Instagram
FULL30 Blog
Member Map
FULL30 Store
Giveaway Page
Ammo.com Gift
Tactical Reviews
SOG DonationsThanks for your work on this Chris.
my pleasure, the least i can do
Man, I hope you guys get this through.
we are working on it FO SHO
Our governor John Bell Edwards (a friggin ranger) said he would veto any CC that came across his desk.
Thanks for compiling this! Iāve been watching this bill closely this legislative session. Iām also cautiously optimistic itāll pass. Iām surprised at the supposedly Republican Lt Governorās reluctance in getting this passed, though, as well as his discouraging comments on whether itāll even pass. As a Texan, Iām also surprised itās taken our state this long just to get to this point.
Anyway, Iām confused as to why itās called āConstitutional Carry.ā Wouldnāt that imply the Stateās Constitution is being amended to allow for carrying without a license? Shouldnāt it be called āPermitless Carryā?
Thereās also SB513, the so-called āSanctuary Stateā bill. I read how it was recently amended on April 27 with wording that appears to water it down with a loophole. The bill supposedly bans state and local law enforcement from enforcing new federal gun control laws passed after January 2021. The amendment creates an exception to the ban if the state or local law enforcement are part of a joint task force with federal law enforcement. To me, that sounds like a loophole/workaround by simply creating a joint task force, thereby falling under the exception. I wonder if the amendment was proposed to placate the law enforcement lobby thatās against the HB1927 permitless carry bill?
Itās called Constitutional Carry because the 2nd Aā says ākeep and bearā. Itās no more complex than that. Using the word permit anywhere in it implies some sort of permission.
dan patrick could have easily kept it off the floor. had it not been for the this committee it likely would not not gotten to the floor as it needed 18 votes to go straight in. the fact that he was a part of making the committee happen, supposedly, seems to mean maybe he knows he has the 16 required on the floor for sure, just not sure on the 18. right now there seems to be about 4 republicans saying they are undecided publicly, but in private they all say they are for it. that means that if only 2 are telling the truth we are good to go AND that is if no democrats flop. there were 7 flops in the house, so 1 or 2 flops in the senate is a possibility, not likely but possible. in fact, if they know it can pass anyway, we might even see a few democrats jump on the bandwagon, which looks good on paper. we can then say to some of the anti gun folks, look, texas passed constitutional carry with a somewhat bipartisan vote. though deep down we will know that is not really the case.
Any idea who the R holdouts are?
@Equin they are basically the same thing just different ways of wording it. in my opinion there are both good and bad arguments to be made no matter what the name is. at the end of the day, it donāt care if they call it devil worship baby killer carry, if it achieves what we want, pass it already, you know.
ok, so here is a list but i have not spoken with ANY of these in a few days AND as i said, they have just not made a public statement one way or anotherā¦ so that is not the same as them saying they wonāt vote for it
- SD 3 - Robert Nichols (512) 463-0103
- SD 7 - Paul Bettencourt (512) 463-0107
- SD 11 - Larry Taylor (512) 463-0111
- SD 12 - Jane Nelson (512) 463-0112
- SD 17 - Joan Huffman (512) 463-0117
- SD 31 - Kel Seliger (512) 463-0131
Hereās what our State Constitution says about the right to keep and bear arms:
āEvery citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms , with a view to prevent crime.ā
To me, itās squirrely. First part of the sentence says every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for self defense. I agree thatās simple and easy enough to understand. But then the second part seems to put a limit on that. Sort of like, āyeah, you can keep and bear arms, but you can only do so under these prescribed conditions.ā To add to the confusion, one would think ābear armsā means to carry them on oneās person. But here they add a new phrase, āwearing of arms.ā By not using ābearing of arms,ā itās presumed that āwearingā is something different. Despite all that, the qualifying secondary phrase leaving it up to the legislature to regulate doesnāt seem like a true, absolute Constitutional right to carry in my opinion.
By comparison, hereās what New Hampshireās State Constitution says in Article 2a:
āAll persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.ā
That sounds simple enough. No qualifying conditions nor the use of the words āregulatedā or āregulate.ā
And even if HB1927 passes and is signed into law, there appears to be nothing in the State Constitution preventing the legislature from repealing the law in the future.
Now, if youāre talking about the US Constitution, I agree. But until the US Supreme Court decides that issue, there are many that interpret āa well regulated militiaā to mean that the right to keep and bear arms is one that can only be exercised under certain restrictions and regulations. I donāt necessarily agree with that interpretation and am anxious to hear what the Supreme Court has to say about it now that itās agreed to hear the New York case.
Iām curious to know as well. I believe our own District 22 Senator Birdwell supports HB1927.
Youāre right. Itās all semantics.
Yeah, state law can vary. I never address others folks state laws since I donāt know them. But Maine basically restates the US 2nd Aā and adds, āshall not even be questioned.ā. Despite that itās questioned.
