Gunless Cowboys

     My wife just completed her CHL (concealed handgun license) class today and it made me think about how Texas doesn’t allow “open carry,” or visibly carry a firearm in public.  In fact, there’s only 7 states left that don’t allow it these days and Texas is one of them, sharing this spot light with liberal states like California.  Since Texas is one of the most pro second amendment states out there, I found it odd that they still haven’t passed a bill in support of open carry, so I decided to do a little research.  Supposedly there’s a bill in the works right now to allow Texas to become an “open carry” state, but it would only allow people with concealed handgun licenses to open carry, which to me, defeats the purpose.   I just recently moved from the state of Virginia, and their “open carry” law allows anyone who owns a gun to open carry, which I completely agree with.  What’s the point in owning a gun if you can’t carry it with you to protect yourself? 

     Some people would argue that carrying a gun in plane sight is like showing all you cards at a poker game, while others look at it as a deterrent, scaring attackers away just from the sight of the weapon.  Either way, if it were allowed, at least you would have the option to carry if you wanted to.  Even the Texas’s constitution states that, “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.”  I’m not sure how concealing guns from “view” prevents crimes, if anything it should be the other way around.  If someone was going to try to steal a person’s wallet, and they had a choice between a guy with a gun, and an unarmed person, they would choose the latter.  Hopefully Texas will pass the “open carry” law and allow it to apply to everyone, until then I guess Texas will have gunless cowboys.

Protect Who?

Dustin Matocha of Empower Texans writes about several bills that were filed this session that look to protect public interest, but might have a secondary purpose.  Matocha explains how these bills are for  “public safety,” and most were written by republicans.  This seems out of place since they are the ones that typically are for a free market, and these new bills would hurt small businesses.  Matocha uses several examples of these bills to support his case.  The first is SB 311 by Senator John Carona.  This bill would require all roofing contractors to obtain a license from the stated by passing a test, providing proof of liability insurance, undergo criminal background checks, along with paying fees.  This would put a lot of strain on small to medium-sized roofing companies, possibly putting them out of business.  This is a good argument.  Why would a Republican be for government regulations on small businesses?  This to me doesn’t make sense and should raise some red flags, which is what Matocha is addressing. He also mentions several other bills, like one that would require cat and dog dealers to be licensed with the state and require mandatory veterinary examinations, and another that would require “rainwater harvesting” to become a licensed plumber.  While I don’t disagree with some of these regulations, I’m also not a republican. I can see how they would hurt businesses and this leads me to believe that there’s an ulterior motive for these bills.  The senators that wrote these bills have special interests in these areas, and are not looking out for the public, just there own pocket.  Matocha does a good job of giving examples to support his ideas.  After reading his post I would have to say I would agree with what he has to say, but I also agree with some (not all) of the bills he mentioned.