Pros and Cons of the Texas Constitutional Carry Law

On June 16, 2021, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1927, known colloquially as the “Constitutional Carry” bill, into law. Starting on Sept. 1, 2021, Texans 21 and over will no longer need a license to carry a pistol (openly or concealed) as long as they are not already excluded from firearm possession by another State or Federal law. Previously, Texans were required to obtain a state-issued license which required training, a proficiency exam, and a background check. With the passage of this law, Texas will become the 20^th state, as well as the largest state, to dispense with these requirements.

Supporters and Opponents of HB 1927

The passage of this bill has brought upon a lot of debate between its proponents and those who oppose it. Supporters of Constitutional Carry argue that it:

Restores Second Amendment rights and makes this form of self-defense available to individuals who may not be able to afford the classes, licensing, and background check fees
Protects the privacy of Texan citizens
Will potentially reduce the number of mass shootings in the state

Those against Constitutional Carry argue that it:

Removes barriers for “unfit” individuals to possess firearms
Interferes with the pursuit of justice as it increases the difficulty for law enforcement to identify potential suspects in active crime scene investigations
Unnecessarily reduces the dissemination of legal information and gun safety protocols which in turn raises the likelihood of gun violence

Both supporters and opponents of the Texas Constitutional Carry law make some valid arguments which we expand on below.

Democratizing Gun Rights

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Supporters of this Constitutional Carry law argue that the right to bear arms should be unrestricted by the government and that the series of regulations in place before HB 1927 was passed were an unconstitutional restriction on citizens’ Second Amendment rights. This new law works to re-establish and protect those Second Amendment rights for Texans. Prior to the passage of this law, the requirements to be able to legally carry a firearm included a background check, fingerprinting, training, and a proficiency exam. These requirements can be very costly to some individuals and in effect limit the ability for low-socioeconomic communities to obtain legal self-defense through the ability to carry a firearm. This new law makes it easier for someone to legally obtain a form of self-defense that can sometimes be more necessary in disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Protection of Privacy

The previous requirements of having your fingerprints taken along with giving permission to the government to conduct a background check are seen by many supporters as an infringement on their rights to privacy. Some feel as though this creates a “database” of individuals known to have a weapon that can facilitate potential seizures by the government or a point of leverage for government agents to the disadvantage of gun owners. The passage of HB 1927 effectively eliminates this fear. Those who opposed the bill see this database of fingerprints as a mechanism that facilitates justice in that it makes it easier to identify the owner of a firearm to assure it is in the hands of its rightful owner.

Mass Shooting Reduction

According to a study conducted by “Everytown Research,” since 2009, there have been 255 mass shootings in the United States, resulting in 1,449 people shot and killed and 961 shot and wounded.[1] Although many would think the vast majority of these shootings happened in the public realm, it turns out most mass shootings happened in private homes¹. Supporters of the Constitutional Carry law argue that if more people are able to carry a weapon without the requirements formerly set out (fingerprinting, gun safety classes, licensing applications, etc.), then more people will be able to put an immediate stop to an ongoing mass shooting situation.

It is argued that these people will be able to disarm or disable any person who uses a firearm with ill intent against a group of innocent people. Opponents of this law believe the problem is not mass shootings upon the public as much as it is a lack of gun safety education that has led to the highest casualties. They worry that since there is less required instruction on how to use a weapon in general, it may cause more chaos. A more difficult situation may arise when a person who does not know how to operate a handgun attempts to use it to stop a domestic terrorist and ends up wounding themselves or another party instead.

Access to the Unfit

Opponents to the passage of HB 1927 argue that this new law would allow for citizens with a criminal background to come into the state and own and carry a firearm with ill-intent now that there are fewer barriers to obtaining guns in general. The Constitutional Carry law does stiffen the penalties for felons and domestic violence offenders caught illegally carrying guns, but opponents fear this will do little to deter these criminals from buying guns. It may just increase availability and opportunity for their purchase.

Interference with Justice

Now that fingerprinting is not required and is merely optional for gun owners, opponents of this new law and even some law enforcement groups argue that not being able to identify fingerprints in crime scenes as belonging to owners of guns found at the scene can interfere with the pursuit of justice and make it difficult to track down criminals. Further, officers may not be able to confirm that a person alleging to be the owner of a gun is who they say they are without being able to definitively identify them. Initially, the bill banned police officers from questioning a person solely because they are carrying a firearm, but the bill now allows for officers to question and disarm a person at any time if the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for their protection.

Reduction of Firearm Education

Although the senate required that the Texas Department of Public Safety to offer a free online course on gun safety in order for this bill to be passed, opponents of HB 1927 argue that making gun safety education optional will lead to a much lower population of gun owners who know how to properly and responsibly use, store and carry firearms. This, of course, would lead to higher accidental shooting incidents or a likely increase in gun theft in the state.

Although there are good points on either side of this Texas Constitutional Carry law debate, HB 1927 has been signed into law and comes into effect September 1^st this year. It is important to note that even under Constitutional Carry, there are certain public places firearms are not allowed unless you are a licensed peace officer. Those include:

Bars and other businesses that make 51% of their receipts from alcohol
Schools
Sporting events and horse or dog races
Polling places
Airports
Courtrooms
Government offices utilized by the court
Jails and prisons
Hospitals
Federal property and national park buildings (that includes the San Antonio Missions and The Alamo)
Private businesses or land in which the owner has signage posted outlawing weapons
In the room or rooms where a meeting of a governmental entity is held if the meeting is an open meeting subject to Chapter 551, Government Code and if the entity provided notice as required by that chapter.

Written by:

Kimberly Cruz
Law Clerk
WATTS GUERRA LLP
Four Dominion Drive, Bldg. Three, Suite 100
San Antonio, Texas 78257
Phone: (210) 447-0500

Frank Guerra
Board Certified – Personal Injury Law
Texas Board of Legal Specialization
WATTS GUERRA LLP
Four Dominion Drive, Bldg. Three, Suite 100
San Antonio, Texas 78257
Phone: (210) 447-0500

Be sure to follow us on Instagram and Facebook to see more Watts Guerra news!