Gov. Abbott on constitutional carry

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


mr1337
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1201
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 12:17 pm
Location: Austin

Re: Gov. Abbott on constitutional carry

#16

Post by mr1337 » Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:15 am

anygunanywhere wrote:Unlicensed OC is a pipe dream.
Sure, with that attitude it is.

But I agree that decreasing the number of off-limits locations to CHLs is likely the next step before we go to Unlicensed OC.
Keep calm and carry.

Licensing (n.) - When government takes away your right to do something and sells it back to you.


Salty1
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 920
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:44 pm

Re: Gov. Abbott on constitutional carry

#17

Post by Salty1 » Wed Jun 24, 2015 9:21 am

AS long as CJ and Kory keep up their antics I would agree that unlicensed OC is a dream. They are both toxic and I doubt that many elected officials are going to vote for unlicensed OC and be viewed as supporting them.....
Salty1

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 17045
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Gov. Abbott on constitutional carry

#18

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Wed Jun 24, 2015 9:39 am

Excaliber wrote:
Beiruty wrote:Wait few years and the law would be "enhanced" once people realize that CC and OC is a none issue, things would advance. The only thing that I do not like and I am against is convicted felons and gang members would carry with no penalty or at least no questions asked. I know that they do now. They will open carry if they want to and if they do carry concealed and they were pulled over how the LEO can decide if they are felons with firearms?
Trust me when I say that an experienced LEO can tell the difference between a CHL holder and a felon most of the time just from body language and the look in the person's eyes when he spots the officer. There are also many reasons to stop someone other than for open carry and bad guys tend to be pretty sloppy about not crossing lines. LEO's figure those things out pretty successfully today, and open carry won't diminish their ability to do so.
:iagree: Experience matters whether you are shooting a Cat III approach or identifying bad guys on the street.

Chas.
Image

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 8297
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Gov. Abbott on constitutional carry

#19

Post by mojo84 » Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:13 am

People seem to not realize gang members and biker outlaws advertise their affiliations openly by their clothing, tats and actions. Cops are familiar with these indicators. If they see someone advertising their outlaw membership while openly carrying, that should warrant contact. Once contract is made, the cop can then better assess the situation.

Besides if they are carrying already, how is a piece of cloth covering the gun going to protect us?

User avatar

anygunanywhere
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 6904
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 9:16 am
Location: La Grange, Texas

Re: Gov. Abbott on constitutional carry

#20

Post by anygunanywhere » Wed Jun 24, 2015 2:15 pm

mr1337 wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:Unlicensed OC is a pipe dream.
Sure, with that attitude it is.

But I agree that decreasing the number of off-limits locations to CHLs is likely the next step before we go to Unlicensed OC.
That is not my attitude, that is fact. Does anyone actually think that the antics leading up to this last session will be forgotten by our legiscritters?

Does anyone actually think that the idjits that pretty near torpedoed open carry will stop and let things develop sensibly? I heard CJ on KTRH this morning while driving to pick up my grandson.

Yes, unlicensed OC is a pipe dream.

I doubt there is anyoneanywhere (heh heh) who wanted OC more than me. I am really happy we are where we are, but no doubt some people are going to screw it up, sure as shootin'.

I have pretty much kept my mouth shut on the OC debate for awhile now, and I have my own plan on how I will respectfully deal with the ramifications of carrying openly. I am not out to make any headlines. I just want to mind my own bidness and do my thing.

That said the thing that pretty much drives me nutso is that we can't carry where LEO can. This is the priority.

Thanks!
1911s should be carried openly as God and John Moses Browning (PBUH) intended them to be.
III%


OlBill
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 519
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Gov. Abbott on constitutional carry

#21

Post by OlBill » Wed Jun 24, 2015 7:55 pm

anygunanywhere wrote:
Reducing prohibited places for CHL is the most important next step. Unlicensed OC is a pipe dream.
Yes please.


TXBO
Banned
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2014 2:02 pm

Re: Gov. Abbott on constitutional carry

#22

Post by TXBO » Tue Jul 07, 2015 4:21 pm

anygunanywhere wrote:
TXBO wrote:Unlicensed OC and licensed CC is a good next step. Criminals just don't open carry or use holsters.
Reducing prohibited places for CHL is the most important next step. Unlicensed OC is a pipe dream.
I don't agree. People that get a threat to their life need a way to legally carry without waiting 30 to 60 days to obtain a license. I wish everybody was proactive with self defense training and a CHL before they ever had a threat to their life but that's just not the case.

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 17045
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Gov. Abbott on constitutional carry

#23

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Tue Jul 07, 2015 5:29 pm

TXBO wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:
TXBO wrote:Unlicensed OC and licensed CC is a good next step. Criminals just don't open carry or use holsters.
Reducing prohibited places for CHL is the most important next step. Unlicensed OC is a pipe dream.
I don't agree. People that get a threat to their life need a way to legally carry without waiting 30 to 60 days to obtain a license. I wish everybody was proactive with self defense training and a CHL before they ever had a threat to their life but that's just not the case.
But after the 30 - 60 days are up and one has a CHL, they can carry a self-defense handgun, but not in off-limits areas so they are defenseless in those areas. That's why I feel that removing all off-limits areas is the most important step we can take for Texas gun owners.

If you mean we should push for unlicensed carry rather than eliminating off-limits areas, then I disagree. As long as OCT and Grisham are polluting the political atmosphere, it's not going to pass. Plus, even if it does, then the off-limits areas will not only still exist, it will be virtually impossible to even reduce their number, much less repeal them in total.

I do think we should repeal some of the current CHL eligibility requirements such as those dealing with deferred adjudications, non-violent offenses, child support and taxes. A person's life and the lives of their families should not be put at risk for such issues. This issue is also one that should be addressed after removing off-limits areas. It's not only a matter of priority, but also a matter of timing. Pushing for legislation out of sequence could result in a current victory that precludes future victories. Bills that would remove off-limits areas have been filed in the last two legislative sessions and they went nowhere. This is the case even though those bills would impact only CHL's with our outstanding track record. Imagine trying to remove off-limits areas after unlicensed-carry were to pass. It would never happen. The proper bill at the proper time is critical to continuing success.

Chas.
Image


Taypo
Banned
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1054
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2014 12:36 pm

Re: Gov. Abbott on constitutional carry

#24

Post by Taypo » Tue Jul 07, 2015 6:38 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
TXBO wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:
TXBO wrote:Unlicensed OC and licensed CC is a good next step. Criminals just don't open carry or use holsters.
Reducing prohibited places for CHL is the most important next step. Unlicensed OC is a pipe dream.
I don't agree. People that get a threat to their life need a way to legally carry without waiting 30 to 60 days to obtain a license. I wish everybody was proactive with self defense training and a CHL before they ever had a threat to their life but that's just not the case.
But after the 30 - 60 days are up and one has a CHL, they can carry a self-defense handgun, but not in off-limits areas so they are defenseless in those areas. That's why I feel that removing all off-limits areas is the most important step we can take for Texas gun owners.

Chas.
:iagree:

Since we're on the subject, is there any chance of changes to 30.06? I'm really, really torn on the current model. I respect business and property rights, but I'm also frustrated as heck with every movie theater, gym and hotel with a sign maker posting...

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 17045
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Gov. Abbott on constitutional carry

#25

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Tue Jul 07, 2015 7:46 pm

Taypo wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
TXBO wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:
TXBO wrote:Unlicensed OC and licensed CC is a good next step. Criminals just don't open carry or use holsters.
Reducing prohibited places for CHL is the most important next step. Unlicensed OC is a pipe dream.
I don't agree. People that get a threat to their life need a way to legally carry without waiting 30 to 60 days to obtain a license. I wish everybody was proactive with self defense training and a CHL before they ever had a threat to their life but that's just not the case.
But after the 30 - 60 days are up and one has a CHL, they can carry a self-defense handgun, but not in off-limits areas so they are defenseless in those areas. That's why I feel that removing all off-limits areas is the most important step we can take for Texas gun owners.

Chas.
:iagree:

Since we're on the subject, is there any chance of changes to 30.06? I'm really, really torn on the current model. I respect business and property rights, but I'm also frustrated as heck with every movie theater, gym and hotel with a sign maker posting...
There's no way to improve TPC §30.06 unless we were to prohibit businesses from using it on commercial property. That's what I have advocated, but it isn't going to happen, at least not in the foreseeable future. We also are highly unlikely to make it effective only if one refuses a demand to leave. We took a step in that direction with the reduction of the offense to a Class C misdemeanor for inadvertently entering posted property.

Chas.
Image

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 12002
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Gov. Abbott on constitutional carry

#26

Post by C-dub » Tue Jul 07, 2015 7:58 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
TXBO wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:
TXBO wrote:Unlicensed OC and licensed CC is a good next step. Criminals just don't open carry or use holsters.
Reducing prohibited places for CHL is the most important next step. Unlicensed OC is a pipe dream.
I don't agree. People that get a threat to their life need a way to legally carry without waiting 30 to 60 days to obtain a license. I wish everybody was proactive with self defense training and a CHL before they ever had a threat to their life but that's just not the case.
But after the 30 - 60 days are up and one has a CHL, they can carry a self-defense handgun, but not in off-limits areas so they are defenseless in those areas. That's why I feel that removing all off-limits areas is the most important step we can take for Texas gun owners.

If you mean we should push for unlicensed carry rather than eliminating off-limits areas, then I disagree. As long as OCT and Grisham are polluting the political atmosphere, it's not going to pass. Plus, even if it does, then the off-limits areas will not only still exist, it will be virtually impossible to even reduce their number, much less repeal them in total.

I do think we should repeal some of the current CHL eligibility requirements such as those dealing with deferred adjudications, non-violent offenses, child support and taxes. A person's life and the lives of their families should not be put at risk for such issues. This issue is also one that should be addressed after removing off-limits areas. It's not only a matter of priority, but also a matter of timing. Pushing for legislation out of sequence could result in a current victory that precludes future victories. Bills that would remove off-limits areas have been filed in the last two legislative sessions and they went nowhere. This is the case even though those bills would impact only CHL's with our outstanding track record. Imagine trying to remove off-limits areas after unlicensed-carry were to pass. It would never happen. The proper bill at the proper time is critical to continuing success.

Chas.
Currently, IIRC, the Texas CHL community has a better criminal record than Texas LE. I wonder how much lightening up on the eligibility requirements would effect that?
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.

NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member

User avatar

AJSully421
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1340
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Benbrook / SW Fort Worth

Re: Gov. Abbott on constitutional carry

#27

Post by AJSully421 » Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:08 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
TXBO wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:
TXBO wrote:Unlicensed OC and licensed CC is a good next step. Criminals just don't open carry or use holsters.
Reducing prohibited places for CHL is the most important next step. Unlicensed OC is a pipe dream.
I don't agree. People that get a threat to their life need a way to legally carry without waiting 30 to 60 days to obtain a license. I wish everybody was proactive with self defense training and a CHL before they ever had a threat to their life but that's just not the case.
Snip

I do think we should repeal some of the current CHL eligibility requirements such as those dealing with deferred adjudications, non-violent offenses, child support and taxes. A person's life and the lives of their families should not be put at risk for such issues.
Chas.

Agree, to an extent. I agree that once a person has successfully completed a DA, and was never officially convicted, then it should not DQ someone for 10 years. Maybe 1-2 after it is completely dismissed, but not 10. I see why they did the child support thing, but I agree it needs to go away... it has nothing to do with defending yourself outside the home.

Can't carry within 1,000 feet of a place of execution on the day of an execution...? What the crap is that...

Places we can't carry should be correctional facilities, courtrooms, and on commercial flights. Basically, if they don't have a metal detector right now, it should not be illegal to carry there... because if it does not have a metal detector, a criminal can carry there, so why not the good guys?
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan, 1964

30.06 signs only make criminals and terrorists safer.


Tracker
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 520
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 10:51 am

Re: Gov. Abbott on constitutional carry

#28

Post by Tracker » Wed Jul 08, 2015 9:31 am

AJSully421 wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
TXBO wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:
TXBO wrote:Unlicensed OC and licensed CC is a good next step. Criminals just don't open carry or use holsters.
Reducing prohibited places for CHL is the most important next step. Unlicensed OC is a pipe dream.
I don't agree. People that get a threat to their life need a way to legally carry without waiting 30 to 60 days to obtain a license. I wish everybody was proactive with self defense training and a CHL before they ever had a threat to their life but that's just not the case.
Snip

I do think we should repeal some of the current CHL eligibility requirements such as those dealing with deferred adjudications, non-violent offenses, child support and taxes. A person's life and the lives of their families should not be put at risk for such issues.
Chas.

Agree, to an extent. I agree that once a person has successfully completed a DA, and was never officially convicted, then it should not DQ someone for 10 years. Maybe 1-2 after it is completely dismissed, but not 10. I see why they did the child support thing, but I agree it needs to go away... it has nothing to do with defending yourself outside the home.

Can't carry within 1,000 feet of a place of execution on the day of an execution...? What the crap is that...

Places we can't carry should be correctional facilities, courtrooms, and on commercial flights. Basically, if they don't have a metal detector right now, it should not be illegal to carry there... because if it does not have a metal detector, a criminal can carry there, so why not the good guys?
and I extend that to Federal. If a post office and its parking lot is a "sensitive Place" there should be a guard at every entrance. And why is 1000 feet within a school property sensitive to an out of state licensed holder but no an in state licensed holder? It just and arbitrary anit-gun Federal ruling.


Tracker
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 520
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 10:51 am

Re: Gov. Abbott on constitutional carry

#29

Post by Tracker » Wed Jul 08, 2015 10:21 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Taypo wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
TXBO wrote:
anygunanywhere wrote:
TXBO wrote:Unlicensed OC and licensed CC is a good next step. Criminals just don't open carry or use holsters.
Reducing prohibited places for CHL is the most important next step. Unlicensed OC is a pipe dream.
I don't agree. People that get a threat to their life need a way to legally carry without waiting 30 to 60 days to obtain a license. I wish everybody was proactive with self defense training and a CHL before they ever had a threat to their life but that's just not the case.
But after the 30 - 60 days are up and one has a CHL, they can carry a self-defense handgun, but not in off-limits areas so they are defenseless in those areas. That's why I feel that removing all off-limits areas is the most important step we can take for Texas gun owners.

Chas.
:iagree:

Since we're on the subject, is there any chance of changes to 30.06? I'm really, really torn on the current model. I respect business and property rights, but I'm also frustrated as heck with every movie theater, gym and hotel with a sign maker posting...
There's no way to improve TPC §30.06 unless we were to prohibit businesses from using it on commercial property. That's what I have advocated, but it isn't going to happen, at least not in the foreseeable future. We also are highly unlikely to make it effective only if one refuses a demand to leave. We took a step in that direction with the reduction of the offense to a Class C misdemeanor for inadvertently entering posted property.

Chas.
I was arguing with a liberal over whether the Oregon baker having to cough up $135,000 (I think their donations exceeded that so they made bank) was violating the lesbian couples rights, and not simply causing them an inconvenience to find a different baker. Using that as an analogy, I asked him why should a state be able to force this (he used the following word, as opposed to "private") "public" business must sever them irregardless of the owner's 1st amendment religious freedoms, right of association, property rights? Why could this baker not have the right to inconvenience this couple but have the right to inconvenience CHL holders wanting to exercise their 2nd amendment right? His argument came down to "because gays are a "protected class." Yeah, I'd like to know why they (still) are. Seems to me you have to show the "class" is somehow being harmed. If not being able to marry is a harm it was the state governments doing it and not broad-based private (I mean public) businesses. Now if every baker in the town/state was refusing service to gays they have a valid argument that it's more than an inconvenience.

So I have mixed opinions on doing away with the 30.06s. While I'd like the ability of not having to be vigilant about violating a business owner's anti-gun policies and be able to carry in any dang business I want, I have to weigh that desire against the owner's rights (no matter how wrong headed I think he is). So I've had this question in the back of my mind: when does an excess of 30.06 signs become so numerous that the state steps in to protect its CHL holder's 2nd amendment right to self defense, and should they?

Maybe CHLers should petition for protected class status ;-)


TrueFlog
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:07 pm

Re: Gov. Abbott on constitutional carry

#30

Post by TrueFlog » Wed Jul 08, 2015 10:39 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote: There's no way to improve TPC §30.06 unless we were to prohibit businesses from using it on commercial property. That's what I have advocated, but it isn't going to happen, at least not in the foreseeable future. We also are highly unlikely to make it effective only if one refuses a demand to leave. We took a step in that direction with the reduction of the offense to a Class C misdemeanor for inadvertently entering posted property.

Chas.
I like the approach of making it a crime only if the individual is asked to leave and refuses. If we go that route, we can eliminate the 30.06 & 30.07 signage altogether along with the offense of "trespass by a license holder." This is the model used successfully by many other states. I agree that we are unlikely to achieve that all at once, but we can chip away at it like we did this session.

Locked

Return to “2015 Legislative Session”