Texas House Committee to Hold Public Hearings on NRA-Backed Campus Carry / Open Carry Bills....

NRA-ILA ^ | March 11, 2013 | NRA Staff

[Windflier]

The Texas House Committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety will hold public hearings on the NRA-supported measures listed below this Thursday, March 14, in Room E2.010 of the Capitol Extension in Austin. This committee normally meets at 8:00 am, but with their full agenda, it is the intention of the chairman to take testimony on the firearm-related measures after the House adjourns from its floor session early in the afternoon. Please contact committee members and urge them to support these important pro-Second Amendment bills.

House Bill 972 , House Bill 1313, and House Bill 706 by Rep. Allen Fletcher (R-Cypress), Rep. Brandon Creighton (R-Conroe) & Rep. Giovanni Capriglione (R-Southlake), respectively, would allow adult Concealed Handgun Licensees to protect themselves in buildings and facilities located on the campus of a public college or university.

HB 1077 by Rep. Tim Kleinschmidt (R-Lexington) would prohibit institutions of higher education from enforcing policies preventing students from lawfully transporting and storing legally owned firearms in their locked private motor vehicles parked on campus.

HB 1078 also by Rep. Kleinschmidt eliminates the criminal penalty against Concealed Handgun Licensees carrying for personal protection on the premises of an institution of higher education.

HB 700 and HB 1194 by Rep. George Lavender (R-Texarkana) and Rep. Chris Paddie (R-Marshall), respectively, would allow a person with a Texas Concealed Handgun License to have the option of carrying concealed or openly holstered.

House Homeland Security and Public Safety Committee:

Representative Joe Pickett – Chairman

(512) 463-0596

Email

Representative Allen Fletcher – Vice Chairman

(512) 463-0661

Email

Representative Philip Cortez

(512) 463-0269

Email

Representative Tony Dale

(512) 463-0696

Email

Representative Dan Flynn

(512) 463-0880

Email

Representative Tim Kleinschmidt

(512) 463-0682

Email

Representative George Lavender

(512) 463-0692

Email

Representative Kenneth Sheets

(512) 463-0244

Email

Representative Ron Simmons

(512) 463-0478

Email

[Windflier]

Full title:

"Texas House Committee to Hold Public Hearings on NRA-Backed Campus Carry and Open Carry Bills this Week in Austin"

Posted as a public service to all Texas Freepers. Please call or email the above members to voice your support of these bills, and encourage the members to vote in the affirmative.

[TexasRedeye]

Also important, is HB 1076 which is to be heard by the Federalism and Fiscal Responsibility committee in Rm E2.306 on Wednesday the 13th at 2 pm. This bill is the vehicle which creates a law making any Federal firearm law unenforceable within the state of Texas

[BobL]

“Also important, is HB 1076 which is to be heard by the Federalism and Fiscal Responsibility committee in Rm E2.306 on Wednesday the 13th at 2 pm. This bill is the vehicle which creates a law making any Federal firearm law unenforceable within the state of Texas”

Don’t get your hopes too high - Republicans in Texas are pretty darn feeble, as was exposed to the country when Perry ran for president in 2012.

[Standing Wolf]

I don’t understand why Texas hasn’t had open carry all along.

[Arrowhead1952]

2nd amendment ping. KLBJ had a news article that some HS districts want to start classes in firearm safety for grades 9 - 12.

[Stegall Tx]

I don’t understand why Texas hasn’t had open carry all along.

As I understand it, it's a left-over from when the carpetbaggers from the North ran the state after the Civil War.

[Resolute Conservative]

Just like that stupid 17th amendment. All put in place to punish the south and keep the under the thumb.

[zeugma]

BFL

[marktwain]

Yes, the history runs something like this: After the Civil War, the reconstruction government rewrote the Texas Constitution, which had a very simple and strong protection for the carrying of arms. The reconstruction Constitution had no effective right to bear arms.

The reconstruction government was voted out in 1872, and enormously unpopular Governor Davis was finally forced out of office in 1874. He had barely been elected by an 800 vote margin, when the polls were controlled by Unionists. He lost the next election by about 45,000 to 85,000, but the Republicans refused to certify the election. I have read that he was forced from the Governor's mansion by armed citizens, but I have not found the source today.

Under the new government, another Constitution was put in place, and had the current protection for the right to keep and bear arms... but it had a serious flaw. The drafters of the constitution said that the legislature could regulate the wearing of arms.

1836 Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power.

1868 Texas: Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe.

1876 Texas: 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.

When the new legislature convened, they promptly (no doubt worried about the freed slaves) forbade the wearing of pistols and large knives. The 1876 Constitutional provision is still in effect. Note that it does not allow the legislature to prohibit the carrying of arms, but the wearing of them. Thus it does not apply to long arms.

[marktwain]

Here is the dramatic way the election of Governor Coke was handled:

During the Coke-Davis controversy at the close of the Reconstruction period, the Travis Rifles, organized at Austin in January 1873 under M. D. Mathew, were called out to protect Edmund J. Davis, who refused to concede the election to Richard Coke. The company refused to obey the order to protect Davis and instead captured the legislative halls and protected the inauguration of Coke as governor.

This source says the election results were 100,000 for Coke vs 52,000 for Davis, with lots of intimidation and fraud on both sides. Davis was appealing for federal troops to keep him in power when he was forced out.

[supercat]

Thus it does not apply to long arms.

If one were to fasten a sling to a pistol and carry it by placing the sling over one's shoulder, I don't see why that should be considered any different from placing a rifle sling over one's shoulder. Certainly I could understand how carrying a pistol in a holster might be considered "wearing" in a way that a slung rifle would not, but my understanding is that the rules in Texas related to possession of pistols without regard for their being particularly attached to one's person.

[marktwain]

If one were to fasten a sling to a pistol and carry it by placing the sling over one's shoulder, I don't see why that should be considered any different from placing a rifle sling over one's shoulder.

I see your logic, but the legislature has not included long guns on its prohibited list.

[supercat]

I see your logic, but the legislature has not included long guns on its prohibited list.

Is your argument that they could have regulated long guns, but did not choose to do so? Fair enough. What about the fact that it is possible to carry a pistol without doing anything that could even remotely be described as "wearing" it? For example, if one carries a pistol with one's hand around the barrel, and the muzzle nearest the thumb, such method of transport could hardly be considered wielding (not even as a hammer) nor wearing, but by my understanding would nonetheless have been prohibited. Likewise if one transports a pistol in a bag the handle of which is gripped in one's hand. Even without an explicit definition of "wearing", I see no basis by which the authority to regulate the "wearing" of arms would confer the authority to restrict the possession of arms which might conceivably be "worn". Given that almost any kind of weapon might possibly be worn, such authority would seem to confer the authority to forbid just about everything, thus nullifying the right that's supposed to be protected.