SANDCREEK
Regular Member
imported post
It just occurred to me while re-reading the Texas Penal Code to see if CCW is still prohibited in churches - IT IS ! (Good Grief Texas ! What's going on in the Lone Star State ?)
The references to "unlawful carry of weapons" use terms like "one's own residence", or "premises under a person's control". These terms need further scrutiny, and perhaps -redefinition.
The "privacy" issue invoked by the ROE V WADE abortion decision in 1972 (?) affected a TEXAS abortion law prosecution . The SCOTUS said in essence that persons (not just women) have a PRIVACY RIGHT over their own body - right ? This right to privacy over your person, your body is protected by the 4th Amendment.
OK, my body constitutes "premises under my control". I actually "RESIDE" in this 197 lb blob of flesh & blood called "ME". Therefore "ME" -IS MY RESIDENCE. No one therefore has the right to "regulate" what I attach to (wear) , or append to my body - particularly an item designed for personal protection, so long as that appendage does not interfere with the free excercise of the rights of other persons. ( Big leap - I know - but hang in here with me)
Granted, private proprietorial rights may trump my right to ENTER certain premises not under MY control ( with my inner/outer "wear") - but my right to venture into the public square armed for defense of my person within reasonable parameters should not be called into question by any law.
Conduct constituting a threat to another person is a separate issue altogether. This angle of approach obviously requires further exploration, but I think I have tapped into something here , and thisconcept has substance. Comments / (other than what flavor "cool-aide" I'm drinking)
It just occurred to me while re-reading the Texas Penal Code to see if CCW is still prohibited in churches - IT IS ! (Good Grief Texas ! What's going on in the Lone Star State ?)
The references to "unlawful carry of weapons" use terms like "one's own residence", or "premises under a person's control". These terms need further scrutiny, and perhaps -redefinition.
The "privacy" issue invoked by the ROE V WADE abortion decision in 1972 (?) affected a TEXAS abortion law prosecution . The SCOTUS said in essence that persons (not just women) have a PRIVACY RIGHT over their own body - right ? This right to privacy over your person, your body is protected by the 4th Amendment.
OK, my body constitutes "premises under my control". I actually "RESIDE" in this 197 lb blob of flesh & blood called "ME". Therefore "ME" -IS MY RESIDENCE. No one therefore has the right to "regulate" what I attach to (wear) , or append to my body - particularly an item designed for personal protection, so long as that appendage does not interfere with the free excercise of the rights of other persons. ( Big leap - I know - but hang in here with me)
Granted, private proprietorial rights may trump my right to ENTER certain premises not under MY control ( with my inner/outer "wear") - but my right to venture into the public square armed for defense of my person within reasonable parameters should not be called into question by any law.
Conduct constituting a threat to another person is a separate issue altogether. This angle of approach obviously requires further exploration, but I think I have tapped into something here , and thisconcept has substance. Comments / (other than what flavor "cool-aide" I'm drinking)