| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Land of the Free |
| TX: Open Carry law |
| 2015-12-25 |
| Posted by:Skidmark |
| #13 Weird. Ohio has had open carry longer than it's had concealed carry. None of the concerns voiced have come to pass. As usual. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2015-12-25 23:48 |
| #12 Markets for all products are not the same. Laws assume that they are. Not every gun store would sell explosives, and not every customer would be in the market for explosives. |
| Posted by: badanov 2015-12-25 12:31 |
| #11 Without federal law concerning guns, no one would be "forced" to sell to anyone. Please show me ANY commodity [not covered by Federal or State Laws] that a seller can legally REFUSE to sell to a buyer without threat of discrimination or lawsuit. Your logic trail would enable me or anyone else to purchase dynamite or enriched uranium at will. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2015-12-25 12:10 |
| #10 I just think that public open carry is stupid. Since I live in Houston, a target rich environment if there ever was one, the last thing I want to do is warn the predators that I have the means to defend myself or others. Open carry doesn't mean much when you get shot at from behind. |
| Posted by: brujotejano 2015-12-25 11:57 |
| #9 Without federal law concerning guns, no one would be "forced" to sell to anyone. And you miss the point. You are talking about a privilege, not a right, something with requirements you must meet in order to satisfy the mandarins appointed to rule over you. These are matters that should not affect free people. Many people view the right to keep and bear arms as right that applies only to them and whomever the can target through legislative means to remove those rights. The FBI NICS "appeals process" is a cynical fraud. |
| Posted by: badanov 2015-12-25 11:56 |
| #8 Imagine if you will, a gunshop or sporting goods store WITHOUT Federal background checks [4473], and forced 'by law' to sell a gun to anyone who walks through the door. Imagine if you will, 'straw purchases' [buying a firearm for someone else who cannot] being legal. If you believe background checks are discriminatory, unconstitutional, and should be outlawed, then logic would follow that nearly anyone could practice medicine, be a police officer, fly a airliner, or.... become president, without some sort of checking system. If you are the subject of a '4473 Denial' you have a recourse. Here is the appeals form. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2015-12-25 11:34 |
| #7 The open display of firearms [gun on the hip] may also be a signal of other more disturbing problems with the person carrying. Probably true but making it very simple to identify at a distance those persons who are armed & possessed of certain, possibly, undesirable personality traits isn't altogether a bad thing. If open carry is illegal they'll still be armed, just harder to spot. |
| Posted by: Halliburton - Foreign Affairs Division 2015-12-25 11:22 |
| #6 I guarantee you love the law a lot more than it loves you. Those laws were passed without two critical qualifiers: Consent of the government and Constitutionality. I frankly don't give a sh*t if every Rantburger agrees with background checks. They're wrong, and they are unconstitutional. |
| Posted by: badanov 2015-12-25 11:18 |
| #5 If you think that paying a fee and passing a background check makes you more qualified to carry concealed or not..... More qualified? Yes, compliance with THE LAW should be a 'qualifier.' I think all would concur with the law prohibiting convicted felons from purchasing firearms. A NICS (4473) check helps prevent felons from purchasing and obtaining firearms. Better than someone else? Hardly. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2015-12-25 10:18 |
| #4 Plenty of psychopaths can pass a background check, including law enforcement. Paying a fee to exercise a right is not a right, but a privilege, and it runs counter to the concept of what a right is. If you think that paying a fee and passing a background check makes you more qualified to carry concealed or not, you are no better than the statists who want to impose background checks on every gun transaction. Just my two kopeks... |
| Posted by: badanov 2015-12-25 09:54 |
| #3 OK, here's the background on this this issue: the Concealed Carry Law in the state of Texas requires two working points. (1) That you pass the carry and use tests to get a license (2) That the firearm remains concealed at all times. There have been occasions here where individuals have been busted because, for instance, a Constable could pick out the shape of a pistol though a tee shirt. And when you are violated on the carry laws, guess what, you lose the right to carry. |
| Posted by: ed in texas 2015-12-25 09:52 |
| #2 I agree with part of what you said, but here in Tennessee we do have to go through a background check and pass a thorough firearm safety class that includes marksmanship. This class also includes knowing the laws and situations that are applicable to the situation. People who openly carry scare me. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2015-12-25 09:30 |
| #1 Open Carry is where I personally part company with 2nd Amendment supporters. Open Carry is the equivalent of carrying a sign and asking for trouble. The open display of firearms [gun on the hip] may also be a signal of other more disturbing problems with the person carrying. Concealed Weapons permits require a background check. Open carry does not. If you're on your own property or walking down the road to rabbit hunt, or if Open Carry is a 'condition of employment'... no problem. Just my personal opinion. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2015-12-25 08:14 |