Open Carry In Texas - For or Against?

[onei]

Originally Posted by Jimmiwad

I don't see the need to openly carry. I can visualize a bit of tension while shopping at Walmart if a group of people are walking around with weapons on their hip.
I know weapons are not allowed at schools and sporting events but if a store owner doesn't agree with open carry can he just post a sign not allowed?
Like mini skirts and short shorts, it took a little getting used to at first, we all appreciate them now.

The short answer - yes
The long answer - it must be an official sign with proper wordage and size (both letters and the sign itself. Any old sign doesn't hold any weight.

Not a legal sign


A legal sign

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by onei

The short answer - yes
The long answer - it must be an official sign with proper wordage and size (both letters and the sign itself. Any old sign doesn't hold any weight.

Not a legal sign


A legal sign

You are correct but the funny thing s that the writer of the words in the "legal" signs himself thinks the wording is cumbersome. I have to agree. The "not legal" sign you posted is, to me, understood worldwide and is superior to the "legal" sign. Just my opinion.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

How can you know whether it's a legal sign?

Originally Posted by onei

A legal sign

[pussycat]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

If you don't like mother jones as a source, here are some other sources which argue that the shooters did not pick out their targets based on whether or not they were gun free zones;

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09...un-free/195927

http://www.westword.com/news/gun-con...-zones-5856078

Let's look at the major recent mass killings in the U.S.:

Ft. Hood April 2014: Ivan Lopez killed 4 people and wounded 16 others. Had an argument hours earlier came back armed and opened fire in the same building.

Ft. Hood November 5, 2009 -- Major Hassad shot 13 people and wounded 30 others. Hassad was upset with the army for not accepting his religious views.

Columbine HS -- April 20, 1999 -- 2 students at Columbine HS killed 13 people.

Virginia Tech -- April 16, 2007 -- Seung Hui-Cho, a senior at VT killed 32 and wounded 17.

Washington Naval Yard -- September 16, 2013 -- Aaron Alexis, who worked at the naval yard, shot and killed 12 people.

Aurora, Colorado -- July 20 2012 -- James Holmes kills 12 and injures 70 others.The movie theater was one Holmes was most familiar with.

In every one of these mass shootings, there is a strong connection between the shooter and the site of the killings. There is absolutely no proof that the sites were chosen because they were gun free zones. Also, in the majority of the instances the shooter did not expect to live so the only possible reason in arguing that he purposely chose a gun free zone in which to do his killings is that he could kill a few more people than in a non gun free zone before being killed. Ridiculous.

The fact that you focus on mass shootings displays your ignorance and parochialism. These events make the headlines, but more people die of bee stings than from mass shootings. We could save more lives if we lowered the speed limit just a little.

The real violence that happens never makes the headlines. The constant rapes, assaults, stabbings and gunshot wounds.

I forgot to mention I have another friend who was working at his C-store on Lamar and Braker when someone robbed him and shot him in the abdomen and the bullet grazed his spine and blew out his back. The shooter was using a stolen gun because he was already a felon and wouldn't pass the idiotic Brady check.

The victim friend of mine is a pacifist hindu who doesn't even eat meat or kill flies or rats so he didn't believe in defending himself with a weapon....

[pussycat]

Originally Posted by junkweed

I support open or concealed carry with a license. You need a license to drive on public roads, you should be able to pass a simple written / practical exam with a firearm if you want to carry. That is not a form of rights oppression, it's making sure you are aware of your rights and everyone else's. Your rights end where the next persons begins. It's the responsibility side of the rights coin.

A written test? I can tell you are not a gun owner LOL.

Everyone has the natural right to defend themselves against rape, assault, malicious injury, or attempts at murder. What would having a license or test accomplish? Those who don't get a license are going to do what? Defend themselves with a knife when someone attacks them? When they're dead or worse then what will you say?

A firearm isn't something like a car which you drive on roads at 70 mph with other motorists. It's a discreet device you keep to yourself until you need it.

[pussycat]

As for the 2nd Amendment I don't lodge my rights in any law but I'm glad it's there. All the "study" about it is a waste of time and conjecture. These laws are interpreted by judges not according to original intent but by the politics of the moment and other factors. But a simple reading of the wording is clear that it refers to "the people's" right to keep and bear arms. It says "the people." And at that time "the people" meant ordinary citizens who kept arms and formed militias among themselves for defense. It DOES NOT refer to any standing army. Standing armies of any kind were INCONCEIVABLE to the founders. The founders meant that ordinary people would all be armed and would form militias among themselves for self defense. And that is NOT the National Guard or other reserve STANDING ARMIES. It doesn't require any more scholarship than that to understand.

'Nuff said.

[goobersnotch]

open carry is just going to result in a massive spike in gun violence and gun deaths. It's inevitable, because you gun nuts are so goddamn racist and afraid of minorities. the only reason you want to carry a gun around is so you can be the next George Zimmerman.

There will be thousands more Dylann Roofs thanks to open carry.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by pussycat

The fact that you focus on mass shootings displays your ignorance and parochialism. These events make the headlines, but more people die of bee stings than from mass shootings. We could save more lives if we lowered the speed limit just a little.

The real violence that happens never makes the headlines. The constant rapes, assaults, stabbings and gunshot wounds.

I forgot to mention I have another friend who was working at his C-store on Lamar and Braker when someone robbed him and shot him in the abdomen and the bullet grazed his spine and blew out his back. The shooter was using a stolen gun because he was already a felon and wouldn't pass the idiotic Brady check.

The victim friend of mine is a pacifist hindu who doesn't even eat meat or kill flies or rats so he didn't believe in defending himself with a weapon....

I did not initiate the discussion. So much for calling me ignorant and parochial. I agree with you 100% that people focusing on mass killings ignore the fact that they make up a small portion of the 8,500 or so gun homicides in the U.S. every year. We have a problem in the U.S. that gun rights groups ignore. Try comparing homicide deaths by handguns in our country per 100,000 people vs. similar countries such as Canada, U.K. , Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Belgium, etc. Then tell me we don't have a prblem.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by pussycat

A written test? I can tell you are not a gun owner LOL.

Everyone has the natural right to defend themselves against rape, assault, malicious injury, or attempts at murder. What would having a license or test accomplish? Those who don't get a license are going to do what? Defend themselves with a knife when someone attacks them? When they're dead or worse then what will you say?

A firearm isn't something like a car which you drive on roads at 70 mph with other motorists. It's a discreet device you keep to yourself until you need it.

When you have a gun in your home for self-defense, the odds are that people outside your home will not be affected when you have the need to use it. On the other hand, when you are carrying a handgun outside the home and decide to use it, others will probably be affected by your decision. Requiring people who want to carry a concealed, or now openly carry, handgun to pass a simple test at a gun range showing that they are somewhat competent in handling and firing the weapon is not too much to ask. Asking that they pass a written test that shows they have a basic understanding of when and how they are supposed to use their weapon is not asking too much. You certainly have the right to carry a concealed handgun with a CHL. Others such as myself have the right to know that you are competent in using that weapon.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by pussycat

As for the 2nd Amendment I don't lodge my rights in any law but I'm glad it's there. All the "study" about it is a waste of time and conjecture. These laws are interpreted by judges not according to original intent but by the politics of the moment and other factors. But a simple reading of the wording is clear that it refers to "the people's" right to keep and bear arms. It says "the people." And at that time "the people" meant ordinary citizens who kept arms and formed militias among themselves for defense. It DOES NOT refer to any standing army. Standing armies of any kind were INCONCEIVABLE to the founders. The founders meant that ordinary people would all be armed and would form militias among themselves for self defense. And that is NOT the National Guard or other reserve STANDING ARMIES. It doesn't require any more scholarship than that to understand.

'Nuff said.

When you serve on the Supreme Court you will have the opportunity to vote on such issues. Until then your opinion is your opinion. The meaning of the 2nd Amendment has been argued since the day it was adopted. I am very content in the fact that the interpretation of the amendment has not been that anyone has the right to carry any weapon at any time in any place.

Nuff said.

[onei]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

When you serve on the Supreme Court you will have the opportunity to vote on such issues. Until then your opinion is your opinion. The meaning of the 2nd Amendment has been argued since the day it was adopted. I am very content in the fact that the interpretation of the amendment has not been that anyone has the right to carry any weapon at any time in any place.

Nuff said.

I love opinions … they are like armpits — everybody has them and most of them stink!

[onei]

Originally Posted by goobersnotch

open carry is just going to result in a massive spike in gun violence and gun deaths. It's inevitable, because you gun nuts are so goddamn racist and afraid of minorities. the only reason you want to carry a gun around is so you can be the next George Zimmerman.

There will be thousands more Dylann Roofs thanks to open carry.

Do you feel better now that that is off your chest????

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by onei

I love opinions … they are like armpits — everybody has them and most of them stink!

Very, very true. It's only when people take their "opinions" as "facts" that I get bothered.

[Mike Vronsky]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

When you serve on the Supreme Court you will have the opportunity to vote on such issues. Until then your opinion is your opinion. The meaning of the 2nd Amendment has been argued since the day it was adopted. I am very content in the fact that the interpretation of the amendment has not been that anyone has the right to carry any weapon at any time in any place.

Nuff said.

Ooops!

Below is the correct ruling on 2nd amendment rights. Anything else is gun control and against the meaning of the second amendment

BELLEVUE, Wash., June 19, 2015 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A surprising victory for gun rights in Puerto Rico has eliminated the firearms registry and licensing requirements to purchase and carry in the Commonwealth, the Second Amendment Foundation has confirmed.

As of now, according to Sandra Barreras with Ladies of the Second Amendment (LSA), the group that brought the lawsuit, "there is no regulation to purchase or carry (and) all purchases will be handled in accordance with federal firearms regulations." LSA is affiliated with SAF through the International Association for the Protection of Civilian Arms Rights (IAPCAR).

The class-action lawsuit challenged various articles in Puerto Rico's gun law, which the court declared unconstitutional. Because of the ruling, Barreras said, Puerto Ricans may now carry openly or concealed without a permit, and they do not need to obtain a permit before purchasing a firearm.

This was a class action lawsuit involving more than 850 individual plaintiffs, she reported to SAF offices. The news was greeted with delight, especially because in reaching its decision, the court cited the Heller and McDonald Supreme Court cases, and the recent ruling in Palmer v. District of Columbia. Both the McDonald and Palmer cases were won by SAF.

"Cumbersome firearms regulations have never prevented criminals from getting their hands on guns," noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "They have only inconvenienced law-abiding citizens, or deprived them outright from exercising their rights under the Second Amendment."

Gottlieb said the lawsuit was brought in a Puerto Rican Commonwealth court, rather than a federal court. Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory and thus is subject to federal court jurisdiction.

"This case turned out better than anyone had really anticipated," he commented. "We're very pleased to have played an advisory role in this case, and if there is a government appeal, we'll definitely be there with whatever support we can provide to our good friends in Puerto Rico."

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

[Mike Vronsky]

It is apparent that you know nothing regarding the facts of the Zimmerman case. SMH.

Originally Posted by goobersnotch

open carry is just going to result in a massive spike in gun violence and gun deaths. It's inevitable, because you gun nuts are so goddamn racist and afraid of minorities. the only reason you want to carry a gun around is so you can be the next George Zimmerman.

There will be thousands more Dylann Roofs thanks to open carry.