More Open-Carrying in Texas

I respect the opinion given in your blog, "Open-carry" Texans, however I am not sure that you can have an opinion on something you wrote, "you really don't know much about." With that statement in the first sentence of your blog, you nullify everything that is written after that. If advocating this law, perhaps you should give factual evidence of how this law may be beneficial if passed. For example, giving statistics from other states that have the open-carry law may show a reduction in crimes being committed which would let others see how this law could be helpful.

One of the arguments given in your blog is that passing the open-carry law would eliminate the 200+ fee required in order to receive your Concealed Handgun License. If you look on the Texas DPS website, you will see that the fee is $140, paid to the state, for a standard original license. Even if this law was passed, there would be a fee because citizens would need a license to carry openly. Whether Texans are allowed to carry concealed or open, the law would still require some type of regulation.

In the last paragraph, you go on to say that you're not really sure of the reasoning behind the concealed carry law, so how can you argue against it. While I do agree with your point that people should have a choice, I also understand that often people do not make the right choice and others end up getting hurt as a result. I think that most supporters of this law get caught up in their selfish beliefs or interpretation of their rights and don't consider all its possible ramifications.

Open Carry in Texas

Lately there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the Texas handgun laws. Right now we have a concealed handgun law which states that one can carry their handgun concealed on them if licensed by the state. There are some who would like Texans to be able to carry their handguns in public or that support an “open carry” law. This law would allow people to carry their guns openly in public. Some support this bill because it is our constitutional right to bear arms, however I believe that there are several factors and safety issues that most aren’t considering.

One of the less considered factors with Open Carry is the intimidation factor that it brings upon the people the carrier comes across. Imagine someone blatantly cutting in line at the grocery store wearing a pistol on his belt. Is the mother with two young children going to feel inhibited in addressing the gun toting offender?

Imagine to irate carriers arguing over a parking space. The fact that both have a pistol in plain sight escalated the altercation instantly.

As a store clerk, are you going to feel more threatened when the angry customer is not only complaining but also has a gun on his hip? Is he demanding service or threatening violence?

Many open carriers think that the fact that their gun is in plain sight is a deterrent for crime in itself. On the flip side, imagine a young thug seeing an elderly man carrying groceries with his gun on his hip. This alerts the bandit not only that the old man has a gun, but that by taking him by surprise; he could subdue him and take the gun.

With open carry, a criminal entering a bank with intensions of armed robbery, would first scan the crowd for any weapons in plain sight, and then proceed to disable the armed guard. In contrast, under concealed handgun laws, this same criminal would be taken by surprise by the gun carrying citizen.

One of the main reasons cowboys of the old west carried a gun on their hip was to allow them to be able to draw a gun and shoot it faster. The same holds true for police officers and other law enforcement official who are expected to protect people and keep them safe. Police officers face enough dangers and are expected to respond with proper force in a timely fashion. With open carry, their response time would be shortened with the threat of a suspect being able to draw and fire much quicker.

And how would they regulate the person who happens to rest his hand on his gun” Is he about to draw the weapon, keeping it safely holstered, or just resting his hand on the handle?

How is the average citizen going to verify the gun toting stranger has the right to carry the gun or if they are carrying with criminal intent?

Blog Stage 6

I think that you made a lot of good points about the Texas legislator and the types of laws that they propose. Laws are supposed to be made to keep people safe and enforced to maintain order in our society. However, the laws that some of our legislators are pushing are intended to make people feel guilty about the decisions they have to make, not to keep people from getting hurt. Not only that, I believe that deciding to have an abortion is probably a very difficult thing to do and that making someone feel guilty about their choose is truly cruel.
While I agree with your point of view, I believe that the basis for your argument is emotion and when arguing in favor of something you should use logic and facts to help others understand where you’re coming from. The more facts and details you give, the more credible you become as a writer/speaker and people are more willing to listen to you. Perhaps you could have given more background information about the bill as well. Information such as, the representative who was pushing the bill or how many people voted for it to pass could have been helpful. Other than that, I think that the blog was good and provided readers with something to think about.

Our State Government

Texas State and Local government has the same fundamental structure and values as our national government. It is set up so that no one single branch has the power to overthrow the other without a due process. Our state government with all of its laws and its hierarchy of individuals has made sure that we are safe while going through our everyday lives, that our children’s schools have enough books, and that even our poorest citizens receive healthcare. Our Constitution has even made it almost impossible for anyone to amend it. It also prevents anyone in office from obtaining so much power that they can infringe on others’ inherent rights.

That’s why I can’t imagine why Speaker of the House, Tom Craddick, was able to revoke someone’s ability to speak or be heard by their peers. Earlier this year Craddick used his authority to decide if fellow house members could speak. It seems that in this day and age that something like that wouldn’t be allowed or tolerated for that matter because wouldn’t this constitute as abuse of power. I mean what could make his actions okay. Our great state of Texas is tried and true and has always stood up for the little guy. It seems that even with the most just reasons for what he did, that they should still be able to at least be heard. With this happening, several questions have been raised such as: is this permissible or maybe how can our government allow someone to abuse their power in this way? I used be so proud of our state and local government because it seems that we always have somebody fighting for the little people or making sure that someone isn’t getting bullied, but now we have authority figures taking advantage of their positions. Who can be proud of that?

Sunday's Debate

The Texas Obeserver Blog contains a commentary written by Forrest Wilder, a freelance writer, concerning Sunday’s debate between Tom Craddick and his challenger, Bill Dingus. In this blog, http://www.texasobserver.org/blog/, Wilder makes the point that lobbyists with financial ties to a candidate to moderate a debate should be considered a scandal. The debate which was sponsored by AT&T had three panelists moderating. In the blog, Wilder discusses one of the moderators, Leslie Ward, an AT&T vice president and lobbyist. Wilder makes the point that while most corporations do indeed underwrite debates, they do not usually have one of their lobbyists as a moderator. He uses a few quotes and gives examples of endorsements given to the party to illustrate his point. Furthermore, Wilder states that Ward asks a question in the debate that Craddick could easily answer, thus showing lack of objectivity. During the debate, it was also noted that Ward became a little defensive with the Midland newspaper. I agree with Wilder’s argument. The point of a moderator in a debate is to be fair and objective. However, how can one serve this purpose if they have financial ties or are affiliated with the party they are endorsing? There are doctors who won’t treat patients that they know and will refer them to one of their colleagues or sometimes teachers who would rather not have their kids in their classrooms because of the position they may be put in. I think that moderators should use this same standard of thinking when choosing to participate in a debate.

Electing Judges

Craig Enoch, a former Texas Supreme Court judge, wrote a commentary in the Austin American Statesman about why electing good judges matters. This commentary is directed to Texas citizens who are registered to vote. Enoch begins his argument by giving a comparison about how Texans seek information to find out about their children’s teachers or their doctors because these people impact their lives. He states this in the first paragraph and informs the reader that they should also research their judicial officers because they also make a difference in our lives. This is a good opening because it appeals to the readers’ logic and draws in their attention.

The basic argument is that people should make it a point to learn about their judges. Enoch argues that out of the 3 branches of government, that the judicial branch is the least understood. The author assumes that the audience has a basic understanding about the structure of our state government, how it works and what it does. He places value into the fact that the judiciary meets and makes important decisions about numerous topics, such as education, health care, and the economy. Enoch also uses numbers and surveys to illustrate his argument about how citizens vote for judges. With this being said, his argument is clear and easy to understand.

As mentioned above, Enoch uses many different ways to make his point to the readers. The use of facts and observations rather that feelings, appeal to one’s logic and help to make him a credible source.

I believe the argument is successful. The author convinces me to research our elected judges by giving me all the different ways in how these people affect my life. The commentary just reiterated to me that we should always make informed decisions about who/what we are voting for because the people are given this power or put in these positions can affect us greatly.

Texas Legislature

On Monday, Attorney General Greg Abbott was asked to issue an advisory opinion on the House Speaker, Tom Craddick’s power. Last month, Craddick used his position to refuse to recognition of lawmakers who wanted to call for a vote to remove him from his position. Chairmen, Jim Keffer and Byron Cook wanted clarification on if Craddick was in his legal authority to do this and have asked that Craddick not seek a fourth term. Keffer and Cook are arguing that if the rules say that the speaker has this type of power, then this same power can also be used for “constitutionally impermissible reasons” as well. http://www.chron.com/news/specials/lege/ This article is worth reading because it is very informative and thought provoking. It makes you wonder if someone has the power to do this on a state level, what would happen nationally if our lawmakers continued this trend.