The Texas state House Committee on Homeland Security & Public Safety heard testimony today on Representative Jonathan Stickland’s HB375, a bill that would allow all Texans the right to openly carry a firearm with or without a permit. AKA constitutional carry. RF was in the committee room to hear a lot of the testimony, including that of a few Moms Demand Action members. Their argument against passage of the bill was everything you’d expect it to be. And less . . .

Crazies! Untrained wack-os! Walking around in public! Armed with guns! Or, as the Constitution more elegantly puts it, citizens keeping and bearing arms. Oh, the humanity!

Never mind the fact that twelve…wait, no, thirteen other states have constitutional carry laws in place, now with North Dakota on board. In virtually every case, the Moms or their hoplophobic brothers and sisters in disarmament have warned of unchecked carnage, fender-bender shootouts and yes, blood running red in the streets should every Tom, Dick and Harriet be allowed free and open ballistic access. Can anyone point to examples of anything even remotely resembling that kind of apocalyptic chaos? Anyone?

That’s why RF approached the assembled Moms at the capitol today after they’d testified and asked for a quick interview. You’d think they’d welcome a chance to answer a few questions, to make their argument, to state their case for the record. Or, if you’d been paying any attention at all, you wouldn’t think that at all.

These are, after all, the same hoplophobic harridans who wield a hair-trigger ban hammer on their Twitter and Facebook pages if anyone so much as questions their civilian disarmament raison d’être. When you don’t have facts on your side to support your anti-civil rights stance, you tend to avoid non-supine interviewers in favor of the usual compliant MSM stenographers.

So we didn’t get a chance to ask why they don’t trust average Americans to exercise an enumerated civil right. Why they’d sooner deprive a woman who’s being stalked by an ex of easy, affordable access to armed self defense than see the Bill of Rights taken for what they actually say.

Same as it ever was.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

59 COMMENTS

  1. I wouldn’t call that constitutional carry if you can’t also CC. Last I looked, there were 30 states that allowed unlicensed open carry, which is what you are talking about.

    • I don’t know why Dan phrased it that way, because I’m pretty sure HB375 is real constitutional carry – open or concealed.

      • The bill is constitutional carry as I understand the term.

        The shortest summary of the bill I can give is that it simply replaces the phrase “license holder” with person.

        There is some more to it than that, and all of it good. For example, it specifically states that carrying a gun in compliance with the law (like openly in a belt holster) is not, alone, probable cause.

    • This is not the first TTAG article that I have seen recently that has conflated constitutional carry with license-free open carry.
      Lots of states, even blue ones like Washington, have license free open carry. It still shocks me that any state other than the usual HI, NJ, NY, CA, MA types DON’T have some form of it. Even OR has a form of it; they just don’t have state level preemption that applies to it, so the worst parts of the state (ie Portland) can still ban it.
      But that is quite a ways from true constitutional carry where you do not need a license to carry in any way shy of actually wielding the thing. It is all well and good that the proposed TX law is actually about constitutional carry, but how would a reader know that when the “truth” about guns doesn’t even seem to fully get it?

  3. So are those Demanding Moms in the photo? The ones who testified at a state legislature committee hearing?

    Jeans, flip-flops, slip-on sneakers and a long-sleeved t-shirt.

    I would dress better than that to address the township board. But that’s just me.

    • Were they wearing strap-ons this time? I’m scared to look at any news-photos of these freaks at this point…

    • I’m betting they dressed that way on purpose, to appear as everyday, average mothers, instead of shrieking harpies.

      • Well, it was probably low-hanging-fruit to look like they’re on a Wal-Mart run. I think maybe they didn’t business it up mainly due to being dilletants, basically, just having a little group activity like a book club.

    • Based on why I have seen at multiple jobs, this is business attire for women now. Here I am in a suit and tie sweating my ass off and all the women in skirts and flip flops are bitching about how cold the office is.

  4. If you only have emotional arguments and cherry picked statistics, you can’t really defend your position. Not surprised by the refusal.

  5. Most “moms” and “gun sense” advocates have registered against the bill at the capitol but have refused to testify. 80% of all testifying so far have been in favor of HB375 (which is great).

    • The important one is the police unions (for some reason), since they are the idiots that nearly queered the deal for open carry last go-around. I expect no less this time.

      • The funny thing is that if I need to get fingerprinted, I go to the my local police station, and they have to fingerprint me for free. I have to bring the fingerprint cards.

        Licenses cost local police resources.

  6. Moms Demand Action whatever…More like Moms back to the kitchen cause your kids and husband are hungry! Never mind playing hysterical housewife politician….

    • You think these women are married with kids? Have you seen what they look like? My bet is LOTS of single women with cats.

      • While the two of you think you’re being cute, you’re playing into the worst (and most popular) stereotype of gun owners possible… If either of you were sipping on a can of budweiser and wearing a “wife beater” shirt the whole ensemble would be complete.

        Way to go, you picture-perfect examples of our cause….

      • More anti gun trolls here to either drive away traffic or make us all look like assholes, I see…

      • I’ve always said, “The Truth Is Where You Find It.”
        You’ve done well by both speaking the Truth of the matter and giving me a good laugh at the same time. Thank you much and greatly.
        …~ Benny

    • We really haven’t evolved intellectually all that much since our inception, Liberal/Progressive Democrats are living proof of that.

    • Wow. .. seriously? Do you have a penis hat that you wear to rallys on weekends too? Your just the flip side of the same coin. Real women are passionate, not hysterical. Motherhood is an honor and a privilege which in my experience is not only more profound then the honor and privilege of serving my country, but more challenging to do it well. And the only words for such an idiotic chauvinistic statement such as yours is “get off your lazy ass and feed yourself, and while your at it, you feed the kids…Momma’s off to the range!”

      • “feed the kids…Momma’s off to the range!”

        I call Shenanigans. You want to go off to the range without your husband (and kids). I doubt the veracity of your statement, but if true, you are the type of woman who takes her vacations without her husband.

        And rallies is spelled, well, rallies. Give me your paypal and I’ll send you a bunch of additional grammar and spelling corrections. It’ll be a wonderful basket full of commas, other words spelled correctly (you need to learn what homonyms are, for example), etc. You need it, dear.

  7. It’s due to such hysterical individuals as these, with kids, that the US youth is in such a hapless state. How can the next generation hope to be competent when they are raised by such role models as these illogical fear mongers? Such women(and their men) would do well to “man up” and “grow a pair”.

      • “How do you feel about North Carolina’s HB2 Law?”

        Admittedly, this one(self reference) wasn’t aware of what NC’s HB2 Law was, but upon elucidation, do recall the bill and ensuing controversy.

        “Explain.”

        Entirely uncertain of the correlation of this to the original comment, but to accommodate in good nature, a response shall be issued.

        It is of little concern to this one if an individual uses a bathroom with markings that do not correspond to their gender. This “issue” is fallacious on its face. A man entering the women’s bathroom does not instantaneously transform him into a sexual predator just because he has crossed some imaginary line. Also the flawed association of cross dressers with pedophiles and rapists is ridiculous. While some cross dressers may indeed be pedophiles and racists, it would be ridiculous to assume that they all are, much like how not all open carriers are spree shooters.

        “There may be a test”

        Ok, chromosomal analysis makes it quite clear that xx=female, while xy=male. If a man wants/needs to use the women’s bathroom……..these are truly the strifes of a very privileged populace. When the world is marching ever closer to a nuclear catastrophe, there is always some dumbass that wants it made into a felony if some poor bastard with diarrhea needs to use the women’s toilet, when the men’s is out of order.

        • Excellent response, and I (I don’t self reference like a character in a Martin novel) can’t decide if I’m annoyed that I bothered to check right before I headed to bed. The HB2 question was pertinent due to the fact that the subject evokes an emotional response in many people very much the way firearms do in others. I have taken to using that question (and a couple others) as an exercise for people to think on whenever I catch their hyperbolic response to any given issue. The idea is that when somebody gives an overtly emotional response to the question as justification for being opposed to a given issue, you can then point out the fact that their premise is flawed.

          I’m a little confused by your thoughtful response. It was honest and appropriate condescending. You’re clearly willing to examine the multiple angles of a debate like that surrounding HB2, but offhandedly dismiss the MDA crowd as hysterics. The article we’re commenting on has a definite agenda, and even Mr. Zimmerman didn’t call them hysterics. It seems to me they showed up and spoke their peace in a public hearing on a political issue as requested.

          I happen to agree with you on the HB2 issue, and don’t have a wildly different opinion of the MDA folks. That said; I have to have the intellectual honesty of at least trying to appreciate their position. Our goal as 2A advocates shouldn’t be to get the other side to embrace our point of view but accept it and move on.

          Thanks for the response

      • Much ado, about nothing. Oh, except for unseating a Republican governor, which is what the ‘controversy’ is *actually* about. Classic playbook “let’s trump up some nothingburger issue to get the bible-thumpers & squares to say something stupid in time for elections!” The bathroom bill stuff was a non-issue for centuries if not millenia, yet now a political party is making a big damn deal over literally about a dozen freaks’ preferences? (“Freaks” is not used here as a pejorative, but as an accurate description of people so outside the norm of typically acceptable character & behavior, they constitute a tiny handful of some 350 million souls, and morally offend a significant portion of their fellows with their choices). Not buying it; there’s no way the Democrats, or the Republicans, seriously care about this issue; it’s about evoking a response, and pouncing on it.

        Almost a guarantee there will be an unusually popular & well-financed third-party conservative candidate to draw votes off the aforementioned Republican governor; you saw it here, first.

        • It was exactly about getting a response, and it got a significant one.

          Also, the aforementioned governor is no longer in office and it didn’t take a third party to make it happen. He pissed off enough special interest groups within his own voting bloc to make that happen with or without the clear tampering that took place in a couple counties.

  8. Hahahahahahaha every time I hear “Moms Demand Action” I think of a MILF -themed adult film. My wife, a hot mother herself, demands action from me on the regular. I do my best to meet her demands. Luckily she doesn’t make a political issue out of it.

  9. Pretty big vocab words for a closed minded reporter. Do you save all your vitriol just for those that don’t share your opinion. Makes supporting yours a bit more difficult.

    • He’s neither a reporter nor closed minded.I didn’t particularly agree with his choice of words in this article, but you’ve gone and proven at least one of his points brilliantly with your response.

      If you’d like to debate the merits of your MDA cause with me or any given number of folks here without insults, I’m sure a suitable forum can be found but I don’t really get the impression you are or were particularly interested in “supporting” his position to begin with. In other words, the way people like you and Mr. Zimmerman speak about each other is exactly why there is no meaningful dialogue between the pro-freedom/anti-freedom crowds.

      • There is actually nearly zero dialogue between the pro and anti-civil rights crowds because, 1.) generally speaking, one only operates almost exclusively on “t3h feelz” on a seemingly permanent basis because it has literally zero evidence — empirical or otherwise — to support its (non)arguments and 2.) its adherents are largely (though not entirely) devoid of the fundamental skills and even the willingness to engage in reasoned argumentation on any level whatsoever regardless of whatever facets of their beliefs are being questioned.

        So, it’s not even that they necessarily won’t defend their views, it’s that they actually can’t. Not that they feel they even have to, of course, what with the readily-available and bog standard bag of transparent garbage like accusations of callousness and/or bigotry of all sorts when they inevitably realize that they’re on the losing end. As always. Not that those are quite as effective as they used to be anymore, thankfully, since it’s being increasingly recognized as either false or even outright projection (which it absolutely is in either case).

        Meanwhile, the other crowd (generally) supports the right to keep and bear arms in some or all its various forms.. and can actually mount some kind of logical defense for it. Go figure.

    • Hey look, Wendy, your comment is still up there!

      Unlike the MDA faceplant page, this blog doesn’t delete dissenting opinions. So if you have any real information to bring to this dialog, let’s have it. It can be the “conversation” your side always requests.

    • If you’re going to attack someone else over “vocab words” then I humbly suggest that you proofread your own posts for things like basic grammar and punctuation.

      You know, the kind of things that make it seem like you just might have some sort of a primitive grasp of written English? Basic stuff, like ending a question with a question mark. Is that too much to ask?

      As it stands I’m unsure if you know the meaning of the word “vitriol” or if you think it’s a box-box store name for a generic of Midol that comes if 25lb boxes.

    • I think you misspelled your name. How’s the trailer treatin’ you these days? The Party folks still keeping you in cute, white sneakers?

  11. These are all exactly the same arguments we heard when Florida became the first “shall-issue” CCW state back in…. wait for it… 1987.

    All the predictions of mayhem, chaos, blood in the streets – all were exactly the same.

    What actually happened? None of the predicted mayhem and armed bloodletting. Nothing. The press was hysterical, calling Florida the “gunshine” state, predicting that tourist revenues would fall off, etc, etc, etc. Then (cut me some slack if I’m wrong in the sequence here, it’s been a couple of decades…), Georgia, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Montana, Mississippi, Wyoming, etc became shall-issue states in quick succession.

    In state after state, the hysterics from the anti-gunners recycled the same arguments again and again: there’s going to be armed chaos in the streets. Again and again, the anti-gun people were wrong, and instead, the anti-gun people were (usually) projecting their own lack of self-control onto other people.

    RKBA advocates don’t need to make their own case any more. All the RKBA advocates need do is go down to the newspaper morgue, drag out the various hysterical, sky-will-fall predictions, and then go get the long-term trendlines in armed crime since the early 90’s, as “shall-issue” laws started passing in state after state. Line these predictions up with the actual facts that ensued after the shall-issue revolution started, and pithily observe “Their predictions weren’t true then, why would anyone grant them credence now?”

  12. “Excellent response, and I (I don’t self reference like a character in a Martin novel) can’t decide if I’m annoyed that I bothered to check right before I headed to bed.”

    Many thanks for the kind compliment. While Esoteric Inanity may seem somewhat esoteric and inane, he makes use of illeism. This is employed in an attempt to keep any dialogue productive, as he believes that terms like “I” and “me” can add unnecessary context to a conversation that should ideally be impersonal. It is this one’s belief that contrary to popular opinion, third person references do not necessarily connote narcissism, but rather can aide in ensuring that one’s stance remains as objective as possible. However, at times, concise communication can be difficult when utilizing this method.

    “The HB2 question was pertinent due to the fact that the subject evokes an emotional response in many people very much the way firearms do in others. I have taken to using that question (and a couple others) as an exercise for people to think on whenever I catch their hyperbolic response to any given issue. The idea is that when somebody gives an overtly emotional response to the question as justification for being opposed to a given issue, you can then point out the fact that their premise is flawed.”

    Understood, this is a clever strategy, juxtaposing two issues regarding potentially volatile viewpoints that tend to exist on opposite ends of the political spectrum. If one remains consistent in their ideologies, then this thought expirement should reveal their stance to be equally applicable in either scenario. If however, one’s rationale is inconsistent, then the fallacy will be evident.

    “I’m a little confused by your thoughtful response. It was honest and appropriate condescending. You’re clearly willing to examine the multiple angles of a debate like that surrounding HB2, but offhandedly dismiss the MDA crowd as hysterics. The article we’re commenting on has a definite agenda, and even Mr. Zimmerman didn’t call them hysterics. It seems to me they showed up and spoke their peace in a public hearing on a political issue as requested.”

    With a name like Esoteric Inanity, is sense really to be expected? In all honesty it was not this one’s intent to be condescending, sometimes his emotions just get the best of him. Not to mention that the “us vs them” mentality can be infectious and negatively affect one’s impartiality.

    The initial response regarding MDA’s member’s hysterics was intended to be semi-sardonic. By stating to “man up” and “grow a pair”, it was this one’s intent to draw attention to the true issue at hand, which is so elegantly highlighted in Matt Richardson’s comment, that issue being the substitution of cold hard objectivity for emotional arguments and over sensitivity.

    “I happen to agree with you on the HB2 issue, and don’t have a wildly different opinion of the MDA folks. That said; I have to have the intellectual honesty of at least trying to appreciate their position. Our goal as 2A advocates shouldn’t be to get the other side to embrace our point of view but accept it and move on.”

    Agreed, while MDA as a group has oftentimes shown themselves to be dishonest, deceitful and agenda driven, indeed it would be hypocritical not to give credence to the concerns(albeit often fallacious) of their members. After all, as was so thoughtfully stated above, it is only a common courtesy to extend empathy to those that one wishes to also reciprocate In kind. Not doing so would be disingenuous and counterproductive. However, when met with indifference and obfuscation, then blatant truth and cold hard facts must make for the sole response, irregardless of how emotionally damaging it may be to those that take offense.

    “Thanks for the response”

    It was Esoteric Inanity’s pleasure, and many thanks for the kind compliments and substantive conversation. Matt Richardson seems to be a truly genuine individual that is both analytical, rational and empathetic. Humanity could benefit greatly from more people like him.

    • “While Esoteric Inanity may seem somewhat esoteric and inane, he makes use of illeism. This is employed in an attempt to keep any dialogue productive, as he believes that terms like “I” and “me” can add unnecessary context to a conversation that should ideally be impersonal.”

      Here I thought it was some weird gender thing. Clearly I was wrong.

      • Haha, it is perhaps an even more inane eccentricity than the gender ambiguous crowd with their plethora/zoo(many sound like the names of strange exotic animals) of preferred personal pronouns, admittedly. However, it also serves as a defining characteristic.

  13. Regardless … I just hope it passes and we can put all the argument to rest. No arguments against it have ever had any merit at all.

  14. Constitutional Carry in Texas will mean *nothing* without a repeal of the 30.06 and 30.07 laws, right?

    • What difference would 30.06 and 30.07 make on Constitutional Carry? All 30.06 and 30.07 does is state firearms are not allowed in the building much like the “no guns” signs in some other states.

      Not being a TX resident I might be slightly mistaken about the 30.06 and 30.07 signs but I think I’m pretty accurate.

      • If any and all buildings can post 30.0x signs, that effectively nullifies “Constitutional Carry”, no?

        I’m not Texan, but I do travel there occasionally (and will be doing so more in the future), so this is something I want to learn more about.

        • Yes and no. It would effectively nullify it for those buildings that post the signs but nowhere else much like the rest of the states that have no guns signs that carry force of law. In a more gun friendly state like TX I doubt there will be an issue in the near and probably somewhat far future of everyone posting 30.06 and 30.07 signs. Even in less gun friendly places like Chicago you hardly see no guns signs even since the state passed their concealed carry laws. (I was in both TX and Chicago with in the past several months and am always looking for no guns signs and did not see many in either location)

          • Well, that’s been the opposite of my experiences in TX thus far; two business trips and a college visit, I wasn’t able to carry *anywhere*. I literally laugh at “a more gun friendly state like TX”, especially when compared to, say, CO or VA.

            • I had no issues carrying in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area the several times I’ve been there except for IKEA. TX does seem to be held in high regard concerning gun rights when they really are only so-so. TX does seem to like their gov control and only happen to be run by Republicans for the time being. I could see them going the way of CA or NY if the Democrats or more liberal Republicans get control.

            • Most places around here that have signs only have one of the two signs, usually the 30.07 sign. If they only have one sign, then you can carry, but you can’t choose whether to OC or CC. Of the two places I frequent that have both signs, one of them is not legally allowed to post the sign.

              Businesses posting 30.07 signs are basically saying snowflakes have money too, and we don’t want you to scare them off.

Comments are closed.