Texas Gun Law: Is The State A Model For Modern Open Carry?
BY Herschel Smith
8 years, 11 months ago
CSM:
At least in popular culture, Texas has always been synonymous with gun-totin’ cowboys, but until midnight on New Year’s Eve, the reality has been far different. Texas, in fact, has been one of the most restrictive gun-rights states in America.
Thanks to a new law, however, the state will be one of the most relaxed.
How relaxed? Police are discouraged from even asking about someone’s holstered gun. And if they do, they may not have much power to do anything if the person refuses to show a license.
The upshot is that the sight of civilians carrying visible weapons is about to become commonplace in the Lone Star State.
The lawmakers who crafted the legislation passed it in part as a symbolic measure at an unusual time in the United States. Even as gun control groups link America’s obsession with firearms to a slight rise in the number of mass shootings, the US public seems more enamored than ever with weaponry and the power it conveys. Black Friday this year saw the biggest gun cache ever purchased in one day – enough to arm a new military the size of the Marine Corps, as Bob Owens points out on the “Bearing Arms” blog.
Indeed, with notable exceptions in New York, Connecticut, and Colorado, the bulk of states have steadily expanded gun rights since the sunsetting of a 10-year assault weapons ban in 2004. But the new Texas law is Texas-size, given that more than 800,000 Texans are already licensed to carry concealed weapons. Their rights now extend to carrying openly in the halls of the state Capitol.
Given those trends, there’s a fervent debate about whether the new Texas law is a model piece of legislation for a changing America – or a walking disaster just begging for trouble.
To be sure, the law is strict in its own way, offering a model for regulation. Under the law, open-carry folks have to be licensed, a process that includes safety and shooting tests. They also have to show no prior psychological problems, and they have to be at least 21 years old.
But a major sticking point is how the law will affect policing in one of the nation’s most populous expanses. The fact that the law doesn’t provide any sanctions against those who refuse to show a license to a police officer has critics fearing that officers may be handcuffed in their ability to respond to volatile and potentially deadly situations.
Oooo … boogey man gonna getcha! Hold me Uncle Bob! I askeerd! “Walking disaster.” “Trouble.” “Volatile and deadly situations.” Oooo …
Again, as a citizen of a traditional open carry state, I’m going to tell you what’s going to happen here. Nothing. That’s right, nothing. Life will continue in the lone star state unabated, and the doomsday predictions of law enforcement and the progressives will go down as a monument to their hatred of the common man.
And no, it’s not a model for open carry law. It’s a half way measure that still recognizes the state’s right to permit the carry of weapons, an illegitimate and bastard right that has no place in a free society.
On January 4, 2016 at 1:12 am, Geoffry K said:
I would be happy if South Carolina would take that half-way measure as we are one of the last 5 States that do not allow open carry. I have a CWP so it would definitely help in the hot humid Summers along the Coast.
On January 4, 2016 at 1:18 am, Herschel Smith said:
Six words: South Carolina State Senator Larry Martin. Pickens. Sorry. Seven.
On January 4, 2016 at 10:33 am, Pat Hines said:
Yes, ole Larry needs to be sanctioned and will be. He’s on a number of lists of which I’m aware.
On January 4, 2016 at 10:36 am, crazy2medic said:
As a Texan, we are getting there, Texas legislature meets again in two years, by then the hysteria will have died down and we go for constitutional carry!
On January 4, 2016 at 2:21 pm, sage419 said:
If they need a model for open (or concealed) carry, look at VT, AZ or the handful of other constitutional carry states out there…
On January 4, 2016 at 4:55 pm, Sandydog said:
If you are looking for a model for state firearms laws, look no further than to the State of Alaska: Open Carry (handgun or long gun), Constitutional Carry, CCW licensing available on a voluntary basis to those who desire 37-state reciprocity, option to have CCW license include preemption of NICS checks, absolute State government preemption over municipal ordinances vis. firearms, full right (well, ‘right’ restricted by Federal law) to own machine guns, SBRs, SBSs, very limited legal restrictions on where firearms can be carried, no proliferation of so-called ‘30.06’ or ‘30.07’ signs because businesses know better than to do such silly things, plus we don’t HAVE such signs specifically codified, employers must permit employees’ firearms in private vehicles in employee parking areas–not much has been missed. Oh, and the State Constitution affirms the individual right to own firearms, plus the legislature has made it unlawful for State or Federal agents within the state to violate the 2nd Amendment.
Shockingly, my hip-boots have yet to be sullied with the blood of innocents flowing freely in the gutters. There is, occasionally, blood splattered on the highways, but it comes from assault moose being run down by evil car-owners most of the time.
Just as with Texas being less than half the size of Alaska, they’re going to have to go over twice as far to reach our level of freedom. It’s amazing that Texans haven’t figured out that their firearm laws were written for the 19th Century, when it was imperative to keep guns out’n the hands of them [non-indigenous people with tans who used to be farm machinery] at all costs, and not for today.
On January 4, 2016 at 5:07 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Interesting post, especially that about the “assault moose.” I have to disagree on one thing. The laws in Texas weren’t written for 19th century, just like the laws in S.C. weren’t written for 19th century. They were written in order to keep those “horrible Negros” from having pistols. Such laws are racist.
On January 4, 2016 at 5:27 pm, Archer said:
19th or 20th century aside, I’m pretty sure that’s what he meant with the “[non-indigenous people with tans who used to be farm machinery]” line.
On January 4, 2016 at 5:36 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Ah … didn’t read closely enough. Word up.
On January 4, 2016 at 8:24 pm, GomeznSA said:
Not entirely true, those laws were written by carpetbaggers to control everyone, those particular folks you and Sandydog cited just happened to be caught up in that control measure.
On January 4, 2016 at 6:45 pm, Fred said:
TX is now for all practical purposes identical to TN. I’m not so sure we can get constitutional carry here without a lot of work, which has been started. The problem is most often revealed by people speaking in hushed tones “what about Memphis?” Of course what they mean is “can’t have those Negros running around with guns, what will respectable people think?”
On January 4, 2016 at 8:28 pm, GomeznSA said:
Check the notes from the last legislative session, Constitutional Carry actually came fairly close, if not for such ‘enlightened’ folks as joestrauss actual, it might well have done so. As to the ‘people of color’ carrying openly, they have been doing so with long guns – and almost daring anyone to cause an issue about it.
On January 4, 2016 at 8:21 pm, GomeznSA said:
Being a resident of Texas and having lived in Alaska, y’all need to get over that ‘we’re bigger’ attitude (bigger ain’t always better ;-) but you did make some very valid points. However, one point of order: the real reason that we had some onerous – especially as applied to handguns – regulations was to CONTROL everyone since they were enacted by the carpet baggers who were doing their best to ruin things for us. Look at how hard the democRATs in our state legislature fought – for decades – against first concealed carry (thanks annrichards) and then the open carry, assisted by rinos like joestrauss.
On January 5, 2016 at 2:30 am, Sandydog said:
Sorta, kinda. I don’t know about Texas, but in the little Southern states, after the reign of the Carpetbaggers, all of those handy Reconstruction laws were easily adapted to prevent those [prior farm machinery] from getting firearms, through legal requirements such as being able to possess only ‘Army’ or ‘Navy’ pistols which cost too much for the targeted audience, but were well within the means of ‘others.’ The laws were stringently enforced against the [farm machinery] but not so much against the folks who were melanin-deficient. Once it was no longer PC to discriminate, the Democrats just naturally discriminated against everybody, to be fair about it.
Democrats have a hard time giving up any control over other people, as they’re still miffed at Lincoln for not letting them literally own folks any more. That also explains their pathological need for gun control: They fear servile insurrection more than almost anything.