Permissive open carry states (Gold Star States)
A state has passed full preemption of all firearms laws. They permit open carry to all non-prohibited citizens without permit or license. Open carry is lawful on foot and in a motor vehicle.
Licensed open carry states
A state has passed full preemption of all firearms laws. They permit open carry of a handgun to all non-prohibited citizens once they have been issued a permit or license. Open carry of a handgun is lawful on foot and in a motor vehicle.
Anomalous open carry states (Open Carry Friendly)
In these states, open carry of a handgun is generally lawful, but the state may lack preemption or there may be other significant restrictions. The term is questionable as the limitations and/or lack of pre-emption means that certain of these states are, in their judicial system and law enforcement societies, not very "friendly" towards the practice.
Non-permissive open carry states (TEXAS)
In these states, open carry of a handgun is not lawful, or is only lawful under such a limited set of circumstances that public carry is prohibited. Such limited circumstances may include when hunting, or while traveling to/from hunting locations, while on property controlled by the person carrying, or for lawful self-defense
Gold Star Open
Carry State (yellow)
Open Carry
Friendly State (Green)
Licensed Open
Carry State (Orange)
Non Permissive
Open Carry State (Red)
Rural Open
Carry State (Grey)
So where do you
fall into this highly debated area?
The State constitution says, Article I, Section 23; Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
The 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights says, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights says, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The Government has taken control over the American’s right to bear arms. I feel like the founders wanted the country to be protected, giving them the right to bear arms. In all honesty the 2nd amendment was designed to act as protection from the abuse of the government. American’s have teh right to defend themselves and their property. Of course it is a little scary when you think about crazy people walking around with guns. We have police officers that carry guns for our protection…. Is that good enough? I guess you can probably tell that I am on the fence with this debate. On one hand I am for it and on the other hand I’m scared of it. A part of me thinks that if the pilots of the airplanes that went into the Twin Towers had the right to bear arms 911 might not have happened…But would crime spread and would there be an overwhelming amount of unintentional deaths because of people walking around with guns on their hips?
What's your opinion? Watch these clips, they might help make your mind up.... or just make you laugh!
I know it may seem like a scary thought for the government to let just about anyone carry a weapon because you are worried about the criminals all having access. But even now, those criminals already have the weapons. They don't abide by the gun restrictions/limitations that are already set. The criminals always find a way. It's the law abiding citizens that are affected by these laws/restrictions. Now, I see the potential for chaotic vigilante "justice" done by citizens that a) let the "power" get to their head, b) create their own interpretation of self/home defense & c) become plain ol' trigger-happy, thus becoming criminals themselves. Not to mention that some of these folks may inadvertently "get in the way" of Law Enforcement doing their job and risking more lives than doing good. That's my biggest worry, being the sister of a cop and the wife of a potential cop.
ReplyDeleteI'm on the fence about this debate too. On one side I understand that if people were able to carry a weapon then maybe 9/11 could've been stopped or a multitude of events could have been averted. However, on the other side, I only believe that if I believe that everyone is good. I don't think that everyone has good aim or good control. Just because they have a permit doesn't mean they can shoot well, they might even add to the problem. As I talk about this law more and more I see myself side with the idea that letting people carry a weapon is dangerous, more harmful than helpful. I personally don't trust people and no matter what the state says even criminals can pass a test to lawfully carry a weapon, what's to stop them from causing crime and using the law of carrying a weapon in self defense?
ReplyDeleteThe Pursuit of Happiness blogger Amy Chesnut cites some interesting points in her article “The Right to Bear Arms...or Not?” I am in full support of her comment that the 2nd amendment was designed to prevent abuse of power by the government. Ditto on citizens having the right to self defense.
ReplyDeleteNo, police officers possessing guns does not adequately cover the safety of the American people. These guys (and gals) are screwed by the sheer volume of civilians. One police officer to roughly every hundred or even thousand people doesn't cut it. Not to knock the officers, but it is a statistical improbability that they will be able to fully serve and protect each and every unarmed citizen. Solution? Strap every soccer mom and 6-year-old with a sod-off AK-47. Kidding....In all serious though, each person has the right to carry a firearm, if they so choose. Therefore, the more debatable issue regarding firearm possession is not whether we as citizens should be allowed to carry, but the ways in which we are allowed to carry. Chesnut provides a full spectrum of refutations in the form of very humorous video clips and color-coded graphs. This way a very fresh, well-rounded approach! The next best thing to her video clips would be catching the Stephen Colbert report on Comedy Central.
As far as loonies running around opening fire on innocent civilians, this, understandably and sadly enough, happens more with police officers, soldiers and Marines than actual “civies.” People already “walk around with guns on their hips” so I don't think we would see any increase in violent crime or larceny...the only thing changing would be the legality of the people already carrying guns. The motivated criminal will get their hands on a gun-- being legal to carry is probably an after thought. We may as well provide the “good guys” with unlimited access to where they can carry their firearms.
As far as open carry, I really don't see much functionality in this. Discretion is a term synonymous with guns. While I feel they should be accepted for civilian use in society, I don't support maximum exposure. A gun is a means of self defense and not a fashion accessory. Guns ( unless you are an avid collector) are not novelty items. A person goes through a screening process, classes and makes the conscious decision to take on responsibility for handling a gun in public. Start displaying your firearm in public and you put other people at risk. The responsibility that was solely yours has now fallen to the people around you. I have a 2-year-old daughter and a 3-month-old son, and I shudder to think about all the ways they would try and nab my gun if I had it easily accessible on my hip. There is a reason gun safes are so critical, especially with kids. It is about containment. You keep your methods of self defense shielded from other people, because you cannot trust what other people- ESPECIALLY children- would try and do. In addition to keeping yourself safe by means of concealed carry, you are also keeping the people around you safe. Open carry is the equivalent to leaving a gun lying around the house. I support Texas' non permissive open carry state regulations.