Texas free for all?

[Bugman]

As you may be aware, Texas, in the good old US of A, has very liberal gun laws, and now the governor of Texas has decreed that open carry without a permit, check up etc ( and correct if I am wrong on this) is now accepted. I certainly don't agree with that legislation, but I am not a Texan, I think you have to have some restrictions as to who gets to carry and who don't. Could be a gunfight at the K Mart Corral erupting soon, me thinks

[womble]

An artists impression

[Larry]

Dont worry they also have the highest rate of executions. So it will all even out.

[No1Mk3]

G'day Bugman,
There are quite a few places in the US where carry is very very common, and no, no gunfights at Walmart due to an understanding that "an armed society is a polite society".

[Larry]

In fact quite a few states now have permit free concealed carry. I thought open carry was always permit free in most states.

[Bugman]

G'day Bugman,
There are quite a few places in the US where carry is very very common, and no, no gunfights at Walmart due to an understanding that "an armed society is a polite society".

Gotta love the U S of A

[bladeracer]

As you may be aware, Texas, in the good old US of A, has very liberal gun laws, and now the governor of Texas has decreed that open carry without a permit, check up etc ( and correct if I am wrong on this) is now accepted. I certainly don't agree with that legislation, but I am not a Texan, I think you have to have some restrictions as to who gets to carry and who don't. Could be a gunfight at the K Mart Corral erupting soon, me thinks

I'm not a fan of open carry as it just lets the bad guys know who to target first, although if everybody is carrying it works very well. Personally, anybody that can legally possess a firearm should be free to carry it wherever they want to.

Convicted felons and (I think) anybody dishonourably discharged from the military cannot possess firearms. To buy a firearm legally requires a background check in every state as far as I'm aware, so there wouldn't be too many prohibited people legally carrying firearms. there are some tiny loopholes, like passing a firearm to a family member.

But in the US, Police have no means of identifying somebody to determine if they are a prohibited person unless they've just committed a crime or are in charge of a vehicle.

[on_one_wheel]

An armed population is a very polite population.

Would you rob a store knowing everyone inside is armed?
Would-be rapists might think twice knowing she's packing heat.

[Tomotron]

I've heard some states and territories here e.g. QLD, NT and TAS having open carry and ccw back in the day, is this true?

[bladeracer]

I've heard some states and territories here e.g. QLD, NT and TAS having open carry and ccw back in the day, is this true?

I knew three people that legally carried in WA in the eighties and nineties, two were concealed carry, one was open (or perhaps just very poorly concealed).
It was pretty rare though.

[ZaineB]

As you may be aware, Texas, in the good old US of A, has very liberal gun laws, and now the governor of Texas has decreed that open carry without a permit, check up etc ( and correct if I am wrong on this) is now accepted. I certainly don't agree with that legislation, but I am not a Texan, I think you have to have some restrictions as to who gets to carry and who don't. Could be a gunfight at the K Mart Corral erupting soon, me thinks

background checks exist in every state in the union, as do cool downs. the carry without a permit is just like other states that already have constitutional carry laws, this is nothing revolutionary, rather a Governor merely adhering to the constitution of the USA.

[Johnno]

This is fundamentally a question of skill levels. For example, they are absolutely millions of miles away from us with their driving skills. They seem to drive their huge pick up trucks and other heavy vehicles up to over 11 tonnes with a normal driver's licence just fine. Our car licence limit is 4.5 t GVM, thereafter there are many classes in Oz, playing with axle numbers and articulated vehicle weight limits. It's all for safety in Oz, one might say. Why then the Americans haven't become safety nuts and changed their licence classes? If there had been problems, they would've seen to it. They just ARE better drivers...

[wanneroo]

Constitutional Carry is the law now in about 20 states.

What a lot of folks don't understand is these laws clear up a lot of issues with carry permits. As I recall with Texas, one issue was concealed had to be totally concealed, so if you were "printing" through a T-shirt or the tip of your holster was sticking out, you could get in trouble. It also makes it more straight forward for non resident visitors to the state as well.

Stats are pretty clear that areas with high levels of concealed or open carry, crime is much reduced. The only places you really need to worry about crime in the USA are democrat run cities with very restrictive gun laws, Washington DC, Chicago, LA, Detroit, etc. If the city has a democrat for a mayor, you can expect crime.

We have a million and a half license holders in my state. Someone did a study on them years ago and the crime rate on these people is Zero.

I think if you are someone not used to it, at first its unusual but you get used to it. I find when carrying a pistol, that even if it prints a bit, most people have their head up their butt and don't notice anyways. In the trunk/boot of my car I keep an AR 15 300 Blackout rifle and a Walther PPQ pistol.

The other bit a lot of people don't understand is we have them so we don't have to use them. My area is heavily armed and any sort of violent crime in this county is very rare. If you try breaking into people's houses or attacking them you'll just succumb quickly to lead poisoning. I know from my Australian friends that they are constantly plagued with property crime and burglary and that isn't a problem here.

[womble]

As cool as it would be, I’m kinda happy i don’t have to carry a gun here just going about my day to day.
But then , that’s not really working out so great for us either. Not sure this golden age will last much longer.
You won’t find any unarmed criminals here. Illegal guns are far more prolific than they were just a decade ago. If not they all carry knives, some carry tazers.
We have a lot of crime that did’nt need to happen. And we don’t have enough prevention. Or the means to resist it.

[duddley75]

Constitutional Carry is the law now in about 20 states.



The other bit a lot of people don't understand is we have them so we don't have to use them. My area is heavily armed and any sort of violent crime in this county is very rare. If you try breaking into people's houses or attacking them you'll just succumb quickly to lead poisoning. I know from my Australian friends that they are constantly plagued with property crime and burglary and that isn't a problem here.

As an Australian I think this is very interesting. I live in what I would call a safe area of Sydney. Is there crime, yes for sure - along the lines of car break in's, home burglarys and other stuff like that including the occasional assault but nothing too crazy.

In my opinion, would being armed on a day to day basis change my life, no I don't think so. If my teenage daughter (in a couple of years adult) being armed change her life, hard to say but it would make me feel better. But I also worry about someone disarming her and using it against her (the old double edge sword).

As a former police officer, I like the idea that people generally aren't armed but in saying that, I would imagine (and I say this in a general sense) most licensed upstanding citizens wouldn't be the issue , it would be the people illegally obtaining or just doing wrong that would be the issue.

It is hard to say as I don't live in a gun carrying society, but I do think it is interesting as Wanreroo says that with everyone carrying there is less crime.

I will say though, I think our laws stink regarding defending our home. If someone breaks into my house I can't defend it or my family with a firearm despite being licensed. As far as I am concerned if you break into my house you have given up any "rights" you had.

Whilst we have self defense laws I think I am going to be hard pressed defending why a person who broke into my house has a 308 hunting round through them.

[MontyShooter]

Alot of Americans are terrified to not have a weapon on hand. It might sound cool to have open/concealed carry but it's not because they want to feel like John Wayne. They are scared of being assaulted.

[wanneroo]

Whilst we have self defense laws I think I am going to be hard pressed defending why a person who broke into my house has a 308 hunting round through them.

Well, it saves the taxpayers 40 years of paying for the damage they do for society and housing them in jails. And they will not be doing that again.

Not all criminals are completely dumb and if they know their chances of lead poisoning are high they avoid it and seek out other activities in places more friendly to criminal activity like Chicago or DC or work non violent scams instead.

[wanneroo]

Alot of Americans are terrified to not have a weapon on hand. It might sound cool to have open/concealed carry but it's not because they want to feel like John Wayne. They are scared of being assaulted.

Guns are the great equalizer. When some monster is trying to beat your brains out and you're an old guy or a woman, yeah you'll want a gun.

[duddley75]

Whilst we have self defense laws I think I am going to be hard pressed defending why a person who broke into my house has a 308 hunting round through them.

Well, it saves the taxpayers 40 years of paying for the damage they do for society and housing them in jails. And they will not be doing that again.

Not all criminals are completely dumb and if they know their chances of lead poisoning are high they avoid it and seek out other activities in places more friendly to criminal activity like Chicago or DC or work non violent scams instead.

I would be all for a law that allows unlimited defense options to anyone breaking into your house.

[disco stu]

Funnily enough, I was reading an old Lyman cast bullet manual this morning. In there they claimed that firearms were basically the start of democracy. Before that, the rich could afford armour to protect themselves while the poor couldn't. Once firearms were on the scene the armor was useless, so the rich no longer had the upper hand over the poor peasants and couldn't hold it over them to the same extent.

While I think there is a lot more to it than that, I thought it was an interesting take on things

[Communism_Is_Cancer]

A lot of Australians hate freedom and they would and have given it up for what they perceive as security. Americans for the most part value freedom and the ability to make their own way without relying on the government.

Australians have the prisoner mindset where they are happy the government gives them some privileges to go about their relatively high standard of living whilst having pretty much no independent freedom.
Americans set out a legal document that allows the government to govern but a set of parameters must be adhered too in the form of a bill of rights. This bill of rights contains a get out of jail free card if the government breaks their part of the agreement.


Both countries started as British colonies, both even had British convicts at one point but they ended up in vastly different ways. The Australian system was even set out to mirror the American system with 3 levels of government(Federal, State, Local). However our forebears thought a bill of rights was unnecessary as democracy would prevail. If only those knobs had the foresight to add in a bill of rights we may have some freedoms in this country.

[Oldbloke]

Frankly, I think all this talk about the yanks being able to own more firearms, easy to get semi automatics and hand guns etc is just bull sheet. Especially the stuff about forming a military to take over government to maintain freedom. (2nd amendment)
Let's face it, would a few thousand armed shooting enthusiasts stand up to the US military? They would have Buckley's.

[Communism_Is_Cancer]

Let's face it, would a few thousand armed shooting enthusiasts stand up to the US military? They would have Buckley's.

A few thousand? Try several to tens of millions. Do not be so naive mate, in a hypothetical scenario the US military would not win a war against it citizens. We know that American civilians have more small arms and ammunition than the US government. Over 400 million small arms compared to around 4 million. We also know that wars of insurgency with a giant military power against small organised groups always fail for the military power.

We also know that rather large portions of American civilians are heavily trained with combat experience as many have been in the military on operations for the last decades. We also know that airpower in the end is useless and boots on the ground are needed to take and hold ground. Local militia groups have the advantage as they know their local terrain

With all that aside, we also know that the US military is heavily conservative and Americans are a rather patriotic bunch. I can guarantee my soul that the American military would not take up arms against their citizens. It literally goes against their existence.

The Americans are I believe the only country to take an oath to a piece of paper and not a person and they take their oath pretty seriously.

[Communism_Is_Cancer]

American citizens own half of the worlds firearms and 3% of Americans own half of all American firearms. So around 10 million Americans own 25% of the worlds firearms.

Lets also not forget the historical claim of the 3 percenters. Some claim that at no point in the war against the crown the colonists who later became Americans never amounted to no more than 3% of the population on the battlefield. The Americans I know love this claim and one of their biggest militia groups is called the 3 percenters.

[ZaineB]

Frankly, I think all this talk about the yanks being able to own more firearms, easy to get semi automatics and hand guns etc is just bull sheet. Especially the stuff about forming a military to take over government to maintain freedom. (2nd amendment)
Let's face it, would a few thousand armed shooting enthusiasts stand up to the US military? They would have Buckley's.

soooo you don't understand posse comitatus and you think that the military in the USA who's friends, lovers, spouses, brothers, sisters, cousins, mothers, fathers, daughters and sons and so on are in the general population will just outright attack the citizenry? pull the other one, the military is sworn to uphold the constitution and defend the country (population), doing as you suggest is in complete contravention to this and also against the many reason people enlist to begin with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

[wanneroo]

I would be all for a law that allows unlimited defense options to anyone breaking into your house.

Well that's how castle doctrine works. My state assumes anyone breaking into your home is there to commit a violent felony and hence you can respond accordingly.

Castle doctrine nips home invasions in the bud.

[wanneroo]

Funnily enough, I was reading an old Lyman cast bullet manual this morning. In there they claimed that firearms were basically the start of democracy. Before that, the rich could afford armour to protect themselves while the poor couldn't. Once firearms were on the scene the armor was useless, so the rich no longer had the upper hand over the poor peasants and couldn't hold it over them to the same extent.

While I think there is a lot more to it than that, I thought it was an interesting take on things

Never heard that story before but yes they are the great equalizer. No matter what your physical ability or wealth is, you can defend yourself just as equally.

[wanneroo]

A lot of Australians hate freedom and they would and have given it up for what they perceive as security. Americans for the most part value freedom and the ability to make their own way without relying on the government.

Australians have the prisoner mindset where they are happy the government gives them some privileges to go about their relatively high standard of living whilst having pretty much no independent freedom.
Americans set out a legal document that allows the government to govern but a set of parameters must be adhered too in the form of a bill of rights. This bill of rights contains a get out of jail free card if the government breaks their part of the agreement.


Both countries started as British colonies, both even had British convicts at one point but they ended up in vastly different ways. The Australian system was even set out to mirror the American system with 3 levels of government(Federal, State, Local). However our forebears thought a bill of rights was unnecessary as democracy would prevail. If only those knobs had the foresight to add in a bill of rights we may have some freedoms in this country.

The siren call of Utopian Statism is very alluring and attractive to many people. You exchange your freedom for "safety" and "security" and the goal posts continually move exchanging more freedom for more "safety" and "security" until one day you are safe and secure in the gulag, oh sorry, quarantine camp.

One thing the founding fathers in the USA knew was human behavior. They knew once a person got a taste of totalitarian power they just would never give it up, so installed many checks and balances to bind the hands of government. As we see in Australia right now we have politicians running rampant with no check on their power and it's going to their head. Pretty much every day on Twitter I am watching these people running the show going insane.

There was great debate over the Bill of RIghts and in the end it prevailed and history has shown it has kept the US government in check from morphing into something horrendous.

[wanneroo]

Frankly, I think all this talk about the yanks being able to own more firearms, easy to get semi automatics and hand guns etc is just bull sheet. Especially the stuff about forming a military to take over government to maintain freedom. (2nd amendment)
Let's face it, would a few thousand armed shooting enthusiasts stand up to the US military? They would have Buckley's.

Well Joe Biden said we'd need F-15s and submarines to take on the government and win, yet the Taliban who wear flip flops, wipe their butts with river rocks and use beat up all AKs in the end did. You could say they didn't beat us on the battlefield, but they hung on long enough and in time took over when we left.

The 2nd Amendment is a check and balance on government. We have them so we don't have to use them. We also have them to repeal foreign invaders, criminal gangs or other dirtbags. Holds those people in check too. Who wants to invade the USA? You can bet hitler would have not been so quick to invade most of Europe in 1938-1942 if Europeans were all armed up. Weakness invites conflict. Why do you think Poland, Czech, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Finland are investing in shooting sports and militias for young people right now? They learned their lesson.

The other thing to consider is that by maintaining arms, we have a shooting sports culture and lots of people know how to shoot. I was watching a British program about basic training in their military and unlike 100 plus years ago when British marksmanship was much feared, there is very little of a shooting sports culture anymore, so none of these young people know one end of a gun from another. These kids are way behind the curve on marksmanship skills. When it comes to national survival you better know how to shoot.

[womble]

Let's face it, would a few thousand armed shooting enthusiasts stand up to the US military? They would have Buckley's.

A few thousand? Try several to tens of millions. Do not be so naive mate, in a hypothetical scenario the US military would not win a war against it citizens. We know that American civilians have more small arms and ammunition than the US government. Over 400 million small arms compared to around 4 million. We also know that wars of insurgency with a giant military power against small organised groups always fail for the military power.

We also know that rather large portions of American civilians are heavily trained with combat experience as many have been in the military on operations for the last decades. We also know that airpower in the end is useless and boots on the ground are needed to take and hold ground. Local militia groups have the advantage as they know their local terrain

With all that aside, we also know that the US military is heavily conservative and Americans are a rather patriotic bunch. I can guarantee my soul that the American military would not take up arms against their citizens. It literally goes against their existence.

The Americans are I believe the only country to take an oath to a piece of paper and not a person and they take their oath pretty seriously.

Patriotic yes, but the military is politically impartial.
Trump often threatened to use the military against citizens, even use them to overturn the election. The military said no.
At one point he did use the national guard as a show of force when protestors surrounded the White House and he sent them in to capitol cities.
I think we know now what Americans thought about that. And we certainly got to see what the military thought about it. A lot of black people in the military, without the racism element.