TexasCHLforum.com

Texas Firearms Coalition wrote:Real world impact of open-carry on peace officer’s

Senate Bill 17 by Sen. Estes would remove the requirement that Texas Concealed Handgun Licensees keep their self-defense handguns concealed. The Bill was considered in a public hearing in the Senate State Affairs Committee on February 12, 2015, along with SB11, the so-called campus-carry Bill. Some of the testimony given was given by police officers and sheriffs as well as well as a representative of the Sheriffs Association of Texas. This article will focus on SB17 (open—carry) and its impact on Texas peace officers.

Full article at: http://www.TexasFirearmsCoalition.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can see both sides having to cooperate, concede and compromise some, at least in the early stages.

If people will be reasonable and not always pushing their agenda, it can be worked out.

2nd paragraph, third line: it was clear by their statements that a two others were clearly opposed

Nice article. I enjoy reading what you write.

Another great article, thank you!

healthinsp wrote:2nd paragraph, third line: it was clear by their statements that a two others were clearly opposed

Nice article. I enjoy reading what you write.

Thanks, for both comments.
Chas.

I like your very approachable writing style Charles. Not a lot of legal mumbo jumbo, just practical reality.

And I agree with your conclusion...

Law enforcement officers and Concealed Handgun Licensees have gotten along great for almost twenty years and there is every reason to believe they will work well together, if open-carry passes.

Thanks!

healthinsp wrote:2nd paragraph, third line: it was clear by their statements that a two others were clearly opposed

Nice article. I enjoy reading what you write.

I, too, had trouble with that sentence.

While few testifying on open-carry (SB17) expressed outright opposition, it was clear by their statements that a two others were clearly opposed.

Not only with the part you've emboldened, but the overall meaning. Isn't clearly opposed and outright opposition pretty much the same thing?

And this part.

“good guy v. ban guy”

is it supposed to be "bad" guy?

Retention holsters are slower to draw from, especially for people who have certain physical limitations such as arthritis and for women in general.

I'm a little concerned about this statement with regards to women. Am I reading this correctly? Does it say that women, in general, draw from a retention holster slower than men?

A brilliantly written article Charles! The best one yet, IMO. You fairly and accurately presented both sides of complicated and conflicting viewpoints. An excellent treatise for someone who is not as deeply immersed in the subject of arming oneself for self defense, as the members of this forum are.

C-dub wrote:And this part.

“good guy v. ban guy”

is it supposed to be "bad" guy?

Yes, thanks.

Chas.

C-dub wrote:

Retention holsters are slower to draw from, especially for people who have certain physical limitations such as arthritis and for women in general.

I'm a little concerned about this statement with regards to women. Am I reading this correctly? Does it say that women, in general, draw from a retention holster slower than men?

Yes. Women generally having a shorter torso so mid-ride and high-ride holsters already present a problem for them on the draw. That's why we see so many women lean to their weak side to draw from a holster. Combine that with a retention holster, particularly a level 3 holster, and the draw stroke is usually slower than with men. Level 2 holsters aren't as bad, but that's still one more operation they must complete while getting the grip out of their ribcage. Female officers that wear off-set holsters don't have the problems that traditional holsters present, but that type of holster isn't going to be worn by people carrying openly.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

C-dub wrote:

Retention holsters are slower to draw from, especially for people who have certain physical limitations such as arthritis and for women in general.

I'm a little concerned about this statement with regards to women. Am I reading this correctly? Does it say that women, in general, draw from a retention holster slower than men?

Yes. Women generally having a shorter torso so mid-ride and high-ride holsters already present a problem for them on the draw. That's why we see so many women lean to their weak side to draw from a holster. Combine that with a retention holster, particularly a level 3 holster, and the draw stroke is usually slower than with men. Level 2 holsters aren't as bad, but that's still one more operation they must complete while getting the grip out of their ribcage. Female officers that wear off-set holsters don't have the problems that traditional holsters present, but that type of holster isn't going to be worn by people carrying openly.

Chas.

I agree. I am taller than your average female (5'09"), and still have trouble with a waistband holster unless it fits very low. It is quite difficult to draw when the grip is already almost up to your armpit

And that, my friends, is why your wife, girlfriend, significant other, etc, wants to carry in her purse.

I liked your article, but every time I read one of these "risks of OC" articles, my thought wanders to the same place - compare it to vehicles.

We are required by law to have a license if we operate a vehicle on public roadways. We are not required to show our license visibly when doing so, and can only be asked to show it if we are being stopped for some other reason.

I too worry about someone snatching a gun, which is one of the main reasons I will likely never (deliberately) open carry; however, cars can also be hijacked, and there is no legal requirement to ride with all your windows up and doors securely locked. I compare this to retention holsters.

Although police are not permitted to just randomly stop someone to check for a driver's license, a good cop can find a legitimate reason to stop someone who looks suspicious. I have no doubt they would also be able to do so with an openly armed individual.

I could go on, but I trust you see my point. I think the "concerns" are mostly simple fear mongering by those opposed.

Excellent article!

One observation....

Yes, there will be some officers who are jerks and they are going to hassle anyone carrying a handgun openly, just as some open-carry supporters love to make videos of them harassing officers doing their jobs. Thankfully, the numbers in both groups are very small.

Maybe there needs to be some kind of statutory relief proposed for citizens who OC and are victim to that kind of harassment?....

Crossfire wrote:And that, my friends, is why your wife, girlfriend, significant other, etc, wants to carry in her purse.

Thank you. I've always wondered why some women are so insistent on carrying in the thing that is going to be grabbed by the bad guy first.
It makes more sense to me now.