Posted on 07/14/2008 4:10:51 AM PDT by marktwain
An online petition for residents to carry handguns in plain sight in Texas had obtained more than 20,000 signatures last week. The petition will be submitted to Gov. Rick Perry and the Texas Legislature sometime in the future.
According to the petition, Texas is one of only six states in the U.S. that ban the use of publicly displayed handguns – also known as "open-carry" handguns.
Ten states – Arizona, Alaska, Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, Virginia, Vermont and Wyoming – allow residents to openly carry a handgun without a license, the petition stated, including those states as one reason why Texas should adopt an open-carry law.
Other reasons listed in the petition include:
It is a constitutional right to bear arms.
People who are going to commit crimes with guns don't abide by the law anyway.
People have the right to defend themselves against death and bodily injury.
It is too hot in Texas to wear a jacket that would conceal a handgun.
A concealed handgun cannot be drawn quickly enough to save a person's life.
Criminals won't carry guns openly anyway because they don't want to draw attention to themselves.
Crime will be deterred by openly carrying handguns.
Some Central Texans are in support of the petition, including Steve Garza of Pflugerville, who commutes to Killeen every day.
"I would prefer that (the law) be open carry ?," Garza said. "Open carry and concealed is a simple matter of choice."
Garza is waiting to get his concealed handgun license from the state, he said.
He believes that carrying a gun in plain view will deter criminals from attacking him or others around him because of his displayed firearm, Garza said.
But others, such as David Cheadle, a Guns Galore employee, believe otherwise.
"It takes away your advantage," Cheadle said.
A person who is determined to rob a store will see you as a threat and attack you first, Cheadle said.
Cheadle's view is shared by Lloyd Leppo, a concealed handgun instructor and owner of a gun range in Kempner.
"If a bad guy walks into an open room, I would like him not to know if there is one person, no persons or 100 persons who have a gun," Leppo said.
Another problem with carrying a gun in the open is that the gun can potentially become a weapon used by someone else against you, Cheadle said.
"There are so many people that can get to that gun," Leppo said. "How many times do we see stories of an officer getting shot with his own gun?"
While officers have a number of safety measures on their holsters and are trained in self-defense, a lot of people don't take proper precautions, Cheadle said.
A person can walk up behind someone, take the handgun and use it against that person or someone else, Cheadle said.
Another concern that Cheadle and Leppo share is that people will treat their guns like their cars.
Open carry will give people a reason to "dress up" their guns. Cheadle predicts that people will start carrying guns with diamonds on them and guns in all sorts of fancy colors.
"I know how big and gaudy the belt buckles are in this state; I can only imagine what the guns are going to be like," Leppo said.
This creates a problem because that handgun is more than likely to be shown off and possibly passed out of its holster, which increases the potential for accidental discharge, Cheadle said.
People like Edward Isenberg, owner of handgun distributor Just Glocks, aren't sure which type of law they'd prefer.
"I haven't seen the petition, but I would not for sure sign it," Isenberg said Tuesday.
For Isenberg, carrying a handgun and having it displayed openly means making a common sense judgment.
If you were hunting and had your sidearm in a holster and stopped for a sandwich, you may not take if off before eating, Isenberg said. In contrast, why would someone need to carry a handgun into a bank? he asked.
"People have really good intentions, but it all lies in how they carry," Isenberg said.
Contact Mason W. Canales at mcanales@kdhnews.com or (254) 501-7554.
Or the Second Amendment is our concealed carry permit; why should we have to enter a national database to obtain permission to exercise a God-given constitutionally-protected right?
I've heard this expressed several times and understand the intent. However, it's flawed. The 2nd Amendment "permits" nothing. On the other hand it expressly prohibits the government from infringing on our right to keep and bear (own and carry) arms.
We need to insist on the restoration of our right to open carry weapons without the requirement of government "permission" to do so. I used to be that someone NOT carrying a weapon was the exception. Let's it make it that way again.
Because bad people rob banks?
If you do [open] carry into a bank, be alert.
want.
(too.)
:)
You seem to cause a lot of trouble around here. Not too long you talked down to me and a bunch of other people because we disagreed with Darwin.
If you got piles of money, you should probably go with a Kimber. Mine is a Springfield with alterations to the trigger and better and adjustable sites. Fell in love with it in the Marine Corps.
The Second Amendment to me means that I could take public transportation into NYC (Metro North for me), with a “go” combat load: MP-5 slung around my back, dual magazines for that, with a pistol on my hip and a few extra magazines for that.
The Second Amendment also means that I could park a dual .50 in a yard for anti-air.
Also, said MP-5 would have Safe, Semi, Burst, and Full Auto. Yes, the Founders couldn’t have had a dream about today’s firearms, but the Second Amendment was written with ‘arms’ in it, not just ‘firearms’. Arms encompasses anything and everything.
And I didn’t mean that the Second Amendment, Constitution or Bill of Rights permitted anything. I’m just saying that if somebody were to ask for a permit, just say “Look at the Bill of Rights.” Something to that effect.
You must have a large frame to be able to carry a full size 1911 inside the pants without it printing.
Sounds like a good plan.
We shouldn't need a "concealed carry permit" or an "open carry permit", or even a FID/FOID. The right to keep and bear arms is the enumerated individual right that is protected.
What does a prohibition on felons carrying, or keeping for the matter, have to do with the rights of non-felons? If felons are caught with with firearms. Put them in jail..again.
It hasn't been all that long in most places that convicted felons, once they had served their full sentences, including probation time, could once again exercise their RKBA.
Federal law provides for restoration of the RKBA after serving one's sentence. Problem is that for some time Congress has prohibited spending any money on processing requests for restoration of rights.
Besides, have you seen some of the Mickey Mouse offenses that are now felonies?
Once a felon has completed the full term of his sentence, including parole and probation, why not? For the state to legitimately disarm someone for life as a consequence of a crime, lifetime disarmament (a form of probation) would have to be part of the sentence prescribed by law. There is no legitimate basis for the parts of GCA'68 add lifetime disarmament to the sentences of all crimes punishable by a year or more in prison.
and the leftists count on you thinking that #35.
then they get divorcing women to claim some abuse and they take your guns. or some other little something and they take his guns and pretty soon everyone is a felon for some little reason or other and they have taken all the guns.
So think about this, someone goes to jail and pays their time and when they get out, they DON'T have the individual right to defend themselves?????
I agree if they can't be trusted, keep them in jail otherwise they have the right to have a gun.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.