Texas gun laws

[krAzykrAkr01]

Tue Mar 27, 2007

By Ed Stoddard

DALLAS (Reuters) - Criminals in Texas beware: if you threaten someone in their car or office, the citizens of this state where guns are ubiquitous have the right to shoot you dead.

Governor Rick Perry's office said on Tuesday that he had signed a new law that expands Texans' existing right to use deadly force to defend themselves "without retreat" in their homes, cars and workplaces.

"The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human nature," Perry said on his Web site.

The new law, which takes affect on September 1, extends an exception to a statute that required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal attack. The exception was in the case of an intruder unlawfully entering a person's home.

The law extends a person's right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force, the governor's office said.

The reasonable use of lethal force will be allowed if an intruder is:

- Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes
- Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place
- Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.

The law also provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully slays an intruder or attacker in such situations.

Texas joins several other states including Florida that have or are considering similar laws.

Sympathy for violent offenders and criminals in general runs low in Texas, underscored by its busy death row. The state leads the United States in executions with 388 since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976 by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A conservative political outlook and widespread fondness for hunting also means Texans are a well-armed people capable of defending themselves with deadly force.

It is easy to acquire guns over the counter in Texas and lawful to carry a concealed handgun with a permit.

Damn I love Texas.

[krAzykrAkr01]

Don't go off half-cocked on 'open-carry' law

The push for a new "open-carry" law in Texas officially launches Tuesday. Brace yourself for a gun fight, coming to a radio station near you in a peppy "We don't hide our colors, do we?" ad campaign.

It would be heresy – on both sides of this contentious debate – to suggest that allowing duly licensed handgun owners in the Lone Star State to openly display their sidearms probably wouldn't make an appreciable difference in life as we now know it.

People won't be much more likely than they already are to shoot each other over 11 items in the 10-or-less supermarket express line, as those who favor gun limitations may be relied upon to predict.

On the other hand, we're not going to make crime evaporate by visibly packing heat, as the gun lobbies so wishfully expect. They love to talk about the deterrent effect of guns-for-the-good-guys, but if criminals were really that risk-averse, they'd be in a different line of work

And statistics suggest that Texas' decade-old law allowing residents to carry concealed weapons did not lead to mayhem. Department of Public Safety records of conviction rates for handgun license holders show that in 2006 – the last available accounting year – legal gun owners were accountable for barely two-tenths of a percent of all felony convictions.

Moreover, Texas is one of few states that doesn't allow legal gun owners to carry them openly. Some states require people with guns to carry them where everybody can see them.

So when you get right down to it, as a matter of safety and practicality, open-carry probably isn't a dramatic departure from what Texas law already permits.

Damn I love Texas.

[buckshot]

I'm all for gun rights and concealed carry, but open carry is a mistake.

Open carry could be considered a threat, especially when having a spirited debate - if it's two strangers debating one may loose their right to free speach based on open carry threat.

Body language is a big deal.

Walk softly and carry a big stick.  But you don't need to wear it on your hip... POWER TRIPPIN'

[krAzykrAkr01]

But you don't need to wear it on your hip... POWER TRIPPIN'

Power Trippin'? You mean like someone deciding what someone else does or don't need? I think that's what they're trying to get rid of. You don't HAVE to carry one, but if you want to, you should be able to. Open or Concealed.

[ScoutSniper]

I'm for open carry, and should be the right of the individual.  However, there should me more manditory training other than CHL training.  CHL training is no different than hunter safety.  And any yahoo can take the class and pass it.  With manditory training, and hours of on-site, first hand instruction from a trained military personell or Law Enforcement officer should be strickly enforced.  They are specifically trained on how to protect that weapon in a struggle.  It would not be cheap, but for those with the means should have the oppurtunity to participate in the training.  Law Enforcement cannot be everywhere and everyone has the inabliable right to protect Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.   

If someone gets into a heated debate and cannot control the temper and wants to draw a weapon, they can do it today with a CHL.  Most that go through those classes are somewhat responsible citizens and know take responsibility for their actions.  Even with a CHL, if you shoot someone you still get arrested and detained and go to trial to prove your innocence.  It would not be like the old west, where people turn the other check.  And just let the shooting go unattested. 

And with a required training test and psyc eval, for mental stability would be strictly enforced.  If you cannot pass that test, you should never have the right to own a weapon.

I see it as criminals should be stopped, and we should all have the right to stop them.  Maybe the criminals would think twice about fuckin around and taking things that don't belong to them.  Also, a criminal will have the weapon that is not registered, and never hesitates to pull the weapon at the drop of a hat.  Well with the right to openly carry, they may think twice.

[krAzykrAkr01]

Well with the right to openly carry, they may think twice.

They WOULD think twice.

[buckshot]

Just standing accross the street from someone wearing a gun hangin' off your hip and looking in their general direction could be considered a threat.  Staring someone down while wearing a visible handgun, that's lame and crazy. 

Keep in mind that concealing the pistol doesn't make it go away so that you can't use it, it only takes away any threat of physical violence one might inflict on another.

One should not issue threats, one should act (or not act).

If you have the power, why flaunt it - to scare others?  That's called terroristic.

We in Texas can be gentleman, we can carry concealed handguns, we can protect ourselves, and we don't have to walk around scaring the shit out of everyone unnessacaraly.

[ScoutSniper]

And that person taking that as a threat has a major issue mentally.  They can do that today, even with or without a CHL. 

Some people know how to practice restraint and only pull weapons at a time of dire necessity.

Terroristic, I think you need to review the definition of Terroristic.  No where is it ever terroristic for me to show a weapon.  Carrying a large clipped pocket knife, is that terroristic, that's carried in the open.  And more people are killed from knife cuts then gun shot wounds.

U may want to do a little more reading on websters before making statements about terrorism.  Showing a weapon in plan view is more of a deturant than a threat. 

So you think that because someone wears a weapon in plan sight, people are more apted to get froggy?  That's the funniest thing I have ever heard, and sounds no different than fear mongoring.  And what people fear, they don't want.  So lets restrict law abiding citizens rights because somebody has a fear of what might happen.  That sounds no different then the federal government and the church at it's best.

If I have the power, it's not to scare others, it's to post a warning, you do something illegal, or put my life in physical danger, you better think twice.  I am trained, I have a weapon, you see it, I don't wanna use it, but I will to protect myself, my home, my family, and property.

Do you think that a criminal that is intent on robbing, rapping, killing, will target those with a weapon in plain sight?  Nope, they go for the weak.  Those that are afraid of showing weapons, OH NO WHAT WILL THE KIDS THINK.  That's the logic that has got this country into the mess it's in.   

We don't fear law enforcement, they carry weapons on the outside in plain view?  Why is that, cause we are conditioned to fell safe around them.  It's easy to get a fake badge and a fake uniform.  Go online, real easy.  All of a sudden, you are a respected individual? 

Think about it, before going off and making statements about terroristic acts, they don't call the early pistol a peacemaker for nothing LOL.  And go read Websters regarding terroristic.  In this day and age, the word terrorism is thrown out way to often to justify way too many fears.  Welcome to the second coming of Christianity, the way of great floods and tribulation is on the forefront, run, everyone run, the gun totters are coming.   

Gentleman, I find humor in that, there is no sense of the word gentleman in a criminals mind when he want's your things or is dead set on killing.  Screw that, I'll carry and one less criminal will exist.  It's not my right to judge, it's Gods if you believe in that fairy tale, but I'll damn sure arrange the meeting, if you feel froggy.

[buckshot]

Of course, that is your opinion as ridiculas as it may be - and you are entitled to it.

So go now and fight your fight.  Get out and vote and protest and start some action to get your right to carry (that you already have).

Arguing about the definition of terror is sophmoric and there is no percentage in engaing you in that.

I'm guessing you're a little guy who was roughed up in school a bit as a child and now would like to feel like a big bad ass and carry your gun on your hip.  A pistol is absolutely threatening, and can terrify.  And should only be brought out when one needs to use it. 

Comparing law enforcement with citizens is a false anaolgy, in their case that pistol on their hip is a nessacary part of their uniform - stating that one can obtain a fake badge and uniform makes no difference.  Cops are second class citizens, so they really need to have the side arm.

And that is my opionin and I'm entitled to it.

[buckshot]

Do you think that a criminal that is intent on robbing, rapping, killing, will target those with a weapon in plain sight?  Nope, they go for the weak.  Those that are afraid of showing weapons, OH NO WHAT WILL THE KIDS THINK.  That's the logic that has got this country into the mess it's in.

WELL YES, yes I do think "that a criminal that is intent on robbing, raping, killing will target those with a weapon in plain sight", A criminal up to no good will see the guy with the side arm and take him out first - thus neutrilizing the THREAT to finishing his crime and getting away.

[buckshot]

No where is it ever terroristic for me to show a weapon.

That is so wrong on so many levels, here are a few:

1. Court
2. Parks including six flags, water parks, family parks
3. Public Schools
4. Law Offices (can you imagine divorce proceedings - guy leans in with hand on gun and says, no honey - I GET THE HOUSE AND DOG)
5. Government Facillities including the DMV, tax office
6. Anywhere large crowds gather including concerts and State Fairs and events
7. A funeral
8. At a parade
9. Little league...LMFAO (parents are already fist fighting)

Now you might write back and qualify your statement, but remember, those are your words not mine:

No where is it ever terroristic for me to show a weapon.

[ScoutSniper]

Yeah genious, You think that everyone that carries is weak, you don't know me, and that is alway a weak arguement passed by someone that fears something.  I don't carry cause I fear, I carry to detour and protect.   A gun is not an extention or componsation as you bleeding hearts all like to argue.  Sorry to say, I was never roughed up, nor picked on.  I'm confident in my own physical strength to know I'm not worried about some other individual.  I think that you that fear the gun may have been roughed up a little.  And think cause someone carries is a bully and weak.  I think most bullies are weak.

Arguing a definition is sophmoric, did you receive higher education?  College degree? 

1: a state of intense fear
2 a: one that inspires fear : scourge b: a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c: a cause of anxiety : worry d: an appalling person or thing ; especially : brat
3: reign of terror
4: violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>

terroristic is someone intent in frighting or causing intense fear in someone for control.  People that carry weapons legally do so to insight fear or a state of intense fear. 

Your reference to little league, and other events.  If you did your homework, there are already laws in place restricting weapons from businesses, and other events as you list, under the current CHL laws.  And those laws would remain.  A criminal can do it today if they want.  As for parents fighting at games, yup, there are idiots in this world, and we will continue to have idiots.  But those are the same people that fight against open carry cause they are in fear of someone actually protecting themselves.  They no longer have the power.  And those individuals don't exhibit restraint.  And if they carried and got into an altercation even today, say goodbye to dear ol dad.  They will be visiting them at your state pen.  By the way your list with my Qoute, doesn't represent terror, majority of them are  a list of places even today you are not permitted to carry a weapon. 

It's funny to me cause you list represents a fear in our society that all men are evil in nature and are intent on killing. 

Again with training and strict enforcement, and retesting constantly on accuracy, restraint, control, and protection of that weapon at all costs, would have to be no doubt regulated and required.  You must think cause all of a sudden someone has a right to carry a weapon openly, would cause everyone to just start pulling weapons freely at the drop of a hat?  Do you see that today with CHL?  NOPE.  They are law abiding citizens and know the repercutions of pulling and discharging a weapon. 

I beg to differ that law enforcement are second class citizens.  I don't always agree with every law on the book, but they are doing their job to protect you when you fear for your life when the criminal that pulls a gun on you and you can't do anything about it.   And why not help law enforcement protect you, and your opinion. At what point do law abiding citizen take back the streets from thugs and criminals that don't care about anybody else but themselves.  As far as a weapon a necessary part of the uniform, compare england, most police there do not carry side arms. And crime rate is growing, because they felt that a presence of a weapon would cause fear.  Well the criminals dang sure don't fear them.

As for the reference of the criminal targeting the person with a gun first, that is definitly a risk, however, multiple people in the same area carrying a gun in plain view, sorry criminal may get one, but there would be one dead criminal.  I would be the first to admit there are pro's and con's to every side of a debate.  And as you say, everyone is entitle to their opinion, but also everyone is entitled to their protection as they see fit.  Back to the right to protect person and property.

And a few dead criminals makes it safer for those that fear law abiding citizens that carry a weapon in plain view.

All you keep saying is it would lead to a higher crime rate.
Statistics show otherwise:

And statistics suggest that Texas' decade-old law allowing residents to carry concealed weapons did not lead to mayhem. Department of Public Safety records of conviction rates for handgun license holders show that in 2006 – the last available accounting year – legal gun owners were accountable for barely two-tenths of a percent of all felony convictions.

Moreover, Texas is one of few states that doesn't allow legal gun owners to carry them openly. Some states require people with guns to carry them where everybody can see them.

So when you get right down to it, as a matter of safety and practicality, open-carry probably isn't a dramatic departure from what Texas law already permits.

Edited by: krAzykrAkr01
Reason: Added quote around excerpt from article because we all know what unquoted quotes can start around here. LMAO

[buckshot]

I’d bet that I do know you.

You wrote:

People that carry weapons legally do so to insight fear or a state of intense fear.

This argument is only true when referring to those with open carry, not concealed.  I believe that one with intent to insight fear or a state of intense fear, in this case, is not a dutiful citizen but rather a coward.

In other words, if you need to use your gun, shoot straight.  If not, put it away out of sight (I’m referring to citizens, not cops or soldiers).

------------------

You wrote:

If you did your homework, there are already laws in place restricting weapons from businesses, and other events as you list, under the current CHL laws

And that was to change or backtrack from what you wrote earlier:

No where is it ever terroristic for me to show a weapon

So where exactly would you allow open carry, the public sidewalk when walking your dog, or maybe the public park or sports fields?

---------------------

It is regrettable that you cannot comprehend my point of view.  Let me provide examples:

I began my thread to this post by writing “I'm all for gun rights and concealed carry, but open carry is a mistake.”  So your writing that I:

1. “…think that everyone that carries is weak…”
2. “…A gun is not an extention or componsation as you bleeding hearts all like to argue.”
3. “It's funny to me cause you list represents a fear in our society that all men are evil in nature and are intent on killing.”
4. “You must think cause all of a sudden someone has a right to carry a weapon openly, would cause everyone to just start pulling weapons freely at the drop of a hat…”
5. “…everyone is entitled to their protection as they see fit”
6. “All you keep saying is it would lead to a higher crime rate"

is not understanding what I think at all (we’re writing about threats and terrorizing not killing or higher crime rates).  Also, you are not entitled to your protection as you see fit (you aren’t allowed to own bio warefare weapons, nuclear weapons, tanks, etc. etc. etc.)


--------------------------------

You wrote:

I beg to differ that law enforcement are second class citizens.

 

Again, you are misunderstanding me, so let me explain:

1. Cops are sworn to uphold the law.  Every law. Whether they like it or not.  For example:  They may believe speeding is okay, but they are still supposed to stop and ticket those who speed.  And they themselves must follow the law.  Or, they may not believe in the ability of seatbelts to save lives, but they have to wear one anyway because it is the law.

2. On the other hand, you as a citizen are obligated to break laws you feel are unjust.  It’s your civic duty.  Like Rosa Parks on the bus, or Ghandi standing up for what he believes in.  Or MLK Jr. supporting the garbage truck workers.  Or how about the Boston Tea Party... All of these are examples of citizens breaking laws for the good of society.  And cops can’t do that, so that makes them second class citizens since they must enforce our laws.

-------------------------

You wrote:

As for the reference of the criminal targeting the person with a gun first, that is definitly a risk, however, multiple people in the same area carrying a gun in plain view, sorry criminal may get one, but there would be one dead criminal.

So glad you are coming around to my way of thinking, a bit slow though ‘cause now you’re basing your argument on multiple people with guns on their hips just standing around waiting to blow away the bad guy.  In your imagination of this scenario, can you really believe a crook would engage the crowd without sidearms while knowing our current CHL laws?  I’m betting any punk would move on to an easier target.  So then, can you see now that with a concealed gun we have a better chance of killing the punk?

-----------------------

You wrote:

And a few dead criminals makes it safer for those that fear law abiding citizens that carry a weapon in plain view.

Do you really believe any hardened criminal will fear you just ‘cause you have a gun on your hip?  We know it’s not enough to have a gun, one must know how to use it.  Criminals know this too.  So now you realize that the only ones you are putting in fear are our women, children, and gentlemen.

---------------------

You wrote:

Some states require people with guns to carry them where everybody can see them

And if you do your homework you’ll learn those same states have laws against disturbing the peace (so on the hip in city limits can be illegal, as can carrying a knife on the hip, and this has been enforced)

-----------------------

You quoted the article: “So when you get right down to it, as a matter of safety and practicality, open-carry probably isn't a dramatic departure from what Texas law already permits.”

So with great personal gun protection laws already in place, why then would one suggest threatening and scaring the hell out of the public by allowing open carry?

------------------

Anyway, if you want to carry a sidearm so damn bad and you believe the current law is not good, please begin doing your civic duty by carrying your sidearm.  It could get a lot of press, and that could open up this debate to many more people.  Just please keep in mind, while it is true we must every day fight for our freedoms or they will be taken away, it is also true that fanatical changes to our current law as you describe could hurt our gun lobby and our fight for rights more so than help.

In conclusion I am a firm believer in the second amendment which as you know defines our right to bear arms.  I also believe, (as you pointed out in the article and so therefore I presume you now agree) that we can protect ourselves sufficiently without open carry and therefore without terrorizing anyone.

[krAzykrAkr01]

So with great personal gun protection laws already in place, why then would one suggest threatening and scaring the hell out of the public by allowing open carry?

Progress. LMAO

What is so goddamn scary about someone carrying a gun openly?

[buckshot]

Consider asking someone who's been a victim of gun violence...

But first please answer the question, where would you allow open carry?