Texas law enforcement ‘skeptical and nervous’ about constitutional carry gun bill

[Zincwarrior]

I'll not resort to personal attacks, but I seriously don't get people like you that have the elitist view that a U.S. citizen needs a permit to exercise an inalienable and constitutionally protected right.

? ? ?

I typed no such thing on this thread. I don't believe anyone typed any such thing on this thread.

Arizona also an interesting take on Mexican food. I like it.

[4given]

My state has had Constitutional Carry for five or six years. Blood isn't running in the streets and crime is no worse than before. It's really a "nothing to see here" issue.

Same for Idaho. We passed Constitutional Carry in 2016 and it has worked out just fine. We still issue a standard permit and an enhanced permit if someone wants them. The enhanced permit requires additional training and features reciprocity with 38 other states.

[jh9]

https://addran.tcu.edu/history/files...ospectus-2.pdf

Yeah, Jim Crow and gun control go way back.

The problem with the permitting systems in general is that it seeks to make sure the "right sort" have and the "wrong sort" have not. It shouldn't take much imagination how anyone here could end up as the "wrong sort" depending on which way the local political winds blow. Look at NYC where the "right sort" is absolutely guaranteed to exclude you and everyone else on this board. But I bet Bloomberg and co don't have a problem making sure they (or at least their private security) get the papal dispensation needed to carry wherever they want to in the city.

"Felon in possession" is already illegal in all 50 states. That should sort out 90% of the abuses. The remainder...yeah I'd rather people at least sit through the class so an instructor can reel in the yahoos but not at the expense of that class becoming just another barrier to keeping the "wrong sort" out.

[Borderland]

Yeah, Jim Crow and gun control go way back.

The problem with the permitting systems in general is that it seeks to make sure the "right sort" have and the "wrong sort" have not. It shouldn't take much imagination how anyone here could end up as the "wrong sort" depending on which way the local political winds blow. Look at NYC where the "right sort" is absolutely guaranteed to exclude you and everyone else on this board. But I bet Bloomberg and co don't have a problem making sure they (or at least their private security) get the papal dispensation needed to carry wherever they want to in the city.

"Felon in possession" is already illegal in all 50 states. That should sort out 90% of the abuses. The remainder...yeah I'd rather people at least sit through the class so an instructor can reel in the yahoos but not at the expense of that class becoming just another barrier to keeping the "wrong sort" out.

Then the state should pay for the class to make sure there is no financial burden for anyone. What do you think the chances are of that happening? My feeling is states are moving away from the permitting process because of the financial burden on them that has no law enforcement/public safety benefit. Some states have studied this before moving to permit less concealed carry. They just don't want to fund it anymore even with user fees. A substantial part of the cost is to the tax payer.

[GyroF-16]

I might point out that there is no provision in any federal code for people who carry concealed to be permitted. Granted, there are some restrictions but no permitting process.

This mindset absolutely turns the concept of liberty on its head.

In our system of government, laws are passed to PROHIBIT certain behaviors, not to PERMIT certain things.
One does not need the PERMISSION of the government to do things.
The federal government has certainly grown beyond what the Founders envisioned, but we aren’t yet at the point where citizens need to start by asking whether they have permission to do things.

ETA - Or, did I misunderstand, and this was what you were saying?

[Borderland]

This mindset absolutely turns the concept of liberty on its head.

In our system of government, laws are passed to PROHIBIT certain behaviors, not to PERMIT certain things.
One does not need the PERMISSION of the government to do things.
The federal government has certainly grown beyond what the Founders envisioned, but we aren’t yet at the point where citizens need to start by asking whether they have permission to do things.

ETA - Or, did I misunderstand, and this was what you were saying?

States are able to shelve carry permits because there is no federal law that says it's illegal to carry without a permit, as it should be. In reality, some states see no reason to do anything except what the federal code calls for regarding firearms.

[Borderland]

deleted......

[Hot Sauce]

Mobile, AL sheriff fires State lawmaker because of his support for Constitutional Carry

[Sheriff Sam Cochran's spokesman] told AL.com that State Rep. Shane Stringer's sponsorship of legislation supportive of constitutional carry ran afoul of the Sheriff’s views on the issue.

Stringer has also backed legislation forbidding state and local law enforcement agencies from enforcing new federal gun laws or executive orders, which has been a concern among law enforcement personnel as well.

[Wendell]

Mobile, AL sheriff fires State lawmaker because of his support for Constitutional Carry

I wonder whether that'll come back to bite the Sheriff (come election time).

[AKDoug]

I wonder whether that'll come back to bite the Sheriff (come election time).

It might if the guy that he fired runs against him.