The Lack of Logic Behind HB 375- Commentary

Gun-rights activists are supporting the passing of House Bill 375 during this Texas Legislature session.  This bill, better known as the “Constitutional Carry Act”, would allow Texans to carry handguns without having to obtain a handgun license.  This law is already in effect in 11 different states and it appears that Texas is at risk of being the 12th state to adopt the concerning new law.

Regarding the differentiating reasons behind Republican support of HB 375- well, there are many but few have logical meaning backing it.  Gun-rights activists do not think they should have to pay a fee (for the gun licensing) to the Government because to them it is paying a fee to exercise their constitutional rights.  Well, this fee is $140 the first time and $70 to renew, and Texas provides discounts if eligible.  If one doesn't have the money to pay the proper fee, then the individual probably shouldn't be interested in paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for a gun.  Most gun carriers claim they bear arms for protection, or solely for the fact that the right to bear arms is in the United States constitution.  With the protection factor in consideration, I would think that loosening (and basically throwing away) current gun laws will result in an influx of new gun owners and carriers.  This sounds like more hypothetical danger that the original gun owners are currently trying to protect themselves from.  

The argument from activists of Bill 375 being their “constitutional right” thanks to their beloved 2nd amendment really baffles me.  If this amendment was formed in modern day I would assume tragedies like school shootings, accidental gun deaths and mass shootings would be taken into consideration, along with the countless instances impulsiveness, mental illness, and human error have contributed to gun deaths.  If the second amendment is going to be taken as literally as they wish, I have a hard time seeing how requiring a license to carry is “infringing” on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”.  Guns are extremely dangerous and can take a life in the blink of an eye.  I think at the least both sides should be able to agree on some small, painless (but required) measures that come along with the large responsibility of carrying a handgun… but that is apparently asking too much.

These are the main issues I have with the arguments from supporters of Bill 375, but I'd like to clarify what exactly these people are arguing for.  Part of the criteria for a handgun license is you must be over the age of 21, so without it this could mean handgun carriers as young as 18.  That alone is a scary thought that becomes much more terrifying when you consider what that would mean for “campus carrying”.  The stressful and alcohol-infused environment of a college campus seems like no place to be expanding any gun carrying laws.  School shootings and young adult suicides would undoubtedly increase if students 18 and above were permitted open carry on campus.  I understand a gun owner's argument to protection, but I would like to feel safe on my college campus and not in a constant state of fear from the unqualified teenage handgun carriers that I would be surrounded by.  In a place like a college campus- where there are currently few things to protect yourself from- why would we turn it into somewhere people fear; somewhere people feel the need for new protection?

Commentary- This Blog Post Caught My Attention

     While scrolling through blogs to find one of interest, a post about Michael Burgess caught my eye.  My dad did campaign work for Burgess for many years, especially during his first campaign when running for state representative.  I even had the chance to meet with him this winter break in his office in Dallas, and got to discuss politics, school, and what it means to be a politician (and how to be one).  Before I met with him my dad briefed me on his political stances, which he knew greatly differed from mine.

     I chose this article over Burgess (there were multiple of him on this woman's blog) because of the irony I got out of it, but only for personal reasons.  He apparently called a long awaited town hall meeting but the announcement of the meeting came along with remarks like "do not allow this to be overrun by the left" and "this is our home ground, don't surrender".  This was funny to me, since during our conversation he encouraged getting involved at any level and admitted the the reason he even got into politics was to promote the change he wanted to see.  I found their announcement of the meeting aggressive and hypocritical, but only on a personal level because of my experiences with him.  In order for there to be a meeting to debate issues, there has to be different sides.  They are saying something about their own Republican supporters too, like "hey, you lazy voters, get these libs out of here and take back this town meeting!".  

     I had always heard interesting things about Burgess, and after meeting him I see politics in a totally different light.  From a man who went from owning his own OBGYN clinic to representing District 26 as our Congressman basically overnight, he showed me that under all of the slander, aggression, and corruption in politics, a normal, mistake making human being lies under it all.  From him sitting in his conference room telling me to always get involved, to him discouraging liberals at their town hall meeting; its all situational, and politically shouldn't be taken personally.  That concludes my discussion of Congressman Burgess; I'm still hoping for some help from him in getting an internship at the Capitol next year so shhh don't tell I'm talking about him! 

PS here is a picture of me and the Congressman over winter break 2017