Image 01 Image 03

Wendy Davis supports open carry

Wendy Davis supports open carry

And also the ability to carry handguns not-concealed

She’s the rock ’em sock ’em cowgirl, now.

Goodbye pink sneakers, hello six shooter.

Because abortion isn’t going to win her the Governorship.

Wendy Davis joins Greg Abbott in supporting ‘open carry’ gun law

The Wild West tradition of openly carrying your six-shooter on the street has long been banned in Texas under state law. But the next governor could change that.

Rising Democratic star and gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis has joined her top Republican rival in supporting a proposed “open carry” law. It would allow people with concealed handgun licenses to wear a pistol on their hip, in full view, while in public….

But her party and influential Democratic colleagues, including a fellow state senator running for lieutenant governor, disagree.

“There is little or no public safety justification for open carry,” said Emmanuel Garcia, spokesman for the Texas Democratic Party.

It’s a core, heartfelt belief of hers:

One Democratic consultant suggested that since Abbott supporters already tried to paint Davis as an anti-gun candidate, it may be pragmatic for the state senator to support the proposal.

“If the issue isn’t important to you, then it would be smart to take it off the table by saying, ‘Me, too; now let’s go back to talking about education and how we fund road building and the stuff the mainstream of Texas is really concerned with,'” strategist Harold Cook told the AP.

Could it be that she, ahem, abandoned Democrats on gun control to advance her political career?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


RE: “Could it be that she, ahem, abandoned Democrats on gun control to advance her political career.”
When asked if she abandoned gun control, Ms. Davis replied, “It’s just not a good time for me.”

Of course, she’ll abandon Texas voters whenever it’s convenient.

And now my very serious question: Do you think ANYONE really believes her? Do Dems really believe that she supports this? Would typical gun-grabbers stay home and deny her support because of it? And would any conservatives change their minds about her because they believe she really would support it as governor? My guesses are no, and… no. In the first instance, it’s an extraordinary example of Taqiyya… and they all know it. In the second case, I don’t think anyone believes it to begin with.
Dems lying. So what else is new?

Wendy has “evolved.” You know. The survival of the politicopath.

But, does she support the openly handicapped?

    “Politicopath”…great word that. As for the openly handicapped, of course she supports them…she wants them to stand up and walk a few miles in her shoes.

    This is the new form of politician today…no worries about promises made, if “it isn’t a good time for me.” Wendy is merely following the new form…that of Obama for example.

If Justin Bieber decided to run for president, would it be worthy of more than a snort? If the Dems want to shoot themselves in the head by nominating Davis, why should we want to stop them?

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to Immolate. | February 7, 2014 at 10:22 am

    I am not a Texan, but from what little I know about Texas politics if I had to bet on the outcome of the race I suspect she will lose by at least 10 points. But nothing is certain.

    I’ve seen a couple of video interviews of her and she can be charming in a creampuff interview setting. She allegedly graduated first in her class at TCU. She’s smart, articulate, and she’s willing to throw her principles overboard to get a political edge, as demonstrated by her sudden insincere fondness for the 2A. Again, I suspect she’s going to lose, but nothing is certain. For example, Obama won re-election in a near electoral college landslide, and nobody can explain what he accomplished in the first term to deserve it. Obamacare is a disaster, his foreign policy is a catastrophe, and the economy is terrible. And yet we collectively reward him with a second term. It’s inexplicable. At least to me. If the electorate always did the rational thing the Democrat Party would not exist.

    I don’t want an unprincipled, pseudo-smart, conniving Democrat – man or woman – anywhere near the governorship of a traditionally Republican state as large and as important as Texas is.

      NC Mountain Girl in reply to MaggotAtBroadAndWall. | February 7, 2014 at 11:47 am

      Davis’s story sounds too much like the modern version of You picked a fine time to leave me Lucille to be explained away. The female villain of the country western song is always charming at first. Almost everyone knows that.

      There is nothing inexplicable about Obama’s win in 2012 anymore than Clinton in ’96 was inexplicable. A challenger always has to make a case for himself. It is not enough to point out the incumbent’s failings. FDR in ’32 and Reagan in ’80 made strong positive cases for themselves. Romney, saddled with a record as a rich liberal Republican from Massachusetts, did not.

    Another Ed in reply to Immolate. | February 7, 2014 at 10:25 pm

    Uh…. Justin Bieber is a Canadian citizen. He is ineligible to run for U.S. President.

So, Wendy plans to “stand” with Abbott on guns, huh. I betcha she came to this decision after realizing that Abbott didn’t know what it means to struggle, ah, about guns. Her path from anti-gun weather vane to pro-gun something or other is a tale definitely worthy (to quote the Klingons) of song and story. So, sing, muse, of a much-surgeried pol of flexible to no principles.

    What stuns me is that she still clings to that struggling single mother meme…when in reality while she was attending that low cost program Harvard Law she wasn’t mothering much, and her husband du jour paid for her education. Uh, if you can afford to pay for Harvard Law you are NOT struggling. Noted that said husband observed that once the Harvard bills were paid off Wendy babe was out the door and in the wind.

    More struggles I guess….oh, wait?

RE: “If the Dems want to shoot themselves in the head by nominating Davis, why should we want to stop them?” Right. Along the lines of never interrupt your enemy if he is making a mistake. I understand the concept. It doesn’t always work. Unfortunately, the enemy got a pot-smoking, no-background, no-experience sociopath elected President. Twice.

You can gauge the genuineness of Mommy Dearest’s gun position by the heat generated by her flaming Collectivist supporters in places like Austin.

So far as I’ve heard…(crickets).

I really wonder who the hell she thinks she’s fooling?

I have long wondered about the logic of allowing licensed concealed carry, but to ban open carry (de jure, or, in the case of some places, de facto by implementing other gun laws,such as “brandishing” to effectively ban such). Traditionally, at least during the 19th Century, it was just the opposite, with concealed carry often being considered deceptive and only done by cowards. It was the danger of surprise that caused concealed carry to be banned, as contrasted with open carry. And, now you have the opposite – arguing that if you can legally carry concealed, you should be able to carry openly. And, I think that this is needed to protect against people carrying concealed being arrested when their firearms are accidentally disclosed. (I should add that over the last decade and a half, I have lived exclusively in states where open carry is legal and, in some, unremarkable – before that though I was in Austin for a bit).

    I’m with you. Open carry is fair warning. I don’t understand why carrying concealed is better.

      Aridog in reply to Valerie. | February 7, 2014 at 11:23 am

      Valerie…define what you mean specifically by “fair warning” and how it applies to carrying a loaded firearm. Please…it is an honest question, I may be missing something. Also, assuming open carry (it is legal where I live…but…), how do you defend your person from the rear? You do realize why it is necessary if open carrying, right? Drawing attention to ones self is the worst thing you can do in my experience, which I admit is mostly military…so help me unterstand. Again, I am not arguing, I am asking. I may miss things. I am older than dirt, after all 🙂

    Sorry Bruce, a bit of an epistle….

    Not sure where you’ve lived, but in Michigan the law technically allows open carry and has provisions that don’t seem to make it “brandishing.” However … if a observer or neighbor calls the police about an “armed person” etc…said police may apply public nuisance misdemeanor laws….I presume that is under a concept of community protection. In short, you are strolling along with your hog leg strapped to your hip…just what are you trying to day? What are you thinking of doing? “Justice” doesn’t guarantee you won’t be hassled or arrested for disturbing others…just like you have a right to free speech can shout obscenities in the face of a 6’6″ heavy weight boxer and you might be fine or you might get your butt stomped…”Justice” arrives after all that.

    I have a CPL (CCW license) and am firmly in the “keep it concealed” camp, for other than law enforcement (or legal hunting seasons) for two reasons: One, dueling is illegal, so you are not armed to tell anyone anything, it is purely for immediate self defense; Two, advertising your armed state merely tells an enemy where to grab a gun or otherwise take advantage of you by surprise…you’ve lost the element of surprise…not to mention you likely will get shot with your own gun.

    I think the reason for concealed carry is because it is intended as a last resort self defense issue…you are a civilian. Once the 18-19th century dueling mentality passed in to history, what is the point of open carry? (Other than legal hunting or law enforcement).

    I’d note that in my years working in the federal building (Detroit) I always locked my CP in my vehicle (locked out of sight) because it was not allowed in the building unless you had law enforcement & arrest certification on your ID (which my Army CAC card did not) and even FBI special agents stored their pistols in a locked drawer before wandering around in the building (with empty holster) outside their offices, such as to the cafeteria. WE had some 5-6000 people in that building and well over half were legally armed LEO’ need for over-doing it.

    Concealed carry reflects today’s culture…at least in my opinion (worth perhaps its cost?) of not getting in folks face unless necessary.

      Aridog in reply to Aridog. | February 7, 2014 at 1:16 pm

      I should have added to the FBI practice in the Federal Building that they only stashed their pistols if they were wandering around with their suit coats off or other covering garment off…e.g., in shirt sleeves, etc….it was specifically to avoid open carry.

      Bruce Hayden in reply to Aridog. | February 7, 2014 at 2:38 pm

      Open carry is unremarkable in the part of rural MT where I spend half the year. Concealed carry is also legal there, even without a permit. Mostly, people carry firearms for the 4 legged predators (black and now brown bear, mtn lion, wolves, etc), not two legged, and so open carry probably makes more sense – from a point of view of access, and not from hiding the firearms from the predators. You also see it a bit in Phoenix, but there I think concealed carry makes more sense. Right now, I am in the mountains of Colorado, in a ski community, where open carry is technically legal, but rarely seen outside law enforcement. Here, a permit is required for concealed carry.

      Denver was one of those places where you were dammed if you did, and dammed if you didn’t. The police interpreted an exposed butt of a handgun in a holster as brandishing, and covered butt as concealed, and wouldn’t grant permits except those who were very politically connected. It was only when the El Paso Sheriff (i.e. Colo. Springs) started issuing CCW permits to all non-criminal adults, including Denver residents, who applied, that the state passed a uniform shall-issue CCW statute. Denver tried to exempt themselves as a self-rule county, but that was squashed by the courts.

        You are lucky, I only get to Montana about 6 weeks total per year. I stay near Pray, and wander from there. You are right, open carry or concealed carry is unremarkable in Montana…however, most of it is very rural, which is why I like it. The mind set of “open carry” in urban areas is a bit disturbing to me, for the reasons I have cited.

        How is the issue handled in say, Missoula?

          Bruce Hayden in reply to Aridog. | February 7, 2014 at 5:07 pm

          We are about an hour and a half NW from Missoula, and get in there once or twice a month. I don’t remember seeing open carry there, and there is a possibility that you would need a CCW permit to carry concealed (apparently cities can require such, but the default is no permit required). Missoula is a yuppie college town these days. We get their TV stations, and the big debate a year or so ago was reintroducing the hunting of wolves. Even some of the environmental wackos apparently jumped on board.

          Noticed that Pray, MT is down near Bozeman and Livingston, on the Eastern Slope. Stayed at Chico Hot Springs a couple of decades ago. Started in Fort Collins, CO, drove up through WY, and then through Yellowstone in record time (for the summer), pushing all the way, for dinner reservations.

    Phillep Harding in reply to Bruce Hayden. | February 7, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    I have never understood “Concealed carry is cowardice”.

      Bruce Hayden in reply to Phillep Harding. | February 7, 2014 at 2:45 pm

      The idea that concealed carry is cowardice dates from a time when open carry was the norm, and you indicated whether or not you were armed by doing so openly. Concealed carry (when not openly carrying) was considered cheating, because you were pretending to be unarmed, and, thus, cowardice.

      My understanding is that this is the root of laws limiting concealed carry. Moreover, a concealed firearm was often not a militia type weapon, and so the 2nd Amdt was thought to be of less import. Unfortunately, this meant that the precedence of limiting firearms could be leveraged by later courts to limit open carry and possession of militia type weaponry.

      try “derringer up the sleeve”…

Wendy Davis is an amoral political wind sock.

TrooperJohnSmith | February 7, 2014 at 5:20 pm

People who live in the ripe environs of Austin think that the place is weird in the same way that it was in the 60s and early 70s.

However, they suffer from that same Lefty disconnect that affects people in D.C. where they think life there even remotely resembles life anywhere else in the Land of the Big PX. You see, the real weirdness left Austin only to be replaced by designer stores and faux coffee houses (MA required for employment) that serve legions of self-proclaimed Progressives.

These “enlightened” see Austin as a shining island of towering intellect and the dwindling remnant of true Texas independence in a sea of Red State Bubba-ism. This is despite most of them eschew anything remotely Texan that isn’t sold in Eco-friendly packaging or available online. Many have been in Texas less time than the last norther that blew through here last week. It’s these people who created the myth of Wendy Davis, the Fightin’ Single Mom, who was oppressed by the White Male Texas Cowboy Oilman Rancher Developer Conservative Misogynist Cabal. These people truly have a stick up their collective asses, but they are so afflicted, said stick is up there sideways!

The tough thing is that in her 15-minutes in the sun, the Wacky Left created a character, the likes of which Ms. Davis must now aspire to be! She’s proving less than adept, despite her Cash for Elsewhere and the political “brains” from parts unknown sent here to manage Ms. Davis. Honestly, that bullsh!t like attacking Greg Abbott’s disability may play well in Sh!tcago or… Austin, but outside of that blue bubble of smug percolating up from the Edwards Aquifer, people see it for what it is, Chicago Politics. Two words for ya there, buckaroo: F*ck Chicago.

Nuff’ said, podnah…

“Could it be that she, ahem, abandoned Democrats on gun control to advance her political career?”

Nope, this is right in line with what Democrats do. They lie about their positions to get elected but count on their base knowing better. See Obama on gay marriage, DOMA, marijuana, and a host of other issues. We call him a hypocrite, but that’s not what this is: it’s willfully, purposefully lying to get elected, while simultaneously confident that their base sees it for what it is.

No Wendy Davis supporter will believe that she is either pro-life or pro-gun . . . the bet is that uninformed Texas voters will believe her. Then feel “duped” when the truth comes out (again. We know she is neither.). Frankly, this is such a common and transparent Democrat strategy that it’s amazing anyone falls for it, but there are too many people who just don’t care to see or perhaps, who just don’t care, period.

As an aside: Plenty of Republicans do the same thing, but the difference is that they aren’t counting on the base to know better, they are counting on the base to NOT know better. And we see that they are right when we support regressive losers like Christie, Jeb, and / or Rubio.