Guns

[SixFeetDeep]

On Friday, Gov. Greg Abbott declared a statewide state of disaster due to the spread of the coronavirus. This has raised many questions as to the impact on gun rights under House Bill 1177, passed by the legislature in 2019 and signed into law by the governor.

The bill lifts restrictions on the unlicensed, open carry of a handgun by Texans during times of evacuation during a state of disaster. Specifically, the bill states that Texas handgun restrictions do not apply to a person who carries a handgun while:
Evacuating from an area following the declaration of a state of disaster; or
Re-entering the area following the person’s evacuation.

The provisions only apply, however, for 168 hours following the governor’s disaster declaration unless the governor’s proclamation extends that period. It also does not apply to persons who are prohibited under state or federal law from possessing a firearm.

In short, this means that Texas will have a form of de facto constitutional carry for the next 168 hours. However, Texans should be cautious because what it means to “evacuate” or “re-enter following evacuation” is not well-defined. As a practical matter, it may be sufficient to show that the person was traveling from one place to another. Or, if accused of violating handgun laws, the person might need to show they were in the process of leaving the state entirely in order for the exception to the law to apply.

Gov. Abbott could extend the period under which HB 1177’s exception will apply, but it will ultimately be up to the courts to decide in which cases of evacuation the exception might apply.

Texans should proceed at their own legal risk. The default rule remains that carrying a handgun without a license remains a serious crime under state law.

[Heismanberg]

Greg Abbott sucks

[IATA]

you should probably stay home today, heis

[Heismanberg]

you should probably stay home today, heis

Wasn’t planning on going anywhere

[SixFeetDeep]

https://twitter.com/weaponoutfitter/status/1267362468453429248?s=21

[Badger]

Wasn’t planning on going anywhere

Defend the taco truck at all costs

[mj2sexay]

Don't know if it's true or not, but a guy in the thread mentioned in most cases, insurance doesn't cover acts of terrorism, so the looting isn't covered and it's a total loss.

No surprise there.

I’m sure insurance companies aren’t currently scrambling to find loopholes and ways to avoid paying for all of this damage being caused.

Of course they are. Two reasons why "MuH InSurAnCe" on top of being a morally reprehensible justification for destroying someone else's business is freaking stupid.

https://twitter.com/weaponoutfitter/status/1267362468453429248?s=21

My guys.

[SixFeetDeep]

https://twitter.com/zoomerclips/status/1266129167776546816?s=21

[SixFeetDeep]

https://twitter.com/zoomerclips/status/1267682087261233157?s=21

[SixFeetDeep]

https://twitter.com/msingerx/status/1312559981418299394?s=21

[MBGreen]

*kisses biceps*

[delavan]

https://twitter.com/msingerx/status/1312559981418299394?s=21

So, which is it?

https://news.yahoo.com/biden-says-beto-o-rourke-141650776.html

[Johnny English]

So, which is it?

https://news.yahoo.com/biden-says-beto-o-rourke-141650776.html

Not sure what your point is here. Neither Biden nor Beto has, to my knowledge, argued that firearm restrictions should only be enforced on white people, nor has either of them to my knowledge endorsed large groups of people of any race marching through the streets carrying assault rifles. Why are you trying to make this an either/or situation?

[delavan]

Not sure what your point is here. Neither Biden nor Beto has, to my knowledge, argued that firearm restrictions  should only be enforced on white people, nor has either of them to my knowledge endorsed large groups of people of any race

marching through the streets carrying assault rifles. Why are you trying to make this an either/or situation?

You start out saying you're not sure of what my point is yet end your post defining ipso facto its construct?

Guns or no guns, period.  That was the point here - totally independent of any considerations involving race.  This is the same thing as those yahoos storming the 'palace gates' in Michigan.  Is Biden going to install Beto as his 2nd amendment attack dog and if so, how much 'teeth' is he going to give him.  My take?  Joe & Beto is optics. No one's gonna do shlt after the election.  That said, seeing droves of people brandishing weapons is pretty freaked up and if you insist on painting it as some exercise in either/or, I don't flip my standards on whether it's a bunch of red yahoos or black nationalists.  Reckless posturing is reckless posturing.

It was 2nd amendment, period.  Where does Biden or Beto bring race into the conversation and/or argument?  They don't, therefore again it was not about an arbitrarily constructed "white vs, black" either/or narrative.

[Johnny English]

You start out saying you're not sure of what my point is yet end your post defining ipso facto its construct?

Guns or no guns, period.  That was the point here - totally independent of any considerations involving race.  This is the same thing as those yahoos storming the 'palace gates' in Michigan.  Is Biden going to install Beto as his 2nd amendment attack dog and if so, how much 'teeth' is he going to give him.  My take?  Joe & Beto is optics. No one's gonna do shlt after the election.  That said, seeing droves of people brandishing weapons is pretty freaked up and if you insist on painting it as some exercise in either/or, I don't flip my standards on whether it's a bunch of red yahoos or black nationalists.  Reckless posturing is reckless posturing.

It was 2nd amendment, period.  Where does Biden or Beto bring race into the conversation and/or argument?  They don't, therefore again it was not about an arbitrarily constructed "white vs, black" either/or narrative.

So what was the point of the question "which is it?" between Beto/Biden and an armed militia? They've made it abundantly clear which it is, so why are you asking?