Texas to allow unlicensed carrying of handguns with no background checks

[TornPaperNapkin]

Anecdotally I know one single person who has said or done all of the following:

When he remembers it’s all blah blah blah gun safety, “I would never use a gun outside of a range” etc.

When he lets his guard down it’s “oh you have to understand guns are just toys to me. I’m not afraid of them. They’re just fun toys.” (standard masculine dick replacement gambit)

When he really lets his guard down he used a gun to threaten to kill more than one woman was arrested for it and was released.

He still has the guns btw. They don’t take them just because you tried to shoot some one with them. Very few cases go to trial for this in the state actually. Guns have more rights than people.

But to the people deep in denial pretending this isn’t an endemic problem they will only hear another “good guy with a safe gun blah blah” because that’s what they want to hear and they do not care how much suffering or death their selfishness causes or enables.

Waste of time to engage such people. They’re lying to themselves first and foremost and are only obstacles to be overcome for the sake of a better future.

[Akimbo_NOT]

@DukeTrout

[deep breath] So, if those things are beneficial, why not require them?

Gee, IDK, like driver’s licenses?

[gatto]

@Akimbo_NOT

Gee, IDK, like driver’s licenses?

people who want to do surgery well will always learn to do it well. i don’t know why they need a medical license. i mean it doesn’t stop all malpractice, right? so it’s just not worth it.

[Mister44]

@DukeTrout

[deep breath] So, if those things are beneficial, why not require them?

Should the mere act of having a firearm on your person be a crime? If the answer is “no”, then constitutional carry makes sense.

(The following bit is a general statement, it may not specially apply to Texas or other CC states, but I know it applies to some, and why you should get a permit.)

So while constitutional carry de-criminalizes the act of carrying a firearm on one’s person, it has limits on where you are allowed to carry. A CCW permit generally affords your more rights by 1) allowing more places one can legally do it, 2) changes the penalty for some acts from felonies to misdemeanors and 3) will typically have reciprocity in other states.

CC is a great legal protection for people who occasionally or incidentally have a firearm with them. But if one decides they want to carry on a regular basis, I highly recommend getting a permit.

@gatto

it seems a theme of your posts that you believe that only people who have ill intent will use a weapon to hurt someone.

if that were so, there’d be no such thing as a Crime of passion - Wikipedia yet clearly it happens

Anyone wishing to harm another person, or expects to be in a situation where they might have to harm another person because they are engaged in illicit activities aren’t going to NOT do those things because carrying a concealed weapon is illegal.

You’re absolutely right that someone who had no intent to hurt someone might end up committing a crime of passion, such as through road rage or an escalated altercation. These people are more dangerous when armed, but are also a danger when unarmed or armed with a melee weapon. But now I will have to ask for your citation needed where states with CC have a significant number of these. I will concede that that number is not zero.

@gatto

there is also a Crime of opportunity - Wikipedia where – in the moment – if advantage can be seized a person will seize it. neither of these need pre-planning, and the presence of a gun increases both the severity and likelyhood of these

If you’re suggesting that the possession of a firearm makes it more likely one will go and follow through with committing a crime of opportunity, I’m afraid I will have to out right reject your premise. Are there people who would push an old woman who just withdrew $500 out of an ATM machine down and rob her? Absolutely. But the idea that carrying a gun makes one more likely to do so is ridiculous.

@gracchus

In addition to your examples, focusing only on ill intent excludes all the instances of self-harm via all-too-available firearms: those who use them to kill themselves, children who kill or injure themselves when they get access to poorly secured weapons, idiots who were never trained who shoot themselves by accident, etc.

Banning/restricting conceal carry will do literally nothing to effect suicide rates. That is a huge issue with firearm deaths, but if you own a firearm, how is the legality of where you can carry it going to effect whether you decide to commit suicide or not.

Regular carriers with kids do have to take proper precautions. Just like every cop who comes home with kids. Accidental deaths have been trending down, but we should work on getting it near zero. I concede that more carriers will probably result in more accidents, as that is just how averages work.

[gatto]

@Mister44

But the idea that carrying a gun makes one more likely to do so is ridiculous.

well that’s part of your thinking you’ll need to adjust then.

[Bobo]

Depends on the state (which is why it would be nice to have country wide regulations…). Here in CA the only non-dealer involved transfers are between family members (never understood why that’s an exemption), and if the gun is a handgun, a report still needs to be filed with the DOJ.

I’ve got firearms (am a target shooter), and I definitely do not want some of the nutballs I see at ranges having guns (but somehow they do…). I wouldn’t want to live in a state that allowed anybody to open or concealed carry at any time.

[ichibut]

I’m curious, but not enough to check, about what this does for existing carry permits and the extra privileges that come with them.

You can use it as ID to vote. If you have one you can opt out of the metal detector at the Capitol. And so on.

I have checked and it appears to do nothing to alter the current abilities of businesses and public entities to restrict carry on premises. (concealed or not) That of course will be the next thing for them to get rid of.

It was already legal in Texas to have a handgun in your car without a carry permit. (Texas Motorist Protection Act)

[Jesse13927]

@ichibut

If you have one you can opt out of the metal detector at the Capitol.

Goddamn. Talk about burying the lede.

[Surprise_Puma]

@ichibut

If you have one you can opt out of the metal detector at the Capitol.

Wait…so if you might reasonably be assumed to have a gun because you went through the trouble to specifically get legal permission to hide one on your person you are subject to LESS security than if there’s no reason to assume you might have a gun?

[p96]

Is it just a bonus if they destabilize Austin’s steps in the right direction?

Austin City Council cuts police department budget by one-third, mainly...

[Skeptic]

@Bobo

I’ve got firearms (am a target shooter), and I definitely do not want some of the nutballs I see at ranges having guns (but somehow they do…).

I think meeting the most common types of gun owners at the range is one of my biggest turnoffs to shooting sports.

Add to that that the NRA essentially dropped its support for offhanded pistol shooting, which is the Olympic style of pistol shooting as a sport, I became even less enamored. Yet the idea that guns can be used for sporting purposes other than hunting is still one of the selling points that gun supporters try to point to. Having participated, I have found those arguments plausible yet unavailing.

[ichibut]

The argument is that if you have a permit you’ve already been subjected to a level of scrutiny that the general public hasn’t been so you should be trusted.

Concealed carry is legal at the state Capitol, currently with a permit of course.

I’m curious how that might change if anyone can carry without a license, will we end up with a two-tier carry system.

[DukeTrout]

@Mister44

Should the mere act of having a firearm on your person be a crime?

Driving a car without a license is a crime. Why should carrying an item that is only good for killing or practice killing be different? Cars kill fewer people and have other important uses.

@Mister44

Anyone wishing to harm another person, or expects to be in a situation where they might have to harm another person because they are engaged in illicit activities aren’t going to NOT do those things because carrying a concealed weapon is illegal.

That’s so full of it. How do authorities tell the difference between someone wishing to harm another person from someone who is “incidentally” carrying a firearm? By skin color, perhaps? Or do they wait until someone starts opening fire on a crowd?

What’s the non-lethal purpose of a firearm, again? Why do people feel the need to carry one or more on their persons like a steel binky?

[Bobo]

Yeah, I got into in in grad school, precision rifle shooting as a replacement for olympic style archery as the option to spend hours a week maintaining strength to be able to keep proper form etc… just wasn’t an option anymore. Replaced muscle mass with chemical energy. Archery was always almost more of a meditation, and that transferred to rifle shooting. Have to say that that’s not the prevailing attitude.

Beyond that, it’s not uncommon to see people who are a flat out danger to themselves and everyone around them.

Used to shoot at a range with old guys who were into benchrest shooting. Those guys were really cool. That being said, we’d regularly adjourn to the “clubhouse” when some questionable person started to set up on the line.

[gracchus]

@Skeptic

I think meeting the most common types of gun owners at the range is one of my biggest turnoffs to shooting sports.

Going to shooting ranges now and then with my veteran friends did more than anything else to dispel the myth of the “responsible gun owner” for me. Dangerous yahoos were present in significant numbers every bloody time. One of them was so bad he almost earned a beating in the parking lot from my friends.

[TornPaperNapkin]

As city marks 23rd homicide in 2021, Austin police to target gun violence

" Chacon said from 2015 to 2020, the department has seen a 124% increase in gun-related crimes.

On Wednesday, Austin police reported the city’s 23rd homicide of the year. At its current rate, the city could set a record for the number of homicides reported in a year, Chacon said.

“We are up to 23 murders in 2021 and I won’t say that’s unprecedented, but it is very, very concerning. We haven’t seen these types of homicide rates since the 1990s, and if we continue at this rate there is potential that we could have the most murders that we have ever seen in our city,” Chacon said. “That is not a statistic that we want to see happening.”

Hell, even the cops here admit there is a problem. There is a problem. Literally every day, sometimes multiple times a day, in a wide variety of neighborhoods, at a wide variety of times… people are getting shot. Their children are getting shot. And this is only discussing homicides. The number of non-fatal shootings is higher. The number of gun related assaults and brandishing… even higher.

If anyone thinks for one second that Abbott supports this because he cares about the people of Texas or their “freedom” they can think another thought real fast. Right now the only “freedom” we’re seeing here is the freedom to get shot by whomever the fuck happens to get hold of a gun.

And yes, of course this means the police will assume that everyone is armed and that they may need to shoot first, of course. They already do. But that sure won’t be getting any better.

In general it also means we can expect this trend to continue unabated.

I hope to live long enough to witness a sea change, to see guns viewed with the contempt, hatred, and fear they should rightfully be viewed with as implements of murder and war, to have them carefully regulated and to have people who show much enthusiasm for them finding themselves shuttered and shunned for their antisocial and destructive obsessions.

[Mister44]

@gatto

well that’s part of your thinking you’ll need to adjust then.

Sorry, I don’t subscribe to idea that ownership of a weapon makes it so you are more likely to want to kill or harm someone. Just like having a penis doesn’t make you more likely to want to rape someone.

If your point is that ownership makes it so you have a better ability to kill or hurt someone - I guess I concede that point. But just like violent video games or movies don’t make you want to actually go out and hurt other people, neither does the ownership of weapons.

@DukeTrout

How do authorities tell the difference between someone wishing to harm another person from someone who is “incidentally” carrying a firearm? By skin color, perhaps?

Well, looking at police statistics - yes. Just like every other law enforced asymmetrically along color lines. And not just enforcement, but sentencing. This law basically removes the propitiation of being caught with a gun on you. Even for non-whites.

But the other question is - do these laws actually keep us safe - or are they just another thing for police to use to target people? I have to concede that with every “right or privilege” (think of literally ANYTHING) there will be people abusing it, being irresponsible with it, or taking it to a degree I don’t agree with. But I am generally of the mind that those exceptions i can live with, because of how the vast majority of people benefit from the right or privilege.

---

I am curious as to yours and others opinion on this bill being proposed in California. They have an “enhancement” penalty, where if you use or have a firearm during the commission of a crime, you can get years tacked on to your sentence. Sounds fairly common sense, right? But the Democratic authors of the bill claim it is one of the reasons CA has 25% of the world’s prison population. They claim that these enhancements create longer prisons sentences that show no evidence of either rehabilitating the offender, nor keep society safer. (Links to the bill and authors statement at the bottom.) The bill they want to pass will dramatically reduce these sentences. So then we have to ask, is reducing some sentences and de-criminalizing some acts actually a path to judicial reform?

@Bobo

Yeah, I got into in in grad school, precision rifle shooting

My dad was on the Varsity rifle team at Syracuse in the 60s.

@Skeptic

I think meeting the most common types of gun owners at the range is one of my biggest turnoffs to shooting sports.

@Bobo

and I definitely do not want some of the nutballs I see at ranges

May I suggest you two (and any others) look around at local facebook groups, or through discussion boards, for local groups with more like minded individuals. There are a lot of people turned off by thin blue line flags and other baloney. If you find a group of people you enjoy shooting with, in my experience it makes it both safer and more enjoyable.

I guess I am “lucky” that the main rifle range I go to is run by the wildlife department and has range officers and structured cease fires and the like.

If you enjoy competition, even if you’re not great at it, local matches usually have way better safety regulations and people experienced with following them. You just have to find the sort of competition you like. (though you will end up with the thin blue liners again…)

And finally, there are gun rights groups for liberals, African American, Hispanics, socialists, LGTBQ, and probably others. Though much smaller in size, you may find interactions with people who more closely look like and/or align with your views better.

YMMV. Void where prohibited.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1509

https://a25.asmdc.org/press-releases/20210225-assemblymember-alex-lee-introduces-bill-limit-sentencing-enhancements

[DukeTrout]

@Mister44

But I am generally of the mind that those exceptions i can live with, because of how the vast majority of people benefit from the right or privilege.

But you haven’t established this point. What is the benefit, to an individual and society as a whole, and does it outweigh the harm?

@Mister44

Sorry, I don’t subscribe to idea that ownership of a weapon makes it so you are more likely to want to kill or harm someone.

I think you’re intentionally missing the point. Many people, every day, wish to harm or kill someone, even if it is momentary or transient in nature. Bar fights, road rage, shouting matches at Home Depot over the last bag of steer manure - they happen every day, everywhere. Guns don’t cause conflict, but carrying firearms make that momentary impulse too often a tragedy. And there is harm done even with brandishing and even with the assholes who walk around with a loaded AR over their shoulder. It’s intimidation, and it makes people averse to just be themselves in public.

[gatto]

@Mister44

are more likely to want

yeah, not this.

[ edit: well, to an extent. if you’ve ever wanted to punch someone, and suddenly you have a gun. i actually submit your might now be tempted to shoot them. violence isn’t rational. you grab the tool at hand to get the job done. ]

@Mister44

makes it so you have a better ability to kill or hurt someone - I guess I concede that point.

(edit: mostly) this.

guns in a situation increase the chance for violent outcomes.

keep in mind, not everyone is the same as you. there are plenty of ill tempered people. or people who live in dangerous living situations. or people with violence prone partners. etc. etc.

there is no reason why sport shooters, hunters, and collectors can’t keep their passion while also supporting licensing, insurance, restriction of rapid fire guns and gun technology, capacity limits, where and how guns may be kept, etc.

advocating for laws which protect people from gun related violence is just part of being a responsible gun owner in my book.

[Tamsin_Bailey]

@Mister44

If your point is that ownership makes it so you have a better ability to kill or hurt someone - I guess I concede that point.

Fucking finally.