Law-Abiding Good Actors in Texas - Essay Example

Passing Bill 11 and Senate Bill 17 by the Senate Introduction The holders of CHL in Texas are law-abiding good actors who are vetted through a licensure process. The holders have, therefore, the right of the legislature to support their second amendment rights as stated by Creighton, who gave his reasons for supporting the SB11 and Sb17 bills (Maxwell et al. 34). Creighton also explained that the legislators took an oath so that they defend the Texas Constitution and their greatest responsibility was that of protecting the Constitution and upholding to their oath. The pro-gun control group leader made some statements that were proved not to be true by the Texas Senate Affairs Committee sometimes back. The two bills that were discussed were the SB 11, the campus carry bill and SB 17, the open carry bill (Habib 43). The bills passed and forwarded to the committee and the Senate respectively for considerations to be done. The Texas Moms Demand Action Chapter for the American Presidents Gun Sense has been advocating some strict gun regulations (Hupp 45). The president has had the chance to testify at the end of the day opposing both the SB 11 and SB 17 bills. The bills operate by expounding the system of the state for hidden handgun licenses. The system allows for those who are over the age of 21 to pass a check on criminal background and complete the safety and proficiency training to be allowed to carry concealed handguns (Lott 18). The SB 11 bill if passed will allow for those who have qualified for a CHL to carry their guns even inside the classrooms of buildings on college campuses. Presently, those who hold the CHL may carry the guns on campus but they are not allowed to carry them on the college buildings. The laws on taxes also allow the holders to carry other long guns such as the shotguns and rifles (Smith 25). The SB 17 bill, on the other hand, will expand the existing laws to allow the CHL holders to carry their handguns openly. Consequently, the topic of whether those who hold CHL tend to be law abiding and safe is paramount for the lawmakers to put into consideration as they debate on passing the two bills (Ludwig and Lott 20). The Texas based public security department has also posted the conviction rates done to the CHL holders compared to the general population of Texas on their website that date way back from 1996. Although, the DPS does not in any case consider the convictions made to the CHL holders to be final until a year elapses after the convictions have been made (Tanne 14). The time is given to allow appeals to be done and to generate the reports at the end of every year using a two-year data to allow for hat time. For more accurate comparisons to be made, the DPS includes the only convictions by those who are aged 21 years and above so that they match to the minimum age for a CHL. A report written on 2012 has showed that, for the major crimes that were committed in Texas as per that year, none of the convictions was for a CHL holder. The state registered 63, 272 convictions in that single year and only a 0.1897 was for the holders of CHL (Tanne 24). The misrepresentation that was made by Burke was not in a good position to confuse the senators concerned with the state affairs committee. The author of the SB 11 and SB 17 said it very clearly that most of the CHL holders were most of the law-abiding members of the state. The two bills have already ended to the Senate and the Senators to either pass or fail will do them through the voting process under the new rule (Kovandzic and Marvell 12). There are many expectations from outside that there will be a real battle in the Senate House in making a decision about the two bills. Creighton states passing the open carry bill is unpredictable because it has not been heard in the house earlier. After some long discussions in the house and after hearing testimonies from both sides, the state affairs committee of Texas Senate voted and recommended that the Senate should pass both the bills. The two bills are said to be an expansion of the existing state regulations for concealed handgun licenses (CHL). Some activists on gun rights have been advocating a constitutional carry or allowing the citizens to carry their guns around without having their licenses. The proposals of the activists were not however adopted by the authors of these bills (Lott 20). Current policy definitions Some of the policies that are related to the SB 11 and SB 17 are as follows, (1)2013 Acts, Ch. 1302, 83rd Leg, R.S., Sec. 14(1), eff. June 14, 2013. (2) The act defines a chemically depended person as one who frequently intoxicates him or herself, cannot operate without the influence of drugs, and applies a substantial amount of force is solving some life issues. The policy also defines a concealed handgun as a handgun whose presence is not openly displayed to the public. Convicted according to this act means adjudication of guilt or, with an exception as it is provided in section 411. 1711, a deferred adjudication order from a court against a person by a court of law and the person in question is discharged from community supervision. The term according to the definition given does not include adjudication of guiltiness or a command of deferred intercession that has been consequently used. Federal judge, according to the definitions given, means any category of judge and any magistrate who is constitutionally recognized by the USA government. A state judge is that judge of an appellate court, the district court or a county court recognized by the USA government. A handgun has been defined by section 46.01, penal code. Intoxicate has its meaning assigned by section 49.01, penal code. A qualified handgun instructor is referred as a person who is certified to give instructions on how to use handguns by the department (Smith 23). Policies The Brady law part 1 and 2: In this law, the handgun part has already expired while the second part that deals with the retail of guns and national background checks and registration has already begun. Enacted in the year 1993 as the Brady Handgun Prevention Act, the law turned out to five things (Levy, Karst and Winkler 138). The first part is that of a centralized government control over the sale of all handguns and long guns. The second part is that of raising 200 million dollars mechanism for a national computer system that is capable of checking out the individuals in all the states from a single FBI location. The third part of the law is that of developing a national ID card that is based on driver’s licenses and social security numbers for any purchases to be done on firearms, in particular, the guns (Smith 23). The consecutive fourth and the fifth parts of this law is that of developing a commerce tracking system on the globe that will trace the retail of firearms in Texas and that of establishing a mechanism for the prevention of the known criminals from directly purchasing any type of firearms at any retail and paying sales tax (Duggan, Hjalmarsson and Jacob 54). The other policy is the HB 1837. The local Government Code. Shooting Range Protection. Range definition by this act had been expanded and included private clubs and other associations regardless on when they opened, and annoyance complaints are constrained (Levy, Karst and Winkler 97).The HB 1118. Penal Code 8.07, the change of “he” to the “the person” so that no one is offended. The policy was to change the address of the individual who applies for a gun in the licenses given by that person (Levy, Karst and Winkler 86). HB 1925. Penal Code 46.03, this policy states the places where weapons are prohibited to be within 1000 feet from the place of execution. The exceptions given by this policy are those of driving when on a public road, at home or work (Levy, Karst and Winkler 114). From penal code 46.15, those people who are in the authorities are exempted from the ban on 1000 feet of the execution site. HB 2098. Penal Code 20.02, on the false imprisonment penalty, will be increased if the victim is a public servant or is under the age of 17 years. The reason behind remains with the purpose to restrict the use of firearms by the minors and that of misusing the firearms by the public servants (Levy, Karst and Winkler 180). HB 2784. Government Code 411.047, the DPS is allowed to maintain some precise CHL statistics on its website, the statistics to be allowed is thus described appropriately by the policy. Limitations when doing the study Some of the significant limitations encountered while going on with the study include: The measurement the laws and their provisions might be a problem in this study. This gives a purposeful reason as to why the study will not be able to test go into details about the laws, the reason being that, assessing the intensity of implementation of the laws may be vital in evaluating their effects which might be impossible because there has been no part of law evaluations in existence (Englund Dimitrova et al. 35). Several facets of the measurement of the violent outcomes have been found to be a difficult issue. The study will not involve itself if assessing these facets. The reason for this is because crime data is substantially underreported and it may sometimes not be sufficient for purposes of research. Additionally, some selected conclusion procedures may not be directly important to the directive being assessed. Another problem related to this is that of crime data being aggregated in a way that the circumstances of the violent events cannot be determined in any way. Data that is aggregated affect the consideration of the methods by which the rules might and might not function (England Dimitrova et al. 43). The measurement of the probable confounders has been a challenge in the evaluation of the effects of laws associated with firearms. It is based on the shortcoming that the study will go into details of effects of the policies on the firearms. The reasons for this is that, the potentially important confounders contain the socioeconomic status and poverty, the gang activity, drug cycle, and the strength of the law enforcement (Zifcak 76). The measurement of these phenomena is always hard and the set of data that are used in the study are usually not available for scholars. Additionally, the issue of endogeneity has been a major problem in the evaluation of firearms laws. The designs and analysis methodologies used in the study of firearms law evaluations have also been problematic in nature. The rates at which violence is happening in the society may affect the passage of any firearms legislation and the laws imposed on firearms may affect the rates of violence. The knowledge of temporal sequence is, therefore, critical to the division of cause and effect and the cross-sectional studies are at a disadvantage (Zifcak 56). Another reason is that, time analysis of laws associated with firearms and the violent outcomes have not in any case steadily adjusted for chronological and spatial autocorrelation. They, therefore, may contain exaggerated hypothesized links. I addition, studies concerning firearms always fail to indicate the potential biases that are associated with the measurement of outcomes hat do not relate to the laws in question (Levy, Karst and Winkler 180). History and Current Policies In the recent times, the residents of the Texas have petitioned for the lifting open carry restrictions imposed by the Texas gun law. The residents believe that open-carry is a basic gun right, with the roots in the history of the state’s culture although it is prohibited in one of the six states. Texas is one of the states that prohibit carrying handguns openly in the country. However, the only real restriction that concerns firearms by the Texas gun laws. No permit is necessary for buying of rifles, ammunitions, shotguns or any firearm elements in the state. The only qualification that is important in the purchase of any material related to firearms by Texas gun laws that of the purchaser being at least of 18 years old and be a lawful resident of the state (Levy, Karst and Winkler 180). All the minors are also in a position to acquire firearms if they provide a permission written by either their parents or their legal guardians. The state does not require any license any license for the possession of a rifle, handgun or a shotgun. Moreover, there are a number of restrictions that are compulsory. The restriction states that, no single person who is convicted of an offense or misbehavior under the class A category may possess a gun. Class misconduct generally includes the crimes that involve the families or he households (Maxwell et al. 65). The Texas gun law allows carrying a concealed gun only if the person contains the appropriate permit. In the recent times, the residents of are petitioning for the part of law to be scrapped. The purposeful aspect of doing this is because many believe that it is an inherent right to carry handguns openly. From the past years, for a person to carry a concealed handgun, he or she had to lawfully request for a license from the department of public safety and had to meet some particular requirements (Maxwell et al. 65). To complete the application, the applicant had and has to submit two passport color photographs, to be above the age 21 years, be a resident of Texas. The applicant was also to complete a handgun proficiency test by a qualified instructor and a document that stated he applicants full understanding of the laws and rights that existed the lawful fulfillment of the requirements. The history of the law is as follows, 1976 to 1986: Getting Started The history of concealed carry started back in the year 1976 in Georgia. After some time, a trend began with CHL laws being passed in Indiana in the year 1980, North Dakota and Maine in the year 1985 followed by South Dakota in 1986 (Txchia.org). 1987-88: Florida, the Media Storm A lot was happening in Florida with the president failing to sign the bill. There was a lot of ignorance from the national media and the anti- conceal activists were real horrified (Txchia.org). 1989-1998: CHL Sweeping the United States. CHL swept almost through all the states of the US including Texas. 1999 to 2001: CHL on Hold In the year 1999, some states were considering concealed carry including the state of Colorado. On April 2oth, some two students from a high school shot and killed a teacher injuring some 24 students in the process. It was then that experts proposed the anti-gun backlash would lead to ending the spread of concealed carry and it did that (Txchia.org). History of CHL in Texas The first ever Texas law against the concealed and open carry was the act to regulate the keeping and bearing of any deadly weapon, the law was made on April 12, 1871.General laws 25” the passed as part of the reconstruction and the law was no modified until 1995.In a number of ways, the process in Texas was typical (Txchia.org). The push began with the proposal of laws in the years, 1983, 1985, 1987 and 1989. In the year 1991, an attempt was made and came closer to passing but failed to get substantial support in the legislature, and was later amended to death. Some significant developments that were developed over time are; 73rd Legislature, 1993 The issue of CHL returned with the typical media blood in the streets predictions. The issue was discussed both in the print and quotes of anti-gunners be seen on the opinion pages and called for the people to contact their legislators. The people called for their legislator and the governor ended up signing the 73rd legislature passing it to a law that called for a statewide referendum on CHL but did not authorize anyone to set up any program by any means (Txchia.org). 77th Legislature, 2001 In the year 2001, the 77th legislature added one restriction to the previous ones. The legislation prohibited the possession of any firearm within one thousand feet of a place of execution on the day of an execution. The bill was to deny concealed carry in the places of worship, in schools, the streets and on parking lots (Txchia.org). 83rd Legislature, 2013 To respond to Sandy Hook tragedy, the legislature had to pass some bills to protect the schools. The legislature first came up with a new category of officers to enforce the law and named them the school marshals. The volunteers known, as the marshals would only have minuscule authority, will not have a payment to retain their handguns locked in a safe. The other law tasks division of public safety was to be responsible for writing a training course that would qualify the CHL instructors to carry on school safety training. The freedom in the campus for campus carry was once again blocked (Txchia.org). The law does allow college students containing CHLs to secure their firearms in their cars while on campus. The simplification of the concealed carry included shortening the original license class to four to six hours and eliminated the renewal class. The imperative CHL change led to the elimination of the handgun categories. The applicants were given the mandate to shoot any legal handgun and carry whatever they wanted (Txchia.org). Travelers on the other hand would benefit from some new necessities for a hotel firearms restrictive policy, place their policies on their corollary website, and detail the information about the policy in some written confirmations (Txchia.org). CHL Today The issue of CHL Texas has existed for over the last eighteen years. The process has had over 3000 instructors and over seventy-five thousand CHLs and the Texas rate of crime has continued to drop. The residents who have the Texas CHL can carry in about 35 states. As it has happened in most of the other states, concealed carry is working fine in Texas (Txchia.org). Procedure for authorization to access the required documents It has been the mandate of the public safety department to issue a license to the qualified application. The failure to meet the requirements comprises of those that are faced with the class A misbehavior records, those who have some history of addiction to drugs, alcohol or any controlled substances. Those with mental illness histories or criminal records that involve tax or child support payments. The proficiency test must be completed successfully and state whether the applicant is proficient in using either a revolver of a semi-automatic pistol (Harcourt 25). There has been the establishment of certain restrictions on where to carry the handguns. The guns should not be carried when in government related premises, offices or buildings, places of religious worship, school or while on the racetrack (Brooks, Landeo and Spier 46). It has and it is still considered illegal by the Texas gun laws for any person not to conceal their handguns. For those minors who are in possession of any firearm, they are legally excluded if they are engaged in sporting activities like hunting, defending to the people or property as allowed by the law or during any other agricultural activities (Maxwell et al. 45). According to the laws, if a minor under the age 17 years accesses an adults’ gun, then the adult is held responsible. The reason for this is because the adult did not take the necessary precautions and that his or her gun can be readily used by anyone. The previous laws that existed in Texas up to until the introduction of the Senate Bill 11 and Senate Bill 17 have given all these provisions. Bill 11 was made to scrap the ban on concealed handguns at the university campuses while Bill 17 was to allow for carrying handguns openly by the licensed holders (Harcourt 25). Side A issues Most of the issues arising from these laws to the society include, the issue of open carry has been adopted by many states and that the issue includes an enormous fiscal burden. To carrying of the gun while not concealed and the demonstrations done causes great fear to the public (Wintemute 35). It remains unclear if people should carry guns openly which brings about safety issues. Questions tend to arise at the rate at which the CHL holders abide by the law putting into consideration campus safety and the students safety too (Harcourt 30). Some of the parties that are affected by this policy are the firearms retailers and the manufacturers, gun activists and licensed individuals who carry their guns for protection purposes. The specific parties in the group are the NRA amongst others (Wintemute 37). Arguments of side A The parties and individuals argue that, according to the second amendment, each should have the right and privilege to own arms for protection purposes. Limiting the freedom of the citizens to carry the arms is seen as a violation of their personal rights. They also argue that, open carry has never at any point been ruled out of the constitution. The argument of the people right to defend those pops in and thus having a firearm for self-defense is seen as harmless (Smith 45). If every person is given the authority to carry a handgun, the number of attackers and criminals will reduce by a considerable margin. Lastly, they argue that concealed handguns and long firearms should be openly carried (Smith 50). Side B issues The major shareholders of side B are the general public who are affected more by the policies, the officers of the law who will be challenged in differentiating amongst the general public on who is a minor and who is allowed to carry the arms. All towns will also be included as stakeholders as the safety of the town dwellers is of paramount importance to the citizens. Values The values that this side looks and stresses on are values like public safety, civic duty, leadership and integrity. Public safety is critical to this side because they believe that any law should be made to protect the interest of the public. On civic duty and leadership, it will be very difficult for the police to carry out their duties well when each individual has the right to carry their guns openly. Maintaining law and order will probably prove to be hectic from the officers. Side B issues The issues to be addressed by group B are the same as that of group A, but the viewpoint will be different. Issues of open carry and fiscal burden involved the number of states that have adopted open carry laws against Texas. The fear inflicted to the public through various demonstrations, the issue of safety and clearance on if students are supposed to open carry amongst other issues like how those who contain the CHL abide by the existing laws of the country and how they adhere to campus safety rules. Arguments of group B Group B stakeholders offer the following views on their issues. They point out that, the safety of the public should be made of primary concern to them as carrying open firearms will scare away innocent citizens who do not have their personal guns (Kahan 30). They also argued that, the gun control laws in Texas were less restrictive when compared to other states where gun laws are more restrictive and the civilians are highly secured by the regulations. The group also argue that, open carry will increase gun violence as those who have guns may resort to abrupt shooting while in the open air and through self-defense (Lott 15), people may die or even are injured. Open carry will lead to an increase in the cases of gun misuse in the state. Through open carry, those who have strong and superior guns may humiliate and intimidate those with small guns increasing the levels of insecurity by making people feel insecure in several ways. With increased number of people carrying arms openly, the training that will be offered to the owners will not be sufficient to handle the guns and may resort to accidents. It is against the second amendment for any individual to open carry his gun and it is not completely accepted (Wadman 64). The side called for stricter regulation of gun control laws so that the number of cases involving gun violence may go down. Conclusion To conclude, a lot of changes have been done concerning the policies in Texas. The two groups, A and B all have their arguments about the facts presented. It, therefore, gets important for the Senate to listen to the views of both sides before making any major decisions on the bills. While side A presents its points clearly and argues for them, so is side B strongly coming up with strong arguments too on the same issue. The two sides are all guided by the same values and thus any decision made while favoring one side will affect the other side. Works Cited Harcourt, Bernard E. On Gun Registration, The NRA, Adolf Hitler, And Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding The Gun Culture Wars. SSRN Journal n. pag. Web. Retrieved from, http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4029&context=flr Hupp, Suzanna Gratia. From Lubys To The Legislature. San Antonio, Tex.: Privateer Publications, 2010. Print. Retrieved from, http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/book-review-luby’s-legislature-one-woman’s-fight-against-gun-control Kahan, D. M. Harry L. Wilson. Guns, Gun Control and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms.’ Public Opinion Quarterly 71.2 (2007): 318-322. Web. Retrieved from, http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/content/71/2/318.extract Levy, Leonard W, Kenneth L Karst, and Adam Winkler. Encyclopedia of The American Constitution. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2000. Print. Retrieved from, http://www.worldcat.org/title/encyclopedia-of-the-american-constitution/oclc/43648650 Lott, John R. More Guns, Less Crime. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2010. Print. Retrieved from, http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo6686900.html Maxwell, William Earl et al. Texas Politics Today. St. Paul: West Pub. Co., 1978. Print. Retrieved from, http://www.amazon.com/Texas-Politics-Today-William-Maxwell/dp/0495570257 Smith, Tom W. Public Opinion About Gun Policies. The Future of Children 12.2 (2002): 154. Web. Retrieved from, http://futureofchildren.org/publications/journals/article/index.xml?journalid=42&articleid=172 Tanne, J. H. US Workers Who Carry Guns Are More Likely To Be Killed On The Job. BMJ 330.7499 (2005): 1043-1043. Web. Retrieved from https://jhupress.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/1421411113_updf.pdf Txchia.org,. TCHA: CHL History. N.p., 2015. Web. 11 Mar. 2015. Retrieved from http://www.txchia.org/history.htm Wadman, Meredith. Conflict Disclosure Plan Dropped. Nature 476.7358 (2011): 17-17. Web. Retrieved from: http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/63622445/conflict-disclosure-plan-dropped Wintemute, G. J. Gun Shows Across a Multistate American Gun Market: Observational Evidence of The Effects of Regulatory Policies. Injury Prevention 13.3 (2007): 150-155. Web. Retrieved from http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/3/150.full.pdf+html Zifcak, Spencer. Globalisation and The Rule of Law. London: Routledge, 2005. Print. Retrieved from,https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=J6rmfaVctFcC&pg=PA341&lpg=PA341&dq=Zifcak,+Spencer.+Globalisation+And+The+Rule+Of+Law&source=bl&ots=9IhNrsUhda&sig=4RMrmbhcSKRtvHqcSybdZmRH6SA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1g0AVYTZBpD5aoDygPgH&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Zifcak%2C%20Spencer.%20Globalisation%20And%20The%20Rule%20Of%20Law&f=false David B. Kopel. "The Great Gun Control War of the 20th Century — and its Lessons for Gun Laws Today." Fordham Urban Law Journal 39 (2012): 527-1666. Web. Retrieved from, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2070925## Duggan, Mark, Randi Hjalmarsson, and Brian A. Jacob. The Short-Term and Localized Effect of Gun Shows: Evidence from California and Texas. Review of Economics and Statistics 93.3 (2011): 786-799. Web. Retrieved from, http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/REST_a_00120#.VRQUeyjH220 Habib, Michael J. The Future of Gun Control Laws Post-Mcdonald and Heller and The Death of One-Gun-Per-Month Legislation. SSRN Journal n. pag. Web. Retrieved from, http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/conlr44&div=39&id=&page=-9133.2003.tb00002.x/abstract Kovandzic, Tomislav Victor, and Thomas B. Marvell. Right-To-Carry Concealed Handguns and Violent Crime: Crime Control Through Gun Decontrol?’ SSRN Journal n. pag. Web. Retrieved from, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2003.tb00002.x/abstract;jsessionid=D164EC620A0B687B315910A712B2BC28.f01t02 Ludwig, Jens, and John R. Lott. More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. Contemporary Sociology 28.4 (1999): 466. Web. Retrieved from, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract-id=746508 Tanne, J. H. Republicans Call for Changes in US Healthcare and Gun Laws. BMJ 345.sep03 2 (2012): e5920-e5920. Web. Retrieved from, http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e5920.abstract Brooks, Richard R. W., Claudia M. Landeo, and Kathryn E. Spier. Trigger Happy Or Gun Shy? Dissolving Common-Value Partnerships with Texas Shootouts. SSRN Journal n. pag. Web. Retrieved from, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2010.00115.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false Harcourt, Bernard E. On Gun Registration, The NRA, Adolf Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding The Gun Culture Wars. SSRN Journal n. pag. Web. Retrieved from, http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/flr73&div=35&id=&page= Read More