issue states remain to be “converted” to the new view of the liberty to bear arms.

      Yet, at this point, voters in the Con-Carry states will no longer be tolerant of gun-control. They will stop electing Senators and Representatives to Congress who are willing to vote for gun-control. They will push for Congress-critters who will vote for reciprocity/recognition and other inter-state and national rights.

      We are likely to see the battle for 2A rights won long before we approach 38 Con-Carry states.

      • how many of the 50 states want to secede from this evil empire? How much longer will you pay to be abused? Your children in debt on day one? bunch of cowards that do NOT love their children. GOD is watching

    • Like, never gonna happen. We are doomed here. The open season on guns and all things related to guns continues unabated, led by the unalterable Democratic Party supermajority. The courts are little help. Every positive trial court decision is overturned by a n appellate panel decision, and even if affirmed by the panel, an en banc panel will reliably uphold each and every restriction. When the Legislature is not banning guns or “improving” red flag laws, it is passing more taxes to make the cost of guns prohibitive. DROS went from $19.00 to $37.00, not because costs had increased (in fact they are less than $19 to do the background check), but to fund “gun violence research.” This session, they are working on passing a $10 per hand gun and $11 per long gun and ammo excise tax, on top of the state 7.25% sales tax. And since the Ninth Circus has declared that there is no right to a CCW and no right to bear arms in public, theoretically the state cold pass a law eliminating the current “may issue” CCW system all together.

        • Mark N. lives in CA, where I do as well. He often has good insights on our challenges, from his own POV.

          I disagree on the “doomed” part, though. The pendulum swings, and while the Dems have had complete control of our state for two decades, the silver lining is that they have no choice but to own the consequences for all the problems here as well.

          President Biden/Harris and the Keystone Kops in Kongress are attempting to push gun control, but at the State level the momentum is going the opposite way toward liberty. CA is one of the outliers, but everyone can see that the Dems are becoming desperate. Besides, now that SCOTUS has (finally!) taken up its first 2A case in over a decade, it seems likely to end in our favor and act as reinforcement to Heller and McDonald.

      • $ound$ like infringement to me. Amerika is evil, rigged and corrupt. There is only one cure for communism….. know your history (not the yankee version)

  4. Admittedly, I’m a little uneasy on one point of your argument. I’ve met so many gun owners that are a Glockcidental discharge / YouTube shock-gore video waiting to happen.

    Training is not optional, it’s absolutely necessary — but I agree it shouldn’t be mandated by some bureaucrat. We as a community to need to emphasize its importance at every opportunity, beat people over the head with the message, especially as more states open up constitutional carry.

    • Training in SC is mandatory. Eight classroom hours and range time. I think it was 50 rounds. It’s like a DL test, one and done unless your status changes.

      • driving an automobile is NOT a “right”. Cars kill many people every year, when operated by idiots. The privilege not taken away even after killing someone?

    • It’s easy to win the mandatory training argument. We simply point out that Article I Sec 8 prescribes that Congress has the power to organize, arm and discipline the militia and that the states are responsible to train according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

      Congress ought to prescribe the regimen for training; e.g., Eddie Eagle for elementary school children, safety for middle-school, markspersonship for high school. Upon completing the prescribed training one is qualified for militia duty and enjoys one’s civil rights. If one refuses, or fails, to qualify then one could be restricted or prohibited one’s civil right of bearing arms, if so prescribed by law.

      Congress could not, politically, prescribe training so onerous that no one – or just a few – could qualify. Just as the states can’t prescribe a driver’s training curriculum that few could pass.

      There may be room for doubt that any government could mandate training to the culinary or woodworking arts for high school students. But there is no room to debate that Congress can compel all to be trained to arms; and, that the states have the responsibility to provide this training.

      Nor is there any doubt that every citizen has a militia obligation which can only be excused by Congress; moreover, the grounds for an excuse must be narrow so as to make the militia “general” – composed of the body of the people, not merely a “select” militia whose members are loyal to THE Party.

      • “It’s easy to win the mandatory training argument.”

        Agree, but it’s even more simple than that: If my life is in jeopardy I’ll choose whatever method I have available to preserve it and worry about the consequences after the fact. There is no “argument” IMO- My creator allows me the right to exist should I choose to.

        Even should an overzealous prosecutor press charges against me I will at least still be alive. Whether the entity that was threatening my life still breathes afterwards is irrelevant, only my personal survival or that of my family. The intended victim should “own” the situation should he/she/it prevail. I believe this is what my Creator intended.

    • Hmm. Interesting to find any there are multiple people here on TTAG who seem to advocate for government-imposed requirements for the exercising of our natural rights, even though the Bill of Rights speaks to limit the Gov’t, particularly the 2A.

      I agree that training is a good idea, but absolutely should never be mandated. Like wearing a motorcycle helmet is a smart idea and should be encouraged, but not mandated.

      Swap out gun rights for any other right. Mandatory training and licensing before being allowed to speak your mind? Or go to your choice of house of worship? Or to associate with your choice of friends? Or before going on a date with that person you like?

      • “Or before going on a date with that person you like?”

        Well, based on my experiences long, long ago….I could be persuaded.

      • ” I agree that training is a good idea, but absolutely should never be mandated ”

        I agree, it should never be a mandate. However, if it does have to be a mandate then, like any other gubmint mandate, it should be the gubmint’s responsibility to pay for it and provide it to the public in a timely manner.

      • helmet laws were a dictate from slick willy clinton. IT was blackmail & extortion against the “free & sovereign” states. The motorcyclist fought it in court and won. But the communist passed seat belt, 21 year old drinking age and .08 blood/alcohol and won. IT was still blackmail & extortion. Amerika is evil & corrupt. Full of cowards with a 2nd amendment…..useless. no backbones, no guts, no gonads. In 55 years the SCOTUS has become pro-racist, murder, theft, ignorant (doesn’t know what illegal immigrant is) and now clueless of how many genders exist.

      • I wonder what per cent of human beings are actually prepared ahead of time to defend themselves should it involve taking another’s life? 0.5%? Less than that? No matter one’s personal or military/LE training there certainly will be a shred of doubt before dropping the hammer and no amount of training will, or should, remove that sliver of doubt. It’s the difference between a defender and a wonton killer, IMO.

  5. Good points from the author of the article. My problem with constitutional carry laws in states is the sole focus on just pistols. I have read most of these 20 constitutional carry laws only 2 or 3 states actually include all firearms besides pistols. Kentucky is one of them that does include all firearms and even car carry in its constitutional carry law that was passed and signed by its governor. If we do not include all firearms in these constitutional carry laws, then it leaves room for the anti-2nd Amendment groups and people to say we do not need rights for other firearms and restrict our carry options. It is just one sided to want constitutional carry for just pistols only.

  6. “Carry a Stinger missile through Central Park . . .”

    I’m NOT going to argue the philosophical point here; instead, I invite the reader to consider the TACTICS.

    Suppose we are in a debate where there is an Audience – “A”, a gun-Controller – “C”, and a Rights-advocate – “R”. The game is for C and R to try to convince A so that A will vote his way. That’s the way – the only way – either C or R can win, except through politics by other means.

    So, C’s tactics are clear. He must strive to bait R into taking a position that A will, almost certainly, reject. Psychologists tell us that A will construe an argument more-so on how it really feels to her; less-so on the ridged applicaiton of logic. So, C wants to talk about some point where R’s response will seem to A to be totally unhinged. Thereupon, C wins the debate. A will vote C’s way.

    R being a logical sort – and relatively insensitive to the fact that A will decide how she really feels about the issue being debated – cheerfully takes the bait. He leaves feeling that he has won the debate based on the ABSOLUTE purity of his logical reasoning. Yet, he is bewildered by A’s awarding the win to C. She goes off to vote with C.

    Why is R so committed to taking the bait? He doesn’t desire that A conclude that C won the debate. R’s problem is that he can’t – even momentarily – try to empathize with C’s feelings about the debate question. He cares less about winning A’s vote than remaining self-satisfied with his ABSOLUTE logical purity. That goal is to win the battle decisively with a single stroke. Yet, it results in losing the battle to C who has the better tactic.

    Does R have no choice but to concede to C the power to frame the question? C wants to talk about nukes or stingers. But such is a mere hypothetical. It addresses NO PRACTICAL problem that A might be concerned about today.

    R’s better tactic would be to insist upon approaching the problem from a practical, not a hypothetical, view. Does a woman have a right to self-defense? A should be willing to entertain this possibility. A right to the means of an effective self-defense? A right to such means in Times Square?

    If A is unwilling to acknowledge that there is some woman who has a right to self-defense – even though it might not be her wish to defend herself – then the battle is lost. But she should be open to this possibility. Perhaps that woman is single and has responsibility for dependents.

    If she has a right to self-defense, she needs the means. And, if she has a right to self-defense then she has that right everywhere. If, such as in a court room, there is a means of effective defense (armed bailiffs) perhaps her right is satisfied without her bearing her own means. But, such isn’t the case “in public” in general.

    If she has the right to self-defense, and the right to the means of self-defense, then are there some places where she has the right to carry the means to self-defense? On a highway at night? Driving in the streets in daylight? Walking in the “town square”?

    If the laws of NYC make it impossible for such a woman, an adult, of reasonable reputation and prudence, to carry an effective arm, then has her right been “infringed”? If so, then isn’t that “infringement” unConstitutional?

    We need not talk about nukes, stingers, mini-guns, sub-machineguns. We need only talk about a handgun. Moreover, we can simplify the argument even further. If she can’t carry a flintlock pistol – common in 1891 – then that right has been infringed. If A is willing to concede a flintlock, then will she entertain a percussion lock? A derringer with a brass cartridge? A revolver? A semi-auto with a capacity of 6+1? Step by step we get to the point where A could reasonably be expected to concede that some – typical – woman has a right to carry a modern firearm which right is infringed by NYC’s laws.

    If we can’t win this practical debate – in A’s mind – then we certainly will NOT win an argument about stingers. If we CAN win this practical debate then we ought to be able to nibble about the edges of the gun-control debate taking a little more ground with each bite.

    Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing.

    • Until ‘A’ gets mugged or sees the next round of “mostly peaceful protests” coming his way. Then we’ll have two ‘R’s.

    • C doesn’t want a debate or a logical discussion with R. Or even a conversation. C will say, look at R over there, he would rather school children are slaughtered so they can have guns! The outage! Facebook, kindly ban R and his dangerous ideas from the public space. Ok thanks. R is dangerous, we have a right to live, why should his gun rights trump our lives and peace? Ok A, here, we will deal with the gun safety problem, here is some free money, free childcare, free medicine, free college, legalized drugs, whatever you want, just vote for us you get anything you could want.

    • The article was way too long as-is, and just brushed on the political theory behind policy. Adding the tactics behind getting that policy approved is a whole different discussion.

  7. 2A absolutism means former criminals will have the right to nuclear weapons. The plans and materials for making nukes are easily available on the internet; easier to get a nuke than a library card.

    And the people whose crimes have yet to be discovered (deplorables) would have a right to open carry their nukes, creating fear and turmoil among the public. The government has an absolute right and obligation to eliminate fear and turmoil among the population.

    Brandishing nukes (making them visible) would be a protected action that will only lead to contests of “mine is bigger than yours”, which will result in entire towns being vaporized under a mushroom-shaped cloud.

    Only an insane person would think that the full meaning of the Constitution exists beyond the era of the founding. Government has proven to be benign since at least 1805. The threat of government tyranny, subjugation of the public, or rule based on divine right was long gone, before the last of the founders died.

    Viva la Revolución!
    Viva Zapata !
    Viva Max !
    Viva Las Vegas !
    Free the Internet !
    Free the whales !
    Free Willie !
    Free Willie’s willie !
    Workers of the world untie !

  8. While you were writing about felons with firearms, I have met many people that did time that got a sense of responsibility in prison. No, they did not march to L.E.’s drumbeats, but the had respect for other people. I know of one guy that has hunted all his life, he now lives in a hunter’s paradise. He got out in the 80s and has not done anything to get him put away since.
    Who, more than an ex-con, needs protection at hand? L.E. doesn’t want to help him, even with a death threat from a prison gang. If he does protect himself, it is only a practicing gang member who is out of jail, no great loss….

    • it is amazing how feminized and diluted the male has become in Amerika and the world. When you DON’T obey the law, you give up certain “rights”. Taking my right to self protection away because of the idiots in the unGREATful SOCIEY will never work. How much has worked by stealing from me for 55 years and giving “free stuff” to the lazy? Amerika is going down boys

  9. Training should absolutely be mandatory for all firearm users, whether they choose to carry or not. This goes to the root of many of the gun issues that the devilcrats love to keep bringing up: people killing themselves or others due to pure ignorance of the process of gun safety and operation.
    Can anyone honestly say they would let their 16 year old son or daughter get behind the wheel of a vehicle and drive on the 101 Freeway in LA? Absolutely not. Gun safety and operation should be as fundamentally taught as basic driver’s education. The weapon training should be as non-political and basic as that 8 hours most of us sat through on an afternoon class with the wrestling coach showing reel to reel movies (long before “videos”) of car crashes. Then the exciting 4 hours of driving with the instructor.
    I remember spending an entire week standing, kneeling and laying prone to point at a white barrel in the middle of 100 young Marines before we ever even thought of loading that M-16.
    Training is just that…learning to handle a weapon, whether it be a car or a gun.

    • You would trust government to mandate training? Of just any kind? Specific requirements? Limits on number and nature of those requirements? Cost of mandatory training prohibiting a large swath of the public from obtaining mandatory training? Mandatory re-training intervals? Restriction on the number of trainers in a given location? Mandatory training certification of trainers? Government standards for certifying trainers? Government standards for retaining trainer certifications? Class size minimums and maximums? Government standards for classroom and live fire facilities? Government mandate that training be conducted in every language on the planet? Simultaneously based on submission to government of pending class roster?

      Do we really need to go on and on?

      • Thanks for responding. Great comments to my post and you certainly bring up good points. But doesn’t State government already mandate specific requirements for driver training? I do remember taking a written and driving exam. But I was not mandated to own a car. The cost can be something discussed at the State level (as it should be). California is currently at $33 and valid for 5 years. $38 cost for renewal. If training was provided through each school district (similar to driver’s ed) and the cost was supported by both State and local organizations (same as the vehicle, gas, and insurance of the driver’s ed car) I would certainly think this would be doable.
        The overarching desire here is to ensure that each and every person is trained in the basic safety and operation of a weapon, not mandating that they own one. If training alone was the answer, then there wouldn’t be many vehicle accidents on the roads (or accidental discharges).

        • Driver’s licenses and gun ownership are not equivalent. Government has yet to launch an unrelenting campaign to deprive people of driving privileges, or car ownership.

          At present, while nearly the same number of people die from vehicle operation as die from gunshot, government has not declared drivers/driving to be a public health crisis. The same for state governments.

          The reach of gun controls and laws should teach that government cannot be trusted with the power to regulate.

          There is a public (and political) demand to disarm the citizenry. There is no public (and political) demand to de-vehicle the citizenry. “Everyone needs a car; no one needs a gun”. Simply, personal transportation does not yet threaten power holders/seekers, or the “life must be made free of death or injury” mob.

          But to stick with my questions, why doesn’t government abuse its power when it comes to vehicles? Answer: people (and politicians) believe that in the matter of personal transportation, they are in command of their own destiny; the presence of legal firearms forces them to recognize how little control they actually have over their lives. That recognition is intolerable, so the risk must be eliminated.

        • I guess Sam I am missed the stupid, “fund raising” gov’t. project of the 1980’s called the 55 MPH speed limit. That is when the most sheeople were born in Amerika. They have procreated since then.

        • If they say we should treat guns like cars with training, licensing, and registration. Imagine the uproar if people had to pay taxes, waiting periods, police and government agency checks, usage restrictions, special garages, and limits on performance, fuel capacity, and accessories for motor vehicles.

        • pay taxes, waiting periods, police and government agency checks, usage restrictions, special garages, and limits on performance, fuel capacity, and accessories for motor vehicles.

          (1) Pay taxes… Annual registration, highway use taxes, tolls and gasoline taxes…
          (2)Waiting Periods… N/A
          (3)Training… Drivers Ed or private instruction is required in most states now to get a license at 16
          (4)Police and govt agency checks …
          Safety and emmissions checks are still required in several states
          (5)limits on performance and accessories… California restricts modifications of newer vehicles and Pennsylvania used to prohibit modifications to motorcycles (which require a license endorsement nationwide) but I don’t know if that’s changed…
          AND run afoul of the dreaded point system and you will be denied the use of your motor vehicle (a prohibited person) for a predetermined priod of time after you pay the “fines”

      • Sam, you’ve just created a couple dozen new bureaus with thousands of new government employees, I saw what you did.

        • “Sam, you’ve just created a couple dozen new bureaus with thousands of new government employees, I saw what you did.”

          Aaaawwwww. You caught me out.

          Thought I was being sly.

    • @Marshall,

      “Can anyone honestly say they would let their 16 year old son or daughter get behind the wheel of a vehicle and drive on the 101 Freeway in LA?”

      That’s exactly what I did. Got my driving permit at age 15-1/2 here in L.A. County back in the ’80s, got my license shortly afterward (requirements were different back then), and promptly drove myself anywhere I needed to go.

      Never had an accident nor caused anyone else to have one.

      Your argument is invalid. All your pork ‘n beans are belong to us.

      • Thanks for the response. I seem to remember that when I went in to get my driver’s permit at 15-1/2 I had to show that I had taken the driver’s ed class and passed (which entailed the class with a short exam at the end to prove I half-listened to the instructor). But I would have to ask, did you simply jump into the front seat of a vehicle at 15-1/2 and begin driving without ever having been in one? Or seen one in action? You are taking the concept out of context of the discussion. Before you ever sat behind the wheel of a vehicle you were trained in some manner, whether it be watching your father drive or even having learned on a riding mower to steer, maneuver, and provide gas or brakes to control the vehicle. No one just jumps into a vehicle and drives without some form of training.
        Even if the training at the local level as discussed were with plastic weapons, and they never got to go to the range to fire actual rounds, the hands-on training, safety, and operational portions of the class would provide the learner with his/her own determination to go out and purchase that weapon or have them steer away from it…their choice.

        • I understand your line of reasoning and thank you for taking the time to articulate it, but we’re talking about a core natural right that pre-dates the forming of our Republic, and for which Government is specifically prohibited from encroaching (infringing) upon in the bedrock document that outlines our Republic.

          Requiring fees, training, scrutiny (BGCs), or other obstacles to exercising that natural right is tantamount to conversion of the right to a “privilege” which may be changed at any time, depending upon the forces in control of office seats at any given point in time.

        • ” did you simply jump into the front seat of a vehicle at 15-1/2 and begin driving without ever having been in one ”

          Yes, well, that’s exactly what I did. I lived on a farm. There was an old DeSoto tucked away in the barn that still ran, but was deteriorated enough so it couldn’t be roadworthy. When I was about 12 years old, I fired that thing up one day and ran the hell out of it in one of back meadows. The front fenders were gone so hitting a cow flop was something of an adventure, but it was a hell of a lot of fun ’til I hit rock and tore out the oil pan.

    • Every school should have a safety and responsibility class. Don’t stand atop a ladder on your tip-toes. Don’t play with matches. How to use a fire extinguisher. And yes, the safe handling of firearms, knives, scissors, your father’s antique Civil War Union cavalry saber, eating peas with your steak knife, all that.

      Not a pass/fail thing. Just teach for the sake of helping kids to get to be adults without loss of digits, burning down the kitchen, sinking the neighbor’s above ground swimming pool with a homemade motor ….

      Anyhow, about bureaucrats having too much leeway in saying “Yes” or “No”………

      I was in New York State, on Long Island, when I came of age for a learner’s permit and when I took my first driving test. It mattered greatly where you lived, how old you were and if you had taken Driver’s Ed. I was told very plainly that in that area, at my age and not having had the fees to get into Drivers Ed, there was no possibility of passing my first driving test. I was resolved to ace the test.

      The deal was the powers that be wanted to keep young people from being on the road too soon, in their opinion. When I showed up for the test the examiner told all parents they had to leave the area. If observed in the area their kid would be instantly disqualified for a year.

      My father went home, changed his coat and took my mother’s car to come back and watch from a distance. He saw nothing wrong, and I felt very good about how I did, it all went so smoothly.

      Took several weeks to get the rejection notice in the mail. There was a drawing included that showed an intersection where it was claimed I violated a pedestrian’s right of way. Problem with that was there was no pedestrian. My father had watched and saw a woman walk up to a bus stop, appear to read the sign of bus times there, turn and walk back the way she came. That was right as I made my turn. So no pedestrian ever entered the street.

      That is but one example of how bureaucrats create their own realities. They don’t want teens on the streets driving cars, well the law can be manipulated.

      A few months later I was in California and the entire process of applying, paying the fee and passing the exam took 90 minutes.

      A year after the New York exam, I received mail from them informing me that I was once again eligible to apply for a driving test provided I had a current learner’s permit.

      I hate to think of what life would be like for any Constitutional Right if it all came down to purely bureaucratic preferences.

      • “…eating peas with your steak knife…”

        I eat my peas with honey
        I’ve done so all my life
        Some people say it’s funny
        But they stay upon my knife

        • “Um…where’s my Gravatar, lol?”

          Perhaps your Gravatar was bigoted against corny puns? 🙂

        • I was a kid when I was introduced to an uncle on my father’s side. He swore he was booted out of the Navy on a medical discharge for eating peas lined up on his butter knife. He had papers on it too, framed on his living room wall. I didn’t read them, thought he was full of it. My father swore it to be true though.

          I just figured that uncle was medically discharged for being a bit nuts but not dangerous. Just too nutty to be in the Navy.

    • GOD invented natural selection. Man invented blame (others) and perversion (stupidity). Once again… what happens when parents do NOT love their children. chaos & communism (abolitionist in 1850’s?) Amerikan antifa today? wise up

      • My dad was on the USS Enterprise in WWII. Guess how many on that ship believed Pearl Harbor was a “surprise attack”? ZERO

  10. “Along this line of thought, some argue that allowing everyone to carry guns without training or licensing will produce unmitigated risk to others in a public space…”

    That is said quite often. The twisted part of that is that this is not what ConstitutionL carry is. This does not let everyone carry. Even if it passes and becomes law, there will STILL be people that cannot legally carry. This idea of ‘lack of training’ is purely based in ignorance as well. There is no training in the process of someone registering themselves for a LTC. Training is a separate thing and has nothing to do with any of this.

  11. Very good article…finally.
    It all boils down to first having to jump through NCIC hoops to purchase a firearm. Next the firearm has to be transported in a vehicle down public streets, etc. Next the firearm is taken into the home, etc. After all of that moving about if you put a coat on over the aforementioned firearm you break the law…C’mon Man. Only a pompous pathetic jackazz would think to deny someone who is backed into a corner their one chance at self defense.

  12. I agree with the author entirely.

    Although it is true our natural rights should need no further basis than what our Constitution already documents it has been the norm that foundational laws are forever challenged, and infringed upon. This was true with the Sedition Act of 1798 which made it a criminal offense to disparage the President, Congress or the government in speech or writing. Repealed in 1801, for that short few years speaking or publishing against government authority was punishable by up to a $2000 fine and two years in prison. For the average American in 1798, $2000 was roughly 20 years earnings, more or less. Quite a harsh punishment for speaking ill of a Founding Father or a Senator or Representative.

    We have always had to challenge infringements in courts of law and to reinforce them with legislation. It is part of the human condition that settled arguments are never settled. That old and new wrongs are repeated by new players.

    Right now, today, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is less infringed than it has been in recent times. That is not a reason to relax. It is a reason to keep pushing forward in efforts to remove those infringements which remain.

    Such as the NFA 1934, GCA 1968 and on and on.

    It never does end and never will end.

  13. “Carry a Stinger missile through Central Park”

    A stinger missile? Well when the government was dropping bombs on the West Virginia coal miners in the 1920s. The coal miners should have had a stinger missile. When the government was dropping bombs on a black neighborhood in Tulsa Oklahoma. The black residents should have had Stinger missiles.

    When the speaker of the house of representatives, Nancy Pelosi, requests Crew served machine guns to be aimed at American citizens. Practicing their first amendment rights. American citizens need machine guns. Or low cost Bumpstocks.
    When a Texas Sheriff uses an MRAP armed with machine guns pointed at law-abiding citizens, conducting their first amendment rights in public. American citizens should be able to possess bazookas or RPGs.

    But all of that can wait for now. Getting our rights back through incrementalism is how we need to proceed. And getting constitutional carry for Texas and in every other state is a win. It’s a step toward more freedom. More Liberty. In a step in the right direction.

    • whenever someone compromise with a communist, the communist wins. There is only one cure. Kill him, because he will kill you.

  14. This progress would not be happening if not for the hard work of people staying involved in the political process. To get this far it had a cost. That had to be paid. It was not done for free.
    Registered voters taking time off from work to testify at meetings. People driving hours perhaps to get to those meetings and testify.

    The “proud Libertarian losers” like Joe Rogen and people like him. Did not help to get Texas this far to a winning 2A finishing line. He was no help in California.

    Why It’s OK Not To Vote – Katherine Mangu-Ward, video 1 hr long

  15. If an individual is released from prison, it should be on the principle that they’ve been “rehabilitated”

    How wonderful for them! Unfortunately, they never made restitution to their victims, who are permanently fvcked. So how rehabilitated are the [email protected]?

    Felons are released because it’s too damn expensive to house them, not because they are rehabilitated. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, most will re-offend.

    — The 401,288 state prisoners released in 2005 had 1,994,000 arrests during the 9-year period, an average of 5 arrests per released prisoner. Sixty percent of these arrests occurred during years 4 through 9.
    — An estimated 68% of released prisoners were arrested within 3 years, 79% within 6 years, and 83% within 9 years.
    — Eighty-two percent of prisoners arrested during the 9-year period were arrested within the first 3 years.
    — Almost half (47%) of prisoners who did not have an arrest within 3 years of release were arrested during years 4 through 9.
    — Forty-four percent of released prisoners were arrested during the first year following release, while 24% were arrested during year-9.

    If felons want their rights restored, let them do their time, including any probationary period after incarceration, and make restitution to their victims. Until then, convicted felons cannot be considered co-equal members of society.

    You say Fudds gonna Fudd? Well, criminals gonna do crimes. And you want them armed? Pass the bong, buddy, ’cause I want some of that crazy ganja that you are smoking.

    • And you want them armed?

      And exactly how does your exclusion law prevent that? If they want a gun there are a number of ways for a criminal to get one including committing a “crime” (yeah that’s why they are called criminals) that COULD result in even more people being harmed/killed than otherwise might have been…

    • Gov. Mike Huckabee (Arkansas) released over 200 felons when he left office. He might be a pastor, but he does NOT obey the GOD of the Bible. GOD is big on punishment

  16. Wait, okay, so there’s this part I do take exception to:

    “If an individual is released from prison, it should be on the principle that they’ve been “rehabilitated” and not assessed to be a higher risk of committing crime (the same as convicted, or otherwise) than the average citizen. Otherwise, keep them locked up.”

    Yeah, not how our system works. Maybe it should be but if we are speaking reality here……

    Regardless of what may have been intended over the two plus centuries of developing our penal system, the reality is not rehabilitation. It is punishment. It is temporary holding. Completing a period of punishment means nothing in terms of rehabilitation.

    An ex-convict for certain types and levels of offense should not be handed back all their rights upon release. They should have to prove to a court of law that they are now trustworthy to again be full fledged members of society. Otherwise what we are truly saying is we trust them this far, but no farther. That is a thing a criminal laughs at, sees advantage in and sooner or later will take advantage of.

    Even so there are entire classes of people I would restore full rights to. Non-violent offenders with nothing in their criminal act having caused physical harm to another person, not even indirectly. This could include low level drug offenses which have been far too heavily punished in the past under laws which cry out for repeal or revision. It could include “white collar” crimes too, as in crimes done on paper to steal and defraud. Proving rehabilitation for such offenses should be far simpler a thing than telling the court “I’m rehabilitated from being a rapist and murderer and ask the court’s favor to restore my Second Amendment Rights”.

    I do agree there are crimes so severe that if after a period of punishment is completed and the person is freed, they should not have been freed after all. That they are not seen as trustworthy enough to regain their Second Amendment rights is evidence that their time in prison was too brief, as in not life-long.

    There is considerable risk in oversimplifying this problem. I am aware that there is a movement to make full rights restoration automatic for all ex-cons, and I am against that idea. Show me a sensible plan that assesses risk and requires due process of law, and I’ll be interested to hear the details.

    • Thank you for pointing that out. It’s a weak point of the article. That’s why I stated:
      This is a discussion I’m not done pondering, I’m open to input.

      And:
      The procedures of the criminal justice system, its failures in policy and execution, are too far from my knowledge base to intelligently comment on proposed changes.

      Thise aren’t cheap cop-outs to avoid the issue. I sincerely intend to receive feedback and learn so I can understand how to best formulate policy in the criminal justice system.

      I start from the stance that all American citizens walking the streets are, from the perspective of the government, completely free and in control of their own well-being. From there, I’d appreciate specific policy proposals to achieve that intent.

      • “From there, I’d appreciate specific policy proposals to achieve that intent.”

        Life sentence for anyone sentenced to jail or prison. Create lotsa jobs in construction, and bureaucracy managing prisoners.

        And of course, put prisoners on a national body parts storage registry; every prisoner available for part harvesting.

    • Actually, California does have a process whereby a felon can be declared to be rehabilitated by a judge. It take a hearing in front of the judge presenting evidence as to the the felon’s conduct since being released from prison. It isn’t an automatic thing. I have no problem with felons who have undergone the rehabilitation hearing process owning firearms. It is a surprisingly strict process. Few undergo it. If a felon hasn’t been declared rehabilitated, then I have no problem with his losing his rights under the Second Amendment. Presently even in the ultra liberal state of California prisoners lose their right to vote. They lose their right to hold certain government jobs. There is more to a felony conviction than just serving time. I think that is as it should be. A felon who is convicted becomes a non-person. A non-person has no “rights” or the rights can be limited as the government dictates. Just serving time doesn’t mean rehabilitation.The burden of proving he is rehabilitated should be on the felon.

      Unfortunately, in the ultra liberal California (read communistic style liberality) the rights of a citizen are being given to felons more and more. There is a move in this state as has happened in other states to restore the voting right to convicted felons. That would include felons who have not yet completed their sentences. One and all need to bear in mind that a felon on parole has not completed his sentence. He has been released early because political appointees have decided he is more likely to not commit a crime than to commit a crime. His release is conditional, not absolute. A violation of the terms of parole implies a return to prison.

      The argument that it costs too much to maintain a felon in prison is a specious one. It presupposes that there is no cost to society for crime. Every crime costs the victim whether it is merely property loss or injury there is a cost to the victim. Without any weight given to the psychological cost to the victim, loss of property is loss of property. Insurance rarely covers the actual cost of property taken. There is no value given to the lost time in filing out insurance claims, shopping for and installing new replacements for lost property. Where a victim spends time in medical confinement as a result of injuries from a felon I can assure you that there is no compensation to replace lost physical capability from the injury. We award money but that is because we no longer allow victims or families of victims to injure the felon in the same manner he inflicted on the victim. That’s considered cruel and unusual punishment. I submit that it is just punishment for the crime committed. If the felon blacks a victim’s eye, the victim or the family should be able to black the felon’s eye. If the felon stabs a victim, he should be stabbed in a similar manner. When making bloviating statements like it costs too much money to keep felons in prison, let me pose this question: “How much is it worth to you to keep your 12 year old daughter from being raped and murdered?” Is there a dollar value you would put on that? If preventing that from happening cost you $10,000 a year would you consider it worth the money? Or would you say, “That’s way too much. Go ahead and do your worst”?

      I am reminded of a case in Los Angeles where the 17 year old daughter of two ultra liberal lawyers who worked mainly in getting felons released from prison was killed by a felon recently released from prison. I have often wondered what their occupation is today.

      • When a convict is released into the general public, without any rights or resposibilities, that person has nothing to lose (rights) and little to gain (acceptance) if said ex con is not (really) ready to return to the general public spaces and willing to act as a good citizen. Some do need three hots and a cot.

  17. In several instances, especially discussing restoring the rights of convicted felons

    The only reason that “exclusion” law exists is to give prosecutors something solid to hold the previously convicted felon on until they can gather enough evidence should said felon be suspected of reoffending… I think if the state set the punishment and sentenced and individual accordingly then after he/she/it have served that sentence they should be able to start at square one as if nothing happened, If a criminal is SO violent as to be excluded from legal gun ownership then should that person be permitted back out into the general populace?… Excluding someone from voting or owning a gun is just further punishment that has absolutely nothing to do with the original crime… The law is just a bunch of words like the almighty restraining order/order of protection or the red flag laws, none of them will stop a determined individual from acquiring a firearm and/or harming another individual… Laws only keep the “law abiding” in check… Hell I’m MOSTLY law abiding but probably committed two misdemeaners and a felony before I walked out the front door this morning without even knowing it…

    • Yes, I think we agree on this. If a person is released from prison, it should be under the construct if full restoration of rights. Whatever happened between the date of sentencing and date of release should drive to that end. No words on paper (parole order, restraining order, laws prohibiting possession of weapons, etc) will stop a truly violent individual from recidivism.

      Right now, I see it as a binary choice: let them free with zero strings attached, or keep them locked up. (And I’d prefer the justice system strongly err towards freedom, as the risk of stripping rights from citizens is real and costly). Please rebut!

      • Given those options then yes let them walk with zero strings… Then what, those that reoffend should be locked away permanently having proven themselves unable to conform in a lawful society?…

        Whatever happened between the date of sentencing and date of release should drive to that end..
        Ideally anyone convicted of a violent crime should receive intense psychiatric scrutiny to determine the likelyhood that they would reoffend and sentencing adjusted accordingly but that is not the case as cost seems to be more important than public safety… It’s the proverbial catch 22 (thanks to Mr. Heller)

  18. How does this :

    “I’m open to sound arguments on tempering the above with the nature of the conviction, but I have yet to hear one that doesn’t have me resorting to the fundamental nature of revoking and restoring freedom.”

    Mesh with this? :

    “Let friends and family self-police their loved ones.”

    A teenage Muslim girl who wants to date outside her family’s religion is just out of luck?

    You’re just fine with the concept of ‘Honor Killings’? What about the rights and freedom of those about to be killed by those ‘compassionate’ family members and friends?

    • Apparently “self-police” was too vague a term. By that I mean:
      – Parents (plural) raise their children correctly according to Western ideals, which are endemic to the entire foundation of this country.
      – In the absence of good parents, other parental/authority figures in that child’s personal life identify a need and fill it.
      – Spouses love and support each other, to include identifying and correcting wrong-doing.
      – And this is not, absolutely not, a call for government-sponsored nonsense. The welfare state brought us historically high single-parenthood rates and entire generations without a proper raising.

      Jumping from:
      1) the stereotypical American construct of families taking care of each other (to include guidance and discipline) to
      2) honor killings (not a Western trait) is an impressive feat.

      Have a side gig writing the CNN chyron?

      Or is your handle a reference to me wasting time replying? If so, you got me.

  19. OK ON ARTICLE AND COMMENTS . HOWEVER . STILL BELIEVE IN TRAINING AND REGISTER USERS OF WEAPONS MATCH OWNER OF WEAPON .

  20. Living in the real world would require a sense of reality.
    I was once ask to explain reality to a resident of a mental institution, the best I could come up with was,
    ” When you smash your toe with a brick it hurts. Thats reality.”

    • Haha, I appreciate the blunt solution. I have no love for violent criminals.

      I’m very leery of proposing policy that gives the gov’t the authority to (or streamlines the process for) deprive anyone of any freedom. Hence, I don’t know what I don’t know about criminal justice system policies, and I’ll gladly shut up about it until I know better.

      • :…and I’ll gladly shut up about it until I know better.

        Not knowing nothing about something does not disqualify a person from commenting on anything.

        I do it all the time, for my own entertainment if nothing else.

  21. Some people shouldn’t have pets. Some people shouldn’t have children. Some people shouldn’t have firearms… It’s a matter of responsibilities…

  22. good grief, On the Texas Question, they seem to be timing that one out, looks like One more legislature, might have to be recalled To Session, and told how the cow eats the cabbage…. Why Not just repeal the law that made licensure “The Law” make it “Gone” from the code book, It Simplifies the system. But NOOOooooo , They gotta amend things to death…. I Carry anyway and don’t ask…. But Then again , Got No Neighbors ‘Cept the cows , When I Go To My off premises Gig, I see the man who pay’s, and His Cows , I Don’t pass through Towns , I shoot every varmint and Predator I see (poppin a rattlesnake twixt the Eyes is good Practice, Killin’ Coyotes/Hogs Cuts Losses), I dont Ask… and who cares ?

    • Yeah, just wait til Mathew McConaughey gets in the Governors house… He’ll straighten those “politicians” out, he’ll leave them “Dazed and Confused”… “Well, alright, alright, alright, alright”….
      Texas Democratic Party Would ‘Welcome’ Matthew McConaughey to Run for Governor, Leader Says… “I don’t get politics,” McConaughey told Stephen Colbert on The Late Show last November… “McConaughey for Governor 2022″… With him in the Mansion and George “P” Bush running the Tx DOJ, what COULD go wrong? 2022 is going to be even more fun than 2016… Hold on to your six shooters Tx, it might get a bit bumpy over there…

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here