Texas Gun Carry Legislation

Texas House Approves Bill That Would Allow People To Carry A Gun Without A License

... so long as they are legally able to possess a firearm.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/te...?ocid=msedgdhp

Welcome to Texas U.S. citizens.

I like this Bill Passed in Texas, All this Government welfare money for the great GOP state of Texas......

https://www.washingtonpost.com/healt...medicaid-plan/

Care to discuss your welfare state of Texas trying to Con the Fed out of 100 Billion Dollars.

Must need the healthcare to patch up all the bad guys with guns being shot by the good guys with guns, for all these new concealed carry gun owners.

Why collect State taxes from the people who spend the money, just beg the federal government for the money, like responsible GOP run States.

Texas House Approves Bill That Would Allow People To Carry A Gun Without A License

... so long as they are legally able to possess a firearm.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/te...?ocid=msedgdhp

Welcome to Texas U.S. citizens. Originally Posted by LexusLover

I think every State should do the same. I think there should be more restrictions on who gets a Drivers License and Car Dealerships should do extensive background checks on individuals trying to buy a car. There's more idiots out there behind the wheel of a car than there is carrying a firearm.

I think every State should do the same. I think there should be more restrictions on who gets a Drivers License and Car Dealerships should do extensive background checks on individuals trying to buy a car. There's more idiots out there behind the wheel of a car than there is carrying a firearm. Originally Posted by Levianon17

just ban cars and go back to horse and buggy.

yea, a car accident death has a lot of variables...
age, driving experience
seat belt, no seat belt
follow the speed limit, not follow it
driving a safe vehicle, driving unsafe vehicle
sober vs drunk - 33% fatalities are drug/alcohol related (10,000 out of 35,000)

If the cars in good shape, a person wears a seatbelt and follows the laws for speed, and sober driving. I would think violent gun murders out weight freak legal car driving fatalities.

car accidents are random, gun murder isnt very random.

I disagree with the view of car fatalities to gun fatalities.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/healt...medicaid-plan/

Care to discuss your welfare state of Texas trying to Con the Fed out of 100 Billion Dollars. Originally Posted by bf0082

This is reminiscent of your posts in the "CEOs say higher taxes makes them less competitive" thread, where it seems like you're living in an alternate reality. What I get out of the link is that Biden is going to screw Texas out of $11 billion a year. Texans are paying federal taxes just like New Yorkers, but won't get their share of Medicaid benefits. I guess that's what happens to red states when Democratic politicians control the Senate, the House and the presidency.

just ban cars and go back to horse and buggy.

yea, a car accident death has a lot of variables...
age, driving experience
seat belt, no seat belt
follow the speed limit, not follow it
driving a safe vehicle, driving unsafe vehicle
sober vs drunk - 33% fatalities are drug/alcohol related (10,000 out of 35,000)

If the cars in good shape, a person wears a seatbelt and follows the laws for speed, and sober driving. I would think violent gun murders out weight freak legal car driving fatalities.

car accidents are random, gun murder isnt very random.

I disagree with the view of car fatalities to gun fatalities. Originally Posted by bf0082

I never implied the idea of banning cars. I don't believe we should ban Guns either. Ones a right the other is a privilege. I just think we should put more regulation on the privilege more than on the right. Incidentally three times more people are killed each year in traffic fatalities than are killed by firearms. So you have a much greater chance of being killed in a random car accident than you do in a planned shooting.

So how will the Progressive-Liberal-Left find this law to be "Racist"?

This is reminiscent of your posts in the "CEOs say higher taxes makes them less competitive" thread, where it seems like you're living in an alternate reality. What I get out of the link is that Biden is going to screw Texas out of $11 billion a year. Texans are paying federal taxes just like New Yorkers, but won't get their share of Medicaid benefits. I guess that's what happens to red states when Democratic politicians control the Senate, the House and the presidency. Originally Posted by Tiny

So that is your world view....if the dems control almost everything then the republicans should feel pain. That pretty damn fucked up you know. I notice that the GOP is not accused of doing the same thing.

The first part of The Second Amendment has long been a point of discussion (". ..well regulated militia . . .security of the state . . .." etc), but the second part has been upheld as a personal right by SCOTUS. This last clause explicitly states " . . .shall not be infringed". I have always felt that the comparison with the free speech example about shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater was and is misapplied in the firearms debate to justify infringement.

The parallel with prohibiting starting a panic by yelling "Fire!" is not the possession of firearms. Rather the parallel is; not using firearms for any purpose other than self defense or hunting. Note that The Second Amendment does not say anything about hunting .

Note that The Second Amendment does not say anything about hunting . Originally Posted by ICU 812

Nor does it say anything about "self-defense"!

A problem with implying a launder list protected "justifications" for the carrying of a firearm is that it invites redefinitions and prohibited purposes that are not enumerated.

Some recent LoonaTicks have been suggesting that the character of the firearm allowed for citizens to possess should be defined by the time the amendment was crafted ..... muskets. Only a Nazis-style government would suggest such an idea ...

... with the future goal of flocking the loyal opposition to the ovens.

With the current batch of LoonaTicks suggesting the passing of oppressive laws one should be advised to read what they propose carefully and generally ignore what they say .... because they are lying almost 100%.

For the most part these are same people that passed ObaminableCare without reading it ... they say .... while proclaiming it didn't authorize health insurance for illegal aliens. When one turns the decision making and enforcement of the provisions of a statute to a LoonaTick Secretary of ____________ (name of department created for that purpose) ... who desires no one to possess firearms for ANY REASON ... then you know what the result will be.....these idiots will send out Census Takers to collect firearms.

Here's the current Texas basic firearm law:

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun; and

(2) is not:

(A) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or

(B) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:

(1) the handgun is in plain view, unless the person is licensed to carry a handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and the handgun is carried in a shoulder or belt holster; or

(2) the person is:

(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic or boating;

(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or

(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

I never implied the idea of banning cars. Originally Posted by Levianon17

In the Houston metro area my belief is that probably about 25% of the folks driving around do not have a valid, current driver's license. And that's probably an underestimation.

Another 25% shouldn't have one at all, if they do.

My attitude has slightly changed recently. A family member has bought a gun. She lied on form 4437. She's an alcoholic. She received deferred adjudication on two DWIs and one vehicular manslaughter. She supposedly been diagnosed with a mental disorder although I haven't seen a written diagnosis.

The shop she bought the gun at didn't immediately approve her but told her to come in two days later to pay for and pick up the gun.

She did. She should not have access to a fire arm.

Again, I don't believe the govt is doing a good job of verifying a lot of the information on the form. You can't buy a motorcycle in TX without a motorcycle license. Something similar should be involved with a gun.

Gnad, with respect to the government's "job" with deferred adjudications on those offenses one has to determine if they were in fact reported into the system as "deferred adjudications" so that they would be picked up by a search. I haven't looked in awhile, but I believe the Feds count deferred as a conviction (they do for everything else!), but those may have been misdemeaner "convictions" ....

... motorcyle license?

Does Lucas McClain have a motor cycle license? He's got 37 military style firearms!

A concern I have with recent efforts is along the lines of a subjective determination of someone's mental capacity to possess a firearm along with classifying firearms as a "health risk" and subjecting people's houses to an "inspection" to determine if there are any "health risks" in their residence .... the possession of a firearm is even creeping into insurance applications and medical personnel data basis from the Obaminable period ... (Bitten was a part of it) ... there was even the "floating" of the idea that no one receiving medicare and/or social security would be allowed to possess a firearm! Those are the kind of things that are "bothersome"~ to me at least!

Dove tail to that the suggestion that spouses, family, members, coworkers, and/or neighbors can report someone to the LE (I assume .. unless they regulate a "reporting agency" into existence) as having a firearm and being "unstable" or "mentally handicapped" that then authorizes LE to search and find the weapon and retain it until the accused proves they are mental competent and not a danger! Due Process? Fourth amendment? Equal protection? Ex-wives and ex-girlfriends?

The government of Mexico doesn't do a very good job of restricting possession.....unless you are crossing into the country and hesitate about "tipping" the customs officer! There seems to be a lot of heavy weapons owned and possessed by nefarious individuals down there!

So that is your world view....if the dems control almost everything then the republicans should feel pain. That pretty damn fucked up you know. I notice that the GOP is not accused of doing the same thing. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

If you think that's MY view of the way the world should work, you're living in an alternate reality too. Either that or you need to go back to 3rd grade and brush up on reading comprehension.

You forgot to put up your sarcasm sign.