Whoop! There it is!
Uuuhhhh...yes there is. I can't believe this needs to be explained to "the right people". No wonder we're in this mess. They won't challenge 12031 and they think we need permits. This is how we end up with bullet buttons, e-violations, and locked up unloaded concealed carry.
TX history is why open carry isn't allowed there today, some rogue judge a very long time ago made a bad ruling IIRC. Don't know about TN. But I'll take your TX and TN and raise you NV. They have concealed carry permitting and constitutional no permit necessary open carry.
Wow. Just wow.
I love how you left out a key part of Gene's original quote.
So you're advocating that I ignore the private property owners clearly expressed wishes?
There is a right to carry. There isn't a right to carry loaded openly and without a permit where permits with objective standards exist that we can get applied anytime very soon. If there was, then why isn't it expressed in TX or TN? No one wants to engage with that do they?
-Gene
Convenient to only highlight part of a post, isn't it?
The fact of the matter is: There is a right to carry. Period. As long as the state allows you to carry, they won't be forced to allow you to carry any-which-way-you-damn-well-please, as you people seem to be suggesting. There isn't a right to "Open Carry". Nor is there a right to "Concealed Carry". "Carry" is the right; that's it. The state will be allowed to regulate the manner in which you carry, whether you like it or not. Nobody here, not me, not Gene... nobody, is saying that this is the way we want it to be (which is how you guys seem to be taking it). I would much prefer the right to openly carry a loaded, suppressed, full-auto MP5 while walking next to a school playground. I can't speak for Gene, but I believe he would like to have the same right. That's just not going to happen - what's realistic is that the courts will rule that states must allow some form of "carry", and that states will be allowed to choose in what manner (read: openly or concealed) we carry.
Quit living in some nonexistent idealistic utopia with unrestricted open carry. Instead, let's go for something that's actually achievable, that will actually save lives, and push from there toward whatever we can get. Isn't that the bottom line here, or am I missing something? It seems to me that y'all are putting your idealism above practical self-defense. I couldn't care less whether it's permitted, unpermitted, open, or concealed at this point -
because right now I can't carry at all and that presents a clear and present danger to my life. I'm going to take the
shortest route possible to remedying that first. We can talk about idealism and platitudes after me and my loved ones are safe.
This is what I don't get: Would you guys really, seriously, prefer to have open carry instead of concealed given that the first thing that will happen is that private property owners will simply ban guns from their premises? That's some right you've got there, where my girlfriend, my sister, and my mom can't carry firearms for their personal defense in the places they visit most. Basically, at that point they're limited to carrying in their home and on sidewalks. Now that's what I call a right to self-defense!
I don't really care if it's permitted at this point. I don't care if it's open or concealed at this point. What I want
right now, right this very moment is some way for myself, my girlfriend, my sisters, and my mother to daily carry for their defense wherever they're at. Without that, your cherished "unrestricted" (lol as if it can even be called that) right is
absolutely worthless. Once we have a practical right to defend ourselves that
actually saves lives I'll be willing to talk about the path to a more "pure" right. But for right now, we don't have a method to legally carry functional firearms
period. Why would you seriously oppose the shortest path to that end because it's not as "pure" as you'd like?
