The issue of gun control and carry of handguns has, in the wake of several highly publicized shootings, become an issue of national prominence as supporters of the right to carry guns clash with those who prefer tighter regulations. Like many divisive issues, it is one that is often drawn along lines of the political parties as Republicans tend to support more freedom and Democrats tend to support more control on the issue.

The Texas House of Representatives, in its answer to the issue, recently passed House Bill 910 in a 101-42 vote which allows for Texans who already possess licenses for concealed carry of handguns to now carry them in the open on shoulder or belt holsters. The number of Texans that currently fit that criterion falls around 826,000. This means that, should the bill become law, these licensed people would now have the ability to openly display handguns on their person in public, as opposed to having them concealed as before. In order to pass, the bill must be combined with the Senate version and signed by Governor Greg Abbott, both of which seem relatively likely to happen given statements from those parties.

The bill does, of course, require licensing for open carry, but it has also drawn a lot of criticism for its premise of open carry and its rejection of limiting amendments in the stages of passage such as a clause that would allow large cities to opt out (defeated 97-45). The bill also has a stipulation that prevents the police from stopping someone with an open carry gun if the sole purpose of that stop is to check for a license.

Given that it allows guns to be visible in the open in public spaces while not solving any particular problem with the current system, the law is likely to be more negative than positive in implementation, and the rejections of amendments that would have allowed the people to vote in their own districts does not bode well for the compromise potential of the opposing constituencies.

The supporters of the bill advocate the importance of having consistent laws as part of the justification for rejecting limiting amendments, especially on something as important as self-protection. In this way, the bill is meant to expand the gun rights of responsible citizens, but this also raises the question of why the change is even necessary given that the people affected could already carry guns anyway. In tandem with this, the bill’s detractors argue that giving areas the ability to have local votes on the matter uphold the rights of the voter to make choices, which would be especially applicable in large cities that, because they have substantial populations in close proximity to each other, may be more likely to vote against open carry.

The bill is meant to champion rights for the citizen, but changing the guns of a relatively small amount of the population from publically hidden to publically open doesn’t really solve any rights violations. With or without the bill, licensed citizens can have their weapons with them and thus maintain a sense of personal security, while putting citizen-held guns in the open serves more to raise the chance of misunderstanding between people than keep the peace.