Texas gun laws vs the Texas constitution ("with a view to prevent crime")
- Thread starter tyme
- Start date
Double Naught Spy
New member
No, one would not be required for the law to be constitutional.
Not sure when the current state consitution was written, but doubtless it was written in the 20th century. Possibly the late 19th century. I'd have to go back and check.
The language you quote is contradictory political doubletalk (in other words, it's BS). To acknowledge (not give) that people have a right to keep and bare arms and then say they have a right to pass laws banning baring arms in the same sentence is pure nonsense.
Banning carry of weapons doesn't prevent crime anymore than banning pencils prevents forgary.
Our British forefathers in both this country and Britain would have been offended at such nonsense. (and we should be to....and are, hence the reason for NRA and TFL and other such organized gun discussions and partys)
I believe the current Texas state constitution was begun (it continues to be amended to this day) in the early 1870's (reconstruction).
This specific portion was written in to justify disarming disgruntled former confederates who were at odds with the "carpet bagger" politicians.
Gary Conner
New member
The first Texas State Constitution was drafted in 1845, right after we entered the Union, and amended in 1861 when we seceded, naming Texas as a State of the Conferacy.
It was once again re-written in 1866 (after the Civil War) establishing that Texas was "rejoining" the United States of America.
The Republican Party Reconstructionists (Carpetbaggers) changed it in 1869 to better suit their own political needs, since they were in control at the time.
Then it was changed again when local Democrats regained control of State government from the Davis regime. (Davis had been appointed Texas' Governor by the President, and had to be physically forced from the State Capital at gun point by a mob of Texas Democrats after the first allowed election after the war)
The 1875 re-write/amended version is the one Texas currently utilizes, however it has been amended over a hundred times, just since the 1875 version was enacted.
(Ours is the most confusing State Constitution in United States history, just due to Texas first being a Republic, then a State, then seceding to become a State in the Confederacy, and then entering the Union as State again)
Texas civilians after the war were treated pretty badly under martial law. Some Davis appointees ransomed bounties from cities and town, offering to lift martial law if certain fees were paid.
Gonzales, Texas had that happen, and one of their disgruntled citizens was a guy named John Wesley Hardin. He had fought in the war, and hated the fact that yankee soldiers, and yankee appointees to the State Police were in charge of law enforcement in Texas. As a matter of fact, the majority of Hardin's shooting victims were State Police Officers and U.S. Army Soldiers in the beginning of his outlaw "career".
I think the reason that law was enacted, may well have been Texans at that time wanted the right of the People to keep and bear arms, but just didn't want "Union Sympathizing Carpetbaggers" to be able to shoot back.
It was once again re-written in 1866 (after the Civil War) establishing that Texas was "rejoining" the United States of America.
The Republican Party Reconstructionists (Carpetbaggers) changed it in 1869 to better suit their own political needs, since they were in control at the time.
Then it was changed again when local Democrats regained control of State government from the Davis regime. (Davis had been appointed Texas' Governor by the President, and had to be physically forced from the State Capital at gun point by a mob of Texas Democrats after the first allowed election after the war)
The 1875 re-write/amended version is the one Texas currently utilizes, however it has been amended over a hundred times, just since the 1875 version was enacted.
(Ours is the most confusing State Constitution in United States history, just due to Texas first being a Republic, then a State, then seceding to become a State in the Confederacy, and then entering the Union as State again)
Texas civilians after the war were treated pretty badly under martial law. Some Davis appointees ransomed bounties from cities and town, offering to lift martial law if certain fees were paid.
Gonzales, Texas had that happen, and one of their disgruntled citizens was a guy named John Wesley Hardin. He had fought in the war, and hated the fact that yankee soldiers, and yankee appointees to the State Police were in charge of law enforcement in Texas. As a matter of fact, the majority of Hardin's shooting victims were State Police Officers and U.S. Army Soldiers in the beginning of his outlaw "career".
I think the reason that law was enacted, may well have been Texans at that time wanted the right of the People to keep and bear arms, but just didn't want "Union Sympathizing Carpetbaggers" to be able to shoot back.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/haltex.html
That law review article doesn't address the "with a view to prevent crime" part very much, but it does address the "wearing of arms" clause quite extensively. According to Halbrook, the current constitution is actually much more protective of the RKBA than the previous constitution was; the courts, however, have consistently ignored the Constitutional language.
That law review article doesn't address the "with a view to prevent crime" part very much, but it does address the "wearing of arms" clause quite extensively. According to Halbrook, the current constitution is actually much more protective of the RKBA than the previous constitution was; the courts, however, have consistently ignored the Constitutional language.
Yes, I wondered if that was when it was written, late 19th century. Fortunately it didn't stop our disgruntled former confederates from getting the carpet bagger polititians out of office. Blue staters both then and now (hmmm, interesting choice of color considering that was the uniform of the Union army
) always seem to have favored gun control.It can be said that Texas was the one Southern state that was able to largely keep control of it's state away from Republican carpetbag rule. It almost lead to a war in Austin before (I think) carpetbag governor Davis accepted the Democrat candidate (can't think of his name...was it Coke?). He tried to get President Grant to send in troops to keep him in office but....well Grant didn't want to see another blood bath as had been seen in Louisiana when Louisianans tried to take back their state. See T.R. Ferenbach (think I spelled that wrong) book Lone Star: A History of Texas and Texans on his chapter on Reconstruction.
Oh, sounds like you have read Ferinbach's book too.
J W Hardin was too young to go fight in the War of Northern Aggression, but he was in that critical development stage of childhood during the war. He saw how the local folk were at the mercy of reconstuctionist officials. His troubles started at school in the mid-late 1860's and went down hill from there. He was a truely disturbed individual.
I had a friend describe his brother with a similar outlook on life. He said his brother "was born pi**ed."
I had a friend describe his brother with a similar outlook on life. He said his brother "was born pi**ed."
He was born and raised in Polk County Texas (Livingston) where he killed his first man. He was the son of a Methodist pastor I think.
If I remember right, that incident in Gonzalez was with two Texas State Reconstruction Police "had the drop" on Hardin and he still killed them both.
I'd be interested to know just how he pulled that off. Sounds like something out of Josey Wales. How could you blow away two that had their guns cocked and covered on you?
If I remember right, that incident in Gonzalez was with two Texas State Reconstruction Police "had the drop" on Hardin and he still killed them both.
I'd be interested to know just how he pulled that off. Sounds like something out of Josey Wales. How could you blow away two that had their guns cocked and covered on you?
Gary Conner
New member
Quote:
"J W Hardin was too young to go fight in the War of Northern Aggression, but he was in that critical development stage of childhood during the war."
I apologize, you are exactly right. He was reported to be either 23, or 24 years old in 1874, (according to W.P. Webb, "The Texas Rangers, a Century of Frontier Defense") so he would have only been about 14 around the end of the war. I think I got the Civil War service mixed up with King Fisher.
But yeah he did not think a lot of the Yankees down here.
He was shot in El Paso by John Selman. Selman was a former Ranger, and he shot Hardin in the back of the head inside the Coney Island Saloon in 1895.
I don't think Selman liked Hardin very much.
And Doug, yeah I read Ferenbach several years ago, but you would really like Webbs book if you haven't read it yet.
"J W Hardin was too young to go fight in the War of Northern Aggression, but he was in that critical development stage of childhood during the war."
I apologize, you are exactly right. He was reported to be either 23, or 24 years old in 1874, (according to W.P. Webb, "The Texas Rangers, a Century of Frontier Defense") so he would have only been about 14 around the end of the war. I think I got the Civil War service mixed up with King Fisher.
But yeah he did not think a lot of the Yankees down here.
He was shot in El Paso by John Selman. Selman was a former Ranger, and he shot Hardin in the back of the head inside the Coney Island Saloon in 1895.
I don't think Selman liked Hardin very much.
And Doug, yeah I read Ferenbach several years ago, but you would really like Webbs book if you haven't read it yet.
Actually, I got my dad Webb's Texas Ranger book two years ago for Christmas. He says it is pretty good.
I've got a gillion books on my table right now that I am reading
I'm a BIG Southern History buff. Just got through reading _Jeff Davis' Own: Cavalry, Commanches and the Battle for the Texas Frontier_ by (can't think of his first name) Arnold.Now I'm reading a great book called _The Hunt for Confederate Gold_ by Thomas Moore a former Pentagon official in the Reagan administration. Good historical fiction and modern story. Kind of a cross between Tom Clancy, Raiders of the Lost Ark (without all the shooting and action), John Grissom, and a good historical novel and it makes you think. Complex characters, not one dimensional (even the Feds who kinda play the bad guys). If you are not a fan of the FBI or the Patriot Act then this is a book for you. To keep this posting gun related, one of the characters, a 60 year old college professor, is charged as a terrorist by the Feds because he has a small collection of handguns and hunting rifles in his home (among other bogus charges).
Gary Conner
New member
That is spooky Doug38.
But we need to be body cavity checking little old grandmas from Missouri and such trying to go to Thanksgiving dinner by airplane. They are such dangers to our liberty you know.
But we need to be body cavity checking little old grandmas from Missouri and such trying to go to Thanksgiving dinner by airplane. They are such dangers to our liberty you know.
Hardin grew up shooting at images of the Great Emancipator. Like most sociopaths, he just needed an excuse, as he was born to kill.
The current RKBA provision of the Texas state constitution was written to control Blacks who were harder to control if armed. In a couple of years after the new constitution, the Deal of 1877 would withdraw federal protection and abandon Blacks in the South.
The current RKBA provision of the Texas state constitution was written to control Blacks who were harder to control if armed. In a couple of years after the new constitution, the Deal of 1877 would withdraw federal protection and abandon Blacks in the South.