Is Texas Creating “Stealth” Constitutional Carry?

So we’re agreed: Arizona residents, as such, may not carry in liqour-serving restaurants.

It’s only with a permit that they may. That goes against Arizona’s oft exalted reputation in here of being superior in firearms on the basis of so-called constitutional carry. That’s what I meant by “#1 Arizona.” The fact is, that Arizona residents may not, as such, carry in such places. They need a license, which reinforces my point that other states have their own little mythology built up.

But hey, since you enjoy putting too fine a point on things, let me also mention that even licensed Arizona carriers may not actually drink while carrying in those liquor-serving restaurants. Arizona Statutes § 4-244(31).

In Texas? Yes! Texas law holds that you may not carry while intoxicated, just as you may not operate drive while intoxicated, but it doesn’t outright forbid you from drinking while carrying. “Intoxicated” is legally defined and it does not consist of merely imbibing a drink. You’re perfectly free to have a drink or two, or however many you want, while lawfully concealed carrying, so long as you are not intoxicated. Now, I don’t recommend it, but it’s technically legal.

I agree that this attitude – ‘I got what I need; let others save themselves’ – is a huge vulnerability for the 2A. Sort of like Northern sentiments before the Civil War. ‘We’ve eliminated slavery in our State; let the Negros in the slave States fend for themselves.’

We must recognize that the PotG trapped behind enemy lines in the remaining 10 Won’t-Issue States are not politically powerful enough to overcome the hoplophobic overwhelming majority. Either they will be freed by application of the 2A via the 14A via McDonald; or, they will remain enslaved in perpetuity. But the problem is not convinced to these slave States.

Bear clearly in mind that most of these slave-States are at once: populous; and, failing. The individuals emigrating from these States and into Purple or Red States will overcome the small/modest majorities of PotG in the free States. Even if the hoplophpbes remain in Blue States, they will reproduce and increase their representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.

At a minimum, PotG in all States must strive to inoculate the – as yet – uncommitted and gun-control-sympathetic voters in slave States. Failing to do so, the contagion will spread.

Talk like a pirate day is an idea of The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster:

http://www.venganza.org/

http://www.venganza.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/painting1.jpg

Oh crap, I thought it was “Dress Like a President Day.” Martin van Buren! This beard’s giving me a rash somethin’ fierce.

WOR(L)D

It’s earth day. Whee. Course, my favorite way to spend earth day is drilling for oil, but sadly right now the rig I’m on is plugging up an old well no longer producing. Maybe next year we’ll be actively drilling for oil on earth day.

Funny story, I used to work for Halliburton and would give tally books and pens with our name on them to rig hands as goodwill gifts. Their favorite thing though was our safety glasses with dark lenses and the Halliburton name. The reason? They liked to irritate hippies in Denver on their days off. Most hippies in the rockies are aware that picking fights with rigs hands is a good way to lose teeth.

@Silent. P&A work isn’t too bad, all things considered. At least it does keep the crews working and maintains that skill set on the payroll. You’re in O&G, so you know the ruthlessness with which the layoffs come during the downturns. It’s a pain training a whole new crop when the upturn comes.

Perhaps Austin cops should be required to have a license to go to a donate shop and a permit for each purchase they make.

No doubt there will be Terry-stops as a pretext to check for CWPs after OC is adopted (by law or in practice). I don’t think it will last long. Cops will tire of stopping people only to discover that they almost always have the proper credential.
Under Constitutional Carry, the Terry-stop won’t go away. It will just take a few more minutes for the cop to call in the ID of the stopped person to see if he is a prohibited person.
Political pressure will mount pretty quickly in some jurisdictions just as it developed in NYC. The minority communities will insist on paperwork with race/ethnicity boxes to check. The paperwork will be tabulated and eventually there will be a lawsuit on racial discrimination grounds. The paperwork will mount to more intense levels whereupon the chief is going to get the political message.
All this will happen faster with a black-letter law stating that openly carrying a gun is not a valid pretext for a Terry-stop.

+1

Or, it could just be sheer stupidity of the masses.

The “shall not be infringed” part and “abridging freedom of speech” sounds like Madison et al. disagrees with you.

Let’s imagine that you and the other “Absolutists” are absolutely correct. Moreover, let’s pretend that we could resurrect Madison, the Representatives and Senators and the legislators who ratified the Bill of Rights and have them sign an affidavit to the effect that “shall not be infringed” was an absolute prohibition.
Now, affidavit in hand, let’s pick some law against which we apply an absolutist interpretation. Arbitrarily, let’s consider the excise tax on guns and ammunition. Is it – in principle – an “infringement”? Is it, as a practical matter at about 11% – a substantial “infringement”? For the sake of this discussion, let’s assume that it is. Now, where shall we argue our absolutist case?
Before a Federal District judge? A Circuit court? SCOTUS? Congress? The court of public opinion? A District judge doesn’t lead to a dispositive acceptance of our argument; not even a Circuit court gets us where we want to be. SCOTUS could decide to agree with us; but, what are the odds of that happening? Congress could rescind the law. The voters could replace enough Congressmen to compel a redress of our grievance. None of these things is going to happen.
We will get satisfaction in any of these forums when we achieve a majority vote that agrees with our argument and evidence. It would very much help if we had our pretended affidavit; but, it’s the vote that would count, not the voters’ reading of our pretended affidavit.
The crude facts of life are that a “right” whether “absolute” or subject to “reasonable restrictions” is worth no more than the parchment it’s written on, absent – at a minimum – a majority of voters willing to stand-up for that right. Lynching didn’t stop in America until a majority of voters and their representatives concluded that lynching must stop; then, and only then, did it stop.
We PotG can always resort to force-of-arms to quash the infringement of the absolute right to buy arms and ammunition free of excise taxes. Can the absolutists field a militia willing to place their lives and sacred honor in jeopardy to rescind the tax on arms and ammo? So far, we haven’t managed to muster enough political pressure to compel Congress to pass National Reciprocity.
No doubt, there is a red line somewhere; but, the forces of Anti-Constitutional-ism have yet to cross it. They will inch toward that line. They will hope to cross it and prevail. What we do to stop them remains to be seen.
So far, the fight is in the debate hall rather than the battlefield. Let’s all prey that it’s resolved by debate.
In the interim, how does it profit our side to insist on an absolutist argument if that argument falls on deaf ears? If we can’t get a majority of SCOTUS nor a majority of Congress nor a majority of voters to buy into an absolutist interpretation, we are wasting ammunition firing into the air.
I argue that we can make a far more persuasive case by approaching “shall not be infringed” from the outer-bounds.
It is easy to make the case that universal registration defeats the purpose of “security of a free state”. It’s easy to make the case that Won’t-Issue far exceeds the bounds of an infringement on the right to bear arms. We can expect a respectful audience in the court of public opinion (and therefore, Congress and ultimately SCOTUS) if we work-back the infringements from the most egregious to the next-most-egregious.
Most of our work needs to be made in State legislatures; and, there, progress has been made during the past 25 years and the pace is accelerating. Some of our work – e.g., National Reciprocity – must be made in Washington. Where the People go, the hearts and minds of elected officials and appointed judges will follow. Shall we proceed on a course that is strategically viable? Or, stand on a principle that is politically a non-starter?

You missed the point completely on inalienable rights. They don’t come from the government and that is the point. IF men can give you a right including right to life, he can take it. Go ask Fidel Castro and since you are into resurrection, resurrect Che and ask him as well. Just because there are examples of infringement on the 2A or abridgements to various parts of the 1A doesn’t make it right. Patrick Henry’s response on this would be interesting.

Nope; that point wasn’t articulated. And, in any case, I didn’t miss it. I’m fully well aware of it. There are multiple spheres of law in play here. In particular: natural law; and, Constitutional law. They don’t necessarily coincide. To give an example on point, the RKBA in the 2A runs to “the People”. The Federal government is bound to secure that RKBA to “the People”; if you are outside that scope then you are the Federal government’s lawful prey.

It is indisputable that if you are an alien and not a lawful resident then you can’t possibly be a member of the class contemplated by “the People”. E.g., if Fidel Castro gets a visa to enter the US to make a speech at the UN he will be obliged to do so unarmed. You will find no constitutional lawyer standing up to defend his 2A RKBA on a contingency basis.

Does Fidel Castro have a natural right to KBA? Reluctantly, we may agree; as does Her Britannic Majesty Elisabeth II. She too may be disarmed at JFK and be obliged to console herself with Secret Service protection. The unwashed masses in coach will have the NYPD.

Got the distinction?

Now, how about lawful resident aliens? Unlawfully resident aliens who have firmly and deeply established themselves in the community? The SAF has won a couple of cases in the South West where a State refused to issue a CWP to green-card holders. There is case-law that an alien with established ties to the community is entitled to treatment as a member of “the People”. Conversely, there is a Circuit decision from a North Western State where an alien brought illegally to the US as a very young child was refused the right to buy a gun on account of his illegal alien status. I think that case was wrongly decided.

We have tens of thousands of illegal aliens who have resided in the US for over a decade. They have become parents of American-born children. They have families to protect. Are they members of the class “the People”? How many of us PotG are prepared to stand-up for their Constitutional right to KBA? If we dismiss their Constitutional right, will we at least demand that Congress enable them in light of their natural right to KBA?

No? Well, then, I suppose that an absolutist view of the Constitutional right in 2A and the natural right it seeks to guarantee is not entirely effective.

As I’ve argued earlier, a Constitutional right isn’t worth the parchment its written on if at least a majority of citizens, their legislators and the judges appointed under our laws refrain from enforcing it.

I can make the same argument for American citizens who renounce their citizenship. In fact, its even more absurd than the non-immigrant or illegal alien case.

Suppose I renounce my American citizenship. (No wish to do so, but there are legitimate reasons why Americans renounce their US citizenship.) I can obtain a tourist visa from the US consulate and visit the US freely. I am, however, a prohibited person. I can’t touch a gun. Suppose my brother-in-law – a non-resident alien on the same tourist type visa as I – accompanies me on a hunting trip. He is free to bring his guns to the US. We may go to the range to shoot targets or to the fields to hunt. He can possess the gun and shoot; I can’t.

I’m waiting for the PotG to arise in arms and demand natural – if not Constitutional – RKBA for former Americans who have renounced their citizenship.

Do you understand the point about a distinction between natural and Constitutional rights?

The Bill of Rights re-affirms existing rights, it doesn’t delineate all rights, but because they aren’t there doesn’t mean they don’t exist as per the 9th Amendment. You have danced all the way around my points and have justified government infringement and abridgment. This was recognized by the individual colonies and eventually states whose documents reflected this before The Constitution was drafted and ratified. Also the point about Castro and Che is that they are men and they violated natural rights. That my friend is the ultimate reason for the 2A. It is that simple in principle.

The British Monarchs were tyrants like old Fidel. It got them the taste of American steel and powder on 2 occasions so it doesn’t bother me one bit that she gets disarmed at JFK on entry.

“The Bill of Rights re-affirms existing rights, it doesn’t delineate all rights, . . . ” Is this a surprise to anyone?
“. . . but because they aren’t there doesn’t mean they don’t exist as per the 9th Amendment.” The Federal government has nothing but contempt for the concept of natural rights. It does not recognize even the concept of unenumerated rights under 9A. Alas, the Anti-Federalists were correct; without a Bill of Rights all rights – even those upon which a consensus existed – would be in jeopardy.

In any case, the text of the 2A is as strong as we might have wished for. If we fail to secure the RKBA under this enumerated right then we will surely fail if we should have to fall-back upon the 9A. Our problem is a head-on collision between the text and contemporary meaning of the 2A and the anti-constituteionalist’s commitment to legislate and enforce their will in contradiction of that parchment protection. Should we fail on the text of the 2A then the next line of defense is clearly “. . . the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government . . .” Let us all pray that we succeed in the debate hall.

“You have danced all the way around my points . . . ” What, pray tell, did I dance around?
“. . . and have justified government infringement and abridgment.” No justification exists for the egregious acts of government; I certainly don’t claim any justification exists. I simply point out that government does what it wishes, to the extent – and beyond – that the People, their legislators and judges are willing to tolerate. This is a practical reality that we must recognize, and deal with, if we are to prevail.
“This was recognized by the individual colonies and eventually states whose documents reflected this before The Constitution was drafted and ratified.” Is this a surprise to anyone?
“Also the point about Castro and Che is that they are men and they violated natural rights.” As do all men in power. Is this a surprise to anyone?
“That my friend is the ultimate reason for the 2A. It is that simple in principle.” Is this a surprise to anyone?

I take it that you have been unable to derive any new insight from what I have written; for this I humbly apologize. My only redemption might be that some other reader might have learned something. I leave you to recite your mantra: “. . . absolutely shall not be infringed”; I’m sure it will be very comforting to you. I don’t expect it to improve the fate of the 2A

In the interim, how does it profit our side to insist on an absolutist argument if that argument falls on deaf ears?

It is a consistent statement from those who are being true to their beliefs. Sure, people who will politically work from the outer bounds inward are a necessity. However, if we don’t have the driving force, the shall not be infringed crowd (of which I am one), then the end result will be a diluted version of the protection on our right. Instead of dissuading the absolutists, use that insistence upon shall not be infringed as a bargaining leverage in political negotiations. If we set the bar low, the results will be even lower. Also, and I think of lessor importance, is that generations to come will look at writings and debates of today to bolster or dismantle arguments in favor of the individual right to keep and bear arms. If we give them weak statements in support of a watered down right, then they will likely achieve extremely diluted results. We were afforded very strong statements from our forefathers. Where would we be today if their statements were consistently weak on the RKBA? Let’s give the future the proper ammunition… “Shall not be infringed means what it says; absolutely. What we are accepting now is the best that we could get out of the process. Future generations, if it is within your power, accept nothing less than shall not be infringed.”

At least, that’s one man’s opinion.

I agree with your reasoning entirely. Moreover, I think we should use the diverse language found in the various protections of rights (mostly the Bill of Rights, but elsewhere as well) to paint a spectrum of strictness in scrutiny.

When the founders wrote “unreasonable” search and seizure did they mean to prohibit ‘absolutely’ all searches and seizures? Or, did they mean to prohibit such searches and seizures that would be unreasonable from the viewpoint of a reasonable and disinterested man? E.g., can the police enter a home without a warrant when in “hot pursuit”? Search for weapons without a warrant when arresting a suspect? Break into a home when there is a report of a hostage situation? When the founding fathers intended to allow some room for judgement or latitude they used language that contemplated what would be deemed inside/outside those bounds through judicial decisions.

Conversely, when the founders wrote “make no law” or “shall not be infringed” or “shall not be compelled to testify” did they expect legislatures to dilute these protections until they were a thin cruel broth?

My point is to argue a simple “absolutist” formula is counterproductive in that we will be summarily dismissed; especially in those forums (SCOTUS and Congress and legislatures) where our arguments need to pass the scrutiny of listeners educated (well or badly) in the law by progressive professors.

Instead, it serves our purposes to say that “shall not be infringed” are words – just like “make no low” – setting the highest level of scrutiny. The intention of such language was obviously to set the boundaries of liberty as widely as possible. To narrow those boundaries requires an overwhelmingly compelling argument. Such a burden can’t be met with respect to this first, and second and . . . case where the Antis have infringed.

It is unnecessary for us to articulate a goal of ZERO infringements whatsoever. E.g., why announce that we would like mass murderers to have their 2A rights restored automatically if-and-when they are released? We might just as well argue that prisoners’ “rights” to be armed in prison against assault by other prisoners be respected! We can just as well argue that funding ought to be restores to the DoJ authority to restore 2A rights; without conceding that that is the limit of convicts’ entitlement to 2A protection. Eventually, we might argue that non-violent offenders have their rights restored automatically. Eventually, we ought to argue for due-process for DV misdemeanors; and so forth.

Yes, we must set our aspirations high and maintain them in our arguments. We need not, however, articulate an explicit goal that allows our efforts to be easily dismissed summarily as lacking in a solid foundation in Constitutional law.

@MarkPA: I agree with alot of what you’ve written in the latest comment; snippets of which are enclosed herein.

Let us all pray that we succeed in the debate hall.

Meh. My health is failing and once I pass from this rock, I will have been denied my Liberty forever. Many like minded friends have gone on before me. Surely, I would rather a peaceful solution be found but I wouldn’t loose any sleep if the People left the debate hall to abolish that which is corrupt and begin anew. For well over a quarter of a century, I’ve spoken to patriots coast to coast and more than a few of the older ones have expressed similar sentiment. Given the loss of Liberty, especially since 9/11, methinks the rot in our system is far greater than you might perceive or even want to accept. Or, maybe you do realize it, as evidenced in your posts.

I leave you to recite your mantra: “. . . absolutely shall not be infringed”; I’m sure it will be very comforting to you. I don’t expect it to improve the fate of the 2A

I don’t think that’s really a fair statement to make. Many of us are out there at protests, contacting politicians, working with local and state public officials to correct errors in implementation of current state law, educating the young as to Liberty, helping shape legislation, in direct confrontations with law enforcement, filing lawsuits, etc. For some of us, shall not be infringed is what drives us. You talk of that “mantra” not improving the fate of the 2A but do you really think that alienating those working diligently, driven by that very notion, is wiser?

Thank you for you kind – albeit qualified – support of some of my comments.

“Given the loss of Liberty, especially since 9/11, methinks the rot in our system is far greater than you might perceive or even want to accept. Or, maybe you do realize it, as evidenced in your posts.”

Oh, I perceive it clearly enough. I could probably perceive the evidence of rot from the 1960s. I also see the growth in the numbers of individuals who recognize that rot.

I understand the estimates from the Revolutionary era were: 1/3 for independence; 1/3 for loyalty to the crown; and 1/3 who didn’t care either way. We might guesstimate that critical mass is when the fraction for – shall we say reformation – exceeds the fraction that advocates the continuation of rot. It doesn’t matter precisely whether that’s 34% vs. 33% or 26% vs 25%; the point is, one side must be numerous enough and determined enough to prevail over the other side.

Our republican form of government is strikingly different from the monarchy/parliamentary system faced by the Founders. We ought to be able to prevail in the chambers of Congress by prevailing on election day. Only IF-and-WHEN we are so numerous and so determined will we prevail without bloodshed. I’m simply praying that we are not reduced to 3% vs. 33%. I’m old enough to go if that time comes.

“I leave you to recite your mantra: “. . . absolutely shall not be infringed”; I’m sure it will be very comforting to you. I don’t expect it to improve the fate of the 2A”

“I don’t think that’s really a fair statement to make.” The key word there is ‘ABSOLUTELY’. I do NOT disparage the mantra of “. . . shall not be infringed.” Indeed, I will chant THESE words as loudly as I can with as much enthusiasm as any of you.

It suffices for our purposes to assert vehemently that “shall not be infringed” cries out unequivocally for “strict scrutiny”. No law that fails strict scrutiny can survive Constitutionality under “shall not be infringed”.

What remains between “strict scrutiny” and “absolute” need not be debated at this time. To use the word “absolute” in a discussion of Constitutional Rights invites ALL lawyers to summarily dismiss anything else we might say. That is foolish strategy.

“You talk of that “mantra” not improving the fate of the 2A but do you really think that alienating those working diligently, driven by that very notion, is wiser?”

Those working diligently need a working understanding of Constitutional law and politics. Indulging a naive notion of “absolutely” does them no service. Knowing better and allowing them to unconsciously undermine the cause does the 2A no service. A mantra of “shall not be infringed” serves the purpose and is textually precise. It fits with the current doctrine of “strict scrutiny” and THAT is where we need to drive home.

I presume that we are all grownups on this blog. Far harsher words have been written by others; in particular, the Absolutists. We are supposed to be here to frankly exchange conflicting ideas. I have yet to see any Absolutist articulate a rational justification for defying centuries of accumulated president on the notion that even enumerated rights are NOT absolute. I have yet to see any Absolutist articulate a worthwhile justification for the modest space that separates strict scrutiny from an absolute interpretation of the 2A. When I see any rational argument on these points I will begin to worry about alienating the tender feelings of the Absolutists. Until then, I content myself with the confidence that I agree with them on about 90% of the agenda for the immediate future.

@MarkPA: I am unashamedly a 2A absolutist. “Strict scrutiny”? Hell, I don’t even embrace the power of Judicial Review usurped by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison. http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html. The link is even part of my username/profile here.

It doesn’t require harsh words to alienate a subset of a group. I recognize the need and support the sort of efforts that you are proposing. At the same time, I hold to my absolutist stance. The two positions are not contradictory and do not have to be counter productive in coexistence. It is my assertion that they can be complimentary if utilized wisely.

Thank you John.
Now, please articulate the case that a Constitutional right can be construed to be “absolute”. Kindly cite the authorities that a lawyer would have to use to support his argument to that effect before SCOTUS. I’m eager to see such an argument.

@MarkPA: Not your personal army.

Sometimes I am up for articulating such an argument and sometimes I’m not. I am neither the person to do so right now and this is not the space for such a debate, IMHO. Besides, I’m not trying to convince you. My purpose was to suggest that absolutists can act as a driving force for the restoration of rights. I read what you have stated in comments and I agree with most of it. You have already formed a strong opinion and if you haven’t then there is plenty out there to read. Also, if you read my last comment, I don’t particularly support the notion of Judicial Review. So, why would I take my time to make an argument for use in such a venue?

“Besides, I’m not trying to convince you.” I INVITE you (or anyone else) to convince me. (Unlike my wife) I don’t presume that I know everything. I regularly find reading TTAG that my opinion is tempered or altered somewhat – occasionally quite a bit. Sometimes I misunderstand at first or second reading; by persevering I sometimes get a clearer picture of someone else’s argument and find myself in greater agreement then at first I perceived.

“My purpose was to suggest that absolutists can act as a driving force for the restoration of rights.” It’s true that anyone with religious-like fever can act as a driving force. Yet, that fact does not justify charging off in a not-well-founded argument nor in a counter-productive argument. If – as I’ve argued – the notion that all/any Constitutional right is (or could be) an “absolute right” is not well founded then “extremism in pursuit of liberty [could, in fact, operate as a] vice”. (Goldwater lost, in part because of that remark.) Alternatively, suppose (for a moment) that it is absolutely true that the 2A IS an absolute right; however, no one in the forum where we need to argue is willing to entertain such an idea. Under such a supposition, to assert that which (we suppose for the moment) to be true is not a constructive strategy.

“Sometimes I am up for articulating such an argument and sometimes I’m not. I am neither the person to do so right now and this is not the space for such a debate, IMHO.” I respect the fact that I have no warrant to call upon you to expend any effort. You have been generous enough with your time to engage in the conversation to this point. I disagree that TTAG is “not the space for such a debate”; I think it’s the perfect space. It is here where we have a great opportunity to “get our story straight” before we debate the Antis in the court of public opinion.

In any case, anyone (myself included) should take pause when we find that we are having difficulty articulating an argument to support a strongly-held sentiment. Perhaps – in such a case – the strongly-sentiment is not well founded in fact; alternatively, it is founded in some fact that is essentially a religious belief. E.g., Protestants and Roman Catholics agree on the “facts” of the same bible; but nevertheless fervently disagree about the interpretation of that bible.

I neglected to comment on your earlier remark: “The two positions are not contradictory and do not have to be counter productive in coexistence. It is my assertion that they can be complimentary if utilized wisely.” I agree whole-heartedly that the two positions [absolute-ism and strict-scrutiny-ism] are NOT contradictory; they are points along a spectrum. By analogy, absolute-ism corresponds to the physical notion of absolute-zero temperature; while strict-scrutiny might correspond to some value such as 123 Absolute (which is an extremely cold temperature). No disagreement here. I don’t immediately see how they are “complementary” – nor how they could be “utilized wisely”. I do see that they could be used in coexistence. E.g., you might argue that there is a legitimate notion of absolute Constitutional rights while also arguing that (my) vague notion of “strict scrutiny” and so we may productively argue for gun rights as allies. Where I differ with you is that I don’t see – in our audience – a ready willingness to entertain any argument for an absolute Constitutional right. Even if we PotG were convinced that the argument for an absolute Constitutional right were well founded and well articulated, we would still be facing an audience that will dismiss us summarily by articulating such an argument. If we are so dismissed then it is counterproductive to articulate the argument that is summarily dismissed. Our audience readily accepts the concept of strict scrutiny (which I concede is really fuzzy and not nearly as appealing to us as “absolute”). Strict scrutiny gets us where we need to go for the next 20 – 50 years. Therefore, in advancing our cause, absolute-ism and strict-scrutiny are counterproductive in coexistence.

I have read about half of your comment because I only have a small window to read TTAG today (will read it in entirety later). And this will probably be my last comment in this stream. Please, feel free to make the last comment in this exchange and I will read it.

First, my oft inability to articulate these days stems primarily from TBI and some associated health issue. That’s why I no longer work in the field of medicine. I no longer have the reliable ability to do so. Second, I appreciate the time and effort you have expended in this exchange and hope that some can gain from our exchange. Lastly, I will part with this assertion, without the right to bear arms absolutists, we shall be left with nothing but privilege in the end and that privilege will be swept away over time by government encroachment and social engineering.

Carry on. 🙂

ETA: By not the venue, I meant in the third or fourth level of the comments. This is like small news column reading on my small screen. Something like this needs to be an article and comment discussion. If someone wants to make a good case for the absolutist viewpoint as an article, that would be awesome.

“. . . if the restoration of the exercise of all of our rights does not happen before this current generation passes away, more will be lost. . . . While power of the People can be usurped incrementally, it cannot be restored to the People in the same manner. . . . If Liberty were to be gained incrementally, why did we have an American Revolution . . . ”
Alas, I find myself in accord with much of what you have written. Very depressing. However, you seem to ignore the success of the Right-to-Carry movement over the past 25 years or so. That did not happen? Or, was it the exception that proved the rule?
Bear in mind that the negotiation period leading up to April 1775 and July 1776 was quite protracted. The political situation (monarchy and Parliament vs. a president and a Congress) were quite different from what we have today. This negotiation process broke down, the British confiscated munitions and triggered the revolution.
It occurs to me that it may have taken this long negotiation period to steel the will of 1/3 of the American people to take to the barricades. Have American people today reached this same resolve? I don’t sense that such is the case. Will the American population EVER reach the resolve to assert their liberties?
What shall we do while we wait for Americans to decide whether they prefer liberty to the promised safety-net? Shall we sit back and wait? Or, work the political process to the extent we can? It seems to me that political process serves to reveal where we have strength and where we are weak.

@MarkPA: I’m not referring to just gun rights. I am of the firm belief that we are even less free, overall, than we were just twenty years ago. While I believe that the uninfringed individual right to keep and bear arms is crucial to remaining a free people, it is useless if the People lack the fortitude to ever use them for their proper role in keeping tyranny at bay. Still, I cannot look at the RKBA in a vacuum. If we retain the free exercise of only that right then the hope of restoring individual Liberty is slim.

My approach includes activism and promoting good legislation, all the while reminding each other to not accept “baby steps” or “eating elephants”. Using those terms, IMHO, fosters complacency. I say, keep swinging at the chains and don’t stop until they are broken into unusable scrap. We need to step up the pace on all fronts for Liberty and not just on the RKBA. (However, that is the most important, IMHO, and should be the one with the strongest push behind it.)

Lastly, I don’t really believe that those who had the fire of Liberty burning in their hearts and minds had any intention of remaining subjects of the Crown. I look at things like the patriot propaganda of the day and their actions at the Boston Massacre. None of it convinces me that they would ever peacefully submit to the King. They were fomenting a rebellion and they wouldn’t stop until the revolution was finished, one way or the other. We have something like that happening in our country again today. Government will either be restored to its limited constitutional powers, the nation will be damned to tyranny, or there will be a violent push for a free nation again. I prefer the first but would understand the third, if the People so chose. As for the second outcome, it’s unconscionable to me; give me liberty or give me death.

(Edited to add: I believe that we need those so inclined to continue the political process. I also believe that we need those who are outspoken and not inclined to political processes to continue to cry out loudly.)

I find myself in line with just about all of your sentiments; with one exception: “I don’t really believe that those who had the fire of Liberty burning in their hearts and minds had any intention of remaining subjects of the Crown. I look at things like the patriot propaganda of the day and their actions at the Boston Massacre.”
By July, 1776, that was probably true with respect to the delegates who contemplated the Declaration of Independence. By the time the Declaration reached the Colonial legislatures for ratification, it was probably true of those legislators who – in fact – ratified the Declaration in the name of their respective colonies/states. But to focus on the last semester of 1776 is to ignore the history leading up to that moment. If so, then a misreading of history does the student no good service.
There was a long slow build-up to 1776. Colonial legislative bodies and the Continental Congress petitioned the Crown and Parliament to respect their constitutional rights according to the colonial view of those rights. There was a gradual growth of sentiment toward independence punctuated by a series of incidents. Some time between April 1775 ad July 1776 that growth surpassed critical-mass which was still not more than 1/3 of the population. A good exemplar for study is Benjamin Franklin who began as a Royalist and eventually turned to becoming a Revolutionary.
The early firebrands, e.g., Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine, were the kooks and crazies of their era at the beginning. They achieved respectability when they were joined by more and more men who were closer to the mainstream. When highly respected individuals – Franklin, Hancock, John Adams, Washington et. al – embraced a restoration of their traditional constitutional rights then we can say that critical mass had formed. This was a political process taking place within and among committees of correspondence, taverns, and the Continental Congress. I think that it is an error to believe that critical mass built in momentary incidents on the Boston commons or the bridge at Lexington. Such incidents were catalysts that affected men’s sentiments as they grew over time.
We observe analogous incidents today. Indeed, over the past several years they seem to occur with such velocity that we hardly have time to digest the last few revelations before our attention is drawn to yet another. Our biennial elections manifest some growth in consciousness among the electorate; but, far less than what would seem to be critical mass. As you have argued, we need to carry on the debate ever more vigorously across the spectrum of issues and observe our success at the polls. Unlike the colonial era, our republican form of government gives us a barometer of local and national sentiment that is unmistakable.
(That barometer is, admittedly, corrupted by illegal voting. Even so, the extent of corruption is entirely in the hands of the States. If-and-when 38 States’ legislatures decide to exercise their Constitutional prerogative of setting the qualification of voters they could, via Article V, over-rule SCOTUS on voter-registration documentation.)

Keep dreaming. We are facing a future where the projected majority demographics will be illegal immigrants and teaming hordes of third world-ers whose American dream is being on the social assistance rolls. It will NOT be a future generation of Americans that rights this ship.

Go JR! Hit em with the truth stick again!

Or, some people carry openly because:
(1) it can be way more comfortable,
(2) it could prevent attacks altogether (deterrence), or
(3) they are trying to normalize firearms to the masses.

In my world none of those reasons suggest such a person is a dumb@$$.

I get all the tactical pros and cons regarding OC. For me, it’s not about open carrying police officer style, with a big, prominent handgun on the belt. It’s more just about the comfort of an OWB holster, still mostly covered by a t-shirt or jacket, but without breaking the law should the muzzle peek out.

Most folks who carry concealed for defensive purposes believe open carry is foolish,

Proof, please. And, it really doesn’t matter if most actually did believe that.

When open carry becomes law in Texas, I will defend any law abiding person who opts to open carry and believe they should be able to do so free of fear and intimidation

A sincere thank you for that statement.

John, I’m well aware of your tendency to acknowledge only that which exists in your alternate reality, but I can’t let the lame deletion editing of my opinion to fit your alternate reality pass.

“Most folks who carry concealed for defensive purposes believe open carry is foolish, that’s why in States like Oklahoma where open carry is lawful, it is a rare occurrence to actually see someone openly carrying an handgun.”

“When open carry becomes law in Texas, I will defend any law abiding person who opts to open carry and believe they should be able to do so free of fear and intimidation from an anti-gun liberal like Austin PD Chief Arturo Acevedo, but I still believe that in most circumstances only a dumb@$$ with some weird desire to be the center of attention chooses to openly display the handgun they’re carrying.”

First, I don’t intentionally edit to distort context. If you ever think that I did, please politely show me where you believe that I did so and I will apologize. Second, I don’t see where the quote changes the POLITE request for proof of the assertion. Lastly, apparently you didn’t believe that this was changing the content when you answered another commenter, http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/04/robert-farago/is-texas-creating-stealth-constitutional-carry/#comment-2125630. So… yeah.

And, my gratitude for your other statement was genuine. 🙂

Jonathan, are you really from Houston? Do you actually have a Texas CHL? Everything you for some reason believe to be deprived of is perfectly legal under current Texas concealed carry law. If the handgun is concealed by clothing it is not against the law “should the muzzle peek out”.

Section 46.035, (1) (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder’s person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place.

Sounds like you’ve been relying on bull$#it you’ve read in this forum from folks like the Nutty Buckeye who don’t have a clue about Texas law and that a muzzle peeking out in no way can be construed to be “intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place”.

“. . . a muzzle peeking out in no way can be construed to be “intentionally displays the handgun in plain view of another person in a public place”.”
One important reason to advocate for OC is to remove the fuzzy line created by statutes that require a “reasonable” interpretation of the carrier’s “intention”.

Fuzzy lines can’t always be avoided. For example, supposing we agree that “brandishing” is a legitimate offense. The line between brandishing vs. not-brandishing is inherently fuzzy. Cops are going to have to use some judgement and juries will have to call the shot based on testimony. We have to accept fuzziness here; or, in the alternative, legalize assault with a deadly weapon; prohibiting only when a shot-is-fired/blow-is-struck.

The fuzzy line between CC vs OC CAN be avoided. As a society we can decide whether to pass a law against OC; or not. (I prescind from discussing whether a law against OC is Constitutional.) What is the inherent harm in OC? If that harm is negligible, or too small to justify its regulation, then we need not suffer a fuzzy line.

A fuzzy line between “intentionally” exposing a handgun is dangerous because it invites cops in hostile jurisdictions to charge CC’ers for reaching up to the top-shelf of a store to retrieve an item of merchandise. He intentionally reached for that top-shelf item. He knew he would expose the tip of his holster. Obviously, his intention was to intimidate the Moms shopping in that Kroger store. Tell it to the jury.

IF we could trust our States’ and municipal police departments to use good judgement then we could have as much regulation as society might desire with modest risk of tyranny. The difficulty is, obviously, that we can NOT trust our political leaders to instruct their police to use good judgement. Our entire history of experience and Constitutional guidance (including the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist papers) is such that we must guard against all such tyranny; including petty tyranny.

If there were NO OTHER reason to support OC laws, this one alone would be sufficient.

Sounds like you’ve been relying on bull$#it you’ve read in this forum from folks like the Nutty Buckeye

Why do you always have to act like a jackass on these pages? There have been a few comments made by you that I wanted to give you some kudos on but I figured it would only be a matter of time before you resorted to this stuff again. Indeed, I’ve been polite in my replies to you but there you go again. You rarely, if you ever have, proved your false assertions about what I’ve posted. It really, really takes away from any point you’re making. If your purpose is to make a point then you’re shooting yourself in the foot, my friend.

*sigh*

Anyway… I’ll let you troll away and won’t feed you much for a while.

Bless your little anti-liberty heart, Officer Teddy. 😉

John, one day Ted will go away, like Paul McCain.

Okay John. Maybe I missed it, but have you decided whether to kick off that armed insurrection and revolution you’re always threatening with a last great act of defiance there in Ohio, or are you going to make a road trip to launch your attack? Just curious. Good night.

Goodnight, Ted. Sleep well.

IMO, the only reason why open carry is “foolish” is precisely because it’s not common. If it were – and if at least, say, 20% of the people around were carrying that way – it would actually send a rather powerful overall message.

“. . . if at least, say, 20% of the people [OCed]. . . ”

In support of your argument, a couple of thoughts occur to me.

First, it wouldn’t take 20%. If you see the “tip of an iceberg” do you have the imagination to realize that there is a lot more iceberg below the waterline? If you see 1% or 2% of the people in a precinct OCing do you have the imagination to extrapolate to 20% CCing in that precinct? If one is a criminal I’d expect him to be able to make this extrapolation.

All the criticisms of OC neglect to apply their arguments to uniformed police. Why is this? I presume it’s because the critics acknowledge the tactical advantage of being able to draw swiftly from an OWB holster and have a modicum of confidence that a police officer is trained and practiced in weapon retention. Very well, then, suppose off-duty police in civvies made a practice of OC. These could contribute to achieving a 1 – 2% “penetration” of the “market” in OC. Suppose police spouses are CCing; the cops could train and practice weapon retention with their spouses and increase the penetration quite a bit. Some of us other non-cops are competent enough in weapon retention (I don’t count myself among them). We could very well achieve – over time a 1 – 2% level of OC by competent people dressed in civvies. Thereupon, we would achieve the tip-of-the-iceberg effect sending the powerful overall message to which you refer.

Second, let’s think of the ladies among the PotG. They have a tougher time managing CC due to body shape and the wide variety of clothing they ware. Accordingly, they have to adapt their diverse EDC guns and holsters to the particular clothing they will ware on each day. We expect them to maintain skills at drawing from whichever holster/clothing they happen to be waring on the day an incident arises. Some women resort to off-body-carry with its attendant risks. This is nuts!
We ought to advocate that women OC and maintain a single skill of drawing from an OWB holster. (I acknowledge that I’m speaking of a social revolution on the scale of advocating that women vote or speak publicly on controversial issues. I am not intimidated.) It’s going to take a long time for women to adopt OC as a PC fashion accessory; but, stranger things have happened.
Moreover, a side-effect of women OCing is to socialize (i.e., normalize; make PC) the practice of carrying guns in society. It’s much harder to characterize a mother OCing with a baby in arm and a toddler in tow as compared to any male OCing.

Ted? Yes, I’m from Houston, I do hold a CHL, and I’m also a CHL Instructor.

“Muzzle peek out” is just a term of art. Yes, I’m aware that the law reads as you cited. I’m also aware that it just changed last term from “fail to conceal”, which is an important improvement in the law. Nevertheless, I’m also aware that there’s a difference between paper law, even black letter law, and what a cop on the street construes. Are you? Or do you just buy into the nuttiness you see on television?

Just because the law is on your side, it doesn’t mean you can’t still be hassled by an ignorant or malicious cop who either doesn’t know or doesn’t care what the law is. Who’s to say the peeking wasn’t intentionally? Me? I would say that, wouldn’t I? What might your hypothetical philosopher cop say? I’d rather not find out.

Moving the standard from “fail to conceal” to “intentionally displays” is great, but it’d be even better were there even more legal heft, like licensed open carry, to back me up when that muzzle peeks out and a cop pokes his nose in.

And John’s right, you are a jackass.

This kind of harassment has happened several times in Florida. It is not unreasonable to think it could happen in Texas. I would strongly suspect that it has.

Ted is a troll, anyone starting an argument by calling names is a troll. Please don’t feed the trolls.

Officer, have you considered the possibility that there might be a side-effect to your practice of never OCing while out-of-uniform?
Our practice of ONLY uniformed cops (and National Guardsmen in uniform) continuously reinforces the impression that it is the uniform that identifies people as “good guys”; sort of the “white hat”. So, now, the public and cops are habituated to assume that if the guy with the gun isn’t in uniform he must be the “bad guy”.

I can see a couple of downsides to this habituation.

For one, we all turn our instincts off when we see a guy in uniform with a gun. Perfect circumstances for a bad-guy to access his target with confidence by dressing in a counterfeit uniform. Under the normal circumstances we are familiar with, not a big risk. However, what about the consequence of multiple jihadis entering a large venue (mall, sports stadium) waring counterfeit uniforms? Uniform = OK; instincts off. Unlikely that an attentive civilian would call 911 to inquire after his suspicions.

For another, a CWP holder or off-duty cop is apt to be encountered by a uniformed police officer standing over a perp with a “smoking gun”. If the uniformed officer is habituated to think: “No uniform – got to be the bad-guy” somebody is going to get shot.

I don’t have a “dumb-ass” reaction when – on rare occasion – I see someone out-of-uniform OCing. I’m not convinced the general public has such a reaction. I formerly lived in NJ where carrying a gun (other than by a uniformed officer) is absolutely unheard of. In 23 years of living in NJ I saw 2 people OCing out-of-uniform.

One was a middle-aged woman in line, with me and other customers, in the Dunkin Doughnuts. After seeing her a few days I asked her if she was a cop. She said yes. I observed “You are not wearing a uniform”. She responded that she was a detective. No one – other than I – paid any attention to her. There would be a dozen Catholic school girls milling about laughing, giggling and talking. None thought the woman with the six-shooter was the least bit interesting.

The other was a young woman in a court house. A few other people around. She conducted her business at the office where traffic fines were collected and left. No one paid any attention to her. I asked the lady at the counter if the woman in front of me were an armed currier; I was told that that was the case.

If no one pays attention to an OCier waring civilian cloths in NJ I have to question the claims that normal people would be Shocked! SHOCKED!! to observe OC in America! (to say nothing of Rick’s Cafe). Maybe the people who are so shocked are really Moms who Demand Action! and people with an “Only-Ones” complex.

Ted is a troll. Do not feed the troll.

Mark, I never said I would only open carry when on duty in uniform I said would never open carry while off duty at the grocery store. As a Detective, I’ve routinely openly carried in plain clothes with a badge displayed on the belt next to the gun and my Department required professional attire as in collared shirt, usually with a tie, and slacks along with professional quality gun leather; there were also many occasions while on duty when the plain clothes worn needed to be much more casual such as blue jeans and a comfortable shirt and on those occasions I always kept my pistol concealed because there is nothing more unprofessional and $#itty looking than a cop wearing a t-shirt, jeans, and tennis shoes while displaying a firearm, which is exactly why most professional Departments prohibit it. Even if wearing professional attire, I never have and never would openly carry a handgun in a heavily populated or high crime area except in circumstances like fugitive arrests and search warrants at which time I would be wearing a vest or jacket with POLICE in large letters across the front and back. I honestly don’t know a single officer who would want to draw attention to themselves by openly carrying a handgun while off duty, an occasional rookie with no common sense might, but not for long.

Thank you for responding.
I see a small distinction between OC’ing while in full-dress uniform vs. business-attire (or however it might be better characterized) with a badge. But, it’s only a small distinction.
To the extent that LEOs OC while waring business-attire they tend toward normalizing citizen carry. The observer gets used to the idea that someone in street-cloths is carrying a gun; that’s normal. Once the badge is noticed, the effect is diluted.
The badge is vulnerable to the “counterfeit” problem I wrote of. Imagine a criminal or gang of jihadis waring counterfeit badges to gain access to a target area without raising an alarm.

Whatever the “uniform” might be, dress-blues, SWAT-Black or a simple badge, it tends to reinforce an “Only-Ones” mentality in the observant public or the cop under stress. He’s OK; he’s a cop. She’s a suspect; she’s got a gun with no insignia. In either case, there is a risk of a false-positive identification.

Today, we might be inclined to discount the possibility of a gang of jihadis (or bank robbers, etc.) using counterfeit uniforms/vests/badges to suppress an alarm instinct. And yet, it’s not far fetched that such a trick might be pulled in the not too distant future. It’s going to be hard to break decades of habituation to suppress suspicion whenever we see a uniform/vest/badge.

More immediately, we have an increasingly armed civilian population; a population intent upon drawing their guns on the rare occasion of extreme need. There is an immediate and compelling need for LEOs to turn-off their habituation to deem anyone out-of-uniform holding a gun to be summarily identified as a perpetrator.

You point out that as an active-duty LEO you sometimes carry concealed when you are in street-cloths less than business-attire. So too do retired LEOs or LEOs who are active duty but outside their jurisdiction and on personal activities. Under any such circumstance, such LEOs (much more than civilians) are apt to intervene in a crime in progress. Such LEOs are apt to be mis-identified as perpetrators if they have drawn guns in street-cloths when uniformed offers arrive.

I think this “us-vs.-them” “Only-Ones” vs. “citizens” distinction is – on balance – doing LEOs and society some level of under-appreciated disservice. When added to the importance of rehabilitating the appreciation of the armed citizen in civilized society, I think we ought to be promoting some level of OC by non-uniformed individuals.

Seems to me the Texas Constitution is amended all the time. Some amendment or another periodically comes up in elections, doesn’t seem to be a big deal. Again, I could be wrong.

A bill proposing a constitutional amendment has already been filed. Don’t know how far it will go, but is in the works.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=HJR56

Any Amendment to the Texas Constitution must be approved by a majority of voters in a referendum.

Constitutional Carry is dead this session. But it has as much if not more to do with who authored the bills as it does with the content. There is a battle of wills being fought out in both houses, but primarily the House between right and far right, and for those that don’t believe that the attempt to unseat the Speaker plays into this…just take a look at committee assignments and bill history.

Licensed OC was recognized by supporters as the easiest path this session for several reasons – First, it was easiest to sell since it was based on CHL program, with a twenty year proven track record. Second, going into session it was already pretty much agreed upon that the diversion from the highway fund to fund DPS was going to end, and the CHL program is a revenue generator for DPS…not tons, but revenue is revenue when you have also promised to beef up border security. And lastly, whether it provided a convenient excuse or not, the fallout from the OCTC vs. Nevarez tiff pretty much shut the door on it this time around. Right or wrong, it was bad timing.

Barring some miracle, Constitutional Carry is dead this session, and with 40 days to sine die, Campus Carry may not survive either. They’ve still got some healthly floor debates coming on the budget, border, education and transportation. If called in to special session, they can only address the issues which caused the governor to call the session. I’d be very surprised a gun bill that didn’t pass the regular session would be included in a special…but I could be wrong.

Either you don’t live here in Texas or just don’t know what the hell you’re talking about because it’s completely legal today to open carry in Texas on private property you own or with consent of the owner, the pending legislation here in Texas will make it legal for open carry of handguns in public places such as Chipolte’s, Walmart, or Kroger as long as the private property owner hasn’t posted a sign prohibiting firearms on their private property. Just so you know, I don’t believe your preference for open carry on rural property is what makes you a dumb@$$.