OC v. CC -- Hatfields v. McCoys All Over Again

[Charles L. Cotton]

The 2011 Texas Legislative Session is only a little over a month away and it is deja-vu in terms of the folks at OCDO. To those here on TexasCHLforum who encourage us (who "us" is is unclear. Is it NRA, TSRA, TexasCHLforum,me?) to work with OCDO, here are some examples why this is unlikely if not impossible.

First, after reading hundreds of posts on TexasCHLforum over two legislative sessions, the opposition to open-carry lies primarily in two camps; 1) fear that businesses will start posting 30.06 signs; and 2) not wanting to spend political capital on a high profile issue like open-carry and harm the chances of passing employer parking lots and campus-carry. (Some people have stated that they wouldn't carry openly even if OC were to pass in Texas, but I don't recall anyone saying they would oppose OC on that ground.)

I agree with both of these two concerns, though number 1 is my main issue. I do not and have not opposed open-carry, in spite of what has been said on OpenCarry.com. I have seen very few people here on TexasCHLforum who oppose OC, other than the timing. Nevertheless, many/most of the folks at OpenCarry.com in the Texas Section berate us. I find it ironic that they spend so much time blasting the TexasCHLforum and its members and little if any time attacking anti-gun groups like the Brady Campaign that aggressively oppose open-carry. To our Members who counsel cooperation with OCDO, I ask how can we in light of the following?

Here is an example by KBCraig, a former Member of TexasCHLforum:

I see the folks over at the CHL forum are mostly lukewarm to downright hostile, although there are some supporters for the concept. They just don't like anything that is initiated by "those OC people".

What? Mr. Craig claims that TexasCHLforum Members don't support OC because we didn't initiate it and OCDO did? That's absurd; it's also insulting because it's clear that he either didn't read our Members' concerns, or merely dismisses them outright. If the folks at OCDO, and some here, won't even acknowledge that the above-referenced concerns are legitimate, and they choose only to belittle anyone who shares those concerns, how can there be any cooperation?

Here is another post by Mr. Craig, this time claiming that TexasCHLforum Members oppose the new LoneStarCDL.org:

Funny... two years ago they resented the "outsiders" at OCDO. This year a Texas resident and Texas state rep work together to introduce an OC bill, and they won't support it because it's connected to OCDO.

I haven't seen a single post against LSCDL.org. No, as usual for OCDO and Mr. Craig specifically, if we don't jump on the bandwagon and give this new organization our full support, then we are opposing it. This is classic OCDO philosophy, "if you aren't with us, you're against us." That's a counterproductive attitude to say the least.

Here are a couple more examples of posts by an OCDO member who also posts here under the same screen name. In this first example, he is responding to a post about "other pro-gun groups" in which the NRA was named specifically:

There lies the rub. They have their own agenda, and if our agenda starts to gain on their agenda, they will actively try to sabotage our efforts. A properly-worded constitutional carry bill will not only satisfy us, but it will also satisfy their agenda, r.e. campus carry and parking lot storage.

jsimmons, this is false! Neither the NRA nor the TSRA "sabotaged" the OC effort. OCDO did a fine job of that by itself in the way it treated Rep. Riddle and her staff.

Here is what jsimmons has to say about TexasCHLforum members in general and me personally:

The TexasCHL forums are run buy a guy from the TSRA. What did you expect? TSRA doesn't have a favorable opinion of OCDO. Right now, they're all over there ringing their hands over minutia regarding CC. If we had constitutional carry, the CHL forums would have much less traffic, and that would diminish Mr. Cotton's importance in the grand scheme of things, and he won't stand for that.

"Ringing [our] hands over minutia regarding CC[?]" He considers employer parking lots and campus-carry "minutia?" It has been estimated that 1/3 to 1/2 of all Texas CHL's work for companies with "no gun" policies that apply to parking lots. (This is a very unscientific estimate, but whatever the actual percentage, it represents many thousands of people.) This leaves thousands of Moms and Dads unarmed and defenseless throughout their entire commute to and from work, often over long distances and with their children. But to jsimmons and many at OCDO, this is "minutia."

So too is allowing college students to defend themselves on campus, according to jsimmons. I guess the death toll at Virginia Tech and every other school that has had the misfortune of a mass murder applying his trade is also "minutia." And this from a man who wants to allow all felons to carry guns!

This argument isn't about "gun rights". It's about “constitutional rights”. I think with very very few exceptions, anyone 18 and over has the god-given right to keep/bear arms - even felons. Passing a law saying that felons cannot legally own a gun is absurd, due mostly to the nature of being a criminal. Further, - and once again, with very few exceptions - they [felons] should be allow to wear their guns anywhere they go.

jsimmons, please PLEASE stay on the OC issue, or become a lobbyist for felons, but don't touch employer parking lots or campus-carry!

When you read a number of threads on OCDO, here are some themes that seem to be shared by a large number of their members:

• 1. If you don't support open-carry unconditionally, then:
  • A. You don't support the Second Amendment;
    B. You are a CHL elitist;
    C. Your concerns about 30.06 signs are silly bogyman stories;
  2. You must support OC over any and every other bill or issue;
  3. You must support any organization that supports OC regardless of their failed tactics and track record;

There are a few people on OCDO who try to take a reasoned approach, but unfortunately they are very few. SA-TX posts there and here on TexasCHLforum and although he and I disagree on the risk of 30.06 signing becoming commonplace, he has always been a statesman when presenting the case for open-carry. I could work with a man like that and launch a responsible plan to pass legislation. On OCDO he has tried to counsel against saber-rattling and belittling the legitimate concerns CHL's have over 30.06 signs or using political capital that is needed to pass employer parking lots and campus-carry. Unfortunately, he is suffering from John the Baptist Syndrome -- he's finding himself to be a voice in the wilderness and few are listening.

Don't ask me to "work with" or cooperate with people who insist on being combative, belittling, disrespectful and outright dishonest. That mindset will come out during the legislative session and the OC cause will be doomed. I love to have an opposing attorney or opposing client with that attitude in court, because I can tear them to shreds and make the jury despise them. I rarely prognosticate, but I'll venture this: If the OC movement during the 2011 session expresses the sentiment that is rampant in the Texas Section of OCDO, as it did in 2009, then open-carry will be a dead issue for years to come. Alienate Austin once and you have a very big negative perception to overcome; do it twice in a row and it will become an insurmountable problem.

As I have said several times now, open-carry can pass in Texas. With proper planning and groundwork, it can be done in a way that minimizes the risk of a public backlash causing the posting of many new 30.06 signs. But the groundwork doesn't start in November or December before a legislative session. It begins in July of every odd year -- the month after a session ends. Impatience, inexperience and a politically-narcissistic attitude will almost guarantee failure.

Chas.

Here is the OCDO thread from which the above quotes were taken http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... carry-bill" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is the TexasCHLforum thread from which jsimmon's "felon" comments were taken (pg. 6): viewtopic.php?f=94&t=39824&start=75" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[74novaman]

I'm in both the "fear of 30.06 signs" and "campus carry more important" camps.

I have myself been called a member of the brady campaign just because campus carry is a higher priority than open carry to me.

Guess how much respect I have for those that would mock my legitimate fear of my CC 2A rights being eroded by 30.06 signs and claim me to be anti gun? Zero. If these are the legislative tactics yall are planning to use, I predict open carry passing in Texas sometime after the sun goes dark.

We all want the same things, fellas. More of our 2A rights restored. Just because I'm worried about consequences and when we can realistically get things done is no reason to get mad and label me an anti gunner.

[TexasRedneck]

Charles, I will reiterate yet again - LSCDL is NOT representative as to what you are reading on that site. Period. I don't think that I've "attacked" you in any way whatsoever, nor has any representative from their group. If they have, please advise - and I'll see to it that it's given to the proper folks to deal with.

You made specific comments about their website - comments they listened to. Please go take a look at the current site and see for yourself. I was as surprised as anyone to hear about some of the antagonistic comments made here (and now, obviously, elsewhere). I'm tempted to go to that site myself and "join in" that discussion - but I'd likely be kicked off the site pretty quickly. I know from talking w/the folks involved w/LSCDL that the LAST thing they want to do is to derail the efforts made to get campus carry pushed through - and I know that they are planning to attempt to reach you this week to iron out any mistaken ideas and try to find ways to work together rather than to be at odds.

[Beiruty]

United we gain, that is all.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles, I will reiterate yet again - LSCDL is NOT representative as to what you are reading on that site. Period. I don't think that I've "attacked" you in any way whatsoever, nor has any representative from their group. If they have, please advise - and I'll see to it that it's given to the proper folks to deal with.

I know and nothing in my post was intended to imply there was a connection.

Chas.

[TexasRedneck]

Hmmm.....if you took what I wrote to imply that you had, that's not what I meant. I guess it's like when someone breaks the cookie jar - the one that didn't do it wants to be sure he ain't accused of it!

Unfortunately, due to recent experiences with OC proponents, many folks are ready to lump 'em all in the same cage. Guess I'm trying to ensure that people realize that there IS a difference, and that there IS an honest desire to work TOWARDS a goal.

[pbwalker]

Every time I hear about the OCDO crowd and their tactics, I think of this picture:



I just ignore it...maybe I've gotten better at it, now having a 2 year old. I can draw a lot of similarities between the two...

[SA-TX]

There are a few people on OCDO who try to take a reasoned approach, but unfortunately they are very few. SA-TX posts there and here on TexasCHLforum and although he and I disagree on the risk of 30.06 signing becoming commonplace, he has always been a statesman when presenting the case for open-carry. I could work with a man like that and launch a responsible plan to pass legislation. On OCDO he has tried to counsel against saber-rattling and belittling the legitimate concerns CHL's have over 30.06 signs or using political capital that is needed to pass employer parking lots and campus-carry. Unfortunately, he is suffering from John the Baptist Syndrome -- he's finding himself to be a voice in the wilderness and few are listening.

I'm quite certain any comparisons of me to John the Baptist are overly generous but I appreciate the sentiment. As I've mentioned previously, I travel a great deal in my work and the next 6 months are going to be especially crazy. All 2A issues deserve constant attention and effort that I cannot commit to so I've avoided leadership positions. That said, I'd be honored to work with you and contribute to the cause in whatever way that I can. I suspect that once an effort that all parties recognize as serious is underway there will be many who will want to join us and the rhetoric born of frustration will cool. Please let me know how I can help.

SA-TX

[ScottDLS]

My thoughts --- (not that anyone asked, but that never stopped me before)...

- I would like to see licensed open carry as I think it continues the expansion of gun rights in Texas that started with the CHL law in '95 and has continued in each legislative session thereafter. It seems somewhat artificial to require covering up your handgun, with criminal sanction (Class A Misdemeanor, no less) for failing to do so. What is the point? Remember, it's already legal to open carry a rifle or shotgun. If it's so shocking to the conscience to see a handgun, why not rifles too?

- I'm not sure I'd open carry that much if it were an option, but I really would like the option. I think once the novelty of being able to do it wore off, most people would conceal. It still seems to be quite rare even in the states that have always permitted open carry, licensed or otherwise.

- Given the difficulty that many businesses seem to have getting the 30.06 notice correct since the section was added in 1997, I'd be surprised if people open carrying resulted in more 30.06 signs at private businesses. The signs required under 30.06 are quite large, and I think a lot of businesses give up when they find out how big and ugly they have to be. What I DO think would happen is a lot of open carriers would receive ORAL notice under 30.06 the first time they did it. That would still leave the business open for us concealed carriers.

- As I've said in earlier thread, I'd like to see 30.06 changed to require oral notification for each specific incidence of carry in a location generally open to the public. I'd also like to see it dropped to a Class C misdemeanor.

- I don't like overly aggressive tactics by the open carry/"constitutional carry" types that annoy legislators and public officials who are generally favorable to expanding gun rights. I'd like a parking lot bill first, open carry and campus carry are about equal for me, since I don't work at a college and I think private colleges will get to opt out.

[baldeagle]

I have one comment. Anyone who thinks convicted felons should be allowed to carry weapons, openly or concealed, is smoking something I wasn't aware existed. I doubt even LSD or heroin can cause that much hallucination. I can only come to one conclusion. People who advocate for that position have very personal reasons for doing so which they are not revealing to us. That's the only logical explanation for such an outlandish position.

You cannot claim to support Constitutional carry and support felons carrying weapons at the same time. Please read the Fifth Amendment:

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Note that the Constitution, which you claim to revere clearly states that you can be deprived of life, liberty, or property through the due process of law. IOW, your right to carry weapons can be deprived you through due process of law.

IOW, it is perfectly Constitutional to deprive felons of the right to carry.

If that doesn't settle it for you, then you clearly don't really want Constitutional anything. Furthermore, you will never get more than 10% of the population (I'm being generous) will ever support your position anyway, so it has ZERO chance of passing in any of the fifty states.

EDIT: changed LDS to LSD - bonehead mistake - sorry

[ScottDLS]

I have one comment. Anyone who thinks convicted felons should be allowed to carry weapons, openly or concealed, is smoking something I wasn't aware existed. I doubt even LDS or heroin can cause that much hallucination. I can only come to one conclusion. People who advocate for that position have very personal reasons for doing so which they are not revealing to us. That's the only logical explanation for such an outlandish position.
...

LDS....What do the Mormons have to do with heroin or hallucination....? ....Sorry I couldn't resist.... Assume you meant Lysergic acid diethylamide (aka LSD) vice Church of... Latter Day Saints (aka LDS).

Anyway, I agree with points made in your post. People advocating for "felon carry" are over the top, though there are a number of crimes classified as felonies that arguably should be lesser crimes.

[The Annoyed Man]

I have no use for bomb-throwers. It's just political bullying is all it is. I want to see the following enacted, in this order of importance:

1. Campus Carry
2. Parking Lot bill
3. Licensed OC
4. Full Constitutional carry

Numbers 1 & 2 actually have equal priority for me. Items 3 & 4 are worthy goals, but not at the expense of losing 1 & 2. The CC and PL bills actually have a good chance of passing in this session. If the militant OC crowd doesn't learn to moderate their behavior in the political arena, then they'll not only lose out on accomplishing their own agenda, perhaps for good, but they'll screw it up for everyone else too on the other bills. And being bomb-throwers, they won't have the integrity to admit that it was their fault.

[jsimmons]

Wow - I'm famous. :)

I want constitutional carry. Period.

Why are we - as voters afraid of anything (referring to more 30.06 postings)? has it actually come to that? We're "afraid" of politicians? We're "afraid" of corporations? I'd much rather have my constitutional rights firmly in hand than worry about a few signs. Once we get constitutional carry, we can then take care of the signs. Once we have constitutional carry, copanies can't make us sign an agreement (company employee manual/policy manual) that forces us to relinquish our rights (disallowing us from keeping our guns in our cars). Once we have constitutional carry, it would be easier to achieve campus carry 9at least for institutions that rely on state/federal funding).

Constitutional carry is working for Ariozona, Vermont, and Alaska. I see no reason why it won't work here in Texas as well.

And, as human s are prone to do, it's easy to say "if you ain't with us, yer against us". Both sides of this issue are guilty of that. If everyone doesn't unite behind the complete and total restoration of our constitutional right to keep/bear, none of us will get what we want.

[jsimmons]

People advocating for "felon carry" are over the top, though there are a number of crimes classified as felonies that arguably should be lesser crimes.

I'm not advocating it, I'm just citing the absurdity of making a law that only affects law-abiding citizens. All of our gun control laws were supposedly enacted "with an eye to prevent crime", but whaere has that actually gotten us? Absolutley nowhere other than disallowing honest citizens from being able to enjoy their constitutional rights. Criminals by their very nature do not obey the law. They don't give a rat's anal pore about whether or not they're allowed to own/use a gun. If it suits their needs, they'll obtain and use one. Meanwhile, John Q. Citizen is walking around obeying "the law" that infringes his right to keep/bear.

Essentially, we're *all* being treated like we're criminals, or are about to be.

[jsimmons]

I don't recall LSCDL being affiliated with OCDO OR TXCHL. In fact, I'm probably a lot more extreme in my views than anyone in any of those groups. I'm a computer programmer, and I see things as a series of ones and zeros - either on or off. Right now, I see the State of Texas as infringing on my constitutional right to keep/bear. No amount of "but what about this" or "what about that" will convince me otherwise. I do not agree that we should have to keep going back to the state on our knees with our hat in our hand to beg for a little more of our rights to be restored.