|
|
|
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: Rep. Stickland sponsors Constitutional Carry bill
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Texas State Rep. Jonathan Stickland prefiled Constitutional Carry Nov. 16, a bill that would remove the requirement to obtain a government-issued permit in order to carry a concealed firearm for self-defense in Texas. If passed, Texas would be the 11th state to remove this government mandate.
Under current law, openly carrying a firearm in Texas does require a permit. Constitutional Carry would not remove the existing permit process for those who seek reciprocity with neighboring states; however, it would remove the requirement to obtain the permit when carrying in Texas.
|
| Comment by:
Sosalty
(11/24/2016)
|
| Careful, we've "you tube's" of minors flashing their firearms gansta style here in Huntsville AL. Do I want my local law enforcement checking out to see if everyone in a group of openly armed is of age or worst, not checking to avoid dangerous circumstances. (felons psychopathic) Pair responsibility with liberty, provide incentives for training and establish simple convenient no cost vetting without infringing. |
|
|
| 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) |
|
|
