TexasCHLforum.com

I would rather have unlicensed OC, but obviously would be okay with licensed OC. However, as far as being a step towards unlicensed OC, I wonder how likely it is to get changed from licensed to unlicensed at any point. I don't see that as very likely or likely at all. I see it as possible, but not likely.

Hello Ron1n1. Welcome to the forum!

With this type of reasoning we could end up with the type of licensing that Nevada has. We would be required to qualify with each type of weapon in order to carry it. We do that now with revolvers versus semi-autos, but it could be worse. I carry a Glock, but if I wanted to get a 1911 I might have to qualify with it before I could carry it. We have Class C,M,A, and CDL driver's licenses. I don't know how many others there are.

Teamless wrote:I am against unlicensed OC, if OC has to happen at all, I would prefer licensed.

I guess I am concerned a bit however: what If licensed open carry were made into law. And OC became pretty 'normal', where people stopped having the "shock factor' of seeing guns all over place, there are 2 issues that I have (1 is for Licensed and 1 is for OC in general).
1 - If licensed OC is law, what then stops others without the license to OC? yes, you could say the same for CC, but at least with CC, people do not see it. if OC, then other 'posers' or even criminals could OC and blend in with law abiding OC'ers.
2 - for general OC, what happens when someone has a hip holster, and then throws a jacket on, they are then CC and unless they are licensed for CC, they are now breaking the law. I would guess that normal law abiding people would then get jammed up for breaking the law.

As far as #2 goes, they would be breaking the law if they did not have a CHL. This is the case in several other states.

#1 is a bit more sticky, but it is just something that we would have to deal with. There are many states that have allowed OC for ever and some of them unlicensed. It just doesn't seem like there have been any or many criminals OC. Was it the Secret Service or FBI that had done studies or put out some statistics that said criminals don't OC because they don't want to draw attention to themselves until they are ready to commit their crime. Even then they still don't want to draw a lot of attention to themselves. They just want to commit their crime and fade away. Attention is what gets them caught.

Now, as far as OC goes, there are some who want the attention and others that like it just for the comfort aspect. I think we all acknowledge that any one who does OC will get more attention. Especially if it is done in a state that decriminalizes it when they did not allowed it for so long. Someone openly carrying in Arizona will draw far less attention than in Texas if it ever becomes legal again.

baldeagle wrote: Not sure I agree with your logic. Let's rephrase it, shall we? If driving requires a license, the police will stop anyone they see driving just to check if they have a license.

Nope, that doesn't happen now, so I see no reason for the police to change their tactics and procedures. If you're driving erratically or breaking the law, you get stopped and they ask for your license. If you're carrying erratically or breaking the law while carrying, you get stopped and they ask you for your license. If OC is unlicensed, they'll ask you for your ID.

I see your point and it may not happen very much or at all. And it might even be illegal for an officer to stop someone in Texas just to ask for a license or ID without that person already having broken some law. Except of course, if they are stopping everyone like a drunk checkpoint or something. Are those even really legal? Never mind, that's another topic.

Beiruty wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:Unlicensed, definitely.

Good point C-dub.

Anygunanywhere

In Unlic carrry, can a LEO stop and ask for ID and check if the OCer is not a felon? Or do you allow the violent felons to OC?

Well, the way I figure it, if OC requires a license the police will stop anyone they see open carrying just to check if they have a license. But, if it is unlicensed OC then they have no reason to stop someone unless they are committing a crime. Oh, and I'm not naive enough to think that it still won't happen, but it will cost some departments some money when they do. However, whether a person is violent or not is irrelevant. If they are not committing a crime at that moment then what's the problem whether they OC or CC without a license?

I also think that if and when OC is legal in Texas that a license will be required. Having it be unlicensed is JMHO.

Beiruty wrote:I vote licensed OC. I do not want felons and violent crimnals to OC, periods. LEOs can check OC/CHL lic with no need to have an positive proof state issued id and and do on-sight background check. But I am not sure if this is an issue for LEOs

I didn't think felons could possess a gun in the first place and I thought there were studies and statistics that show criminals in general do not OC. I"m guessing that this would be in those states that already allow OC in the first place.

For me this was a difficult choice. Initially, I thought "licensed carry" and would prevent just anyone from doing it. However, I think that if we had "unlicensed carry" we might better be able to keep it separate from our CHL.