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

From GOA:

Gun Owners of America Texas Director Rachel Malone released the following statement after Rep. Kyle Biedermann announced that he will file Constitutional Carry in Texas’ 87th Legislative Session:

“I am thrilled that Rep. Biedermann has committed to filing Constitutional Carry legislation. This is great news for Texas because Constitutional Carry promotes safety and equality while upholding our God-given, Constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

“Earlier today, Rep. Biedermann said: ‘Our Constitution was written to ensure certain rights of all citizens. Everyone has the right to life and to protect that life from harm. No one should have to pay a fee or get permission from the government before being able to do so legally. I look forward to working with my colleagues to restore the rights of all Texans.’

“I agree with Rep. Biedermann: if you are not prohibited from possessing a handgun, you should not be prohibited from carrying it. Texas still requires those who legally own a handgun to get a government permit to carry that handgun. This permit requirement does not stop criminals; it only disarms victims and makes it harder for certain classes of Texans to keep themselves and their families safe.

“Rep. Biedermann’s Constitutional Carry legislation will make it easier for law-abiding Texans to be their own first defenders.

“With over 30 states allowing those who legally possess handguns to carry them openly without a permit, and many states also allowing concealed carry without a permit, Texas can no longer stand idly by. Now is the time for the Lone Star State to take the lead.

“Rep. Biedermann is standing strong to help Texas take the lead on Constitutional Carry, and Gun Owners of America stands with Rep. Biedermann. I look forward to working with the 87th Legislature to pass this legislation, which will help keep Texas strong and safe.”

 

Gun Owners of America is a nonprofit grassroots lobbying organization dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. GOA represents over two million members and activists. For more information, visit GOA’s Press Center.

44 COMMENTS

  1. As a conservative living in California, i could only dream if a CCW, much less the rights our constitution gave us!

    • Same here, but we cannot settle for permission slips. Restore open carry, and keep fighting for constitutional carry!

    • Well, they know when they are hunting rabbits that the rabbits don’t carry guns… so stop being a rabbit.

      • if accosted by an Opossum, you don’t have to scream, piss and shit yourself, just play dead, it’ll look you over, take your gunm and leave.

  2. Good for Rep. Kyle Biedermann. You won’t get it until you try. And then keep trying until you get constitutional carry in Texas. I know in Kentucky it was at least a four year process. I still have the NRA ILA notice I got in the mail. With a phone number to call my state representative. Which I did.

    • Constitutional carry has been blocked in the Texas legislature by the last two Speakers of the House, both of which were notorious RINOs who owed their position to the Dems who voted for them. (Although it has been a plank of the state GOP platform for years that the state house GOP caucus should select and support one candidate, there has never been the spine to discipline members who refused to follow it.).

      Fortunately, the most recent RINO Speaker imploded and now has been thrown under the bus. We’ll see if the Texas GOP house caucus grows a spine and enforces party support of a conservative Speaker candidate, or whether it goes back to its old ways and allows the RINO wing of the caucus to support a candidate acceptable to the Dems. If the former, CC has a chance (Lt. Gov. Patrick would support it, as would Gov. Abbott). If not, it’s probably DOA.

      Additionally, TSRA (looking at you, Alice Tripp and Charlie Cotton) hasn’t exactly been supportive of CC bills in the past. With Alice Tripp now gone from her post, and Charlie Cotton off carrying water for Wayne LaPierre, we’ll see whether TSRA steps up its game this session.

      • And if you remember, Bonnen lied so he could kill it. He said that his family was harassed at home by a pro 2A guy but the DPS troopers tell a completely opposite story. Seems NO ONE was home at the time. So, not only was CC dead that time but Bonnen solidified his position of being king shit head. Thankfully, after he lied, yes again, about a meeting with a well known Conservative, Michael Quinn Sullivan who taped the quid pro quo meeting ultimately leading to the stepping down of Bonnen…after this session of course. Add to that the turn coat Governor Abbott who showed all of Texas what he is really made of when the covid fraud came about. So, yeah, don’t expect CC to happen anytime soon in Texas until we get good HONEST people in office. So, if you are a Texan, keep your eye on the 2021 Governor candidates and choose wisely for our future freedoms WILL depend on the right choice.

      • That is a real issue that is being intentionally ignored out on the Leftist Coast, litigants merely trying to get a declaration that there is a constitutional right to open carry, especially after the Ninth Circus declared that there was no constitutional right to a CCW. The fact is that in most urban areas, you cannot move around much at all without entering a school zone, thus effectively eliminating open carry in all of our cities and towns. An open carry declaration amounts to not hardly anything if you cannot carry where it really matters without a CCW. Since I do not see the elimination of the exclusion zone or its limitation to actual campuses on the horizon, the fight for CCW rights must go on.

        The Ninth has at least one if not more open carry cases on the burner right now that are no longer stayed after the Supremes punted on the NY transport case. My guess is that the Ninth is trying to figure out how to ban open carry in effect if not in law, e.g., by recognizing the right but subjecting it to the Ninth’s watered-down version of intermediate scrutiny, and holding that open carry can be “restricted” in urban areas in the public interest..

        • Including city streets as school zone ( property ) to deny carrying or possessing a firearm has been proven illegal. This violates interstate commerce clause and others. Streets are public right of ways and schools have no title to or jurisdiction there.

  3. Agree that Constitutional Carry is already the law of the land we need to sue and remove any politicians or officials that don’t go by the Constitution as Written it is Treason , and it needs to be across America and our Territory’s as well

  4. Don’t expect your CCW cards to be honored here in Maryland,,,,(they aren’t). We have to obtain training and fingerprinting on our dime, in addition to a State Processing Fee just to OWN a handgun. Permits to carry are not for the typical Maryland Resident,, they’re a privilege and an expensive concession from our State Government. Enjoy living in America,,, we don’t.

  5. YES!! A thousand times yes!! Pretty much every year, these days, though, I’m waiting for it to actually pass before I get too excited.

    • You mean the ones who are reaching for that red pill… lol. So many ex-dems being vocal about leaving that party and that is why they are leaving those states/cities. Welcome them. Show them the true meaning of freedom. America will never be the same, even on the revolving wheel of history, in our lifetime all these ex-dems will NEVER trust that party every again. As it should be. They have been manipulated. Nice to finally see some light at the end of the tunnel, but the war has only just begun. Calm before the storm if you will.

  6. Warning: If constitutional carry passes, they better leave the current LTC laws in place, and some legal way to differentiate the two. Otherwise our ability to carry will be even more limited. Think back to when open carry became legal in Texas and how 30.06 signs starting popping in many places they were not before. Most people I talk to don’t even know the difference between a “no guns allowed” sign and a 30.06 sign; much less the difference between 30.06 and 30.07 signs.

    • Example: this past weekend I enjoyed a nice dinner at Cheesecake Factory, which has both 30.06 and 30.07 signs prominently posted at the front door. Guess what I was carrying concealed as I enjoyed a delicious meal without a care in the world? Why was I able to do that? Because it is a class C misdemeanor. If constitutional carry passed and current LTC laws are voided, I seriously doubt that’ll continue to be a class C misdemeanor.

      • The Texas Legislature will not make any posession of a firearm a higher offense than a class C misdemeanor, because to do so would be to invite a Federal case when someone is prosecuted who fights back. In the 5th Circuit, that’s a losing proposition, so even the inner-city (i.e. “minority”) politicians and transplant-elected ones won’t touch that with a ten foot pole. Moreover, such a case could supercede the precedents currently used as justifications for restricting lawful self defense in courthouses, hospitals, and yes, even schools, which would be enough egg on any leftist politician’s face to make a bright red omelet.

        Trust me, the left-wing invasion in Texas is backed by big money, and none of thei strategists that big money buys are stupid enough to shoot themselves in their collective feet that way.

      • It is only a Class C if you are still there to talk to a cop and even still the restaurant has the burden of proof that the bulge on your hip is not your insulin pump. True story, it happened to my daughter and she does not have a LTC. Like others vote with their feet, I vote with my wallet and will give a penny to any business that discriminates against my ability to protect myself and family. That business won’t protect us so why can’t I? Oh, wait, I forgot about the anti-matter force field that emminates from the signage.

      • Idaho is a good example of that. Idaho has Constitutional Carry. The state also issues a Concealed Weapons Permit (CWL) and an Enhanced CWL.

        The Idaho CWL allows some reciprocity and also allows carrying within the 1000′ zone surrounding K-12 schools. The Enhanced CWL does the same, with more states offering reciprocity (41 states).

        So, although Idaho is a Constitutional Carry state, there is a benefit to a permitting system.

    • When we had only 30.06 signs, those were all I could ignore. Now that we have 30.07 signs as well, additional opportunities opened up, although not for me since I’m not interested in open carry. But punishments for violations have also been coming down, suspect in the future we will get down to the seriousness of a parking ticket.

  7. Filing this bill was a given. It’s been done for at least the last two legislative sessions. I’m much more concerned about who will become the next Speaker of the House. Dennis Bonnen is a weasel who is stepping down in disgrace for plotting against members of his own party! He appointed a Democrat over the previous committee on the previous CC bill! Does anyone know who the front runners might be? We need a real Republican not a RINO as the Speaker.

  8. Texas needs to do this for at least two reasons: 1) It is right and proper, and recognizes the Constitution. 2) It will discourage California lefties from moving there.

    If they pass it, it may be time for me to head west.

    • Call and write your state representatives and senators about it. If enough people stand up for this bill then it will happen.

  9. Well I’ll be damned. I thought Texas already had constitutional carry. Guess Oklahoma, Missouri and Kansas don’t suck as bad as I thought. ,,,,,,,,Well those states do suck really bad though, environment , no place for a Californian or Yankee , it’s bad out here, real bad

  10. I am all for Texas having Constitutional concealed and open carry and also the abandonment of the 30.06 (concealed) and 30.07 (open) prohibition exclusions along with the removal of all Designated Victims Zones (aka. Gun Free).

    I am saying this as a Texas License to Carry (LTC, formerly CHL) Instructor who has trained and certified people for their CHL and now LTC permits so I am fully onboard with having mine and every one else’s certificates and licenses become useless pieces of paper and plastic and go back to natural law and constitutional compliance.

    Regardless of how much time I spend with students that are people of the gun who are very familiar with firearms and practice regularly or with novices who have never touched a firearm before, I always tell them that even if they pay their full attention in my training they will at best retain 10-25% of my training after 1-year of time. They will remember little bits and pieces at best and forget the rest.

    One thing that I try to drill through their heads through repetition is that deadly force can only be used in immediate deadly danger to yourself or other people so that if you feel yourself or other in immediate lethal danger that is the only time that you are justified in using your firearm and only if you can back that up in a court of law if you don’t get no-billed by the grand jury before hand or the assistant district attorney chooses not to prosecute you.

    https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm

    Texas Constitution and Statutes
    PENAL CODE
    TITLE 2. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
    CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

    Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

    (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

    (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

    (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

    (A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

    (B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

    (b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

    (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

    (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);

    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.

    (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

    (d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

    Amended by:

    Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1 (S.B. 378), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.

    Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON.

    A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

    (1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

    (2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

    Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

    A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

    (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

    (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

    (A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

    (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

    (3) he reasonably believes that:

    (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

    (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

    Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON’S PROPERTY.

    A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

    (1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

    (2) the actor reasonably believes that:

    (A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

    (B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person’s land or property; or

    (C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor’s spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor’s care.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
    SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS

  11. There’s one major roadblock to this bill. His name is Dennis Bonnen (R) Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives.

  12. I don’t think Texas’ masked governor will be pushing for this. Texas is actually all hat, no cattle. Heard some places even have armed Branch Covidians enforcing masking like in New Jersey.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here