Texas set to allow unlicensed handgun carry despite outcry

[Dill]

(05-29-2021, 12:39 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If open carry is legal and you have no probable cause to believe a crime has been committed by anyone there is no cause to determine if anyone in this scenario is "legal". 

I suppose in Fred's hypothetical case, he was referring to situations in which police would have a motive to "determine."  
Too bad he is no longer with us; his contributions to the thread would have enriched our discussion.

(05-29-2021, 12:39 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Many, if not all, Western frontier towns were also racially segregated by force.  Is that an endorsement of segregation and bigotry?

Well sure, frontier towns' racial segregation would have been an endorsement of bigotry. But while I get Mickeypoo's reference to inflated mask warnings in Texas, your allusion to segregation escapes me. 

My point wasn't that whatever frontier towns did was cool (which appears to be the point you refuted, slam dunk), but rather that their gun laws might have followed from extra gun play which went with open carry.  Ergo perhaps Texas is about to relearn that lesson, if there was such. We can't sort that out from Old West segregation issues?

(05-29-2021, 12:39 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, that is indeed a "worse case scenario".  Could it not happen already, with Texas issuing CCW's in large numbers?  You think maybe when law enforcement shows up the "good-men-with-guns" (btw, it is horribly sexist of you to assume that no females in the crowd would be carrying and want to help stop the bad-guy-with-gun) will obey law enforcement commands and surrender?  Once everyone is in custody, sorting out who the actual mass shooter is would not be very difficult.

LOL I'm not the guy who invented the "Good-man-with-a-gun" trope. I'm just the guy who referenced it. In any case, I posted a picture of a female carrying, so I know they do it. Just the wrong way, as you pointed out.

I'm wondering--if law enforcement shows up to see people shooting at each other in a crowd, will they really issue commands to surrender, or will some at least shoot to protect? We've all seen some videos in which time-to-comply is pretty short even when no one is shooting at anyone. And what will happen to the guy who doesn't hear or is desperately defending himself? 

E.G., suppose the original shooter keeps shooting at the good-men-with-guns--can they be counted on to lower their weapons on police command? You envision a much more orderly mass shooting than I do. Mine is less regulable by command. 

In any case, my example wasn't just about what happens when the police get there, but also about all the good guys who may be shooting before that. 

That "it could happen already" seems not a good defense of the new law--or maybe you agree people should not be encouraged to carry weapons while going about daily tasks that don't involve hunting or the shooting range.