Texas set to allow unlicensed handgun carry despite outcry

[Belsnickel]

https://apnews.com/article/texas-gun-politics-shootings-government-and-politics-28ef6e5ea8dd48a57114b67e5a885fad

Quote:AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Texas is poised to remove one of its last major gun restrictions after lawmakers approved allowing people to carry handguns without a license, and the background check and training that go with it.

The Republican-dominated Legislature approved the measure Monday, sending it to Gov. Greg Abbott, who has said he will sign it despite the objections of law enforcement groups who say it would endanger the public and police.

Gun control groups also oppose the measure, noting the state’s recent history of mass shootings, including those at an El Paso Walmart, a church in Sutherland Springs, and a high school outside Houston.

Texas already has some of the loosest gun laws in the country and has more than 1.6 million handgun license holders.

Supporters of the bill say it would allow Texans to better defend themselves in public while abolishing unnecessary impediments to the constitutional right to bear arms. Once signed into law, Texas will join nearly two dozen other states that allow some form of unregulated carry of a handgun, and by far be the most populous.

More at the link.

All I can think of with things like this is how much the people rocking things like this, below, have to reconcile things when it happens.

[BigPapaKain]

Backing the blue by going against their warnings.

They really are a death cult anymore.

[*Nately120*]

Sell more guns > back the blue

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-26-2021, 03:17 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Backing the blue by going against their warnings.

They really are a death cult anymore.

(05-26-2021, 03:42 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Sell more guns > back the blue

 I think you always need to be cognizant of statements such as "law enforcement groups" that actually list none of them.  I did some searching and found two that were actually named; the Dallas Police Association and the Texas Police Chiefs Association.  Some other news reports listed individuals from agencies or groups making objections, but I didn't find anything else directly naming law enforcement groups in opposition.  Two groups does qualify for the plural use, but it's hardly overwhelming or even moderate, opposition.  Especially when one of the groups is for the Chiefs, who, believe me, do not represent rank and file officers in any way shape or form.  Also, my union endorses propositions, laws and candidates all the time that I would never vote for, so don't even view a group statement as proof of opposition from the majority of the officers belonging to it.

Please note I am not discounting reasonable concerns regarding the law or outright dismissing the groups in opposition.  What I am pointing out is that stating law enforcement groups are against something, but then not directly naming them should be a huge red flag that you're being sold a story that may not be in line with the actual facts.

[*Nately120*]

(05-26-2021, 07:37 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  I think you always need to be cognizant of statements such as "law enforcement groups" that actually list none of them.  I did some searching and found two that were actually named; the Dallas Police Association and the Texas Police Chiefs Association.  Some other news reports listed individuals from agencies or groups making objections, but I didn't find anything else directly naming law enforcement groups in opposition.  Two groups does qualify for the plural use, but it's hardly overwhelming or even moderate, opposition.  Especially when one of the groups is for the Chiefs, who, believe me, do not represent rank and file officers in any way shape or form.  Also, my union endorses propositions, laws and candidates all the time that I would never vote for, so don't even view a group statement as proof of opposition from the majority of the officers belonging to it.

Please note I am not discounting reasonable concerns regarding the law or outright dismissing the groups in opposition.  What I am pointing out is that stating law enforcement groups are against something, but then not directly naming them should be a huge red flag that you're being sold a story that may not be in line with the actual facts.

I'll admit I didn't research it and just glanced at the thread, but selling guns is more important than everything else, so I'm probably right by proxy.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-26-2021, 07:48 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'll admit I didn't research it and just glanced at the thread, but selling guns is more important than everything else, so I'm probably right by proxy.

Quite honestly, guns sell themselves.  They've been flying off the shelves.  The cognitive dissonance from the left on this issue (note I am not including you in this) is interesting.  On one hand the police are racist murderers who exist to uphold the systemically racist system.  On the other hand, they're the only people that should have guns.  The past year made it abundantly clear to many that, ultimately, you need to be able to be responsible for your own safety.  This is the reason so many new gun owners appeared, why gun sales went through the roof.  Prior to moving out of my apartment when I bought my home I assisted one of the other residents, a very liberal woman who was previously vehemently opposed to gun ownership, in purchasing a hand gun (Glock 19 if you care to know).  All it took was a minute taste of the potential consequences of lawlessness to show many how important is the right to self defense.


And no, the rise in sales had zero correlation to the rise in crime, there have been large surges in gun purchases in the past (e.g. when a Dem is elected to POTUS) that had no effect on the crime rate.  

[*Nately120*]

(05-26-2021, 08:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quite honestly, guns sell themselves.  They've been flying off the shelves.  The cognitive dissonance from the left on this issue (note I am not including you in this) is interesting.  On one hand the police are racist murderers who exist to uphold the systemically racist system.  On the other hand, they're the only people that should have guns.  The past year made it abundantly clear to many that, ultimately, you need to be able to be responsible for your own safety.  This is the reason so many new gun owners appeared, why gun sales went through the roof.  Prior to moving out of my apartment when I bought my home I assisted one of the other residents, a very liberal woman who was previously vehemently opposed to gun ownership, in purchasing a hand gun (Glock 19 if you care to know).  All it took was a minute taste of the potential consequences of lawlessness to show many how important is the right to self defense.


And no, the rise in sales had zero correlation to the rise in crime, there have been large surges in gun purchases in the past (e.g. when a Dem is elected to POTUS) that had no effect on the crime rate.  

Guns are like god...when times are good, get a gun, when times are bad, get a gun. Everyone around me has a gun so this country could send every citizen a gun ever year for all I care. Hell, give 'em to the illegals too, never know when an illegal immigrant with the gun is gonna save you.

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(05-26-2021, 03:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: https://apnews.com/article/texas-gun-politics-shootings-government-and-politics-28ef6e5ea8dd48a57114b67e5a885fad


More at the link.

All I can think of with things like this is how much the people rocking things like this, below, have to reconcile things when it happens.

Shoot there are people with Driver's licenses that shouldn't be on the road. I disagree with not having to get a license and get at least some semblance of training before you should be able to carry a gun around. And I'm very loose on gun control in my own personal feelings.

[BigPapaKain]

(05-27-2021, 01:47 AM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Shoot there are people with Driver's licenses that shouldn't be on the road. I disagree with not having to get a license and get at least some semblance of training before you should be able to carry a gun around. And I'm very loose on gun control in my own personal feelings.

This. All of this.

[Mickeypoo]

(05-26-2021, 03:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: https://apnews.com/article/texas-gun-politics-shootings-government-and-politics-28ef6e5ea8dd48a57114b67e5a885fad


More at the link.

All I can think of with things like this is how much the people rocking things like this, below, have to reconcile things when it happens.

Everybody in Texas was going to die when they lifted the mask mandate.  Oh wait.

[*Nately120*]

(05-27-2021, 09:58 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Everybody in Texas was going to die when they lifted the mask mandate.  Oh wait.

True, yet this may also be the point where Burfict intercepted the pass and so many Bengals fans were SURE it was time to celebrate and many were still afraid because the clock hadn't hit 0:00 yet.  Anywho, the CDC is lifting mask mandates so I assume the people who don't trust them are scrambling to mask up.

[Belsnickel]

(05-27-2021, 09:58 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Everybody in Texas was going to die when they lifted the mask mandate.  Oh wait.

Go ahead and troll somewhere else, bud. Keep it on topic or don't post.

[Wes Mantooth]

(05-27-2021, 12:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Go ahead and troll somewhere else, bud. Keep it on topic or don't post.

In my limited time on this forum I have noticed this (going off topic) seems to be a theme here.  Fwiw, I'm not really opposed to this that much because it's generally the nature of many message boards.

I posted a thread about what I thought was a cringeworthy video from the CIA.  By the 2nd page it had already turned into a discussion about white supremecy and Donald Trump.

You yourself commented on the thread without even watching the video, went off topic and then said something to the effect of "I'm just trying to poke a little fun." 

The phrase "pot meet kettle" seems a little appropriate here.  And even if it's not apples to apples, I still would hope see some consistency.  Either this forum has a strict "stay on topic" policy that is understood and followed by everyone, or we let things fly, and don't pick and choose to when to call it "trolling".

[Mickeypoo]

(05-27-2021, 12:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Go ahead and troll somewhere else, bud. Keep it on topic or don't post.

I was on topic.  I'm saying this further relaxing of gun laws in Texas won't be doom and gloom just like when all the death was supposed to happen from Texas lifting the mask mandate. 

Maybe you should go smoke a big J and chill the Eff out bro.

[*Nately120*]

(05-27-2021, 01:15 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: I was on topic.  I'm saying this further relaxing of gun laws in Texas won't be doom and gloom just like when all the death was supposed to happen from Texas lifting the mask mandate. 

Maybe you should go smoke a big J and chill the Eff out bro.

You may be right, but you can't just conclude that things are no big deal while we are in the middle of them.  Both the mask mandates and gun laws in this case are like rookie draft picks...you can see how things work out you but can't declare mission accomplished until things play out in the long-term.

On topic, maybe Texas is doing this in order to help slow down the blueification of the politics of the state. Stay away, liberals...it's like the wild west down thar.

[Belsnickel]

(05-27-2021, 01:02 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: In my limited time on this forum I have noticed this (going off topic) seems to be a theme here.  Fwiw, I'm not really opposed to this that much because it's generally the nature of many message boards.

I posted a thread about what I thought was a cringeworthy video from the CIA.  By the 2nd page it had already turned into a discussion about white supremecy and Donald Trump.

You yourself commented on the thread without even watching the video, went off topic and then said something to the effect of "I'm just trying to poke a little fun." 

The phrase "pot meet kettle" seems a little appropriate here.  And even if it's not apples to apples, I still would hope see some consistency.  Either this forum has a strict "stay on topic" policy that is understood and followed by everyone, or we let things fly, and don't pick and choose to when to call it "trolling".

My sniping in that thread was on topic, and my later comments on the different topic came after it had already completely derailed. Many times we will see topics derail and morph into other topics, usually it is a gradual transition that starts off related to the original topic and ends up in left field. The comment I responded to here was unrelated other than it being Texas and came from someone who regularly comments with bad faith arguments. It's a thread I started, I decided to respond to the troll job, just as you commented on the derailment of your thread.

Anyway, if you feel like commenting on the topic at hand, feel free. If you want to continue to discuss the way in which your thread was derailed, you can go to your thread. If you want to complain in general about the forum, start another or talk to a mod.

[*michaelsean*]

I'd prefer people conceal rather than open carry. Sorry but open carry you generally look like a moron to me.(My apologies to anyone here who does it, that's just what my first impression is.) I don't really know why we have concealed carry laws. People willing to shoot a cop aren't really concerned with a concealed carry law. The examples of mass shootings they listed may be the most ridiculous examples of something I've ever seen.

[Dill]

(05-27-2021, 01:02 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: In my limited time on this forum I have noticed this (going off topic) seems to be a theme here.  Fwiw, I'm not really opposed to this that much because it's generally the nature of many message boards.

I posted a thread about what I thought was a cringeworthy video from the CIA.  By the 2nd page it had already turned into a discussion about white supremecy and Donald Trump.

You yourself commented on the thread without even watching the video, went off topic and then said something to the effect of "I'm just trying to poke a little fun." 

The phrase "pot meet kettle" seems a little appropriate here.  And even if it's not apples to apples, I still would hope see some consistency.  Either this forum has a strict "stay on topic" policy that is understood and followed by everyone, or we let things fly, and don't pick and choose to when to call it "trolling".

Actually, I think it quite common and natural and good if discussion "organically" moves across topics. That SHOULD happen if people are exploring complex topics. And politics is complex.

E.g., one person starts a thread about gun control in Texas which moves, via analogies, to gun control in CA which moves to Dem policies in blue states and a debate over the relation of the electoral college to national policies on social issues and more.  Even a "WHADDABOUT China?!" digression could be relevant. 

I hope that we DON'T come to a strict "stay on topic" policy, because that sort of thing can be weaponized just as easily personal attacks and WHADDABOUT CHINA. "This thread is about unlicensed handgun carry in Texas, Wes Mantooth. You are off topic raising questions of list policy!"

We ought to be able to negotiate rules and parameters among ourselves as we go along. 

For me, if a "derailment" results in an enlightening and useful discussion from which I learn a lot, then that derailment fulfilled my criteria for good political discussion. I don't want to see good discussion curtailed or blocked simply because it is no longer about Biden's stutter or whatever the original topic was. 

That said, I grant it is irritating and disruptive if someone jumps in, without any attempt to follow the discussion, and starts tossing out random whattabouts, or injects a grudge from a previous thread. I think the way to manage that is to ignore such interventions or respond in a way that brings the poster back into the discussion, if not the thread topic (which may in fact be deservedly dead).  Bels posted on the gun topic and wants to see how that plays out. He doesn't want to see the very first page go off in some other direction already.

(Apologies to Bels for continuing the digression. Can't always control myself when people start talking about list policy. Will keep future posts on topic )

[Dill]

(05-28-2021, 11:01 AM)michaelsean Wrote: I'd prefer people conceal rather than open carry.  Sorry but open carry you generally look like a moron to me.(My apologies to anyone here who does it, that's just what my first impression is.)  I don't really know why we have concealed carry laws.  People willing to shoot a cop aren't really concerned with a concealed carry law.  The examples of mass shootings they listed may be the most ridiculous examples of something I've ever seen.

I hear you, Mike. It can be a big turn off.
 

[Dill]

(05-26-2021, 03:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: https://apnews.com/article/texas-gun-politics-shootings-government-and-politics-28ef6e5ea8dd48a57114b67e5a885fad

More at the link.

The National Rifle Association was among those supporting the measure, and a spokesman called it the “most significant” gun-rights measure in the state’s history.

“A right requiring you to pay a tax or obtain a government permission slip is not a right at all,” said Jason Ouimet, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action.

Texas already allows rifles to be carried in public without a license. The measure sent to Abbott would allow anyone age 21 or older to carry a handgun as long as they don’t have felony criminal convictions or some other legal prohibition in their background.

But without the state background check, law enforcement groups worry there would be no way to weed them out in advance. The bill does include stiffer penalties for felons caught illegally carrying guns.

This reminds of Fred's hypothetical example on the "Teen girl killed in Columbus by police" thread: how would law officers sort out who's legal and who's not if they stop four guys open carrying--especially, in this case, if no "government permission slip" or background check has secured a paper trail. 

Second comment, if I remember correctly, many Western frontier towns forbid open carry. Somehow, they got the impression that even if it allowed gun toters to better defend themselves in public, that did not make the public safer. Can this be about more than safety, especially public safety? 

Finally, I'm wondering how the new law might affect future mass shootings. I can envision a worst-case scenario in which a mass shooter with a death wish walks into a tightly packed music or sports venue and opens fire. Then good-men-with-guns fire back. Can everyone tell who the original shooter was, e.g., those guys who just ran out of the restroom guns drawn AFTER hearing the initial shots? Is it certain that our pistol packers would not fire into bystanders, adding to the shooter's desired death toll? Then the cops arrive on scene too, ready to use deadly force cuz its their job to protect, and perhaps they have been taught not to take chances with their own safety.