Video Transcript:
I’m Edwin Walker, Independent Program Attorney for U.S. LawShield. If you’re watching this video, you’ve probably heard that constitutional carry is coming to Texas. This is true. A bill providing for constitutional carry, or permitless carry as it’s also known, has passed the Texas House of Representatives. It has also passed the Texas Senate, which means it is on its way to the desk of Governor Abbott. Governor Abbott may sign the bill tomorrow. He may sign it next week. But rest assured, he will sign it.
Now, does that mean that you can carry a handgun without a license right now, here in the state of Texas? No, it does not. So I want to advise everyone out there, if you do not yet have a Texas license to carry, or a license to carry from another state that Texas recognizes, you are not allowed to carry a handgun on your person at this moment. In fact, even after Governor Abbott does sign the bill, you will not be allowed to carry that handgun without a license immediately. That is because the bill contains an effective date and that effective date is September 1st, 2021. Only after that date, will you then be allowed to carry a handgun, assuming that you’re over the age of 21, you are not prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm, and you have not been convicted of certain misdemeanors within the last five years.
Rest assured that we here at U.S. LawShield will keep you updated on the progress of this law.
Nice overview, but I would like to see/hear more about where citizens can and cannot carry that are not addressed in this video and what is the correct verbiage of signage on properties that prohibit concealed carry that are taught to concealed carry license holders.
A lot more Texans are likely to become US/Texas Law Shield policy owners now and they would benefit greatly from this information.
NO government arms control is legal or constitutional!
Regarding the governments ability to impose “Reasonable Restraint”, the mantra of our liberal influenced government.
*Supporters of the Bill of Rights claim they have constitutional rights.
*Opponents counter even if it were the case, the government was granted the general power to place restraints on those rights.
**Both of these assertions are based on a misconception concerning the intent of the document known as the Bill of Rights.
When the Bill of Rights was submitted to the individual States for ratification, it was prefaced with a preamble. As stated in the preamble, the purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being recommended. The Amendments, when adopted, did not create any so-called constitutional rights or grant the government any power over individual rights; they placed additional restraints and qualifications on the powers of the government concerning the rights enumerated in the Amendments.
By advancing the myth that Amendments grant the American people their individual rights, the government has illegally converted enumerated restraints and qualifications on its power into legislative, executive, judicial and administrative power over individual rights. The government claims it was granted the constitutional authority to determine the extent of the individual rights enumerated in the Amendments and/or impose “reasonable restraints” on those rights. This assertion is absurd. The government does not have the constitutional authority to ignore, circumvent, modify, negate or remove constitutional restraints placed on its power by the Amendments or convert them into a power over the individual right enumerated in the particular restraint.
A denial of power or an enumerated restraint on the exercise of power is not subject to interpretation or modification by the entity the restraint is being imposed upon. The restraints imposed by the Amendments, which were adopted 4 years after the Constitution was ratified, override the legislative, executive, judicial or administrative powers of the government. If this were not the case, then the restraints would be meaningless because the government could simply circumvent, modify or remove them. Why would the States have requested and adopted enumerated restraints on government power, subsequent to their ratification of the Constitution, if the government possessed the authority to nullify them?
When the government infringes on one of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights it is not violating anyone’s constitutional rights; it is violating the additional restraint or qualification placed on its power by the particular Amendment where the right is enumerated. The distinction between rights and restraints is critical. [The right is not given by the Government. Our rights are given by God and are inalienable. Therefore, they can’t be limited or taken away.]
As stated in the Declaration of Independence, the American people have unalienable rights that come from a higher source than government or a written document. By acknowledging people have natural rights, which are bestowed by a creator, the Founders laid the foundation for the principle the government does not have the lawful authority to take away or infringe on those rights. This principle was incorporated into the preamble and structure of the Amendments to secure individual rights from government encroachment; that is why they were designed and imposed as restraints on the exercise of power.
If the individual rights of the people had been created by the Constitution or an amendment to the document, then they would cease to be unalienable because the right would depend on the existence of a document. If the document or a provision of the document disappeared, so would the right. The belief individual rights were created by a written document has opened the door for the government to claim the power to define the extent of any right enumerated in an Amendment. This has transformed constitutional restraints placed on governmental power into subjective determinations of individual rights by the institutions of government. By failing to understand the difference between amendments that create rights and amendments that impose restraints on government, the American people are watching their individual rights vanish as they are reduced to the status of privileges bestowed by government because the constitutional restraints placed on governmental power are being replaced by government decree.
Opponents of the Amendments always try to diminish the right enumerated in the Amendments by asserting rights are not absolute. This is just another straw man argument because the Amendment is about imposing a restraint of the powers of the government concerning a right: not granting a right or defining the extent of a right. In addition, a review of the Second Amendment shows the restraint imposed by the Amendment does not obtain any exceptions.
Legal precedence supporting constitution and bill of rights.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.”
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622: “Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law.”
Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 1974: Expounds upon Owen Byers v. U.S., 273 U.S. 28 Unlawful search and seizure. Your rights must be interpreted in favor of the citizen.
Boyd v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616: “The court is to protect against any encroachment of Constitutionally secured liberties.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured (Affirmed) by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748: “Waivers of Constitutional Rights, not only must they be voluntary, they must be knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness.” “If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” —Samuel Adams, 1772
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 US (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821): “When a judge acts where he or she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.”
Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”
S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
Repeated Supreme Court rulings which have Incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Would you let an untrained individual work on your car, just because they have a box of tools, and hung a shingle outside their garage? I have been carrying weapons since I was 17 and was a member of the U. S. Army.
I handled everything from sidearms to m-16’s, to m-60’s, LAW rockets. Those items were not just issued to me, with a “Good Luck With That”, from the Unit Armorer. I was thoroughly trained in the use of each of them.
After I retired from the Army, I continued with concealed carry, after jumping through the required hoops; a NICS check, an FBI background investigation, Photo and fingerprints, and a weekend long intensive training course that culminated in a written and a practical test at a firing range. It was no biggie for me to have to wait to be approved, after all, I was used to the “Hurry up and wait” of the Armed Forces.
My point is that in order to drive a car, you need a Car, a License, and Insurance, and also to attend a Defensive Driving Course. Cops have to pass qualification tests on their weapons as well. I would no sooner sell a firearm (a handgun or a long rifle) to anyone who had not taken a hunter’s safety course for the long gun, nor a Law and Safety Course for the handgun.
Such courses do not impinge your ability to exercise your 2A right. They are there to acquaint to prospective owner of the weapon with a baseline of safety measures, legal duties when carrying, legal requirements for the use of those weapons in a self defense scenario, and show a modicum of proficiency in firing the weapon at paper targets. I have a nephew who is almost 21 year old, and he is hot to buy his first handgun. I have known him since he was born. I do not believe he has the mental skills or the patience to possess and carry a weapon in public. He has anger issues, and also has bouts of depression. He is also very good at masking those deficits in public.
With all the above in mind, I strongly feel that many people will be just fine with getting and carrying a firearm, and others should never get one at all. In Martial Arts we have an adage: “Not everyone is cut out to be a black belt”. Not everyone should be allowed to purchase and carry a firearm. I think Texas will experience a spate of mass shootings as a result of Abbott’s well intended but misguided signing of that law. Time will tell.
In the meantime, I think I will plan on investing in some high end body armor….. Getting shot is NOT fun. I know that from personal experience. I hope none of you experience the same!
Thank you for this video
Whats happens to all that has LTC and still wants to keep it?
If you have LTC all laws still apply to you including not needing repeating background checks to purchase firearms and to carry to another state.
Those under CC will get background checks for every purchase and cannot carry outside of TX
15 States, Districts, and Possessions do NOT recognize the Texas License to Carry at all. They have done this for numerous reasons, the most common on being that Texas allows active duty Service Members under the age of 21 to purchase and carry handguns (But of course, they can’t carry on Federal Installations, and if they live on a Fort or an AFB, they must store their weapon(s) in their unit arms room).
WA, OR, CA, MN, IL, NY, CT, MA, NJ, R.I., MD, NYC, D.C., PR and HI do not recognize TX LTC.
AL, AR, CO, NE, KS, OK, MI, KY, W.VA, PA, SC, FL, PA and ME
WITH RESTRICTIONS (Mostly at least 21 years old and resident permits only).
Thank you for all the Gun rights messages. I’m a License carry, Cant believe this is happening hope they are going to do a worldwide background check on new carriers. I dont think anyone should carry unless you’re license.. It’s alot of craziness out there
So don’t believe in the constitution huh?
while understand the Constitutional argument of this new law I do not agree with the no training, safety aspect. This country has enough idiots with illegal guns running around. Look at all the children who find guns laying around and shoot each other or take them to school. Is it possible you could start some kind of partition to at least have Texas require the equivalent classes to drivers education?
Thank You for your excellent work and support.
I would like to add to my comment I had prevost left about visiting the indoor gun ranges. If any ofthe legislators visit the indoor ranges, also take a look at the sidewalls and overhead target teams. Where you see all the scrapes on the walls and the paint and dents on the trams, those are the aftermath of bullets from lack of training. Rifles and shotguns are one thing, but the handgun is in a class of it’s own and a heck of a lot more dangerous and way more difficult to control for accuracy. I am also siding 110% with law enforcement side of this whole thing as well.
Constitutional Carry? Hmmm! So let me get this straight, the constitution says we have the right to bare arms which means we can possess our arms. Our elected officials recognized this constitutional right and took a vote to allow law abiding citizens to bare our arms, but not until September 1, 2021. So the constitution is not valid till then? Do you people realize what your saying! Your saying we have the constitutional right, but not right now! The constitution has a date limit on it! This is why our country is in the condition it is in!
Absolutely, you’re the first person that I know that really gets it congratulations you’re not one of the Sheep, thank you sir
What if the fed. govt. decides to prohibit citizens to have guns. Will this override the Texas carry law? Hopefully, we’ll never have a liberal governor or become a blue state. The feds can’t control drugs so they certainly can’t control guns. The largest mass killing was the 911 event; and guns weren’t even used. If one wants to do mass killings, its better to use other means than guns which is limited to a small amount compared to bombs, etc. Besides, take guns away from the citizens, not only will it create a tyrannical govt., but will increase crime as the criminals have ways of getting guns; getting them off the black market or stealing them from individuals or even a govt. armory. I think the fed. govt. should be more concerned about prescription drugs that kill more people than guns.
Amen. I believe in my second amendment. That’s why I got my LTC. I’m 64 years old and never used a gun but felt with Biden in office and with the vilification of our men in blue, I needed to protect myself. The democrats talk about getting rid of guns or making a registry, they use terms like assault weapons yet they can’t define what that is. I hope people like me know if they need classes to be safe. I still want to take 2 more classes before I carry. But I feel I am safer and more confident than when I started. Hopefully people will seek training if they need it too.
I think this bill will cause problems because if anyone ( even those who aren’t allowed ) can carry a handgun will
flaunt the law and carry anyway. I strongly suggest that a persons drivers license should have some sort of : flag, red dot or marker that shows that the bearer can or can not purchase a weapon. If you have mental problems it should also be marked with a colored dot. You are not taking away their privacy because it doesn’t say why they have a problem. We need to take a stand to protect our rights by being proactive and come up with so sort of sensible
way of showing the public that we care and will do something in the rank and file to solve this problem. We also should push stronger laws to stop the killing. I believe in the Death sentence and it should be mandatory for mass shooters and murder. America should take a stand, NOW!
There are people out there that believe, that our returning military personnel
that have PTSD should not have the right to carry a weapon outside of the military.
I’ve lobbied and demonstrated for Constitutional Carry. The true meaning of the Second Amendment can be found in the writings of the men who composed it. It was put in the Constitution to protect citizens from a tyrannical government, much like the one we now have.
My only concern has been safety. A 21-year old citizen who has never held, shot, cleaned or owned a gun can now purchase a gun and carry it – a danger to everyone, especially to themselves.
Having the Texas Department of safety host a free online course on gun safety is an excellent idea. Hopefully, those who fit the above situation will take advantage of the free course.
I’m an ex-range officer, highway patrol sergeant and I plan to take the course just to see what is in it and if any changes/additions need to be made.
I share the concern regarding those that will carry firearms with little or no training, and with no TEXAS DPS background check. I am NOT a proponent of expanded FEDERAL [NICS] background checks, just Texas vetting of potential firearm carriers.
I am licensed, I practice, and I keep up with the laws that affect me regarding the carry and hopefully never use of a firearm. I believe a minimal proficiency with firearms demonstration and a local/state vetting is a good idea.
While I am an avid supporter of the 2nd ammendment as it is written and intended, and a long time gun owner and CHL holder, I don’t see this working out well. A large percentage of the population these days, even in Texas, has never owned, fired, let alone carried a firearm. As a life long shooter, it still took some practice and education to effectively, legally and safely carry. If you turn a crowd of newcomers loose to carry with their first firearm, it will lead to many of the accidents and incidents that anti-gun folk always site to make their case. I didn’t even care for it when you quit having to qualify with your pistol each renewal. Just my two cents worth. I’d love to hear others perspectives.
With all respect… people get out there and SAY things they don’t understand or fully comprehend, and push false narratives that are dangerous and even deadly. So by your logic, until a person has been properly “taught” what to say, when to say it, and how it must be said, they should not have the right of “Free Speech”. That is the thing about the freedoms granted by our constitution…they belong to the person and in our system are not to be denied by the government.
The question is which one is more important to you… a perception of safety by the government ensuring you do things correctly, or the freedoms that have existed since the founding of this country?
I believe when you start trading away you “rights” for government sponsored safety, you will soon find you are no longer free or saf.
“Free” speech does not include the right to yell “FIRE!!!” in a crowded movie theater, unless there is, in fact a fire burning in the theater, that is not part of a performance. Freedom has Fences, and limits. People are taught WHAT to say; Kids, as we used to be, talked one way amongst ourselves, than we did to adults. We were taught WHEN to say things as well; words like “Please”, “Yes, Sir”, Yes, Ma’am”, “Thank you”. Ethics and Etiquette used to be taught at home, and in school. We were taught How things were to be said. The word “Ain’t” was very much frowned upon when I was in school, as well as knowing the difference the use of the word THAN (related to CHOICE) as opposed to the word THEN (related to TIME). So, there are rules for speaking properly, and what is covered by the 1st Amendment, and what is not covered as Free Speech.
The Brandenburg v. Ohio U.S. Supreme Court decision maintains that seditious speech—including speech that constitutes an incitement to violence—is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as long as it does not indicate an “imminent” threat. the federal courts established that for a prosecutor to obtain a treason conviction he must prove four elements beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) an overt act, (2) testified to by two witnesses, (3) manifesting an intent to betray the United States (which can be inferred from the overt act itself), and (4) providing aid and comfort to the enemy. None of those 4 acts require an act of speech component.
Thank you for the video, I did have some questions which were answered from video. I don’t like the idea of this bill I am afraid that people are going to carry just to protect yourself from crazies that shouldn’t carry. Also, now you will have more burglaries with guns on hips. Then you will have others carrying that have shady background or mental issues.
I agree that online safety training (and strong reminders that you’re responsible for every bullet that exits the barrel of your gun) would be wise, easy, and inexpensive for DPS to make available, but…dumb/criminal people are going to do whatever they want regardless of the law. At least this way the people who want to be responsible for their own safety can do so, instead of being forced to be victims because of what dumb/criminal people did. My LTC took 3 months to process, and I hear it’s even slower now as the demand increases.
Please don’t get riled up at US Law shield or Mr. Walker, they’re the messengers. Please do get riled up at your elected officials who think it’s okay to value some rights more than others.
I just want to know, how that effects my license. Does that mean we can conceal carry but people without a license cannot conceal carry?
Is my license still valid for other states? What does it really mea
I have an LTC and plan to keep it. Permitless Carry is okay with me except for one vital ingredient! Training, training and training! I am a member of an indoor gun range and I urge the entire legislature to visit these ranges and look at the shooting lane benches! The holes in those benches are from bullets from people without training! The other concern is a lot of people are going to get their police record tarnished to where they aren’t going to be qualified to get a LTC or not carry at all because if where, when and how to carry needs formal training. Not to mention the so called accidental discharges and hurting someone.
I am a gun owner and have a LTC but this law is a little overboard. No training is poor. When I got my LTC there was a 78 year old lady who had a gun so old it wouldn’t even fire. They had to loan her one and even then she couldn’t even hit the target. That doesn’t scream safe to me. I am all for guns, but we need to use common sense. That’s just my opinion.
Texas requires Hunter Safety Classes and Safety Classes before you can operate 4 wheelers and Jet skis. In the hands of the wrong person a handgun are just as dangerous!
So let me get this straight…. all of the “licensed” or LTC people on here who have a problem with someone carrying concealed or open carry, but without having training, REALLY THINK or believe that the law not being passed would stop criminals, bank robbers, murderers, rapist’s, child kidnappers, human trafficers, etc, etc from actually carrying???? IF you think that having a license to carry actually stops those crminals.. then You’re STUPID!!! Now please turn in your LTC, your weapons and your right to procreate! We don’t need your special kind of ignorance spreading any further! Then go read a history book and find out how tbis country actually bacame a Free Nation! People on here talk about common sense when they don’t actually have any themselves. So, just FYI…. gun training starts at home not the gun range!
Thank you very much CT. People aren’t thinking that way. The US has had its share of bad guys since it’s inception. 🤦♀️. There’s no thinking that just because there’s more “legal” carrying that there will be less illegal activity. I’m a legal LTC holder and am proud to be able to do so when an wherever I can. However, criminals know that there are federal buildings and properties that prohibit the possession of firearms and they’re not exactly law abiding citizens. They’re opportunistic and are waiting for that specific moment to catch people off guard, unaware, unprepared, and definitely unarmed.
@CT “IF you think that having a license to carry actually stops those crminals.. then You’re STUPID!!! Now please turn in your LTC, your weapons and your right to procreate! We don’t need your special kind of ignorance spreading any further!”
Ad Hominem Attacks and Confirmation Biases do not lend any substantive credence to your argument.
FACT CHECK (OF YOUR CLAIMS):
Felons, domestic abusers, and other people prohibited from owning guns attempt to buy them regularly in Texas—and are stopped because of a background check. Since 1998, more than 246,000 sales to prohibited purchasers in Texas have been denied.
—————-
All told, in 2010, the FBI and state agencies denied a firearm to nearly 153,000 people via the NICS system. To keep things simple, we will focus on the FBI, using a report on the 2010 data by Ronald J. Frandsen of the Regional Justice Information Service.
About 99 percent of people who apply to buy a firearm are quickly cleared. But about 1 to 2 percent are denied, mainly because the records show that he or she has a felony indictment or conviction. The data also show that about 5 percent successfully appeal their denials.
Applications: 6,037,394
FBI denials: 72,659 (1.2 percent)
Appeals 16,513 (22.7 percent)
Successful appeals 3,491 (4.77 percent of denials)
The main reason listed for a denial is a felony conviction or indictment.
Felony: 34,459 (47.4 percent)
Fugitive: 13,862 (19.1 percent)
State law prohibition: 7,666 (10.6 percent)
Drug use/addiction: 6,971 (9.6 percent)
Nothing changes with your LTC.
I agree with almost everyone on here that the unlicensed carry law is going to make Governor Abbott wish he were never born. Someone doesn’t like how you looked at them, boom you’re dead. More road rage with guns. You can still own them as I live by myself, 66yrs old and I keep for protection in my home. I don’t feel this need to put it in my pocket and patrol the streets. That’s all people should be doing with them.
Was that response copied and pasted from when “Licensed” Concealed Carry was signed into law? Same gunfight predictions then too. Maybe that’s what has happened in the other 16 states that have had “Constitutional” carry for over a year? Nope. None of the gunfight predictions in real life there either. Perhaps you just feel YOU should determine what EVERYONE should do? Guess individual rights are not important to you. You’re lucky they are important to me and the vast majority of Texans that vote. YOU are free to do as you want and what you is feel is best for YOU on this issue. Please allow others the freedom to do the same.