22 July, 2008

Open vs Concealed Carry

I just learned about an interesting movement in Texas and nationwide. It is the Open Carry of firearms. Did you know that in 42 states you can open carry a firearm(with various levels of restrictions). Also, interesting enough Texas is not one of those states. There is quite a debate about the benefits of concealed carry vs open carry. You can check it out at the web sites above. I will attempt to summarize the arguments and then give my opinion.
  • Open carry is easier-Definitely true in Texas in the summertime and for smaller people
  • Open carry is a better deterrent to crime-Maybe, some argue that if someone is known to be armed the bad guy can take them out first.
  • Open carry is a constitutional right-True, but the Texas constitution allows the restriction of that right
  • Honest citizens will be scared if honest Texicans are openly carrying guns-probably true at first if open carry ever became popular. But I think we would get used to it over time.
  • There will be gunfights in the streets-that is what was said when the CHL law was passed too and crime went down
  • Property owners are more likely to not allow carrying openly-probably true, but business people don't like to lose money either
  • Protecting is the police's job-Not true, in fact court cases have shown the police have no obligation to protect(no matter what they put on the cars). Police can prevent some crimes, and they can investigate and arrest after the fact. There are simply not enough of them and too many of us(and the bad guys)
I think any expansion of gun rights is a good thing, so I am in favor of Open Carry. I think it could happen but probably with a gradual process, or maybe just be allowed by CHL. In an ideal world any Good Texican(or American) over 18(except convicted VIOLENT criminals and the legally insane) would be allowed to carry a firearm openly or concealed except on private property where not allowed by the owner. Any steps toward this would be good. The more honest people carry guns the lower the odds are for the bad guys and some of them will give up and get a real job instead of preying on the weaker. Also remember that a gun is the only way too even up the odds between a young large male attacker and a small, or female, or elderly, or handicapped person. Give your mother/wife/daughter/poor neighbor/handicapped friend a chance to protect themself.

Right now in Texas a concealed firearm can not be visible to normal observation. This had made quite a market for holsters that attempt to hide a gun on a human. It is fairly difficult to conceal a large gun(especially on a small person or someone wearing tight clothes) and large guns make bigger holes in bad guys. Many people don't carry because it it too difficult to conceal properly so open carry would probably result in more Good Guys carrying guns(a good thing). Also right now you have to be 21 years old to get a CHL(unless you are military). I would really like to see that lowered to 18, in fact to me(as a father of girls) that is a much higher priority than open carry. Also the NRA and TSRA don't want to get strongly behind open carry. They think it will give gun owners a bad wrap with the public and hurt their image and their ability to get legislation passed.

So, I would like to see open carry legalized in Texas. A friend asked me recently if I would carry openly if it was legal. I told him probably not most of the time. In fact, it is legal now on premises that I own or control and I rarely open carry there(never in public). I guess if it got to be more socially accepted I would and there would probably be times that I would in a high risk area. But I don't think I would carry openly on a regular basis. But I still think this would be a step in the right direction. If nothing else I would carry a larger gun concealed and worry less about if it was totally concealed. That would be very nice in Texas in the summertime.

An armed society is a polite society.

When seconds count the police are only minutes away.

19 July, 2008

DC vs Heller part 2

WUSA9.com | Washington, DC | DC Rejects Handgun Application

I said before that all the majority of the Supreme Court said was that DC had to issue a license to Heller to keep his gun at home. Now they have thumbed their nose at the Supreme Court and refused to even do that. This should be interesting.

04 July, 2008

DC vs Heller


The supreme court recently ruled in the case of DC vs Heller. The case is considered a victory for gun rights. Was it? It is certainly a mixed bag.

First is the fact that is was a 5-4 decision. This means we are only 1 Supreme Court appointment away from a 4-5 decision. We have a Presidential election coming this year and the chances that the next president will appoint judges who can read and understand the Constitution is virtually zero.

Second, the facts were very narrow. Basically the court required DC to issue Heller a permit to keep a gun in his home. Anything more than that will require additional court cases.

Third, Justice Scalia writing for the majority was very clear in stating that the second amendment applies to individuals whether or not they are part of the organized militia. He and Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito joined in the most clear defense of the second amendment you can read. Check out this quote from page 34 of the Opinion of the Court.

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution
could by any rule of construction be conceived
to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such
a flagitious attempt could only be made under some
general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any
blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt
it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint
on both.” Rawle 121–122.20

Fourth, while clearly agreeing that the 2nd was an individual right, the court suggested that limits on that right could be constitutional. What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand.

This ruling was a positive for gun rights and maybe more positives will follow.

Under the Constitution the Federal Government was absolutely prohibited from barring the keeping and bearing of arms. This would mean ownership and carrying of ANY type of weapons. Yes, that would include F-35s with Tomahawk missiles if you can afford it. Here is a quote from page 47 of the Courts Opinion.

The second amendment . . .
means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
92 U. S., at 553. States, we said, were free to
restrict or protect the right under their police powers. The
limited discussion of the Second Amendment in Cruikshank
supports, if anything, the individual-rights interpretation.

On the other hand under the Constitution the Sovereign States could limit keeping and bearing of arms. So the 2nd is not a real protection. But remember Courts and laws are not the basis of our rights. According to the Declaration of Independence rights are given by GOD and therefore can only be taken away by GOD. For Government to attempt to take away a GOD given right is a usurpation of power that should never be allowed by anyone. Here is another quote from page 33 of the Opinion of the Court

Tucker elaborated on the Second Amendment:“This may be considered as the true palladium ofliberty . . . . The right to self-defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine the right within the narrowest limits possible.