Texas Concealed Gun Laws Loosen

Texas Concealed Gun Laws Loosen

There are 33 comments on the Dallas Observer story from Oct 24, 2007, titled Texas Concealed Gun Laws Loosen. In it, Dallas Observer reports that:

“It's a law for honest people and good citizens to stand their ground”

Subject : concealed handgun law An amendment to Texas' so-called "traveling rule" regarding concealed handguns went into effect September 1 with hardly anyone noticing, though it comes close to gutting the law ... via Dallas Observer

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Dallas Observer.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
richard

Houston, TX

#1 Oct 24, 2007
it seems to me that the new law means more like this; as a person who is committing no crime ( unlike a cocaine dealer with a gun ) then carrying a gun going to see my father in dallas from houston is no crime... DUH REALLY? i personally think this is a great law. if you are comitting NO CRIMES it means a gun in your possesion is NO CRIME, DUH. as is intended by the second amendment.
now if you are selling drugs and get busted for that then a gun in your posession could ( i say could for a reason ) exacerbate your crime.
besides i have read gun laws of texas and if you ARE travelling certain distances or cross three county lines you may carry a weapon. of course the restrictions for carrying that weapon are prohibitive of you being able to defend yourself i believe... but this new law seems to clear up a bit of the definition of carrying unlike what the dallas police officers said... if a drug dealer (known dealer) is busted with drugs and a gun it is already illegal because drug dealing is illegal. and if the dealer is a felon then the laws against that are really strong already.
a citizen who is carrying a gun and is not committing a crime then you should not get in trouble just for having a gun. after all, there are approximately 80 MILLION gun owners in the U.S. that is so awesome, cool...

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#2 Oct 24, 2007
Allow me to ask:
Would it not be better to adopt the Vermont carry?

In Vermont (and now Alaska), you don't need a permit to carry (or own) a firearm. You may carry it any darned way you please, as long as you don't hold it in a threatening way.
In Vermont, the =ONLY= thing that's against the law, is to be in possession of a firearm with the intent to employ it in the commission of a crime.

So, why all the Texas equivocation?
Just get rid of the idiot laws.
They don't do anything anyway, save to give corrupt cops a reason to raise hell with the citizens.
BOMB ISLAM

North Fort Myers, FL

#3 Oct 24, 2007
Highlander wrote:
Allow me to ask:
Would it not be better to adopt the Vermont carry?
In Vermont (and now Alaska), you don't need a permit to carry (or own) a firearm. You may carry it any darned way you please, as long as you don't hold it in a threatening way.
In Vermont, the =ONLY= thing that's against the law, is to be in possession of a firearm with the intent to employ it in the commission of a crime.
So, why all the Texas equivocation?
Just get rid of the idiot laws.
They don't do anything anyway, save to give corrupt cops a reason to raise hell with the citizens.
In Alaska if you are stopped by a " law enforcement officer " you must tell him you are carrying.

It might work better if you tell the cop to shoot you because he can get your gun put it on the ground and say you pulled it on him.

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#4 Oct 24, 2007
BOMB ISLAM wrote:
<quoted text>In Alaska if you are stopped by a " law enforcement officer " you must tell him you are carrying.
It might work better if you tell the cop to shoot you because he can get your gun put it on the ground and say you pulled it on him.
I've heard that about the 'tell the cop' bit.
I am going to think that =that= was something an officious cop in high places had added to the legislation.

But, it seems calculatedly invideous for this reason only: Most people are quite nervous when put upon by a cop, and are surely to forget to remark about the matter of carriage: One more citizen loses his rights over a technical detail.

That is one detail which should be removed, and the sooner the better!

Here in Washington, the cops have the courtesy of asking beforehand. There is no requirement to speak about the matter, and the current advise is: Don't say a word to the edgewise, until you are queried.
BOMB ISLAM

North Fort Myers, FL

#5 Oct 24, 2007
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
I've heard that about the 'tell the cop' bit.
I am going to think that =that= was something an officious cop in high places had added to the legislation.
But, it seems calculatedly invideous for this reason only: Most people are quite nervous when put upon by a cop, and are surely to forget to remark about the matter of carriage: One more citizen loses his rights over a technical detail.
That is one detail which should be removed, and the sooner the better!
Here in Washington, the cops have the courtesy of asking beforehand. There is no requirement to speak about the matter, and the current advise is: Don't say a word to the edgewise, until you are queried.
Well said.

As I understand it by Supreme Court ruling you only need to provide an LEO with your name and address .

I believe this law , because the LEO has no probable cause is in violation with the first amendment.

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#6 Oct 24, 2007
BOMB ISLAM wrote:
<quoted text>Well said.
As I understand it by Supreme Court ruling you only need to provide an LEO with your name and address .
I believe this law , because the LEO has no probable cause is in violation with the first amendment.
Well, the whole requirement is specious period, when given any considered thought.

Think: What cop in his/her right mind =WOULDN'T= think that virtually everyone he approaches is armed?

The predicate thought should =ALWAYS BE= that the person s/he is approaching is armed, and be prepared to deal with that.

There are not a few active and retired cops on this forum who will likely back me up on just that point: NEVER presume that a suspect is disarmed.

Now, I will suppose that the 'warm and cuddly' contingent here and about will endlessly prognosticate about how we should treat the snakes in the grass with every compassion we would reserve for our dear old granny.

But then? They would keep all of us disarmed, and ready-to-eat for the wolves.

“Erudite Gun Enthusiast”

Since: Jun 07

Weston, FL

#7 Oct 25, 2007
Florida does not have the requirement to tell the police you are armed. Personally, I don't unless I have to reach for identification....even though I carry a badge, I'd rather not accidentally "flash".

And, yes, we do assume that EVERYONE is a potential threat...at least condition yellow. Now I may not be as concerned by granny as by Bubba, but just because she's old, doesn't make Granny a nice old lady.
Memories from Maine

Old Town, ME

#8 Oct 25, 2007
Another Voice Heard From wrote:
And, yes, we do assume that EVERYONE is a potential threated by granny as by Bubba, but just because she's old...
I was just going to say the same thing. My brother's a state cop in Connecticut, and he's the same way.
Bobby

Stoneham, MA

#9 Oct 26, 2007
I believe that if Texas wants to keep their failed permit law then it should be like the state of New Hampshire, If they don't want to go Vermont style carry it's only the people who want to live in a safe haven lose out, If Texas was like NH then there would be a lot less problems to deal with, NH has no major restrictions on where you can carry with your license, you are not allowed to carry in a court rooms in NH is the only law NH on the books, you only have to be 18 to get the license for $20.
If Open carry was Legal in TX that would solve it all together, the same with Florida.

“Rock Show”

Since: Sep 07

Quartzsite,Az.

#10 Oct 26, 2007
richard wrote:
it seems to me that the new law means more like this; as a person who is committing no crime ( unlike a cocaine dealer with a gun ) then carrying a gun going to see my father in dallas from houston is no crime... DUH REALLY? i personally think this is a great law. if you are comitting NO CRIMES it means a gun in your possesion is NO CRIME, DUH. as is intended by the second amendment.
now if you are selling drugs and get busted for that then a gun in your posession could ( i say could for a reason ) exacerbate your crime.
besides i have read gun laws of texas and if you ARE travelling certain distances or cross three county lines you may carry a weapon. of course the restrictions for carrying that weapon are prohibitive of you being able to defend yourself i believe... but this new law seems to clear up a bit of the definition of carrying unlike what the dallas police officers said... if a drug dealer (known dealer) is busted with drugs and a gun it is already illegal because drug dealing is illegal. and if the dealer is a felon then the laws against that are really strong already.
a citizen who is carrying a gun and is not committing a crime then you should not get in trouble just for having a gun. after all, there are approximately 80 MILLION gun owners in the U.S. that is so awesome, cool...
Here in Arizona, we have one of the States that checks you out back to your school days, this C.C.W. allows you tho carry in 36 States. Federal law protects you if you are going in a stright line to another State, this Fed. law states, the right to carry is YOUR right. it will not be infringed by local laws.

“Rock Show”

Since: Sep 07

Quartzsite,Az.

#11 Oct 26, 2007
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
I've heard that about the 'tell the cop' bit.
I am going to think that =that= was something an officious cop in high places had added to the legislation.
But, it seems calculatedly invideous for this reason only: Most people are quite nervous when put upon by a cop, and are surely to forget to remark about the matter of carriage: One more citizen loses his rights over a technical detail.
That is one detail which should be removed, and the sooner the better!
Here in Washington, the cops have the courtesy of asking beforehand. There is no requirement to speak about the matter, and the current advise is: Don't say a word to the edgewise, until you are queried.
The best way, if you get stopped is to have both hands on the steering wheel when the COP comes to the drivers side, is to say to police officer, I have a " what-ever in a holster, on my side, a conciled wepon" and a C.C.W. The officer will ask you to show him your C.C.W., UPON SHOWING HIM/HER, THEY WILL ASK YOU FOR THE GUN. uNLOAD THE GUN, TAKE OUT THE CLIP, AND HAND IT TO TO THE COP. If asked why you cleared the gun, tell them you would not give your commander in chief a loaded gun, you have broken the tenision between you and the officer. Things should go pretty smooth from that point on.
BOMB ISLAM

North Fort Myers, FL

#12 Oct 26, 2007
sigrwolf wrote:
<quoted text>
The best way, if you get stopped is to have both hands on the steering wheel when the COP comes to the drivers side, is to say to police officer, I have a " what-ever in a holster, on my side, a conciled wepon" and a C.C.W. The officer will ask you to show him your C.C.W., UPON SHOWING HIM/HER, THEY WILL ASK YOU FOR THE GUN. uNLOAD THE GUN, TAKE OUT THE CLIP, AND HAND IT TO TO THE COP. If asked why you cleared the gun, tell them you would not give your commander in chief a loaded gun, you have broken the tenision between you and the officer. Things should go pretty smooth from that point on.
There is no legal precedent for surrendering anything that is legally being transported from one place to another.

Not only does your capitulation suggestion violate the second amendment it also violates the commerce clause of the constitution.

What are you sworn to uphold and protect?
BOMB ISLAM

North Fort Myers, FL

#13 Oct 26, 2007
sigrwolf wrote:
<quoted text>
The best way, if you get stopped is to have both hands on the steering wheel when the COP comes to the drivers side, is to say to police officer, I have a " what-ever in a holster, on my side, a conciled wepon" and a C.C.W. The officer will ask you to show him your C.C.W., UPON SHOWING HIM/HER, THEY WILL ASK YOU FOR THE GUN. uNLOAD THE GUN, TAKE OUT THE CLIP, AND HAND IT TO TO THE COP. If asked why you cleared the gun, tell them you would not give your commander in chief a loaded gun, you have broken the tenision between you and the officer. Things should go pretty smooth from that point on.
May I add that your idea of greater scrutiny of the legal gun owner also violates the equal protection under the law standard as outlined in , you guessed it , the US Constitution .

Why should there be any tension between a LEO and a law abiding citizen.

“Rock Show”

Since: Sep 07

Quartzsite,Az.

#14 Oct 26, 2007
BOMB ISLAM wrote:
<quoted text>There is no legal precedent for surrendering anything that is legally being transported from one place to another.
Not only does your capitulation suggestion violate the second amendment it also violates the commerce clause of the constitution.
What are you sworn to uphold and protect?
Nothing !! To make the suistion into the belife that one is trying to stop tenison between you and the cop, one who knows the laws of the State in ? and the Federal laws, one does what they think will releive tenison between the two.a lot of the locals do not know the Fed. laws, there fore, if the tenison is releived, the officer is more offen to go along with what you state, then get into a confrenation that could heat up.

“Rock Show”

Since: Sep 07

Quartzsite,Az.

#15 Oct 26, 2007
BOMB ISLAM wrote:
<quoted text>May I add that your idea of greater scrutiny of the legal gun owner also violates the equal protection under the law standard as outlined in , you guessed it , the US Constitution .
Why should there be any tension between a LEO and a law abiding citizen.

Read the above statment

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#16 Oct 26, 2007
sigrwolf wrote:
<quoted text>
The best way, if you get stopped is to have both hands on the steering wheel
Hmmm. That's kinda hard to do on a motorcycle .... ;-)

Maybe I should start carrying one?
Of course I might get some strange looks ...

“Erudite Gun Enthusiast”

Since: Jun 07

Weston, FL

#17 Oct 27, 2007
Highlander wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm. That's kinda hard to do on a motorcycle .... ;-)
Maybe I should start carrying one?
Of course I might get some strange looks ...
Start a trend! Put a steering wheel on that 2 wheeler instead of the handle bars.

Maybe it'd look cool......but, then again, maybe not.

How do you carry on your bike? I used to alternate between a shoulder rig and a fanny pack.

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#18 Oct 27, 2007
Another Voice Heard From wrote:
<quoted text>
Start a trend! Put a steering wheel on that 2 wheeler instead of the handle bars.
Maybe it'd look cool......but, then again, maybe not.
How do you carry on your bike? I used to alternate between a shoulder rig and a fanny pack.
I carry as I always do in street clothes: IWB
I have a leather holster made by D&D leather.
http://www.danddgunleather.com/index.htm
The company is owned by Dave Workman.
If the name sounds familiar, it's because he used to be the regional rep for the NRA, and is/was an independant journalist/writer.

The holster (Inside the Waist Ban) is most comfortable, and it self-retains the pistol by dint of the pressure of your hip against the inside of the holster pressed against the inside of the trousers.
I've yet to have the pistol slip out.
The neat retention is great, because if you don't lift your arm, and try to pull the arm from the holster, but merely try to remove the arm, it requires a great deal of effort to remove the pistol. I swear by it!

Now, there is one caveat: When I go riding, I'll usually losen my belt a notch, in order to relieve the pressure build-up against the hips, caused by the increased mass-of-the-ass that's happens by the way the position of the body on the seat, and because my trousers tend to ride downwards as well.

If I don't losen the belt, the sciatic nerves get pinched at the hip, and in turn causes both legs to go numb, which gets =really= uncomfortable!

Upon dismounting the bike, I'll merely readjust my trousers, and cinch up the belt as needed.

Regarding the steering wheel?
That wouldn't be the most propitious thing to do, because the amount effort required to steer the bike would significantly increase, owing to the lesser amount of leverage afforded.

“Erudite Gun Enthusiast”

Since: Jun 07

Weston, FL

#19 Oct 27, 2007
I ride in South Florida, so, since I wear a lightweight jacket I get concerned about "printing" with an IWB. Not worried about being arrested, just don't want the attention.

As I said, I carry in a fanny pack or shoulder holster, primarily because the're easier to draw from (for me) on a bike. When I dismount, if I'm not just going to work or home, I reholster behind my hip (out of the view of overly concerned citizens).

About the steering wheel....I was yust keeding.

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#20 Oct 27, 2007
Another Voice Heard From wrote:
I ride in South Florida, so, since I wear a lightweight jacket I get concerned about "printing" with an IWB. Not worried about being arrested, just don't want the attention.
There's a good solution to that problem.
A local company about 40 miles north of Seattle makes doe hide vests and leather coats just for the occasion of packing.

What they do is place a thicker piece of leather inside the garment, and that tends to prevent the exterior material/fabric from forming around the piece.

They also do work on suit coats for the same purpose.

You might look around for a good tailor to accomplish the same. The point to remember is that the exterior material still has to bend, but not such that it forms/prints what's underneath.
And, it should be done to both sides of the garment to balance out the look.

Basically, what that does is simply push the garment exterior away from the body when bending or twisting, but not noticeably so.
Another Voice Heard From wrote:
As I said, I carry in a fanny pack or shoulder holster, primarily because the're easier to draw from (for me) on a bike.
I don't know that I'd try to handle a firearm on a moving bike. My =entire= scheme of reaction in such a situation, is avoidance. Although I suppose that one might consider the possibility.
Another Voice Heard From wrote:
When I dismount, if I'm not just going to work or home, I reholster behind my hip (out of the view of overly concerned citizens).
About the steering wheel....I was yust keeding.
You know, as word to the wise, you may have heard the old saw about if you're going to carry, it should always be the same way, for obvious reasons: Mentally, you practice with the idea that your arm is always going to be in the same place all the time.
Nothing like fooling yourself!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mesquite Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election Who do you support for State Board of Education... (Oct '10) 14 min lucy 935
Pizza Hut Needs to get back with online Applicants 2 hr abc 7
Review: Fiesta Monitos 21 hr Tcarcana 1
abony inferno lucifer 2nd 3rd wer murders now c... Mon africhaiti 1
Add A Word Drop A Word (Nov '12) Mon meeeooww 1,273
Election Who do you support for State Board of Education... (Oct '10) Jul 25 fartman 762
Review: Black Bull Towing Jul 23 Mike Smith 5
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Mesquite Mortgages