|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
TX: Battle over gun rights to resume in 2017 session
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
History, and solid Republican majorities in both houses of the Legislature and the executive branch, suggest the gun rights proponents will remain on the offensive.
“It’s time in Texas to restore our Second Amendment rights to their originally intended level,” said state Rep. Jonathan Stickland, a Fort Worth-area Republican who last year spearheaded the successful open-carry bill.
This time, Stickland is the chief author of legislation supporters call “constitutional carry.” Unlike the open-carry bill, the new measure does not require a license — or the passing of a gun-safety test and the payment of a $140 fee for the license — to allow a handgun to be carried either openly or concealed. |
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(12/1/2016)
|
| Open carry potentially can be problematic, but it's the $140 fee to get a carry license that troubles me. It'd be in the best interest of TX or any state, to reduce the burden of getting screened and trained to carry. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
