Hearing For Constitutional Carry

[Dagobert II]

HUGE HB 375 CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY UPDATE:
The Homeland Security & Public Safety Committee is setting HB 375 for a public hearing on Tuesday, March 28th at 8:00am!
Visible grassroots support is the largest part of our plan to make this legislation a reality. We encourage everyone to come and register "for" the bill and/or give their own testimony. If you plan to speak, let us know ASAP. Give us a call at (512) 463-0522 or send an email to votestickland@gmail.com

[Ludwig]

I am against this Bill, although not against "Constitutional Carry." The reason I oppose the Bill is because it is unnecessary and by supporting HB-375 we are given tacit ascent to the State having the right to control the application of our Constitutional rights. If Texas really want "Constitutional Carry" for its citizens then all they have to do is rescind all previous laws and regulations dealing with our right to carry.

[Dagobert II]

I am against this Bill, although not against "Constitutional Carry." The reason I oppose the Bill is because it is unnecessary and by supporting HB-375 we are given tacit ascent to the State having the right to control the application of our Constitutional rights. If Texas really want "Constitutional Carry" for its citizens then all they have to do is rescind all previous laws and regulations dealing with our right to carry. True. Ideally we'd be amending the Texas constitution to recognize that the state, county and municipal governments, under the 14th amendment to the US constitution, are bound by the 2d amendment to the US constitution and have no authority to infringe upon the people's right to keep and bear arms unrelated to any person's affiliation with a militia or that militia's affiliation with any government entity.

[Mestral]

While Dagobert and Ludwig are right, in theory, it is much like saying all that is necessary to get to the moon is to ignore Earth gravity.

We all have the right to carry, licensed or not, with or without this law.
In theory.

There is an old saying in engineering that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.

We already know we have a plethora of people in "positions of authority" who have no sense of history and are unable to understand the plain text of the Constitution. In fact we have a couple of them on this forum. The one I just killfiled has reminded that laws like this are not meant to give me the liberty I already have, but to restrict dimwitted public servants who think they have extra rights because they have a badge or a title.

We need to restrict them as much as necessary so that we never again have to rise up and kill a whole lot of them, as we did many years ago.

Hence, I support the law.

[mac]

I am against this Bill, although not against "Constitutional Carry." The reason I oppose the Bill is because it is unnecessary and by supporting HB-375 we are given tacit ascent to the State having the right to control the application of our Constitutional rights. If Texas really want "Constitutional Carry" for its citizens then all they have to do is rescind all previous laws and regulations dealing with our right to carry.

isn't that exactly what HB-375 does?....I'm pretty sure that the only way to rescind a bad law is to pass a new law that does the rescinding....mac

[Dagobert II]

While Dagobert and Ludwig are right, in theory, it is much like saying all that is necessary to get to the moon is to ignore Earth gravity.

We all have the right to carry, licensed or not, with or without this law.
In theory.

There is an old saying in engineering that, in theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is.

We already know we have a plethora of people in "positions of authority" who have no sense of history and are unable to understand the plain text of the Constitution. In fact we have a couple of them on this forum. The one I just killfiled has reminded that laws like this are not meant to give me the liberty I already have, but to restrict dimwitted public servants who think they have extra rights because they have a badge or a title.

We need to restrict them as much as necessary so that we never again have to rise up and kill a whole lot of them, as we did many years ago.

Hence, I support the law. Thomas Jefferson tried to do that with the constitution but as history has shown, government, assisted by the ignorance and tyrannical desires of liberals, always manages to slip the shackles of law. I don't doubt that the future maintenance of a free state will require redundant curbs on the liberal tendency toward tyranny.
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government,
so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution
so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."



by:


Thomas Jefferson (http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/thomas+jefferson)

[Dagobert II]

But back to Constitutional Carry. With the committee trying to decide whether to send the bill forward, what are its chances?
“In this state as many Republicans as we have… if it becomes a bill they’re going to have to support it because they don’t want to be seen as voting against gun rights,” Sparks said. “So I believe it won’t go forward [from committee], or if it does, it will pass!”
So it might end up being a high noon political showdown, but right now for fans and foes of Constitutional Carry, it’s all or nothing down in Austin.

Source: http://cw33.com/2017/03/28/what-does-it-mean-if-texas-becomes-a-constitutional-carry-state/

[Dagobert II]

Today I've been told that domestic enemies of the constitution, or just plain idiots if one is feeling generous, have amended the constitutional carry bills (HB1911 and HB375) with so many caveats, exceptions and infringements that if they come out of committee in present form the only thing that will be constitutional about them is the word in the title. Golly who'd a thought politicians were so slimy?

[CenTexDave]

Probably that RINO Strauss.

[Dagobert II]

Evidently the Texas house is chock full of RINOs the need to be replaced at the earliest opportunity.
Conservative activists give Texas House a failing grade
AUSTIN - Do what we say or face payback at the polls.

That was the message that hundreds of tea party and core Republican activists loudly delivered to the GOP-controlled Texas Capitol on Monday, displaying anger over a House plan to tap the state's savings account to balance the budget, and the failure to quickly pass a strong ban on sanctuary cities and property tax reform into law.

Also on their list: passage of the Senate's version of the so-called "bathroom bill," repealing gun licensing laws to allow any Texans who can own a pistol to carry one, a halt on new toll roads, a ban on dismemberment abortions and passage of legislation to guarantee religious liberties.

"I would grade the House with an F at this point, and the Senate a B-plus," said JoAnn Fleming, executive of Grassroots America, a leading conservative activist group whose members personify the GOP faithful that form the state's Republican base.

"Once again in this building, there are elected Republicans - particularly in the House - who are saying they don't care what they promised during the campaign, what voters elected them to do, and the people of Texas are here to make them care," she said.

Source: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/texas/article/Conservative-activists-give-Texas-House-a-failing-11079189.php

[Dagobert II]

BREAKING: HB 1911 passes committee 6-3. As expected, Nevarez, Hinojosa, and Johnson were no votes. This is the gutted bill that ties your rights to paying taxes, paying child support, and on the condition you don't exercise your 1st amendment right to use bad language or middle fingers in public. Source: Open Carry Texas Hopefully this will be cleaned of extraneous infringements before it hits Abbot"s desk.

[fchafey]

I know I am in the minority, but of kind of like a bill that forces people to pay taxes and child support. I have a SIL that lives in San Jose and if it wasn't for the tight child support laws in that state her Ex would have never paid. Both have really good paying jobs and neither wants to leave. I think the more people getting child support is directly associated with the amount of people not on welfare. Maybe I am ate up, I don't know.

[CenTexDave]

No, you're not ate up. The only reason I don't approve of it is because it has no place in this bill. Should be addressed separately.

[Dagobert II]

Human rights are not conditional to anything but human existence. One may choose not to recognize them but they still exist by virtue of human existence itself and like other principles that have no other condition but existence there are consequences, usually unpleasant, for refusing to recognize them.

[Mestral]

Both have really good paying jobs and neither wants to leave.
Huh?

[fchafey]

Both are internal auditors for B of A. Her Ex , I figured would have left California in order to avoid paying. He avoided at first, she got a lawyer, got garnishment and has got child support for both. Apparently he makes enough that it doesn't affect his style of living.

[Ludwig]

Whereas it is the law of the land that the woman is the sole determiner if a child is to be born into this world, the idea that the man should have to pay for that decision is repugnant to me. Furthermore, given the lack of morality in this society, before any man is required to pay for child support, there should be a mandatory gene verification that the child(ren) he is charged to support are indeed his spawn before any such payment can be required.

[Dagobert II]

Whereas it is the law of the land that the woman is the sole determiner if a child is to be born into this world, the idea that the man should have to pay for that decision is repugnant to me. Furthermore, given the lack of morality in this society, before any man is required to pay for child support, there should be a mandatory gene verification that the child(ren) he is charged to support are indeed his spawn before any such payment can be required.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofLonISUfpM

[sojourner truth]

When I divorced my first wife, she lived in our home town of San Jose. But because I filed before her, the state of Oklahoma was the arbiter of the terms of divorce. She did not contest the divorce, which was fortunate for both of us.

I got what I wanted and she got pretty much what she wanted... as in everything but my head on a spike. Child support was reasonable, but took a good sized chunk out of my E6 pay at the time. I wound up leaving our home in Lawton and moving into the barracks. Still, it was a time of slim pickins' for me until I met and married my current wife.

California assumes that the fault for divorce is always the mans fault, and that the woman is the one who gets to decide what the terms are. Mainly because the more they get out of the man, the less they have to pay to support her at the state level. When she started trying to scam the welfare system they came after me for non support until I showed them all of the cancelled support checks with her signature on them. Then they tried to nail her for welfare fraud. She moved to a different county and tried it again. All I had to do was send them a copy of the last fraud case file number and that stopped the BS pretty quickly. But California has a tendency to go after as much as they can get out of the man.

[Dagobert II]

But California has a tendency to go after as much as they can get out of the man. California and many other places have too much government and government is crime.
"There are two potential violators of man’s rights: the criminals and the government. The great achievement of the United States was to draw a distinction between these two — by forbidding to the second the legalized version of the activities of the first." - Ayn Rand

[just2cents]

California and many other places have too much government and government is crime.


The only two jobs that you ever said you had are Military and Police .. are you a criminal since you were government?

[Dagobert II]

The only two jobs that you ever said you had are Military and Police .. are you a criminal since you were government?

Government agent is more accurate, but the answer would be, "yes". Oh, I may not have said this yet, but I also had a job running the rifle range at a girl's summer camp.

[CenTexDave]

Pervert!! :)

[Ricky]

Pervert!! :)

:drool:drool:drool:bluerofl:bluerofl:bluerofl:blue rofl