The phrase "bearing arms" means to carry them. That's a key point in the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The issue is that there are some people who shouldn't be bearing arms. If you're drinking, for example, you should probably leave the gun at home. But a Texas law seemingly along these lines goes way too far, and now the law is being challenged.
The Firearms Policy Coalition is challenging a Texas state law that prohibits the carrying of firearms in certain public places, including bars.
On Tuesday, October 29, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging certain public locations where Texas bans the carrying of firearms.
The complaint, Ziegenfuss v. McCraw, identifies the challenged locations as distinct from so-called “sensitive places” and shows that “…there is no historical tradition for banning the carriage of firearms at these or analogous locations.”
The challenged locations are:
- in any business where alcohol comprises 51% or more of sales (even if the individual is not consuming alcohol)
- racetracks
- sporting events
Now, understand, historical analogs exist for not carrying a gun when you're drunk. It's not difficult to see that extrapolated out to include people who are drinking. Alcohol and guns aren't a great mix in general, so I can see such a law passing constitutional muster. While I don't think people who drink should be handling guns, I'm not a fan of laws as a general thing, so I'm less than understanding of such things existing.
But the courts feel otherwise, which is fine. That's not the hill I'm going to die on.
The issue, however, is that it doesn't focus on people who are drinking. While alcohol is served at all three places, it's also served in other places where guns are permitted.
Instead, these "sensitive places" feel completely arbitrary, probably because they are. Yes, people get worked up at sporting events, but they also get worked up at home watching. I'm sure more than a few TVs got destroyed when my Georgia Bulldogs beat the University of Texas a couple of weeks back. If guns aren't an issue there, even when mixed with alcohol, why should sporting events and racetracks be off-limits?
Let's be real here, too. All three are potential targets for would-be mass shooters and for more pedestrian criminals. People should never face a choice between living their lives and being able to defend themselves, which is exactly what this law does.
The FPC is challenging this law because while Texas is pretty pro-gun, they still have stupid laws on the books, much like so many other states in this country. Overturning this will be good for Texans as a whole, despite what we know the anti-gunners are going to say.
Where we have a question is will the courts agree that it should be overturned. However, based on my reading of Bruen, I think so. Granted, I'm not a lawyer, never played one on TV, and didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night (IYKYK), but some of this isn't overly difficult to understand.
