GOA: No Texan Should Have to Choose Between Following the Law and Carrying a Gun

texas state flag

Bigstock

By Rachel Malone

This weekend, innocent lives were ended by violent acts, and Texans are reeling from the attack against shoppers in El Paso. This horrific taking of precious life is despicable and irreparably harms countless Texans. Gun Owners of America grieves with those who are mourning the loss of family and friends, and we pray for healing for the injured.

Tragedies like this remind us that life is precious, fragile, and worth protecting. We acknowledge that evil will always exist in this world. However, we seek to minimize the harm that evil people want to inflict. 

GOA calls on Texans to stay alert and be prepared to protect yourselves and your families. 

We also call on our elected officials to remove barriers that hinder law-abiding citizens’ ability to take responsibility for their own safety. 

Finally, we urge Texans to pray for those who are hurting from this tragedy, and to extend help and loving arms as you are able.

The barbaric attack in El Paso highlights the truth that Texas’ permitting system for gun carry harms minorities disproportionately, adding unnecessary barriers that do not increase safety but only decrease Texans’ ability to carry a firearm as an effective defense tool. Permit requirements do not keep criminals from committing despicable crimes; they only add barriers for law-abiding citizens who want to save their own lives. 

Texas’ general ban on carrying handguns for self defense arose out of racism. The permitting system continues to propagate elitist attitudes. It’s time for us to finally get rid of all such racist laws that only hurt law-abiding, peaceful citizens.

No Texan should have to choose between following the law or carrying a handgun to save his life. No Texan should have to ask the government’s permission to carry a tool to protect herself and her child. Gun Owners of America stands for policies that increase safety without decreasing freedom.

 

Rachel Malone is Texas Director for Gun Owners of America.

comments

  1. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    No one should have to ask the government for permission to carry a gun any time or any place.
    Its already the written law that’s been ignored. Written down by a bunch of very smart men 250 years ago.

    1. avatar Enuf says:

      Yes please, agree with you. Slight correction on the age of the thing. After all the debating and arguing and haggling and countless re-writes ending in ratification, we get to the effective date of March 4, 1789.

      230 years, 5 months nearly to the day.

      I’ve long thought we should have a national “Constitution Day”. Complete with readings of the many articles, assorted frivolity and merry making, possibly some wild dancing in the streets.

      But I’d settle for the first Friday in March as a legislated national holiday, equal in our esteem to July 4th.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Actually, 243 years, 1 month, 3 days.

        On July 2, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was formally voted upon and passed by the State Delegates. The document includes the text “laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”, which were collectively understood to mean self-preservation and defense.

        The Constitution didn’t originally contain the first Articles (Amendments) because the Founders believed that the right to self defense was obvious. This was stated in the DOI under as “we hold these Truths to be self-evident…” The Articles were later drafted and passed due to some delegates’ concerns that future generations would hold to a deteriorated view of such rights, and would need to be reined it.

        Oy vey, that certainly turned out to be true. Even the Amendments don’t deter the likes of Cuomo, Feinstein, Newsom, et al.

    2. avatar Jerry says:

      I think it’s great we have a Constitution and an amendment specifically for the purpose of firearms. However, I do not need ANY piece of paper to grant me permission to protect myself or my family. So…whether we maintain our current form of government or not, whether we keep, amend, or do away with the 2nd amendment or not…my position and actions will not change. Let’s hope it remains intact, but any changes made, will not change my actions. Thanks TTAG!

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Spot on. I completely agree.

    3. avatar Baldwin says:

      The right to keep and bear arms IS NOT A LAW. It is a RIGHT!

  2. avatar LifeSavor says:

    Well said!!! POTG stand strongly against racism, classism, and any other ‘ism’ that infringes the keeping and bearing for any race, creed, ethnicity, or economic class.

  3. avatar Stateisevil says:

    Deaf ears

  4. avatar David Walters says:

    I think the El Paso shooting took place on private property and, in Texas, the land owner can prohibit carrying of firearms or any other weapon on his property. That’s what the Mall’s take on it was/is and it cost a lot.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      True, but a growing number of attorneys are looking to the argument that if an owner of private property invites others, whether for a gathering or for commerce, then if that owner prohibits a citizen from possessing the tools necessary to defend him/herself, the property owner then by default accepts responsibility for that citizen’s safety. If the citizen experiences loss, injury, or death while on the property, he/she or his heirs may sue the property owner for dereliction of duty.

      1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        I agree with private property rights but when you have hundreds or thousands of people coming on your property for trade or commerce then I do not see how it’s private property. If I owned private property and had a large farm, can I legally deny the people on my farm their constitutional rights ? Can I , on my personal property have slaves because it’s my property. Can I detain people on my personal property in order to deny them the right to vote ? Rights denied are unconstitutional . The state of Texas recently passed a law that relieves property owners from liability if they allow legally carried firearms on their property . This should negate the gun free zone b s . Anyone that does not allow carry should be liable to provide a safe environment for the patrons and liable for failure to do so.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Ed,

          I agree with you in a broader sense of what you’re saying, but the foundation of private property rights is the ability of an owner to determine what happens there, as long as any other persons have the ability to leave or choose other options for their residence or commerce. So then, slavery isn’t allowed. But Starbucks may prohibit guns, and if you or I enter one of their stores, we accept this limitation by default.

          The legal argument, however, is that when a company invites you to their property and forbids you the ability to defend yourself, they assume responsibility for your well-being by social contract.

        2. avatar Erik Weisz says:

          There’s a private property vs. public access/public space argument to be made here though.

      2. avatar Ton E says:

        There’s a problem with that the individual knowingly goes on the property knowing it’s a gun free Zone they assume all the risk associated with it. It’s personal responsibility you don’t have to go on said property if you don’t want to and if you do you’re taking personal responsibility for doing so. I don’t know why someone would want to patronize a business that disagrees with their lifestyle choices such as carrying a CCW. The Aurora families and victims attempted to sue the movie theater for the shooting that took place their and failed miserably as it should have.

        1. avatar Ton E says:

          There*

        2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @Ton,

          Here in SoCal, we really don’t have any choice. CCWs here are like unicorns…things of myth and fable, but you never see one, and many businesses (even my local mall) post “No Weapons Allowed” signs at their entrances. So whether my wife and I want to go to the movie theater, the mall, the coffee shop, a restaurant, whatever, we don’t have options.

      3. avatar Ton E says:

        So the property owner forced the patron to come onto their property? Sorry it was personal responsibility on the patrons part to enter the property to begin with. It’s not the property owners job to protect you no more than it is the police’s job to protect you. If you see the signage and you enter anyways you’re basically supporting a business that disagrees with your lifestyle choices like carrying a CCW. Using the theat of litigation to advance gun rights at the cost of property rights is simply trading one right for another that’s far from freedom.

      4. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

        I’ve heard that argument and it’s stupid. It’s as asinine as the sophistry that if you are anti-aborrion, then must open your home to every would-have-been aborted fetus and raise those children yourself. After all, abortion os a right. You disrupt it, you take responsibility for it.

        You can say the same about anything else gun related, too. If the store allows concealed carry, but not open carry, then sue! Or it allows both, but forbids you from carrying rifles in low ready. Sue!

        POTG don’t give a rip about rights, as a philosophical concept. They just want to shoot their guns and carry them wherever they want. The intersection with rights is happenstance. The proof? They don’t give a damn about anyone else’s rights, like property rights, when it interferes with their toys.

        People in contact eventuates rights in conflict. Compromises become neccessary to ensure a peaceful and functioning society. Children figure this out as toddlers. The POTG? Well, I’ll let you know what age they figure it out, once they figure it out.

  5. avatar I Haz A Question says:

    I see the formation of this particular line in the sand as a major battlefront approaching us. One half of the country wants a stronger Big Brother State and to take our guns, and a growing portion of the other half wants to be left alone and the liberty to defend ourselves with our guns.

    In the middle are the FUDDs who will increasingly see that there is no true compromise or middle ground. Our Founders were very clear as to the freedoms they bestowed to us. We’ve made the collective mistake of allowing small infringements to take hold, and for Leftists to gain ground in political office to where they now (in 2019) are running ramshod over our enumerated freedoms in a gleeful stampede.

    They will not satisfied, ever, and top-level Democrats are openly bellowing for our rights to be taken from us, while their audiences cheer. Even Trey Gowdy(!!) is now saying he’ll “gladly trade any other of his rights away if it means safety for his family”.

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/trey-gowdy-right-to-bear-arms-doesnt-matter-if-youre-dead

    I hang my head in shame at this desperate capitulation by those who we thought were our defenders.

    ****

    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
    — Benjamin Franklin

    1. avatar Texican says:

      You misinterpreted what Trey Gowdy said. You might want to listen to what he actually said.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        I read the article twice before commenting here. I’m not sure how his statement could be interpreted any other way. He “emotionally” said he’d gladly trade any of his other rights away if the physical safety of his children could be guaranteed.

        Even if Trey misspoke, it was a tremendous thing for him to say.

        1. avatar Texican says:

          He said he’d trade 2A rights if someone could show him legislation that would solve the problem of mass murderers with guns. Not that he was for restrictions. Quite the opposite. Admittedly, he could have phrased it differently for more clarity.

  6. avatar John Puricelli says:

    I don’t have a handle but who cares.

    Question: If the owner of private property, like a Wal-Mart, leaves an exposed electrical wire and someone electrocutes themselves is the business liable? Answer: Probably. I’m sure there is some kind of negligence standard.

    Question: If my employer prohibits guns on its property and a gunman gets loose in the building, is it liable if someone get’s killed. Answer: My building did exactly that. There are now armed personnel at every entrance to my building every day.

    Question: With all the bloodsucking lawyers out there can’t one of them figure out how to use some law to to hold wal-mart liable for negligence?

    Gun control is not the answer. Lawsuits are. Either put someone with muscle and a gun at the door or let me carry a gun in your store.

    1. avatar David Bradford says:

      To my understanding Wal-mart does not bar firearms from their stores. They do not prevent you from defending yourself, that makes the responsibility for your safety yours and not theirs.

      1. avatar Gazzer says:

        Except that particular Walmart did ban guns or rather the owner of the mall did.

        1. avatar Rusty - always carry your gun - Chains says:

          Simon Mall bans guns wherever they can. Here in Georgia there is no provision in law that keeps me from concealing my firearm at mall. The most the local Simon Mall can do, if they spot my concealed pistol, is ask me to leave. The only time I go there is when my wife wants to go to a store she likes.

        2. avatar Dale in Kansas says:

          The Walmart and the Cielo Vista mall are completely separate. Check Google maps. I have yet to enter a Walmart that has a gun buster sign so I doubt this one does.

    2. avatar Mark H says:

      I was recently on a Jury for just this (business liability where someone was harmed). In this case it was someone who fell in a grocery store.

      The legal standard is that the buisiness either 1) knows of a hazzard, or should have known, and then 2) fails to act reasonably to contain or mitigate the hazard. Example. Someone drops a jar of pickes and someone else slips and falls. The business is only liable if they fail to clean it up, once they know about it, and in a reasonable time. So if an employee is already on the way to clean it up, they are not liable, they are only liable if they fail to act in a reasonable fashon.

      In the case of a “no guns posting” I would argue that the busines has created a hazzard, and would thus be subject to negligent liability.

  7. avatar Reno says:

    Gun control and gun free zones kill people.they are just killing the wrong people

  8. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Since the last bunch of dumb ass shooters seem to be young dorks, you can’t tell me the parents didn’t know something was wrong, maybe it’s time to hold them accountable instead of destroying the 2-A, the parents always seem to disappear when this crap happens… the apple didn’t fall very far from the tree.

  9. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Tragedies like this remind us that life is precious, fragile, and worth protecting. We acknowledge that evil will always exist in this world. However, we seek to minimize the harm that evil people want to inflict.

    Sadly, many/most Progressives/Democrats do not agree with those principles.

    “… life is precious … and worth protecting.” Only the classes of people that Democrats deem worthy of life are precious and worth protecting. Deplorables are not precious and worth protecting. Neither are babies in the womb – nor out of the womb for that matter if the baby happens to survive a physician’s attempt to abort murder the baby in the womb.

    “… evil will always exist in this world.” Many/most Progressives/Democrats actually believe that they can eliminate evil in the world and achieve utopia if we would all just agree to fully support the Progressive agenda.

    “… we seek to minimize the harm that evil people want to inflict.” Many/most Progressives/Democrats do not seek to minimize the harm that evil people will inflict if the necessary measures are inconsistent with their views of utopia. Because they should not need guns in their utopia, they refuse to allow common people to have guns to minimize the harm that evil people will inflict.

    The differences that I just illustrated are irreconcilable.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Well stated.

      There are indeed irreconcilable fundamental differences. IMHO, this society eventually will not be able to withstand the rift. It will either somewhat amicably separate or violently implode. Unfortunately, I don’t really believe that amicable separation with communists/socialists is a possibility in their own minds.

  10. avatar IT Shabake says:

    given the terrible tragedies we’ve seen caused by carrying guns by inappropriate people, I kinda agree with that
    فروش تجهیزات شبکه

  11. avatar HandyDan says:

    It took me a grand total of 5 business days after I filed for my Texas LTC to get it. Of course, there is also the guy from my church who filled two months ago and is still waiting.

  12. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    No store should be a free fire zone, ie “Gun Free Zone”. An armed civilian could have stopped this guy but watch, more stores will now put such asinine signs. They should be told that the thin tin doesn’t stop bullets.

  13. avatar CV76 says:

    GOA needs to get its finances in order! Spending 25% of their small budget on executive pay? I cancelled my membership and am going to the FPC!
    SIGNED FORMER NRA LIFE MEMBER

  14. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    As far as I know texas walmarts are open and concealed carry friendly. The people have chosen to disarm themselves. Very sad.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email