Texans can now openly carry guns in public without a permit or training

[mike2810]

Police say the new law makes it harder to do their jobs​

Texans can now openly carry guns in public without a permit or training. Police say the new law makes it harder to do their jobs | CNN

A new pro-gun law in Texas that went into effect Wednesday allows most Texans who legally own a firearm to carry it openly in public without obtaining a permit or training, a measure that experts say will make it more challenging for law enforcement to protect the public from gun violence.

www.cnn.com

I guess guns are less dangerous than cars.

Arizona has been open carry without a permit for decades.

 

[Rucker61]

Only because they are outlawed. That can easily be arranged for AR 15s as well.

AR-15s are bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes, and under Heller and Caetano, protected by the Second Amendment.

 

[TurtleDude]

What does safety have to do with the constitution? Just tell us it’s more dangerous, and we just have to live with all the death and bloodshed because you want to keep applying 18th century laws dealing with 18th century technology to the modern world.

AR 15s have been available for about 60 years to private citizens.

Do you think the first amendment should apply to the internet and television?

the fact is-lefties want to push gun bans because they perceive serious gun owners as the enemy. They see AR 15s as firearms that serious gun owners own and thus want to ban them

 

[Rucker61]

What does safety have to do with the constitution? Just tell us it’s more dangerous, and we just have to live with all the death and bloodshed because you want to keep applying 18th century laws dealing with 18th century technology to the modern world.

Cars are 60 times more dangerous than buses. Can we ban them?

Here's How Much Safer Transit Is Compared to Driving — Streetsblog USA

Keep this in mind the next time a high-profile train crash generates more press coverage than a year’s worth of car wrecks: Despite the media sensationalism and overwrought regulatory responses that follow such events, transit is already a lot safer than driving. Looking at traffic fatalities...

usa.streetsblog.org

 

[ataraxia]

Be more specific.

Why? It’s not just cars. Are you saying you know of any potentially dangerous equipment or chemicals without any regulations on their manufacture and sale?

 

[Rucker61]

Why? It’s not just cars. Are you saying you know of any potentially dangerous equipment or chemicals without any regulations on their manufacture and sale?

Guns have use regulations. You're comparing use restrictions on cars to ownership restrictions on AR-15s.

 

[ataraxia]

AR 15s have been available for about 60 years to private citizens.

Do you think the first amendment should apply to the internet and television?

the fact is-lefties want to push gun bans because they perceive serious gun owners as the enemy. They see AR 15s as firearms that serious gun owners own and thus want to ban them

Serious car drivers do not drive seriously on the interstate. That’s what private tracks are for.

If serious gun owners want to be serious about their hobby, they can do so on specially designated ranges.

 

[beerftw]

Criminals fear armed citizens more than anything-more than cops, more than the death penalty or toe-tag paroles. Needless to say, criminals-and their supporters-love laws that disarm honest citizens

Truthfully going back to ancient times and even up to ww2, crime was very rare compared to today, even the wild west was tame compared to today.

The reason being crime was punished and heavily, stealing could result in a hand being chopped off, or even hanging, rape was a hanging or their balls chopped off, damage to someones property was dealt with by forcing hard labor to repair said damage.

Now a days a rapist may get more time than a murderor but stll get a fairly lenient sentence, murdering someone might get you 10-15 years if you have a decent lawyer, and no time at all if you have a high dollar lawyer, theft gets you almost no time at all. Crime becomes rampant because those claiming to be progressive or humanitarian try and protect criminals from punishment, problem is most of mankinds existence crimes were punished in an extreme manner, but people could leave their doors unlocked and their possessions in the open as the hefty punishment deterred most criminals except the most extreme of them, rather than today where you can get out of prison or serve almost no time for doing major crimes.

 

[Rucker61]

Serious car drivers do not drive seriously on the interstate. That’s what private tracks are for.

If “serious gun owners want to be serious about their hobby, they can do it on specially designated ranges.

Or private property. But that's not what "assault weapons" bans state.

 

[ataraxia]

Cars are 60 times more dangerous than buses. Can we ban them?

Here's How Much Safer Transit Is Compared to Driving — Streetsblog USA

Keep this in mind the next time a high-profile train crash generates more press coverage than a year’s worth of car wrecks: Despite the media sensationalism and overwrought regulatory responses that follow such events, transit is already a lot safer than driving. Looking at traffic fatalities...

usa.streetsblog.org

Many types of cars and buses are already banned. There are many requirements for a vehicle to be street legal, and many laws for where and how they are to be operated. That’s true of all potentially dangerous equipment.

 

[Rucker61]

Many types of cars and buses are already banned. There are many requirements for a vehicle to be street legal, and many laws for where and how they are to be operated. That’s true of all potentially dangerous equipment.

I could build a totally street illegal car in my garage, haul it on a trailer all around town openly, and drive it to my heart's content on private property. If I were a criminal, I'd just drive it on the street.

Banning firearms prevents legal ownership, regardless of if I intend to use it in legal ways.

See the difference?

 

[TurtleDude]

Many types of cars and buses are already banned. There are many requirements for a vehicle to be street legal, and many laws for where and how they are to be operated. That’s true of all potentially dangerous equipment.

why would civilian police be issued dangerous equipment for use in our neighborhoods. where in the Second Amendment does "dangerous" somehow empower the federal government?

 

[TurtleDude]

Serious car drivers do not drive seriously on the interstate. That’s what private tracks are for.

If serious gun owners want to be serious about their hobby, they can do so on specially designated ranges.

where do you think lawful gun owners shoot their firearms? when you talk about cars-its a silly comparison because no cars are banned. Some are limited where you can use them and firearms certainly can be limited where they are used. You want actually ban people from owning them

 

[Hamish Howl]

And probably had liberal control at the time, better late than never

Liberal control of what?

This is Arizona. Even the hippies are strapped.

 

[Hamish Howl]

AR 15s have been available for about 60 years to private citizens.

Do you think the first amendment should apply to the internet and television?

the fact is-lefties want to push gun bans because they perceive serious gun owners as the enemy. They see AR 15s as firearms that serious gun owners own and thus want to ban them

Yeah, but if you go far enough left, you get your guns back.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yeah, but if you go far enough left, you get your guns back.

Explain

 

[Hamish Howl]

Explain

 

[TurtleDude]

View attachment 67351937

maybe its getting too late in the evening for me to get your point-I will try again in the morning

 

[Hamish Howl]

maybe its getting too late in the evening for me to get your point-I will try again in the morning

 

[Linuxcooldude]

That's a Court's interpretation of the Amendment, it's not what the Amendment says. Another Supreme Court can come along and interpret it differently. The present Supreme Court can overturn Roe v. Wade come May.

Again with another "The Supreme Court got it wrong" argument. Another Supreme Court?!? There is only one Supreme Court and nearly all of their rulings make your interpretations of the 2A incorrect.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

I want you to tell us what your interpretation of the second amendment is, since you seem to reject the one that the courts have offered.

Rather from multiple cases he's ignoring.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

They're already banned.

Not quite. People can get special license to own such weapons. Although at an expense and a lot of paperwork.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

I disagree. A 21-year-old running around Texas strapped without the requirement of a permit or any safety training goes against common sense. That's all I want. Does the Constitution say I need a law degree from Yale to have a reasonable opinion?

Now you're moving in a different direction. It was initially about the 2A, which you now go on to the current Constitutional Carry in Texas.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Weapons technology has been the game changer. We already infringe on your right to nuclear arms. Unconstitutional?

As per the Heller ruling, nuclear weapons are not in common usage by the general public. As usual with most anti-gunners, they use semantics rather than fact based arguments.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Only because they are outlawed. That can easily be arranged for AR 15s as well.

AR-15's are in common usage for lawful purposes...failed again.