I have conflicting feelings over this. I know that open carry is a thing in Texas, but who crossed the line, if anyone?

You are 100% correct. Every US citizen (either born in us and bound by that pledge or that became a citizen took the pledge) to support and/or defend the US.

I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic
for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

This pledge means your are aligned with the rest of the people to support or if called upon to defend the USA.

We took an oath and to that end we must ever vigilant. If anyone who took the oath does not stand up if/when the time comes then they have no personal honor and are themselves criminals.

I conceal carry myself. Open carry, in my opinion, is just asking for trouble.

I agree. Some folks seem to go out of their way to push the envelope just to make a point.

CMSgt David Allen it's called a Right for a reason, unfortunately most folks dont shut the fuck up and get a lawyer right away. Police can lie, mislead and coerce you without a lawyer. Due to the internet and connectivity of today we get to see folks like you and I (I assume you are law abiding like me since you are an E9, but we have both seen Sr. Ranking morally weak individuals) face serious crimes for not exercising rights.

People choose to open carry because most states require you to jump through a lot of hoops to get a concealed carry permit. Like Mississippi. You have to take an expensive training course(unless you can get a military document showing your training in use of handguns), then pay 100$ or more for the permit before getting it, submit a lot of signed and notarized documents and then wait for 6 months to a year and then you might or might not get it because a T wasn't crossed or an i not dotted. No refunds. So this is reason a lot open carry to be legal.

I myself open carry due to this.
Also in the State of Ms you can conceal carry now without a permit, if you follow the exact laws on conceal carry which are complex written another words you have to be a lawyer to understand them. So it is easier to open carry.

I don't know a lot about Texas gun laws, SSG Erik McKinster, which is why I posted this. I live in Arizona. And there are three people that call me son. My father, mother, and our Lord and savior.

Take a deep breath, and don't be so easily offended, but I'll apologise. Now, go listen to the phone conversation, watch the video & do a Google search on CJ. If you do those 3 things, you'll have the pleasure of seeing a true American.

WILCO

People choose to open carry because most states require you to jump through a lot of hoops to get a concealed carry permit. Like Ms. You have to take an expensive training course(unless you can get a military document showing your training in use of handguns), then pay 100$ or more for the permit before getting it, submit a lot of signed and notarized documents and then wait for 6 months to a year and then you might or might not get it. No refunds. So this is reason a lot open carry to be legal.

There was no standing army when the Constitution was written. The second amendment provided for mobilizing a militia (if needed) and authorized the right to bear arms for that purpose. It was not, and never intended to be, to bear arms against one's own government. Show me, in the CONSTITUTION, where the 2nd amendment says anything about tyrants. The Declaration of Independence speaks of tyranny but says nothing about the right to bear arms. The Constitution is law: the Declaration is not. Don't conflate the two.

The 2nd Amendment makes it clear that each citizen has the natural right to keep and bear arms, the many whys a citizen would want to keep and bear arms are explained countless times by many of the founders. One of those whys was specifically so that an armed citizenry would be able to counter an abusive government, and if you remember your history correctly the colonials were not revolting against "the English" government, they were revolting against their "own" government which had become abusive. Those founders wanted to acknowledge that right and see to it that it was not abused in the future, ever again.

No law can be interpreted solely from the mere words written in its final stage. All laws are based on bills and other writings that specify their intent. You can read almost any judicial decision going back 200+ years that deals with a specific law and you will find the intent of the law and the clarity with which it is reflected in the statute is key in how it is interpreted. The framers of the second amendment, based on their writings intended it for two purposes, forming a force to defend the country or for the people to overthrow their government should the government become oppressive (in general, attempting to deprive the citizenry of any of their god given rights). Based on the English practiced at the time and the written words of the statute or constitutional amendment (in this case) clearly reflect the intent of the framers. A militia is needed for the security of a free state. It doesn't specify if that free state is secured against a foreign or domestic foe, it specifies only what is needed to secure a free state. It doesn't specify how the militia is formed, it does specify in order to have one, the people's rights to arms shall not be infringed. The second amendment is part of the Constitution and therefore law. The people at the time of the framing of the Constitution could not imagine anyone somewhat privileged not to have a weapon for the purpose of hunting or sport. Hence it can be articulated that the arms they are referring to are those of military grade. Yes, there are many judges who, because of their political convictions, in more recent years, have said this is not so. This is highly problematic, as abolishing any of the rights articulated in the Constitution by some judge decreeing it says something it does not, renders all of it mute. The fight over the second amendment is not about guns. It is about the rest of the bill of rights (and the desire for totalitarian rule). Making any of the amendments fall, makes them all subject to fall the same way. There is a procedure to change amendments (or adding them, like the 14th that specifies exactly who the born equal are). Without invoking that exact prescribed method, any attempt to subvert any of the amendments is actually criminal, as everyone subverting has sworn an oath to uphold and protect the Constitution. Protecting the Constitution against any enemy, foreign and domestic (which includes any part of the Constitution from being changed or abolished by means not defined therein), is our sworn duty, whether we agree with it or not (the oath doesn't have a part where your commitment to it expires at any specific time, or you can pick and choose what you support or not).

He wasn't arrested for resisting arrest, if you read my comment. Assaulting a police officer is not legal under any circumstances.

He is NOT required to obey the orders of police if the orders are illegal in the first place.

Emily Thomas - Wrong, the Supreme Court has ruled you have the right to protect yourself from police.

Emily Thomas See below, The Bill of rights was written expressly for this reason, abusive government. Once the Police's actions become illegal YOU have a natural right to protect and defend yourself. This is the main point all the sissy sheep on here are scared of, once a Police officer aims (enters your house) a gun at you illegally, you have the Right to shoot them if you fear for your life. Honestly in my opinion is the powder that will set off the keg. The militarization of the Police is leading to this natural conclusion. The underlying issue is 1/2 the population supports a political party that wants 100% government control, the other 1/2 doesn't. Spin that into a law enforcement industrial complex that pays both parties politicians to increase spending for "big brother" projects it seems to me accelerates the potential conflict

Well said.

SFC (Join to see), I have yet to figure out why some people insist on carrying a long gun as their open carry. That's just overkill in my opinion.

Resisting illegal arrest is illegal? WTF? We have a duty to resist tyranny.

SGT (Join to see) - resisting *arrest* is illegal. if the arrest is illegal then you have recourse through the courts system. Even our founding fathers tried to do things using established procedure first, so IMHO, we should also use their example of properly employing existing measures *until such measures prove to be tyrannical and ineffective*.

CPL James Sirak, yours is a very reasonable answer.