Texas lawmaker pushing for Constitutional Carry


Rep. Jonathan Stickland fighting for the Second Amendment

Liberals’ head sure to explode. Works for me.

From Fox4News: A state lawmaker from Bedford wants to make it legal for all Texans to pack a pistol, with or without a permit.

Two controversial gun laws have come through the Texas Legislature in the past few sessions.  Legislators passed the Open Carry law two years ago. Campus Carry also allows the concealed carry of handguns on college campus.

But State Rep. Jonathan Stickland wants to take it a step further. He has authored House Bill 375, or the Constitutional Carry bill, to give all Texans the right to openly carry a handgun.

“Right now what HB 375 is looking to do is make the CHL program right now optional for folks. We don’t think that Texans should have to take a required class or pay a fee to exercise their Second Amendment rights to defend themselves,” Stickland said.

The Texas Democrats and critics worry the bill would give unstable and untrained people easier access to guns. Stickland argued gun owners would still have to meet the current requirements, but wouldn’t have to go through the process of getting their CHL.

“This is not an expansion of who can carry or where they could carry. So people who could currently qualify to get their CHL license would be able to do it under constitutional carry, but no one new,” he said.

Stickland said criminals by nature do not obey the laws, so the restrictions are only hurting the good guys.

“What we are looking to do with Constitutional Carry is remove some of the barriers that are keeping the good guys from being in a position to defend themselves,” he said.

Gov. Greg Abbott has not committed to supporting the bill, but Strickland said it is still one of the top two priorities for the Republicans. He’s filed similar legislation in the past. He thinks this year is the year that it will pass.


12 responses to “Texas lawmaker pushing for Constitutional Carry

  1. Kevin J Lankford

    Kinda perplexing ain’t it?? Exercising our Constitutional rights,…. our inalienable rights,…. need prior approval……from who??

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I’m in Texas. Think about this a minute.
    I’m for Open Carry in rural areas, and even Open Carry for people with Concealed Handgun Licenses, but we don’t want a bunch of unlicensed fools “Open Carrying” in Dallas, Houston, Austin, or San Antonia on a Saturday Night.
    Also, real bad timing, dude!
    There is a bill before the House to enforce Concealed Carry Reciprocity, & other firearms rights,among the States. We need that, and also to protect citizens from States like Texas that have a legal firearm in their licensed vehicle while traveling through States with draconian gun laws.. Let’s work on that.
    Going for “Open Carry” everywhere by totally untrained, un licensed people is simply crazy! Going to screw it up for everyone.
    We have the “Right to keep and bear arms”, but every right has an implied responsibility. I think it is responsible the require a person to be educated in the law, demonstrate proficiency, and have a license to carry a weapon concealed or to carry a handgun openly in an incorporated area.

    I think the fees should be reasonable and discounts for Military Veterans and others with professional practical experience with firearms, but I support training and “Qualifying” for all.


    • Longknife 21 . . . the only perplexity to having to get various licenses, or training, or the charging of fees is that this creates a list of those who own firearms on some kind of a governmental level. . . . . .

      Liked by 1 person

      • The reason is education and safety. How many non-license holders do you think know enough about their state & local laws to make good decisions in a confrontation?
        Also, if you read the statistics on “rounds fired” vs “hits” even by police, or think about all the “collateral damage” by idiot gang-bangers, you might want to rethink your position on this. As long as the licenses are “Shall Issue” if the person is law abiding, can take a test on applicable laws and can demonstrate proficiency and safety on the range, I don’t have a problem.
        I am an “Arch” Constitutionalist, Sworn The Oath 4 times over the years but common sense and experience has taught me somethings also.
        “To Keep and bare arms” is the Right to own, have them on your property, and to use them responsibly. Carrying concealed or Open Carry in a populated place is an added layer of responsibility.

        I don’t want some of the jackasses I know carrying concealed , or even open in town unless there is a reason – stopping to buy diesel or gas for a truck pulling a trailer with horses & cows, or even a flatbed with tractor and bush-hog is one thing, shopping at Walmart for the weeks groceries is another.

        If you push this too far, the whiny-babies are going to pitch a fit. Don’t give them an excuse. Other people have rights too. Things are pretty good now in Texas and getting better. As long as nobody gets stupid.

        Do you want your local New Black Panther Party types carrying AK-47s in Walmart? Or Billy Bob and Cletus with their Klan patches?

        And lists? Why? Everybody here has guns, it is a logical assumption.


    • Kevin J Lankford

      You still miss the whole point, and the whole purpose our founders ranked the right of the true U.S. citizens to be armed any time, and, at their own discretion. The right of self-defense and the protection of ones own family and property (aside from the organized defense of a free nation and government) was tantamount in their minds.

      Organized law enforcement on the level we endure in this time would have been as vile to our founders as suffering the heavy hand and boot heels of the kings soldiers. Hence their aversion to a “standing army”. People have now been so disoriented by our ever over reaching government that many actually accept that they must suffer pain of death rather than defend their own life. So casually and callously refer to as taking the law into one’s own hand.

      True law is no more than a moral code, instilled in all of reasonable mind. Only by defying this code, by the abuse of one’s right in a criminal act is there cause for any form of punishment. Our Constitution does prohibit the denial of any civil right for acts of outlawry. But it does not prohibit punishment for criminal acts on individual basis.

      Liked by 1 person

      • True. But the Founders also counted on Common Sense and simple politeness to prevail. You had musket, rifle, and/or shotgun in your buggy or on your horse and probably sword and pistols on your belt, but you didn’t necessarily carry them around town. The preacher isn’t the militia Captain or the men practice after church and “Dinner on the ground”, any more.
        Granted that was a different and usually a better time. So if you need to carry (and I encourage everyone that is a law abiding citizen to do so), learn the law, take the test, demonstrate proficiency, and get the damn license.
        You learn how to deal with situations, including law enforcement and Law Enforcement knows by your license that you know how to act and probably aren’t crazy or a criminal, so it defuses the situation. I’ve been in gun-fights, and I’ve been shot several times, even accidentally by my own people, (thank God, not ever seriously), and it does get your attention.
        All rights come with responsibility, not everyone exercises responsibility or even Common Sense. That is why there needs to be sensible limits. It is no longer that boys (and even most girls) were trained from childhood to be proficient and responsible with firearms, because they (the boys anyway) were the militia. The defense of their communities were dependent on them. The general sense of responsibility does not exist anymore, nor is the training and proficiency, or even common sense, very widespread. Although I think it is getting better among conservative families.. To a great extent because women are realizing they need to be proficient and also adopt the mind-set of defending themselves, family, and property.
        But times and attitudes are different. Things are much better than they were 20 years ago, or even 10. (Mostly because of the excesses of Obama and his causing a spike in crimes). And they may get much better under Trump. So DON”T SCREW IT UP!
        The Libs want to make the World into Califailure or Chitcago or NYC. Don’t give them excuses or “ammo” to disarm us again..


        • Kevin J Lankford

          To me, your words are only a reflection of what spawned the anti-second amendment movement.


          • BULL!
            You don’t have a clue. I gave up my FLL in Florida because I believed the State call-in-check was unConstitutional. And by your definition it definitely is. I was a part-time gun dealer and gunsmith, but would only sell guns to cops, veterans, or people in my hunt club or others I knew.
            Your passing “judgement” on me is simply a reflection on your own sanctimoniousness and total ignorance of me and a disregard for actual facts.
            I am DEFENDING the Second Amendment, you are putting it in danger by advocating that untrained, and possibly ignorant, people carry guns in potentially stressful situations where they may be tempted to use them unnecessarily, and with very questionable competence.
            Currently licensed Concealed Carry permit holders have a much better record for “good shootings” than even certified Police Officers. I want to keep it that way.
            Your love of the “theory” of the Second Amendment has overcome your common sense and skills in observation. Somewhat similar to the LibTARDs and their Marxist “theories”.
            Also, if you take concealed carry to your “theoretical extreme” I believe we will lose it. Especially right now. Like in war; if you press too far, too fast when you are winning, with no regard for what the Enemy is doing, and not “securing your flanks”, you are setting yourself for a major defeat and maybe losing everything you have gained.
            IF we can get the “general society” back to where they know and respect the law, and children are raised with competence and confidence with firearms (“securing our flanks), then a universal application of your complete theory MAY be possible. Until then, I’ll settle for “reasonable control” on concealed carry.
            I want the 1986 Reagan Ban on new Machineguns over-turned. Even if the $200 NFA tax stays. And I hope that the tax can be reduced on Short Barreled Rifles & Shotguns, and also silencers. (I have my own range, but it is better not to disturb the neighbors, especially if they have company not used to rural Texas). I want the BATF regs loosened on “Manufacturers”! Most of our military machineguns are bought from foreign manufacturers. American experimenters improved the crummy M-16 into the M-4 and the current AR-15 modern sporting rifle. I think we can do the same with machineguns and SMGs. (Again!) We lead the world until 1934 and the NFA.
            I’m currently getting together parts to build an AR in .45 caliber – .450 Bushmaster. I’ve already built ones in 7.62x39mm (I’m a big Kalashnikov fan, having been on the “down range end” of them) and .300 Blackout.
            So don’t give me any crap about me and any “Anti-Second Amendment movement”, you don’t have a clue about me. and you might ought to reconsider your position on “Everybody, everywhere, all the time, no exceptions, concealed carry” and the most probable consequences. I “carried illegally” for years, but got away with it by being “cool”. But I really like being “Legal” now, and don’t want some Theoretical Armchair Experts screwing it up for me & everybody else.
            Think, man; your greatest weapon is your brain Actions always have consequences. The Libs are the Greatest Masters of the “Unintended Consequence”, and we don’t want to get in a competition for that title.


            • Kevin J Lankford

              It is our actions that should have consequences. True U.S. citizens should no suffer the indiscriminate blanket hindrances enacted merely for the purpose of infringements. I would not presume to judge the suitability of others with out due cause.

              You seem all to happy to exercise your own rights while accepting unConstitutional infringements on others. this is a common attitude I encounter, I suppose the result of our own government’s and media’s many years of stigmatizing the mere sight of a gun, and now their practice of staging events to further program the weak minded.


  3. Pingback: Texas lawmaker pushing for Constitutional Carry — Fellowship of the Minds | kommonsentsjane

  4. Sounds like a good idea to me. I wonder how many shootings of unarmed people will happen if this gets passed? Wonder what crime rates will do, will be interesting to see the results.
    Also, it should be known that the government has infringed on most states rights to travel freely, it’s called forcing you to have a drivers license and insurance. Ohio at least had a program where you would sign a statement saying if you caused an accident you would be financially liable to pay for it. ALL insurance should be OPTIONAL.


  5. Pingback: Texas lawmaker pushing for Constitutional Carry – Newbie Blogger!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s