Thoughts on the new Texas Constitutional Carry?

[Neonmoon 38127]

5 minutes ago, deadshank said:

Dude.  Really?  We’ve been over this in the other thread.  The “30 year” detail was in reference to Brisket’s tutorial on how to run a business.   
 

We have discussed this on the other thread in the 6th Street forum.  I have beginner $18/hour guys up to +$100K guys.  In the other thread we have discussed prospective hires that would rather sit on the sidelines and collect UE benefits rather than make a go at demanding, hands-on, potentially highly-skilled, full time employment 

Briskets point, and my point in asking about the 30 year employee’s pay, is that I’m assuming the 30 year core employees are making over +100K and are treated very well. Therefore using them as a defense of “I know how to treat employees” is a bit disingenuous when discussing the the lower wage employees.

[CooterBrown 17875]

Quickest way to get guns banned is to to start handing out free guns to minorities.

[workswithseed 2033]

Just now, CooterBrown said:

Quickest way to get guns banned is to to start handing out free guns to minorities.

This is actually dumber, go back to the dick jokes.

[Armybrat 40678]

12 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

Quickest way to get guns banned is to to start handing out free guns to minorities.

That is why Governor Reagan signed a gun control law in California in the early 1960s after the Black Panthers started open carrying. He got skeered.

Edited May 23, 2021 by Armybrat

[bolverk 29360]

39 minutes ago, Sandman said:

The way it works here is, you can carry into a business, even if they have a sign in the window. If they see that you're carrying (concealed or open) and demand that you leave, you have to do so immediately. 

That's precisely the thing that gives me pause. As we've all seen umpteen times over the last year in regards to masks, there are apparently a whole lot of people who feel like a store's rules don't apply to them. What's the mindset of a person who would ignore a sign posted out front and carry their gun in anyway? Are they seeking confrontation just to prove a point?

Much like the anti-maskers saying they have a constitutional right to not wear a mask and make a scene, are there some gun owners who will quote the second amendment or claim their "natural right" to be armed at all times? Doesn't that seem at least a little provocative with the potential of getting out of hand?

So, again, what is the purpose of the stipulation that a "no guns allowed" sign be insufficient? Why would they require that the store owner or employee have to verbally tell an armed patron to not be holding? Is the purpose of that requirement to intentionally cause confrontation and intimidation? 

[washparkhorn 9931]

13 hours ago, Patricio Swayze said:

Fucking hilarious. Incels need to carry guns to buy shoes. I bet he is a Q.

I sure could use a vacation from this bull shit, three ring, circus side show. The only way to fix it is to flush it all away. 

 

[deadshank 24651]

31 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Briskets point, and my point in asking about the 30 year employee’s pay, is that I’m assuming the 30 year core employees are making over +100K and are treated very well. Therefore using them as a defense of “I know how to treat employees” is a bit disingenuous when discussing the the lower wage employees.

That was merely a range. The lower wage employees are paid well, too and some have advanced up in pay and responsibility.  Year end bonuses, finder’s bonuses and profit sharing plan. 
 

If low wage earner is still earning a low wage after a year or so then he is doing me nor himself any good whatsoever.   Keep moving up or move on.  

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

Quickest way to get guns banned is to to start handing out free guns to minorities.

Evidence says that program started long ago...

[Henry Hill 3156]

Cock size discussion not going away.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

I just think people who carry around guns they'll never use are compensating for something. That's all. Carry on.

You think a lot of stupid shit.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

The pearl clutchers have made the same argument when the CHL law was passed in the 90s.  
 

and again when the castle doctrine was extended to automobiles.  
 

and again when campus carry passed

and again when open carry passed.  
 

and now again with this

i don’t like open carry for one reason.  A lot of businesses that had no 30.06 signs added them once open carry passed.  Along with the 30.07 signs.  
 

 

[washparkhorn 9931]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You think a lot of stupid shit.  

 

[Armybrat 40678]

29 minutes ago, Henry Hill said:

Cock size discussion not going away.

Barrel length discussions preferred.

[workswithseed 2033]

2 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Barrel length discussions preferred.

Told my mother to go get one of these bad boys, but six inches might be too long.

 

[CHIEF 5057]

If you don't have a CCL can you carry concealed? I don't carry in rural areas (stays in truck), but Mrs. CHIEF carries a .38 in her purse in Houston. She is usually by herself in a rough part of town. It would be nice to not get in trouble if you stick one in your boot when traveling in unfamiliar areas. I don't particularly ever want to open carry.

CHIEF

Edited May 23, 2021 by CHIEF

[Nice Guy Eddie 13391]

4 hours ago, Armybrat said:

A simple GTFO should suffice

 

The best course is to ignore a sign telling you that the business owner has decided that you can't bring a gun on the premises, but you will respect their wishes when they back that up with a verbal request?

[Armybrat 40678]

10 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

If you don't have a CCL can you carry concealed? I don't carry in rural areas (stays in truck), but Mrs. CHIEF carries a .38 in her purse in Houston. She is usually by herself in a rough part of town. It would be nice to not get in trouble if you stick one in your boot when traveling in unfamiliar areas. I don't particularly ever want to open carry.

CHIEF

No, not until this bill is signed by Abbott and goes into effect.

Carrying in a purse is not really a good idea.

[Armybrat 40678]

12 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The best course is to ignore a sign telling you that the business owner has decided that you can't bring a gun on the premises, but you will respect their wishes when they back that up with a verbal request?

The owner won’t know if I’m carrying. 

[Pato del Muerto 52321]

2 hours ago, Armybrat said:

Some like to show off their BBQ guns.
Mine isn’t for totin’ around though.

 

His was more like this

im sure he could have pulled it from his ribs quick and clean in the adrenaline rush of a suddenly hostile environment though. 
 

I wouldn’t  even trust his setup for bear protection. 

[Armybrat 40678]

He could always use it for a cane to hobble off after the bear mauled him a bit.

I had one in blue but son now owns it. Quite a cannon.

Edited May 23, 2021 by Armybrat

[workswithseed 2033]

14 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

No, not until this bill is signed by Abbott and goes into effect.

Carrying in a purse is not really a good idea.

Why?

[formermav43 4599]

3 hours ago, workswithseed said:

Was he compensating for his small dick here, Pam? 

That’s the second time you’ve alluded to this incident on this thread (after saying he “domed a fool” before).

I’m glad more innocent people weren’t killed. But celebrating a shooting in a church, especially holding it up as a model for why people should be armed, is pretty unseemly, in my opinion.

[workswithseed 2033]

4 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

That’s the second time you’ve alluded to this incident on this thread (after saying he “domed a fool” before).

I’m glad more innocent people weren’t killed. But celebrating a shooting in a church, especially holding it up as a model for why people should be armed, is pretty unseemly, in my opinion.

Why not? It could have been more like this one?

 

[formermav43 4599]

2 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Why not? It could have been more like this one?

 

Because-as a Christian-even if we can in good conscience, with reasoning rooted in Scripture, disagree over whether or not loving our neighbors overrides loving our enemies to the point of requiring lethal force in some cases, it is still a tragedy. We should mourn death rather than glorifying it. The memes I saw in the aftermath of that shooting, holding up as a model, effectively saying “Don’t mess with Texas” made me sick. And I’m saying this not to pick on you specifically, but because your comments brought it all back freshly to my mind.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Armybrat said:

No, not until this bill is signed by Abbott and goes into effect.

Carrying in a purse is not really a good idea.

this.

The ladies I know who carry ain't fucking around with their purse...

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Why?

time/ speed/ fumbling

[Pato del Muerto 52321]

Not even the purses with special pistol compartment?

[bolverk 29360]

1 hour ago, Armybrat said:

The owner won’t know if I’m carrying. 

So you're saying you won't respect the rights of the private property owner.

If you entered my establishment where I have displayed a sign saying that guns are prohibited on the premises and you enter with one anyway, I would reasonably deem that a provocation and that you were a threat to myself and my property.

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

5 minutes ago, bolverk said:

So you're saying you won't respect the rights of the private property owner.

If you entered my establishment where I have displayed a sign saying that guns are prohibited on the premises and you enter with one anyway, I would reasonably deem that a provocation and that you were a threat to myself and my property.

Of course he is because what good are rights if you can't push them on everyone, cause they are my rights. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

10 minutes ago, bolverk said:

So you're saying you won't respect the rights of the private property owner.

If you entered my establishment where I have displayed a sign saying that guns are prohibited on the premises and you enter with one anyway, I would reasonably deem that a provocation and that you were a threat to myself and my property.

He would be breaking the law and you should call the police.  But I’d highly recommend not using lethal force on someone for merely carrying against the law but not brandishing their weapon against you.  Unless you like prison.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

I personally would never carry in a place with the appropriate signage.  It’s a pretty serious offense.  I don’t carry much these days anyway.  Outside of the FN 5.7 I keep locked in my truck’s console safe.  
 

 

[deadshank 24651]

1 hour ago, Armybrat said:

Carrying in a purse is not really a good idea.

 

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

Why?

Have you ever looked at all of the crap in a woman’s purse?  How would a woman find a pistol?

[workswithseed 2033]

Just now, deadshank said:

 

Have you ever looked at all of the crap in a woman’s purse?  How would a woman find a pistol?

No, that's rude. I guess cause the lady doesn't really ever carry a purse I haven't thought about it much.

[Armybrat 40678]

21 minutes ago, bolverk said:

So you're saying you won't respect the rights of the private property owner.

If you entered my establishment where I have displayed a sign saying that guns are prohibited on the premises and you enter with one anyway, I would reasonably deem that a provocation and that you were a threat to myself and my property.

That was a hypothetical statement, so keep your smugness to yourself. I do not go in businesses that are posted for no carry at all, or leave my gun at home if I know we are going somewhere posted as such.

[DanRydell 799]

I don't really give a shit about carrying but not subjecting every transfer to a background check is bullshit and requiring business owners to personally confront people about not carrying as opposed to being able to just post a sign prohibiting carrying on their property is ridiculous. The Senate stripped the latter part out of the bill but the House hasn't accepted the amendments so we'll see what comes out of committee. 

[Armybrat 40678]

1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

Why?

Purse snatchers. The ladies I know who carry do so on their person.

[Armybrat 40678]

1 minute ago, DanRydell said:

I don't really give a shit about carrying but not subjecting every transfer to a background check is bullshit and requiring business owners to personally confront people about not carrying as opposed to being able to just post a sign prohibiting carrying on their property is ridiculous. The Senate stripped the latter part out of the bill but the House hasn't accepted the amendments so we'll see what comes out of committee. 

Agreed.

[workswithseed 2033]

2 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

Purse snatchers. The ladies I know who carry do so on their person.

This is actually a better reason actually, even though dead's isn't bad either.

[Armybrat 40678]

My mom got mugged in Mexico once by a purse snatcher. She refused to let go and was dragged to the ground, so purse carry would not have done much good in her case.

That influenced the heeled women in the family as to their carry methods.

[bolverk 29360]

18 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

That was a hypothetical statement, so keep your smugness to yourself. I do not go in businesses that are posted for no carry at all, or leave my gun at home if I know we are going somewhere posted as such.

Mine was also a hypothetical whose purpose was to point out that the ever-expanding space where people feel self-righteous about bearing arms in public spaces ratchets emotions up to a level that could turn dangerous for all parties, especially if this law renders the display of signs prohibiting possession moot and thereby forces verbal confrontation between the storekeeper and the customer.

I'm glad to hear that you and Johnny Sack would respect the will of the property owner due to your training/education, however lacking it may have been, but this law now allows those with zero training/education to feel justified in carrying whenever/wherever they desire. Personally, I think it will result in a lot more irresponsible gun owners out there.

Edited May 23, 2021 by bolverk
rewording

[Pato del Muerto 52321]

People have proven that a good deal of them won’t even respect a business that requires mask wearing via signage or a verbal request to comply or vacate. 

[deadshank 24651]

4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

People have proven that a good deal of them won’t even respect a business that requires mask wearing via signage or a verbal request to comply or vacate. 

People are self-entitled Aholes. 

[Armybrat 40678]

That could be true about the yayhoos’ behavior, as we have seen their ilk reacting to masking in private businesses, but the past predictions about legalized carry in general have not occurred.
I think the lege should stick with the signage system - which already does have the verbal warning option.

[Armybrat 40678]

4 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

People have proven that a good deal of them won’t even respect a business that requires mask wearing via signage or a verbal request to comply or vacate. 

Beat me to it.

[bolverk 29360]

1 minute ago, Pato del Muerto said:

People have proven that a good deal of them won’t even respect a business that requires mask wearing via signage or a verbal request to comply or vacate. 

Yep. This last year's history is why I keep harping on the signage factor about this. It was a real eye-opener for just how many fuckheads are out there which, I mean, we already knew, but those public freakouts were something. I really don't want to be around when/if this shit starts up over guns not being allowed in stores.

[Armybrat 40678]

Just now, deadshank said:

People are self-entitled Aholes. 

Particularly criminals who do not give a shit about signs, licenses, laws, or anyone else.

[bolverk 29360]

22 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

That could be true about the yayhoos’ behavior, as we have seen their ilk reacting to masking in private businesses, but the past predictions about legalized carry in general have not occurred.
I think the lege should stick with the signage system - which already does have the verbal warning option.

I fully acknowledge your bolded statement is true, and maybe the requirement for that permit actually did limit carrying to responsible gun owners such as yourself, at least to a degree. But, again, the way people threw such fits in public last year has shaken my confidence. 

Edited May 23, 2021 by bolverk

[Armybrat 40678]

If it does create a problem, then the law can be tweaked.

However, 20 other states have been operating with CC without a noticeable problem, so we’ll just have to see.

 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11796]

3 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

If it does create a problem, then the law can be tweaked.

However, 20 other states have been operating with CC without a noticeable problem, so we’ll just have to see.

 

I think we can all agree it’s a solution looking for a problem.   Nothing in Texas law was stopping me from killing anyone who wanted to kill me before this. Red meat to weak minded individuals is all this was.  

[workswithseed 2033]

3 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

The pearl clutchers have made the same argument when the CHL law was passed in the 90s.  
 

and again when the castle doctrine was extended to automobiles.  
 

and again when campus carry passed

and again when open carry passed.  
 

and now again with this

i don’t like open carry for one reason.  A lot of businesses that had no 30.06 signs added them once open carry passed.  Along with the 30.07 signs.  
 

 

I can't believe that CHLs wasn't a thing before the 90s. That just seems crazy.

Edited May 23, 2021 by workswithseed