GOA rachel malone stephen willeford texas capitol safety commission
Gun Owners of America's Rachel Malone (Dan Z for TTAG)
Previous Post
Next Post

Let’s face it: not all your legislators actually care about your rights. But all of them care about their next election. If they see huge numbers of their voting base actively showing up to the Capitol for this issue, they will start to fear that those same people will cost them their next election if they do not take action.

Enough people must show up for Constitutional Carry so that the legislators know they will receive significant praise when they act on it.

It’s human nature to crave approval. Unfortunately, any legislators who take action to support gun rights are going to receive enormous negative pushback from anti-gunners who despise our rights. You can counteract that by publicly – and loudly – thanking and praising legislators who do the right thing.

Enough people must show up for Constitutional Carry so that enough legislators decide to prioritize the issue.

It’s not sufficient for legislators to promise to vote for the bill if it gets to the floor. Bills die easily in the Texas Legislature. To keep a bill alive, legislators must give active support through the committee process to be sure it gets to the floor. This means that, among the hundreds of issues on a legislator’s desk, Constitutional Carry must become one of the most important. That only happens when an issue is important enough to a large contingent of the member’s voting base.

Enough people must show up to advocate for Constitutional Carry to squash the myths and lies propagated by those who oppose the legislation.

Any gun rights bill, no matter how large or small, is targeted by enemies of your freedom. Constitutional Carry legislation has been disparaged by those who claim it will allow attackers easier access to guns, or that removing the training requirement will endanger the public. Nothing could be further from the truth: data shows that violent crime rates decrease after a state adopts Constitutional Carry legislation. It’s time to show up and proclaim the truth loudly enough to drown out the lies.

— Rachel Malone in Here’s how to pass Constitutional Carry in Texas

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Haven’t we already seen demonstrated repeatedly that Dimwitocrat politicians ignore any opposing faction/factor? Even with near 50-50 splits among the voters? IIRC, Pelosi declared a public mandate for Dims due to 2020 voting (11 member majority).

    • Sam I Am,

      Agree completely. Democrats will do whatever the party tells them to do whether or not it receives popular support.

      And why shouldn’t they? After all, if their party platform does not garner majority support from voters, Democrats will simply produce the number of bogus ballots needed to ensure that the ballot tally shows Democrats over the 50% mark after the counting is done.

        • “The days of calling the elections by midnight are over.”

          True. Now we can “call” elections the day they are placed on the schedule.

        • “The days of calling the elections by midnight are over.“

          Good, I think it is wise to allow time after election day for overseas military votes and other absentee votes to be counted.

      • You mean how Republitards blindly believe the election was stolen despite all evidence to the contrary because the Cheeto-in-command spoke it so?

        Irony….sweet, sweet irony.

        • common_stupid,

          … Republitards blindly believe the election was stolen despite all evidence to the contrary …

          Interesting. Please share with us how polling places which received several hundred to several thousand consecutive ballots all voting for Joe Biden (and only Joe Biden) is evidence to the contrary of massive numbers of counterfeit ballots.

          To be crystal clear, those ballot locations which reportedly received and counted several hundred to several thousand consecutive ballots all voting for Joe Biden and only Joe Biden — consecutive ballots for Joe Biden means not a single ballot voting for any other Presidential candidate (or failing to vote for any Presidential candidate at all) and without any votes for any other candidates down ballot) — a statistical impossibility.

    • I think this author is rather naive and simplistic, and misses the realpolitik of what it will take to get constitutional carry through the House (it would almost certainly pass the Senate and be signed by Gov. Abbott if it did).

      For those of you unfamiliar with the structure of Texas government, under the Texas Constitution of 1877 (post-Reconstruction constitution; designed to keep the state officials weak and make it hard to pass anything), the Speaker of the House is effectively the most powerful official in the state. He can effectively block anything he doesn’t like from ever coming up for a vote in the very short (5 month) legislative session that occurs every other year. The Speaker also effectively controls who is named to chair various committees, and those committee chairmen can similarly bottle up bills they do not like.

      For over a decade, the Speakers of the Texas House (first Strauss, then Bonnen) have been cronyist RINOs that got elected by the support of a minority of GOP members allying with the Dem minority (who would, understandibly, rather have a RINO as Speaker than a conservative), and who would then pass out committee chairs to supporters (including Dems) in exchange for their votes. (That the Texas GOP House caucus refuses to follow the official state party platform, which has long called for the caucus to select a candidate and then enforce party discipline to require caucus members to support that candidate, is a sore point — Texas GOP chair Allen West has been very vocal of late about this.)

      At any event, both Strauss and Bonnen were actively opposed to constitutional carry. That meant that it really didn’t matter how much support the bill might have — everyone knew it was a dead letter because these guys could arrange that it would never come up for a vote, or delay any vote so long that even if it passed, it would not have time to then be taken up and voted on by the Senate.

      Thus, last time around, the constitutional carry bill was referred to a committee chaired by an anti-2A dem (Poncho Nevares) who was never going to let it see the light of day. After this became apparent, and 2A supporters began to make some noise about it, Bonnen stepped in and made it clear that the bill would never get a vote. And that was that — even hardcore 2A legislators knew and admitted that when the Speaker is opposed to something, trying to push it further won’t work and is just a waste of valuable legislative time.

      Right now, it looks like Dale Phelan will be the next Speaker. While he was one of Bonnen’s minions, and is using the Strauss/Bonnen playbook of relying on “bipartisan” support to get the position (including promising various liberal Dems committee chairs), there is a glimmer of hope.

      Phelan has a A+ rating from the TSRA, was the sponsor of the open carry bill in 2015, and last term authored a bill that allowed limited permitless carry during declared emergencies (e.g., hurricane evacuations). I haven’t been able to find anything on his position on full constitutional carry.

      Now, between a new state budget, redistricting, and all the other legislative housekeeping, there’s going to be precious little time to take up other stuff this session.

      Bottom line: if Phelan wants to block constitutional carry, we’re screwed, no matter how many letters you write or how many people show up to hearings. If he supports it or at least is willing to let it come up for a timely vote, it’ll probably pass.

  2. Nope. Not all care about their next election.
    Democrats are perfectly willing to torpedo their reelection chances for the sake of the long game.

  3. one question- and I am all for constiutional carry-

    Just the same– if a cop asks a fellow if he is carrying, or if the gun is exposed, etc, how do you know if the guy is a felon or criminal? Will the cop stop him and call in his record? Just a question no one has answered

    • Is the person committing an actual crime or not? If the crime is only possession of a weapon then the issue is what he Could do more than what he is doing. The notion of criminalizing weapon possession by people with criminal records is a recent development and not one espoused in the USC.
      Everyone agrees felons, particularly violent offenders, should be barred from holding weapons, including bats and knives, but there are things to consider in each case.

    • If a cop sees you driving a vehicle how does he know you didn’t steal it?
      The 4th Amendment is still a thing. For now at least.

      • Shire-man is correct. Probable cause. Generally, consider stop-and-frisk programs, DUI checkpoints, seizure warrants, etc.

        However, if the Dems take the Senate and Biden is sworn in, all bets are off and “Parador” will be bumped up on the list of retirement location options.

        • “Shire-man is correct. Probable cause.”

          That can (and has been) fabricated by cops under the flimsiest of circumstances, and backed up by a judge friendly to the cop on the bench.

          Job 1 – Don’t motivate a cop to do just that. The ride is the penalty…

    • Its really very simple. If the gun is in a holster or if long gun, slung,there is no issue. If the gun is being carried in the hand, or if long gun at high ready, there is a problem.

      I can’t find anything in the 2nd that mentions anything about prohibited persons.

  4. Good luck passing squat…
    When voters are disenfranchised and two bit self serving politicians combine the needs of the people with political pork you get a Georgia….I predicted that on this forum weeks ago without one word from those who would rather make wagers on whether or not the perp is Black every time a headline crime is committed.
    Perhaps now some people will pull their heads out of their behinds and cease being bigots and history illiterate, pasty mouth politically inept morons.

    • Kemp never should have nominated Loeffler in the first place, but as we’re discovering, Kemp was a terrible choice as well. It was payback for campaign contributions. Democrats LOVE their abusive men (Warnock). They’ll cover for them as long as possible. They only turned on Harvey Weinstein at the last second when the rest of the country learned what the democrat insiders knew all along.

      • True. She was a rino for sure.
        It’s unlikely there will be another R president so a mistake like sessions or Loeffler won’t be made again. The democrats are far more careful not to open a seat like that, they weigh the odds of flipping a seat versus what a run of the mill authoritarian will do in a cabinet position

      • Due to extenuating circumstances across America Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda in Georgia are out the window. It’s much more to it than voters being their usual ho hum nitpicking selves. Reasons not to go vote are as stated in my post, you must have missed them. Furthermore…When biden comes down to GA and dangles a $2000.00 carrot in front of people who are broke and all they have to do is vote democRat the results speak for themselves. You can thank stick in the mud mitch mcconnell et al for their months of unwavering assistance in helping biden make such an enticing offer.

        • I agree, Mitch should of pretended to support 2000.00 checks. The wisdom doesn’t matter, we are dealing with emotions

  5. Wait until the left creates truth commissions and starts making lists of Trump voters. Constitutional carry won’t even be on the radar.

    We are about to have more in common with a few wretched authoritarian states.

    • “Wait until the left creates truth commissions and starts making lists of Trump voters.”

      That idea has already been publicly floated in the Leftist press…

  6. Apologies for being a wet blanket:

    Reality is simple and destructive — hordes of people:
    1) Have no idea what is going on.
    2) Vote for people who appear to be “nice”.
    3) Have no courage and will vote for “security”.
    4) Will vote for evil politicians since the end justifies the means.

    In other words a majority of the voters in our nation are ignorant, apathetic, naive, fearful, and corrupt — and will vote accordingly. Add the fact that legacy media and Big Tech. platforms actively promote Democrat politicians while actively suppressing Republican politicians and that usually tips the scales in favor of Democrats at elections.

    I believe our nation is screwed at this point. Unless the minority can institute a “heckler’s veto”, the good days are over. As Adams aptly stated, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” I believe his statement was/is accurate and we are seeing it come to pass.

    • Say what you will about Trump, but he’s the first republican presidential candidate to successfully reach out to black voters in about 60 years. Black Georgians voted 93-94% for the democrat senators. There’s a lot of work to be done there. I don’t know how you do it with the dishonest media and tech companies. Their strategy was successful, so the disinformation and censorship will only get worse.

      • Dude,

        While it is true that Trump received more votes from the black demographic than any other President in the last 50+ years, it is a moot point for several reasons.

        1) The black demographic is only about 13% of the U.S. population and does not represent a huge voting bloc in the first place.

        2) White voters are choosing to support Democrat candidates at a faster pace than black voters changing sides to support Republicans.

        3) People will choose “free” stuff almost every time over having to work for stuff. The black demographic is no exception. Since Democrats offer more “free” stuff than Republicans, all voters — including black voters — will gravitate heavily toward Democrats.

        We are fighting an uphill — arguably unwinnable — battle against fundamental human nature. As commenter The Unspoken said below, the Republican Party is the “responsible” party. Needless to say, a metric crap-ton of people despise responsibility and will vote for the party that supports and rewards irresponsible behavior.

        • Democrats received less than 60% of the Hispanic vote last night. If black people voted like that, it wouldn’t have been close. Let’s assume the November election wasn’t fraudulent in any way. The swing state margins were very small. 25% of black people voting republican would be a game changer. 25% of 13% amounts to a 3.25% difference. Take 3.25% from Biden in swing states, then add it to Trump, and notice what happens.

        • *I didn’t take the existing Trump black vote into account. It was 13%. Democrats typically need 90%+ percent to win. So 25%-13% = an additional 12%. 12% of 13% is 1.56% of the average vote nationally. Removing 1.56% from Biden and giving it to Trump results in a 3% difference. That’s the difference between winning and losing.

        • Dude,

          Your numbers are spot-on as far as I can tell. (I came up with virtually the same numbers myself about 9 months ago.)

          The fundamental fact remains: how does a Republican candidate keep the 12% of black voting demographic that Trump won over and win over another 13% of the black demographic?

          You also highlighted an important point: if Democrats historically need at least 90% of the black demographic to win elections, how were Democrats able to win the election with only 88% of the black vote — especially given how Trump won over a GIANT proportion of Latino votes? The answer is clear: either Democrats secured an even greater GIANT portion of white votes or Democrats submitted a large enough number of counterfeit ballots necessary to win the election.

          Both possible explanations are nearly insurmountable.

        • “how does a Republican candidate keep the 12% of black voting demographic that Trump won over and win over another 13% of the black demographic?”

          That’s the dilemma. It NEVER happens without an honest media. Trump went around the media, but the tech companies are just getting warmed up with the censorship. Democrats LOVE censorship and propaganda.

          And there was extensive voter fraud. No doubt.

        • “how does a Republican candidate keep the 12% of black voting demographic that Trump won over and win over another 13% of the black demographic?”

          EZ. Either run over his wife’s toe (worked for Warnock) or get caught smoking crack with a ho (worked for Marion Barry). Black voters love grifters.

        • “1) The black demographic is only about 13% of the U.S. population and does not represent a huge voting bloc in the first place.”

          The Latino vote is vastly larger, and they are responding positively to our calling Socialism out for the evil that it is.

          Over 30 percent now vote conservative from their personal observations of what’s happening in Cuba, Venezuela, and Central America.

          We need to exploit that resource in advertising targeting Latinos in general. Not fancy election catch phrases (“I’m with Her!” or “Make America Great Again”), pictures and video in their native languages by the people who experienced it warning other Latinos what they are in for if they get elected. Show what starvation really look like to people like themselves.

          Just that will be a potent weapon. Putting a human face on what horrors socialism leads to…

  7. Turn out at rallies is one thing.

    The actual timing of such events, however, along with an enthusiastic turn out is more important. And the turn out crowd needs to reflect a cross-section of normal society- people and types from every walk of life, not just a bunch of overfed, old, angry-looking guys and molls whose assembly would tend to scare the hell out of anyone passing by, especially if they had children along with them. Those are the ones who will be picked out for media portrayal, counter offenses, fund raising, and the left is very good at the character assassination program.

    While I’m generally one to respect any and everyone’s right to assemble, promote, protest and even exist, the crowd behind Rachel in the pic that’s been shown here before is not going to bring in many from outside of the core of gun rights activists. Such a rally should be an advertisement for the subject that it is endorsing. I know there are many on “our side” who love to try to scare the general uninvolved public into seeing our point of view but this gernerally makes many want to run to their “government” for protection rather than convince them that they need to think about taking care of themselves first.

    Food for thought the next time someone plans such a rally.

    • “I know there are many on “our side” who love to try to scare the general uninvolved public into seeing our point of view“

      The term for that is intimidation or terroristic threatening.

      The basic tactic of a schoolyard bully.

      • “The term for that is intimidation…”

        Yeah, I know, but that’s a 5 syllable word! Forgive me, but I worked for decades around lesser-read types where the only 4 SYLLABLE word used much started with “mother”. And then it was often cut to just 2…

  8. How do *States* pass Constitutional Carry shouldn’t even be a question….

    If “The Right to Keep and BEAR ARMS” is codified in the US Constitution via the Bill of Rights, then the 10th Amendment does not apply – ie it isn’t delegated to the State to decide.

    Furthermore, many (most? – Even CA, IIRC) has, in their State’s Constitution, the equivalent of the 2nd Amendment.

    This shouldn’t be “how do we get a law passed (that will be ignored) that backs up the Bill of Rights and in many cases, a State’s own Constitution”. This should be “Why are we allowing our rights that are already codified in Legal Documents to be infringed in the first place”?

    • “If “The Right to Keep and BEAR ARMS” is codified in the US Constitution via the Bill of Rights, then the 10th Amendment does not apply – ie it isn’t delegated to the State to decide.”

      Incorrect, I’m afraid. The 9th and 10th Amendments were ratified specifically to prevent the central government from imposing on the States, except where specifically delegated power exists. The Second Amendment applied to the central government in order to prevent using the constitution to disarm the public, thence the States.

      The imposition of the federal constitution upon the states (little”s” since 1868) created an impossible condition: the states retained all powers/rights not specifically delegated, but the central government could apply all its non-delegated powers upon the states. The original intent of the constitution was to preserve the power of the States and the people to control the central government. While a betrayal of the constitution, “the people”, through elected representatives, became bond servants of the central committee in 1868. After that, the constitution became a weapon against the public.

  9. Hard to see a silver lining at this point. Unless a Democrat senator grows a backbone it’s going to be one party rule. Singapore comes to mind.

    • Joe Manchin said he wouldn’t vote for the REALLY crazy stuff. His constituents will probably hold him to that. We’ll see.

        • You’re making a great argument for keeping money in the states to begin with. It should never have to go through Washington first so those DC losers can take their cut and bribe the states with it.

        • Dude,
          It shouldn’t have to, and it doesn’t have to. I’m in 100% agreement about the ill effects and the wrongness of federal grants to the states – but they exist because the states want it that way. The states demand it that way.

          The money is in the states right now. It comes from the states’ people. There is absolutely no federal forcing-function (Constitutional provision, law, threats) keeping state “leaders” from taxing their own people to pay for their own stupid shit.

          The only reason it’s all laundered through “DC losers” is because the state “leaders” far prefer to receive it in the form of handouts so they can blame the feds for any ensuing taxes, debts, reductions in services, or delays.

    • Agree. Ya’ll have heard me say it before. Peaceful Secession. Can it be peaceful=no.

      Is conflict coming=yes. Don’t know what form it will take, maybe like the IRA in the 70s.

      With weird Harris being the tie-breaker in the Senate, if Perdue does not win, He won’t, the Left will go full on green new deal, socialist BS, and all the rest of their plans. This will further anger people, and the People are plenty ticked off now.

      Heck, gas just went up 0.10c at my local place. Up 0.20 in last two weeks. $4-5 gal here we come. Thank you leftist wackos.

      `just sayin.

      • I always wonder why peaceful secession isn’t possible.
        Lefties are always going on about what leeches the red states are and how all the wealth is in the majestic blue states.

        So why would the left shed blood and treasure to keep (in their words) a bunch of backward, deadbeat, bible-thumping anachronisms on the dole?

        Seems like peaceful secession should be encouraged.

      • The leftist scum did not raise the gas prices.

        The multinational oil companies raised the prices, you know, trumps wealthy friends.
        Not only have they raised gas prices, Trump has opened up millions of acres to oil development and extraction, threatening these tax payer owned national treasures.

        Isn’t it strange, with millions of acres of reserves opened up to exploitation, you’d think the price would go down.

        • “The multinational oil companies raised the prices”

          We finally got to the point that OPEC didn’t dictate prices in this country. That also means we don’t need strategic positions (AKA going to war) in the middle east to protect (or steal) resources. Biden has promised to end that.

  10. It takes Politian’s who are brave. And it takes gun voters to come out of the closet and publicly support them.

    Its how we got constitutional carry in Kentucky. Folks got “stand your ground” in Ohio finally for the same reason. In DeWine’s case it was heavy pressure that caused him to sign the bill.

  11. This is all well and good as long as ‘the system’ is working. But when the system fails, it’s time to get medieval.

  12. The sad truth here is there are a lot of “so called” pro-gun people who feel that they are responsible enough to carry, but that anyone of whatever other class (people of color, people who are of a religion or denomination of which they disagree, people in the “wrong” zip code, those that wear the “wrong” boots or hat, etc.), should not be allowed to carry a gun.
    They are out there, they feel they are “real” Americans and those other people aren’t. I abhor irresponsible gun use, but I am not the gun police. Just like table manners at the truck stop, some have them and others don’t. It is not up to me to school you or to exclude you.

    • “The sad truth here is there are a lot of “so called” pro-gun people who feel that they are responsible enough to carry, but that anyone of whatever other class ….should not be allowed to carry a gun.”

      It is possible for two opposing truths to be valid, simultaneously. The Second Amendment is absolute. There definitely are people who should not be allowed in the same zip code where firearms are present. Hold to the absolute, but admit the reality.

      • I have no problem locking up dangerous people, who should not have guns. But many so called “Liberty people” do have a problem with that. San Francisco, Seattle, etc are full of dangerous people. They defecate in public. Urinate, shoot up drugs in public. They are dangerous people. But so called “Liberty people” are very comfortable with that.

        But Libertarians are against forcing people to conform to minimum basic standards of conduct in public.

        • “But Libertarians are against forcing people to conform to minimum basic standards of conduct in public.”

          We should want government to take over the proper role of societies and communities and families and parents? Not a Libertarian (as understood today); not cool with that.

          If the citizens will tolerate sloth, debauchery, dissolution, irresponsibility, even morality, why should “government” be the last resort of discipline? If citizens want nothing but hedonism and chaos, let them eat their own cake. The resulting “moral minority” can stay or go; either live their principles, or accept the shame of tolerance. When the need to go is great enough (desirable enough), a means will be found. No one is trapped by circumstance, but by shackles of their own making. (Just as I am trapped by mine)

  13. “not all your legislators actually care about your rights”
    Laws are only made to benefit the politicians not The People

  14. Sort of like how the massive pro-rights rally in Richmond discouraged the VA legislature and Governor from enacting a bunch of oppressive restrictions?????

  15. Do you really believe the Democrat States (or any other State) will abide by the Full Faith And Credit clause of the Constitution concerning Carry Permits?
    Article IV
    Section 1.
    Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

    • “Do you really believe the Democrat State will abide by the Full Faith And Credit clause of the Constitution?”

      Lawyers and doctors are not licensed nationwide. That condition has existed for at least the last 70yrs, yet the restrictions have never been overturned in court. So, the “full faith and credit” idea has limits recognized by all political parties and courts.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here