A TTAG reader writes . . .
HB 1927, the Texas constitutional carry bill, passed the House on April 16. It was then sent to a Senate committee that — after hearing a full day of public testimony yesterday– voted to send the bill to the Texas Senate floor for a vote.
Certain law enforcement personnel have spoken out against constitutional carry in a less-than-convincing manner. As reported by KRIS Six Corpus Christi . . .
“So we all know Texans are some of the most proud and responsible gun owners in our nation,” said Chief Eddie Garcia of the Dallas Police Department. “And as such, they all support efforts to ensure that we keep firearms in the hands of law-abiding Texans of sound mind, with proper training and proficiency.”
“This begs a simple question, at a time where violent crime is rising, and police, community relations are estranged do we really want to inject more firearms into this complex equation,” said Chief Stan Stanridge of the San Marcos Police Department.
These statements evince a narrow view of the permit system and its effects. Chief Garcia seems to think, for example, that keeping the permit system would somehow prevent violent criminals from getting their hands on guns, while passing the bill and upholding the Second Amendment would make it easier for such violent criminals to obtain firearms.
However, HB 1927’s removal of the permission slip requirement wouldn’t legalize firearms possession for prohibited persons. Nor would keeping the permit requirement institute some sort of ambiguity-infested “sound mind” standard for those who carry.
What is most flawed about these kinds of statements from law enforcement is the failure to adequately consider the constitutional infringements at play here. Chief Stanridge’s question reveals his real reason for opposing constitutional carry: preventing Texans from carrying.
Chief Stanridge admits this is a time in which violent crime is rising, making the permission slip requirement even more egregious and burdensome, as it prevents Texans from defending themselves and their families against the very criminals he says he’s concerned with. Burdens that fall disproportionately on lower income Texans.
Law-abiding Texans who decide they want to carry a firearm have to endure the delays involved in financing and receiving the permission slip, not to mention navigating the red tape involved to do so.
These flawed arguments against constitutional carry aren’t new. Similar objections have been raised in the past by Lt. Governor Dan Patrick. As reported by the Texas Tribune . . .
Ahead of the 2015 session, he said he did not think there was enough support among lawmakers or the public, a sentiment he reiterated in 2017 while citing law enforcement concerns with “anyone being able to walk down the street with a gun and they don’t know if they have a permit or not.”
This circular sentiment assumes that a permit is needed in the first place. In fact, it illustrates how gun control laws manufacture criminals because the only criminality addressed by a law requiring government permission to carry is that which the law itself creates: carrying a firearm without a license.
Such a law does nothing to prevent violent crime, while promulgating criminal prosecutions for doing no more than exercising one’s constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
It stands to reason that the real problem held by those expressing these views is with “anyone being able to walk down the street with a gun.” However, the Second Amendment has already settled this question with respect to the people. A fact that has been recognized by 20 other states.
Overall, the arguments discussed shows that certain politicians, law enforcement personnel — and even a few firearms instructors — at best consider the Second Amendment a second class right, or at worst refuse to recognize the right it protects at all.
These people are NOT worried about violent crime. That is not what they are concerned with at all. If they were, they would have kept the criminals locked up. Crime went up with the release of the animals from their cages en mass. An increase in gun ownership by everyone else is a natural result.
They aren’t worried about solving problems at all. They have to keep manufacturing problems so they have an excuse to exert more control and print more money. If we raised and taught every citizen to be self-sufficient, then why would anyone ever need a Democrat? Their goal is to get as many people as possible hooked on the government teat.
One. Hundred. Percent!
Say it with me…
“When guns are outlawed, we will all become outlaws…”
Yesterday (here in SoCal, of all places!) I stopped at a red light behind a large, lifted truck with fresh graphics applied all over its body. The most notable was the huge silhouette of an AR-15 across the entire rear window and the words “I Will Not Comply” above, and “Come And Take It” below.
Magical.
In Cali, where I will not even go, I am ashamed to admit I would not have the balls to do that.
I forgot I had my I Support NRA and I support TxGR stickers on the back of the car when I took the wife to San Diego last year for a seminar…. Didn’t figure out why all the Angry looks, and a couple birds Till I stopped for fuel back in Yuma , just think had any cops Noticed them
It takes money to win elections. Send your money to the Save America PAC and not the RNC. If you see the RNC use Donald J Trump’s likeness report it the the Save America PAC and they will sue the RNC. Donate all you can to the Save America PAC. Donald J Trump is going to decide who will be the Republican nominee but he needs your money to do it. Send your weekly contribution now.
Nominee for what?
Any Republican that voted to impeach Donald J Trump for the Jan. 6 gathering, then any Republican that couldn’t find the votes he needed to win after the election, then the next president.
Elections?? BAHAHAHAHA!!! YOU FOOL.
There are no elections anymore. The Commiecrat Party SELECTS who they want to hold an office. Stop wasting people’s time and attention with doomed-to-failure efforts.
You should be slotting commies, not playing silly election games with them.
STILL NEED TO REGISTER OWNER SHIP ALONG WITH RIGHT TO CARRY , INCLUIED WITH BACK GROUND CHECKS . WITH OR WITH OUT LTC PERMIT.
Government spying on each and every American without warrant is already building a gun owner registry, plus they’ll know who is serious about resisting confiscation. If you’ve ever posted on social media ANYWHERE, you’ve been tagged & filed away.
Sorry for your BAD LUCK, NTexas…. as It Stands registries are Illegal…. And I don’t ask I Simply Carry…. plain sight…. I blast Coyotes…. Rattlesnakes…. and if need be, Cattle thieves, Gasoline thieves, Diesel Thieves, Battery thieves, Just Plain thieves, And Other Citified lawbreakers that come out this way…. Since before the Brady-Ban…. Only two of my weapons Even HAVE serial numbers and NONE are Hobbyist created weapons ( what The Half-wits, call “Ghost Guns” ) They are Just That Old…. I did READ a 4473 Once, Decided I didn’t need a newer weapon That Bad, and bought several hundred dollars worth of Ammunition Instead and a few pounds of powder, ball and Caps…. I had my first Rifle Back in ’59, Have never bothered a soul, except those aforementioned Thieves…. Not Going to register anything except MAYBE my old Truck, If it has to go Into town, If Not well it hasn’t had a fresh registration since 2005…. Basically when Arms are Outlawed, I will be an Outlaw,
By Choice, and if Anybody want’s my Arms ? they will have to find them and me and the Horse….
I know where he hid hims gunms Mr Chipman. I got it straight from the horses mouth.
A treasonous horsie? Say it ain’t so!
Constitutional Carry will make criminals seriously think twice about a victim being armed or not…That’s chiseled.
As for the police hierarchy…Without victims the whole thing might collapse on them. These so called cops speaking against what amounts to “wearing a coat” are looking out for their interest and not the public as they claim.
They talk about training however look at the all the police who are “trained” that misuse firearms in manners that could make a firearm novice wonder. The hierarchy can sugarcoat their rhetoric all they want but to deny an innocent person their one chance at survival is as despicable as despicable can get.
If police in the U.S. were well-trained the U.S. wouldn’t have a rate of law enforcement shooting and killing citizens that is twenty times anything in the E.U.!
It is very simple. Any police chief speaking out against the right of the people to keep and bear arms is in the wrong profession.
Fire them, hire people who comprehend the US Constitution means what it says.
The guy you voted for feels the same, you do realize this don’t you? Here’s a clue.
(No amendment is absolute) he’s talking about YOUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT. But you already know this you voted for it.
And here you are claiming the police chief should be fired ? laughable,
You voted for this way of thinking,
Come to terms with it. Its going to get a lot worse. Don’t act surprised or angered you helped put this in motion, You should be proud.
But, but, we had to get rid of the mean tweets, right? If our freedom went with them, that’s just how it goes. It was SOOOOOO-o-o-o important to get rid of those mean tweets.
You voted for this. Your thoughts are meaningless. You don’t get to reject the parts you don’t like. This is your fault. Own it.
√ absolutely correct.
The one question we are neglecting is:
What difference does a permit make?
In the end, do Constitutional-Carry states have a better/worse/same record of “bad shoots” compared with Permit-Required states? Which states? Is there any hint that states with different training/testing/qualification requirements improve the bad-shoot rate?
If states with mandatory permits, especially those with training/testing/qualification requirements, can’t show efficacy then mandatory permits can’t be justified.
Conversely, I’d welcome discovery of evidence that a particular curriculum, test question set or qualification makes a material difference. Where does it make a difference? For example, does it make a difference in bad-shoots? How about violations of carrying in GFZs? Or maybe violations of brandishing or aggravated assault charges?
Without data we are all just guessing or arguing on abstract principles. We should all want to make progress. If there is no efficacy to permits or training/testing/qualification requirements then let’s see the data that show that. If there is efficacy then lets promote training or testing or qualification whether mandated by a permit or promotion as the responsible thing to do.
The Texas CHL can’t be had by felons or those that fall under a certain list of offenses. Assuming whatever local/state/federal agencies involved are doing their job keeping reporting accurate and updated. We all know that’s a big IF. The thing is, criminals are not going to take the time or effort to have the license even if they could. It’s really a pretty good way to know if the person your dating has a criminal background. If they are licensed then they are very likely to be clean.
This type of state issued permission slip is more about registering the user. Rather than the firearms being registered. This actually is just a deeper more in depth background check than what happens with NICS checks. This is why FFL’s are not required to do NICS checks on CHL holders. It’s kinda like the process for NFA purchases but much faster. However, it is that intense background check that makes many FFL’s and ranges expect and/or require a licenses of their employees. Those that work in these places usually open carry while on the clock.
Too many people (particularly major media and the political left) falsely associate these things with ‘training’. There is no real training with a Texas CHL. Training isn’t the reason for it. True training can and should be acquired regardless of wether or not you have a CHL. Spending time learning your gun and shooting it at a range is strongly recommended. Nothing beats experience.
I’m glad they’re bringing constitutional carry in Texas up for a vote in the Senate! It’s long overdue. Constitutional carry should have been passed three or four legislative sessions ago except for the RINOs in power. Even if it doesn’t pass, at least we’ll know who the traitors are based on their vote against this bill.
Yes but the gun grabbers seriously want to turn millions of law abiding citizens into outlaws overnight if they had the chance. If they could pull the switch and know they could get away with it they would do it. Even if it meant the death of our society by arresting millions of people. That’s why they always oppose anything that appears to be a ‘loosening’ of gun laws no matter how wacky and insane the gun laws are as written.
“This begs a simple question, at a time where violent crime is rising, and police, community relations are estranged do we really want to inject more firearms into this complex equation?”
Yes. Unequivocally yes.
“Chief Stanridge’s question reveals his real reason for opposing constitutional carry: to reestablish a monopoly on violence by preventing Texans from carrying.”
FIFY
See, violence is okay as long as cops are doing it, whether justified or not. Because cops are special. And we’re not.
You may now kiss the badge.
Violence seems to be perfectly acceptable when it’s Antifa/BLM doing it aswell.
Truthfully, Texans are not being prevented from carrying. They just don’t all do it legally. That’s what this is all about.
ALL of this combined is why there has been such a surge in gun and ammo buying.
Sharif dont like it.
Glock at the casba
Glock at the casba
Sharif don’t like it
Says it’s not kosher
Funniest lyrics evah!
LE just wants control. They want to be the bully. How can they bully everyone when everyone can carry?
There is a certain expectation with law enforcement to ‘maintain law and order’. They are charged with the responsibility of maintaining control. That’s what they are for. It’s what they have always been for. Without LE, what we have is chaos and mob rule. There are too many people with emotion ramped up too high right now for society to go any other direction.
The problem with law enforcement is that they tend to become pawns/tools doing the biding of politicians. The single best way to keep tight reigns on LEO is to have good leaders in office. Particularly at the local level.
“Gun Control” law have NOTHING to do with guns, crime or safety. They are passed for the
ONLY THING THAT MATTERS to those in power….CONTROL. And such laws…..like MOST laws…. do NOTHING to prevent crime. They are passed to facilitate the ability of those
in power to CONTROL US. And if turning an honest citizen into a felon with the stroke of a pen
is what is required than criminals making the laws are happy to do so.
A right is a right! When the supreme law of the Constitutional Republic dictates that “the People” have the natural “right” to “bear Arms” (carry, posses “Arms” on one’s person) and does not specify how that “carry” is performed, “Carry” IS THE LAW, no matter what some unconstitutional inferior state statute color-ably and unlawfully dictates. Furthermore, when a “right” is transformed into a “privilege” as all CCW statutes do, and we are then forced by colorable dictat to pay a fee (but a license) in order to freely exercise that right, government has criminally overstepped its clearly mandated limits (Murdock v Pennsylvania, 319 US 105) and said unconstitutional state statutes are thereby null and void (Marbury v Madison, 5 US 137). In addition, the SCOTUS has also ruled that: ‘whenever government(s) unlawfully transform rights that are secured by the U.S. Constitution, into privileges (having to obtain and pay for a license) and require us to then pay a fee in order to freely exercise said right, then we can ignore said statute and engage in said right with impunity (Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, 373 US 262). This entire Republic, by constitutional edict, is a constitutional carry nation and the states that do not recognize it as such are in violation of constitutional edict. Therefore, the officers of any state governments that operate contrary to recognizing constitutional carry as the law, are guilty of “warring on the Constitution” (Cooper v. Aaron, 358 US 1) and have thereby committed fraud and treason against their state’s citizenry. GIT A ROPE!
Comments are closed.