|
|
|
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: Constitutional carry: a right or privilege?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The state slogan don't mess with Texas has taken on a new meaning as the State House [committee] has approved a bill that would make it legal for certain individuals to carry a hand gun without a license.
House Bill 1911 would allow Texans that are at least 21-years-old, have never been convicted of a felony and are not a member of a criminal street gang carry without a license.
Police chiefs from across Texas met at the Capitol on Tuesday to oppose the HB1911, saying it puts citizens and police in jeopardy.
...
As for HB1911, it has been added to the House of representatives calendar and will be heard on the floor for a vote. |
| Comment by:
jac
(5/6/2017)
|
What the legislature needs to do is eliminate all the victim disarmament zones. Any business can post against legal concealed (or open) carry and it has the force of law with criminal penalties. Someone with a carry license who is obeying the law has to constantly disarm and rearm depending where he is going.
It makes it difficult to carry and leaves one subject to having his gun stolen out of his vehicle. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(5/6/2017)
|
| Ha ha, that's funny. The title asks a question that the article not only doesn't answer, it doesn't even mention. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
