Former Gov. Rick Perry Kills TX Constitutional Carry, Presidential Aspirations?

Trigger discipline does appear to be an issue in the pic. And apparently muzzle discipline (not necessarily talking about the pic).

Where the Hell IS he? Looks like a city street in downtown Austin, waving a gun around? WTF? I would never again see the light of day.

Takes him out of the race, for me, and I liked him! I wonder if his attitude is the reason we never heard a suggestion of OC until he was on his way out.

If he can’t carry TX (which I doubt he could, after this), he is presidentially toast.

You know, I should add “If this is confirmed”, in there. I’ve been lied to before by antis.

Unless you live in Iowa or NH he was never going to be IN a race. Not going to go anywhere in Iowa at least. Again. Not all bad but a dope in largish field of better candidate. His only chance at anything is if the RINOs give up and the RINO duds and move microscopically to the right and adopt/mold Perry as their “conservativeish” candidate. Bushy3 and the fatboy aren’t likely to go anywhere in 16 so this may be an outside chance.

That is proper control of a single action without the hammer cocked. He probably just finished twirling it. Are you going to criticize the actors at a cowboy action competition?
http://youtu.be/gzvREaIJvG8

He is starting a Marathon. You objections regarding trigger safety are moot because he is in the process of firing a blank loaded pistol to start a race.

@PaulGL: Thanks for that, safety is a good and necessary thing, but we seem to be getting a lot of folks going off, well, half-cocked about some of the pics posted here.

“Why is nobody ripping on Perry for not exercising proper weapon handling, especially in front of the camera by not having his finger off the trigger?”

Yesterday I gave a SHOT show gun rep grief for having his finger practically glued to EVERY gun he handled on on camera, I was blown off with “No guns on the convention floor can fire” when the POINT was the totally casual way of his handling guns leads me believe he probably does that all the time.

I still think he has some Ron Jeremy DNA in him…

As far as I can tell, it’s a single action revolver. I carry one every day and have been proficient with one since childhood. Although cringe worthy in a PR photo, placement of his finger is fine.

I am not a smart man, and I know it doesn’t make his unsafe ha fling skills right, but isn’t that a single action revolver Making it a little less of a big deal

Or be aware that about 99% of the time any of us pass judgment on anything there are important facts we don’t know.

It looks like a single action revolver. Even if it wasn’t a starter pistol and he wasn’t starting a race, his finger being there would be within the realm of proper handling for a single action revolver.

Huckabuck? Really?

Big +1000000 Michael. Too bad none of them stand a chance. Never was a big fan of Perry. Isn’t this pretty much what Dick Metcalf said to get excommunicated?

Completely wrong comparison there. OCT was not doing the equivalent of forcing others to convert, not by a long shot. It was more like they were carrying obnoxiously large and ostentatious crucifixes in protest of the law of the land. That law being that if they wanted to carry convenient smaller crucifixes they had to both hide them from public view and ask for a permit from the government to do so. Or like sitting in a seat the law says you can’t, or like attempting to vote when the law says you can’t, or exposing more than your eyes when the law says you can’t. No freedom is won by appealing to your oppressors.

Exercising a right is great, but you can do it without smashing it into other peoples faces on a non stop daily basis.

Exercising the right to bear arms is not “smashing it into other people’s faces.” Good grief!

Just like religious beliefs, it’s one thing to practice them, it’s anouther if you try to convert everyone around you to it.

I take it from your statements that if someone practices or observes their religion in public, they are trying to “convert everyone around” them? I open carry all of the time in public and pray too. Does that mean I’m smashing my religion and my right to bear arms in everyone’s face each day?

There are worse men on this planet than Rick Perry. Lets wait for it to stop raining before we rip the the leaking panels off the roof.

Ahhh compelling government interests. Three words used repeatedly to violate the Constitutional rights of the American people.

Automobiles don’t pass the common usage test? If natural rights exist, and I have my doubts about that, then they should exist in spite of the latest technologies.

If the right to travel does not include latest technological advances, then why the right to speak, the right to bear and carry arms does?
The difference between driving and your 2A is the fact that driving is activity that puts people in danger every second when is exercised vs the passive carry of a gun. The best comparison will be between driving and shooting.
Also if you are driving without license and you are caught you will get a fine and that is all.
The right to travel is a natural un-enumerated right and can be exercised using any technology. It is regulated by State (not be fed) and it does so, because we the people delegated that to the State. I guess we can always take it back, however nothing explicitly prohibit the State from regulating it.
In regard to 2A shall not be infringed says all we need to know and that prohibits any government (fed or State) to mess with it.
Big difference.

“Also if you are driving without license and you are caught you will get a fine and that is all.”

Not in Florida.

Driving without a license will get you jail with repeated infractions.

Either: A) guns are like cars; or, B) they are not alike. Or, they are alike in some respects and not-alike in other respects. These are the possibilities. Maybe it’s worth-while toying with these ideas and see where we get with the Anti’s in the debate. (I hasten to say that I am not so deluded as to imagine that the Anti’s might change their opinions; they can’t. However, we might accomplish something with the uncommitted public by conducting an open exploration of these ideas.)
The 2A’s highest purpose – preservation of a free state – would be conserved if guns were like cars. That is, we have an unfettered right to keep as many arms of any kind on private property without a tax, registration or license. If the militia were called to muster the guns would be there because they would be little vulnerable to confiscation. If guns were like cars when operated on public property (roads, walkways, parks, forests) then they might be subject to licensing analogous to cars and their drivers. What might this mean?
Perhaps I might be obliged to register my carry gun(s); but, that doesn’t imply any obligation to register guns kept on private property. Guns are – under this supposition – like cars. I might be obliged to acquire a “license” (whatever that might mean) to carry on public property. A hunting license if I am hunting; a CCP if I am concealed-carrying; an “OCP” if I am open-carrying.
What might a “license” to carry mean? It could be anything. Some States require a hunter to take a hunter-safety course before being eligible to acquire a hunting license. (I don’t recall reading of any objections to this licensing). My late father told me that he never took a driver’s test in his entire life. He began driving at the age of 8. When Minnesota passed a driver’s license law he dutifully appeared at the court house where he was “examined” as follows: “Young man, do you know how to drive?” My father answered in the affirmative; whereupon, he was issued a license. Effectively, my father’s “license” was not a grant-of-grace by the State; rather, it was a registration of his permission to drive for the duration of his good-behavior as a driver. My Minnesota exam – some 40 years later – was more rigorous. Even so, it was not onerous. It required that I demonstrate competence and knowledge to a standard specified by a State agency. Just about anyone can pass a driver’s test. Just about any one can pass an NRA First Steps Pistol test. It’s debatable whether either examination makes the public any safer.
What does make us safer on the roads is the policing of licensed drivers and the revocation of the privilege of driving whether by a license revocation or a cancellation of insurance. What keeps us safer in the presence of guns is the self-policing of new-bees (and everyone for that matter) by our respected old-timers and RSOs. I.e., continuous demonstration of good-behavior. Whether the regulation of “prohibited persons” makes us safer can be debated.
So, Anti’s and legislators, would you consider the following deal? No regulation of guns kept on private property with registration of guns and licensing of bearers on public property?
There are two possible answers: No; and, Yes.
The Anti’s will say No, of course. They won’t settle for anything short of regulation of guns to the point of strangling the 2A entirely. Their highest purpose is the maintenance of a monopoly of force vested in the state. Such a debate would smoke-them-out in the public eye. The public would have to wake-up and recognize that what is sold as “common-sense” gun regulation is a death-march.
Legislators would be put on-the-spot. They would have to stand ready to ratchet-down the regulation of guns kept on private property (principally, the 4473 form retention period that serves as quasi-registration.) Then, we would consent to driver’s-license like licensing of public carry; i.e., Shall-Issue in 50 States, DC and the territories. If just one State/DC/territory balks at Shall-Issue then there is no-deal. One or more legislatures would (I expect) balk and refuse to adopt a Shall-Issue law. In such an outcome, our republican form of government would have spoken: Guns are NOT like cars after all! My license to drive is implicitly honored in 50 States, DC and the several territories; yet, my license-to-carry would – in this scenario – be denied by one or more legislatures.
IF – and to the extent – that the licensing of bearing-in-public were no more onerous than licensing of drivers, I would have no complaint. IF – and to the extent – that the suspension and revocation of a gun-bearing license were no more onerous than that for a driver’s license, I would have no complaint. What we would be left with is a debate over the PRINCIPLE of licensing (taxing or otherwise regulating) a Constitutional right.
The principle of regulating a Constitutional right is subject to debate by reasonable men. Taxing the right to vote was prohibited by Constitutional amendment; prior to this amendment, States were free to tax what we now consider a Constitutional “right”. By analogy, the principle of licensing (taxing or regulating) public arms bearing might have to be resolved by a new Constitutional amendment. Observe that guns and ammunition are subject to modest excise taxes; NFA firearms are subject to taxes intended originally to be onerous. The constitutionality of this taxing practice – too – might need to be resolved by a new amendment. Photo-ID as prerequisite to vote might need to be resolved by a new amendment.
I think I see a package of legislation for Congress. A collection of constitutional amendment proposals to resolve the issues of: Photo-ID for voters; taxing guns or ammunition; prohibiting regulation of keeping arms on private property while allowing licensing of public gun-bearing with strict scrutiny.
Facing such a package, Congress might see fit to pass a simple National Reciprocity bill instead.

You just set out the anti gun argument.
If you plan to use your gun in public then it should be registered, police patrolled, taxed, inspected, tracked with plates and serial numbers, must take a course and have a licence, etc.

Do you want more freedom or less?

If a god grants rights, but men can take them away, then that god is puny, indeed.

No one created the universe. It, or the conditions for it to form existed always.

Wow! That explains everything!

Superstition explains nothing.

You can no more prove your faith than can I. But make no mistake about it, you only have faith.

On the contrary. I have a framework for understanding the workings of the universe that will never be betrayed by inconvenient facts.

Ah. Still way better than CA, though.

All Abbott ever committed to was permitted “open carry”, from the get-go. If a “constitutional carry” bill landed on his desk he might sign it, but all he’s ever actually plumped for is carry with a permit. that’s why I never got too excited about it. But any loosening of unconstitutional restrictions is better than none, and most certainly better than more restrictions, which is what we would have gotten from Ms Windy

Perry had norging to do with it. No one was pushing constitutional carry. Abbot does not want constitutional carry and neither does the state legislature. Leave it to a Yankee transplant to get Texas politics wrong.

I resemble that remark! Plenty of voters were pushing for Constitutional Carry. Doesn’t that count? And one such bill was introduced.

You’re a moron.

Larry berry….please….

Are you saying that he did not complete multiple years of liberal indoctrination? Sounds to me like this guy has possibilities.

Are you claiming that the current POTUS actually graduated from a college? You know, like *earned* a degree in anything? As I understand it he was lucky to finish high school with fantastically average grades.

Perhaps. Although, if you’ve been raised properly by your parents, you have enough swifts about you to endure even a liberal bastion and get a quality education without succumbing to indoctrination. Some of these places are bad, really bad, but c’mon, they’re not gulag re-education camps. College does expose you to an awful lot of ideas and arguments, even poorly structured ones, that you can experiment with, deconstruct, reconstruct, and counter. There’s a lot of blather on a college campus, but there’s also much value, too. You get out of it what you want to get out of it, which depends as much on the student’s intentions as the school’s.

Walker’s college is Marquette University in Milwaukee. I’m not familiar with it, myself, but it ranks #311 out of 880 colleges ranked by niche.com for liberalism. Their methodology is outlined on their site, but basically it’s a poll of 50,000 students at those 880 schools self-identifying their political leanings. I’d guess, and it is mostly just a guess, that it’s about as liberal as a typical college, which is to say more so than most other institutions in our society, but probably not suffocatingly so.

If Walker can demonstrate serious thinking, a capacity to discern important patterns and glean useful insights from complex interconnections, and craft sustainable solutions to problems, then he’ll have demonstrated what only a minority of college graduates can, anyway. So a degree won’t matter as long as he has the skills a degree is supposed to represent.

Larry, I wouldn’t vouch for Obama’s diplomas any more than I would his birth certificate! Not saying yea or nay either way, because I don’t know, just that I don’t trust anything out of him and wouldn’t go out on a limb for the guy.

Rick Perry is not a Mormon, you’re thinking of Romney. The dog story was also Romney.

Paul and Christy just shot themselves on the vaccination issue. They’re out.
You want fair tax and pro gun, you have to go with Cruz, or Huckabee.
I don’t think he will run but the guy that fires me up is Allen West.

You meant Romney, not Perry, I take it. Perry isn’t a Mormon, and wasn’t involved in any made-up controversy about carrying a dog in a dog carrier (having seen dozens of dogs leaning out of pickup-truck beds while zooming down the highway, that was pretty thin gruel, controversy-wise, IMO).

I could go for West!

Probably best that you sit this one out.

I remember you making this assertion after Deans blog on it.

Two things –

I suppose that he could have been lying about how he had been carrying the weapon since he didn’t have a CCW yet. http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/10/another-unicorn-open-carrier-robbed-by.html , but it is clear that the robber knew that he had a gun.

The robber probably had know way of knowing it wasn’t loaded. It still should have been a magical deterrent according to Dustin’s implication.

If he was showing it to someone, he wasn’t presenting it as in a self-defense situation, nor was he carrying it ready to deploy. I don’t know exactly how he was holding it when the bad guy got the drop on him, but it is pretty clear that he was not “carrying” in the sense of someone openly carrying a gun as a self-defense measure and maintaining a defense-ready posture. So no, I’m not gonna count that as a random criminal specifically targeting a random open-carrier because he sees the gun. And that’s putting aside the fact that the whole situation smells of a set-up from the get-go.

I’ll buy that as a reasonable position.
Dean said that there had been two open carriers robbed in his article. I don’t know what the second one was. Do you?

Well, to be fair, the article says open carry twice in the first sentence.

And yet, the NY assassin didn’t go after unarmed meter maids? Neither did he shoot any non-sworn employees of NYOD. Nope, not buying it. Guns = power. I get, and even acknowledged, that it’s not exactly the same as targeting an OCer along the way to another crime. Still, the fact remains that they did target openly armed people, people with lethal firepower, because of that power, and that’s the underlying principle you’re missing.

Same with the Boston bombers: they targeted that cop specifically because of the firearm. In that case, he had a weapon they wanted. Had a non-cop OCer been available, they’d have targted him, because of the firearm.

In Walmart, I already said the CCer became an OCer once he drew. It’s that visible firearm which ipso facto is the threat to the partner, even more than his proximity to or movement toward that partner. The proof? Other shoppers were closer to the partner and in that instant their movements could just as easily been interpreted as action against him. And yet, only the now-OCer was shot.

It’s the firearm that transformed him into not simply a threat, but a credible threat, and that’s why he was immediately shot. That’s the underlying principle. Ignoring the underlying principles and their applicability, while awaiting picture perfect examples, is disingenuous.

the CCer became an OCer once he drew

It’s the firearm that transformed him into not simply a threat, but a credible threat,

Perhaps a small point or perhaps not, drawn handgun =/= open carry. They represent whole different threat levels. Would they have shot the gun bearing victim if he was merely open carrying? Perhaps or perhaps not. Once the handgun was in is hand, it wasn’t a case of open or concealed carry since it was a drawn weapon posing an immediate threat to one of the assailants. We will never really know if she would’ve ignored him if he had been carrying openly, hadn’t drawn, and instead headed out of the store like just about everyone else. We also won’t ever know if he would’ve been shot anyway just for being there between them unarmed as his presence alone would’ve posed a degree of threat to them and their plan.

because of that power,

Had a non-cop OCer been available, they’d have targted him, because of the firearm.

These are still only your assumptions. Although you make a compelling case, they are not proven.

It’s the firearm that transformed him into not simply a threat, but a credible threat, and that’s why he was immediately shot.

A drawn firearm. It doesn’t equate with open carry. You are drawing a conclusion about OC without enough data, IMHO.

Other shoppers were closer to the partner and in that instant their movements could just as easily been interpreted as action against him.

I missed this the first time. Yeah, if she ignored other people closer to her and him then it’s a good bet that it was the drawn firearm.

No, Jonathan, he didn’t go after unarmed meter maids, because unarmed meter maids didn’t shoot Michael Brown or [allegedly] choke out Eric Garner. C’mon, he was after cops, not OCer’s who just happened to be cops. I get that he was not deterred by the fact that they had firearms, but they were specifically targeted because they were cops like the ones that did Brown in, by an obvious mental case. I’m not going to say that trying to stretch that incident into an example of run-of-the-mill criminals particularly targeting OCers is “disingenuous”, but I will say it is mistaken. And if any CCer becomes an OCer if he/she happens to have to present their firearm–then the only point to carrying a gun is if you are ready to OC at some point. I’m not seeing how that militates against OC.

What is it now, $45 every 5 years? Rumors of that going to 10 years? I’m not thinking it’s a big moneymaker, but then I don’t know how much the state spends on a renewal, either. Shoot, I just sent off a check for $65 for the state to send me a window sticker for a car, good for ONE year, essentially no other processing cost.

Personally, I’m not happy about paying a fee for a State CCP as a matter of principle. However, in PA I pay only $21 and there is no training requirement. Not bad enough to complain about.
It occurs to me that – tactically – paying substantial (but not excessive) fees to States can serve our interests in promoting Shall-Issue. PA doesn’t make a profit on $21. States that charge $300 are gouging us on a Constitutional right, at which rate, I object. Now, consider those States that charge about $100 or so. Assuming they make $80 profit, gun-rights people are supporting the State’s budget deficit; i.e., they are valuable to that State’s politicians. FL and UT actively promote sales of permits to out-of-stater’s; revenue lost by States that charge more or won’t-issue (to their own citizens or to residents of other States). Generally speaking, competition and profit are social “goods” in my opinion.
I doubt that any State’s legislature can be “bought” by the profit from selling CCPs. Nevertheless, at the margin, if profits from CCPs tip a few legislators’ votes our way that’s good for the 2A. The more States with Shall-Issue and the more States solidly behind Shall-Issue the stronger the support for the 2A.
If-and-when there is uncontested support for the 2A we can then take up a vigorous objection on principle to excessive (if any) charges for a CCP. We can cite the Constitutional amendment prohibiting the poll tax as president.

Smart mouth you got there. If such ever comes to pass, I won’t be worrying about judge, prosecutor, or anyone else except the JURY!!! And, regardless of your smart mouth, they can decide the TX constitution and those particular laws are BULLSHIT, and say “not guilty”, and it’s over. If not, you can pay the taxes to feed me and house me for however long. Enjoy your slavery, or learn to read.

@LarryinTX: Don’t waste your time and save your blood pressure by not responding to the troll known as Ted Unlis(ted). I believe he might be a long standing Topix troll. Every now and again, I forget and respond to some of the nonsense but leaving Ted in that little corner by himself works best. 😉

“I won’t be worrying about judge, prosecutor, or anyone else except the JURY!!!” You might find such a shallow argument comforting in your world Larry, but good luck with that in the real world. That sort of delusional bluster sure worked well for C.J. Grisham when a Bell County Jury found his dumb@$$ guilty.

Lol, Sovereign citizen’s movement.

“These theorems are logically induced so they are true. No matter they are induced from axioms that I made up and others don’t agree with.”

100% correct logic can lead to a wrong or pointless conclusion if the initial axioms are wrong or in dispute. Correct logic leading to a conclusion doesn’t prove the truth of the starting axioms either. Sovereign citizen’s debate trick is they confine debate to the logic used to induce the conclusions and either avoid debating the axioms (simply defining them as “true”, asserting “this is the reality I choose to argue in, where I am right”), or make a circular argument to pretend to prove the axioms. It is rhetoric without substance, logic used like a stunt or magic trick meant to back people off debate of the axioms or exhaust them from bothering to.

Hey Don, you realize those tactics are taught in debate classes, right? I have never figured out the value of a class which deliberately teaches people to deceive others.

Ironically, there is great value in such a class that “. . . a class which deliberately teaches people to deceive others.” It should be a mandatory component of a mandatory civics class taught for many years and as early as possible.
A small percentage of the population has some natural talent for deception and for political control. We call this segment “politicians”. The majority of us shun the dishonorable practice of politics. And so, we the majority are ill prepared to exercise our civic voting duty at the ballot box and in the public square. We are led as sheep not by a good shepherd; but, rather, by a bad shepherd interested only in sheering us and ultimately – when we can no longer produce wool profitably – then to sell us for slaughter.
These techniques should be taught not with the intention of propagating the practice of deceit but instead to prepare children to tune their BS-detectors. Just as we teach our sons the techniques of proper and improper use of guns not to make criminals but to prepare them for their civic duty whether in the military or militia.

This debate – whether OC is tactical in the context of carry-as-a-right – is foolish! Why is any Person-of-the-Gun engaging in it?
Some speech, some printed arguments, are tactically imprudent. Do we engage in a debate as to one’s right to speak/print remarks that are poor tactics? To do so would cloud the issue of rights. To debate tactics of speech/press is perfectly fine; but, it’s a separate debate. Likewise, OC/CC is a separate debate from carry rights.
The community of PotG is divided on the relative merits of OC vs. CC. We should be alert, from this fact, that the canons (pardon the pun) of armed tactics are not yet closed. (They will never be closed.) It is highly likely that there are cases where OC is tactically superior.
The Idaho mother’s tragedy inspired one such thought. Perhaps women escorting children should OC for tactical reasons. The first anti-OC argument – ‘Shoot me first!’ falls apart. No bad-guy would be crazy enough to shoot a woman escorting children; to do so would simply draw fire from others (if not from her). A woman escorting children would not be so foolish to initiate fire thereby drawing fire from a bad-guy. She would only return fire if her children were threatened by fire first. The ‘tactical’ argument simply reverses in this particular context.
Women – especially those escorting children – have holster issues we men don’t much think of. Their clothing doesn’t lend itself well to CC; and their draw is more inhibited from a CC holster. If we had a rational social attitude toward carry it ought to be that women should be encourage to OC and men to CC. Women OC’ing would not frighten either the horses or the squeamish; particularly women OC’ing while escorting children. Some men, by their appearance, might frighten the squeamish (albeit not the horses); so, let’s encourage these to CC so the bad guys can’t tell whether their chosen venue happens to be gun-free. Men waring suits, clerical collars, hunting garb (in seasonable times), cowboy boots+chaps+10-gallon-hats should be encouraged to OC. (By example, the gun-phobic Mexican government permits OC by civilians wearing a “charro” (gaudy horseman’s) costume. So attired, Mexicans may open-carry .44 revolvers (which are otherwise illegal even in the home), provided they are not loaded. Why is an OC practice legal in Mexico prohibited in Texas?)
What are the Anti’s doing with their objections to OC? They are driving women to CC in ways that are tactically disadvantageous for them and their children! What is their logic? Because they are more afraid of a woman (with/without children) OC’ing then they are with her CC? They would rather take the risk of her fumbling her gun drawing from CC? Rather take the risk of her toddler finding her gun in her purse/car?
I’m NOT proposing any change-in-law here. I AM proposing a political tactic – OC by WOMEN with children (CC by MEN) that would likely serve to sway public opinion on carry.

The rambling response from MarkPA offers a snapshot of the distinction between citizens who lawfully carry concealed for defensive purposes as opposed to the Open Carry/Constitutional Carry Obsessed and their need to be the center of attention while using a lame free speech argument as justification to carry firearms anywhere, anytime without restrictions.

Such shallow and unrealistic logic is eerily similar to the irrational obstinance the Sovereign Citizen Movement uses when refusing to recognize any government authority such as taxes, licensing, or regulatory authority.

The political advocacy and idiocy of those who fancy themselves as champions of the Constitutional Carry crusade in Texas have only succeeded in alienating and pissing off a large number of members in the Texas Legislature which has been vested since 1876 with unquestionable constitutional authority to regulate the carrying or “wearing” of firearms, and nothing short of a constitutional amendment of Section 23 of the Texas Constitution is going to change that.

Article I, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution
Adopted February 15, 1876:
Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

My rambling response didn’t disparage advocates of either OC nor CC. Too many of us, like Ted, feel compelled to emphasize their antagonism toward one side of a debate rather than to concentrate on the issues. Ted doesn’t bother speaking to any Issue I raised; Ted’s response is: “rambling”, “their need to be the center of attention”, characterizing a free speech argument as “lame”, “shallow and unrealistic logic” “eerily similar to the irrational obstinance of [another group he despises]”, “idiocy”, “fancy themselves as champions of the . . . crusade”, “unquestionable”.
As it happens, I share with Ted some negative sentiments as to the political efficacy of OC of long-guns in Texas; I differ from Ted in that I refrain from disparaging those with whom I have some tactical disagreement.
I reserve my 1A right to question whether a State’s Constitution could trump the Federal Constitution. For example, suppose a State’s Constitution prohibited voting by women or teenagers in violation of the Federal Constitution. Ted would seem to disparage me from “questioning” such a State Constitutional provision. (I hasten to add that I don’t hold a clear-cut opinion as to whether the 2A protects OC or allows regulation of CC. It seems to make sense to me that the 2A prohibits a State from proscribing both OC AND CC.)
I wrote only against conflating the TACTICS of OC with the RIGHT of OC. Each should be argued on its own merits. The debate by PotG could be conducted without ad hominem attacks on one-another (as well as our Anti opponents). We do ourselves a disservice by refusing to elevate our level of discourse.
Nevertheless, I honor Ted’s right under the 1A.

…but the Legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

That may be all well and good, but only insofar as it does not violate the second amendment of the US constitution, which explicitly bars the government from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms.

Also: I suppose it would be a safe assumption that the with a view to prevent crime clause compels the Texas legislature to document the crime-prevention efficacy of any and all proposed regulation of the wearing of firearms? If not, then the Texas legislature is not demonstrating the authority by which it enacts such legislation.

The TX OC case is clearly primarily political. It’s hard to work up much enthusiasm for the Constitutional aspect in TX.
So far, we haven’t had any success getting SCOTUS to take a right-to-BEAR-arms at all. SCOTUS has consistently rejected bear-rights appeals from the 2’nd, 3’rd and 4th circuits. Unless-and-until an appeal comes up that SCOTUS is willing to entertain, we aren’t going to have a simple resolution to the Constitutionality of the right to bear arms.
The next simplest avenue would be National Reciprocity. That, however, is unlikely to resolve the OC vs. CC question. It is only likely to open-up the Won’t-Issue States and loosen those states that won’t grant reciprocity.
The LEGAL distinction between OC and CC strikes me as silly. (I prescind from the tactical and comity issues.) With TX and FL on the one hand and Delaware on the other, we have an absurd inconsistency on the sensibility of State legislation. Delaware is perfectly happy for one-and-all to OC in their State but won’t issue CC permits to non-residents and has onerous requirements for its own residents. TX and FL cheerfully issues CC permits to residents and non-resedents alike, but won’t tolerate OC. Imagine 1/2 of the States welcoming OC and prohibiting CC with the other 1/2 welcoming CC but prohibiting OC! As absurd as this seems, it also seems likely to withstand Constitutional scrutiny (i.e., with SCOTUS, Congressmen, State legislators and the majority of voters).
In my opinion, TX is in a pretty good position in the struggle for gun-rights. They have Shall-Issue and OC for long-guns. They have neighboring States with more lenient laws on carry. Texans need to resolve a political dispute with their fellow Texans; and, I can’t think of better ground on which to air this debate.