TexasCHLforum.com

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Sure. Until that person fails to signal when changing lanes, runs 8 mph over the limit, litters, etc. the cop has no business asking him for the time of day.
But if they do any of those things, they become fair game.

Uh yeah, that's what I said.
But it still won't stop him from carrying, just as current laws don't stop him.
He's a "criminal", remember.
If he is found OCing illegally after committing another infraction, then he will be dealt with in the same manner that he would be dealt with now for carrying concealed.
For some reason you believe unlicensed OC is worse than criminals who currently carry concealed.
That just doesn't make sense.
You think they will "blend in", when the truth is, they already do.

CleverNickname wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

Liko81 wrote: If OC became legal, I doubt you would see anyone intent on criminal activity OCing, except in the very rare circumstance that he's planning on mowing down anyone who looks at him twice (and other random people along the way).

Feel free to doubt it all you want.

Until you can provide facts proving your point, your position is just as much conjecture as his is.

Tell that to thet state legislature.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

kauboy wrote:Yeah, frankie has a tendency to read things that aren't always there.

Thanks for the kind words.

Any evidence?

Um... did you not read my post???
I'm sure you did. You quoted it.
I posed a scenario about OC, and then you started talking about declaring CHL...

kauboy wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

kauboy wrote:Yeah, frankie has a tendency to read things that aren't always there.

Thanks for the kind words.

Any evidence?

Um... did you not read my post???
I'm sure you did. You quoted it.
I posed a scenario about OC, and then you started talking about declaring CHL...

When I posed my scenario, nobody was committing an obvious crime. Two men walking down the street carrying openly. An officer sees them and MUST assume they are doing so legally(if OC were legal, licensed or unlicensed).

Sure.

Then frankie jumps off on some tangent about declaring.
Hey frankie, I only have to declare once an officer asks for ID, and he CAN'T do that unless investigating a crime.
So, if no crime, then no inquiry for ID.
Hence the BG has just avoided the need for a license to OC. Only when he does something stupid will he be questioned about it.
Now, if he happens to jump in a car, then his tags are public information, and the cop can run it. Then the BG can just deal with it.
The point is, whether a license is required or not, the officer must assume that he is carrying legally if OC were legal.

You shouldn't be talking about people jumping off on tangents here.

Everything I have been saying has been in the context of a person having an incidental contact with LE due to some common low level violation. Someone just walking down the street is not in the picture. I don't quite get why you decided to waste bandwidth bringing it up.

Now, for the 100th time, someone OCing without a license, where a license is required, who has one of these encounters, is at a much higher risk of getting popped and jailed than if no license were required. Particularly if the law required them to produce their license upon request like the current CHL law does.

If something carries more risk, fewer people will do it.

That's my whole argument against unlicensed OC, all in 3 short sentences.

Don't you just love that scene in "Josey Wales" where Josey and the Indian Chief take on the 4 Yankee soldiers they run into in town? I love it in the end where Josey, referring to the fourth soldier, says, "Him? I never paid him no mind. After all, you were there."

kauboy wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Sure. Until that person fails to signal when changing lanes, runs 8 mph over the limit, litters, etc. the cop has no business asking him for the time of day.
But if they do any of those things, they become fair game.

Uh yeah, that's what I said.
But it still won't stop him from carrying, just as current laws don't stop him.
He's a "criminal", remember.

No law can stop a criminal from committing a crime. That's just a strawman argument. What laws do is set out a penalty for doing something illegal. The desire to avoid the penalty results in fewer people doing the illegal thing (Human Nature 101),

Now in this case, a license requirement also makes it easier for an OCing BG's illegal status to be noted by LE. And it will be an additional, easy-to-prove, charge that could be useful in prosecuting the BG and locking him up for a longer time.

kauboy wrote: For some reason you believe unlicensed OC is worse than criminals who currently carry concealed.
That just doesn't make sense. You think they will "blend in", when the truth is, they already do.

Criminals can't get licenses. So they don't have them. Right now, if a criminal comes to the attention of LE for some minor infraction, if they are carrying (CC given the current laws), they know they are at risk of getting patted down, having the cop find the gun, and now they're in big trouble.

Because of this risk, fewer BG's carry than otherwise would if carrying were legal. (Human Nature 101)

And if you think BG's don't care if they go back to prison, explain why every so often one of these fools manages to get himself shot by police while trying to run away from a casual contact, because they are packing illegally, don't have the license, and know they are about to get popped for it.

Now, if you make a given mode of carrying, CC, OC, or both, legal without a license, previously convicted criminals who couldn't qualify for a license suddenly do not have to worry about not having one. They could OC, for instance, and as you have pointed out, if they are minding their own business they are OK. And if they get caught committing some minor infraction like rolling through a stop sign, they are still OK unless the cop runs a full background check on them.

Less risk of getting popped = more BG's will do it. (Human Nature 101)

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

CleverNickname wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:Feel free to doubt it all you want.

Until you can provide facts proving your point, your position is just as much conjecture as his is.

Tell that to the state legislature.

Did you hear that everyone? Tell it to the state legislature!

Write your state legislator and the Governor and tell them about open carry.

Tell the politicians about the nearly 30 states that have RKBA and allow unlicensed open carry. Tell the politicians about the numerous states where a concealed handgun license also permits open carry. Point out that fewer than ten states completely ban open carry for anyone but government employees and ask them to take Texas off that list of shame. Request they roll back this civil right violation imposed upon Texas voters by Yankee Carpetbaggers in the late 1800's.

Tell it to the state legislature!

If you're referring to states where it is fully legal for someone to walk down the street while OCing without a license, I think the correct number is a lot less than 30. (Note: States that only allow for OC in narrow circumstances such as when hunting or something silimar to that don't count. I think when we're talking OC here, the context is AK or VT style OC - i.e. anywhere, anytime, etc.)

Why don't you (boomerang) do a little research and tell us what that number is, and maybe provide a list of states? That would add some informative data to the discussion.

Ones I know about myself are AZ, VT, VA, and NH. I'm sure there are more, though I do not believe that there are anywhere near 30.

FWIW, the map at opencarry.org shows 11 states as "gold star open carry states". These are ones that allow for fully pre-empted statewide OC without a license.

That's a far cry from 30.

They are:

AK, AZ, NM, NV, ID, WY, MT, SD, KY, VA, and VT.

Strangely enough, they do not show NH as being a "gold star" state, even though it meets the criteria.

In addition, they show an additional 13 states as "licensed open carry states". But in many of these states, the legal circumstances where licensed OC is allowed are very narrow. (Think MD, NJ, MA, RI among others.) So they don't count in the context of this discussion both for that reason and for the fact that this thread is about unlicensed OC.

For similar reasons, the states listed as "anomalous open carry states" don't make the grade either.

This is getting very ugly and unfriendly. Let's tone this one down a bit, what say you guys?

We are on page 10 of the latest thread dealing with open-carry. We don't lock threads just because they are plowing the same ground over and over again, so feel free to keep posting. I mean that sincerely; it's not intended as a snide comment.

However, the Moderators have noticed that the "temperature" of this thread is rising, everything that could be said has been said multiple times and no one is going to change anyone's mind on this very hot topic. It's obvious by the tenor of some posts that the frustration level is rising and this is fertile ground for personal attacks. Please don't let that happen or this thread will be locked.

Chas.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

KBCraig wrote: You're seriously going to argue with a former state trooper about what information is available to a cop on the street?

So you're saying, "Do you realize who he is?"

...

I respect his first hand knowledge. And I have first hand knowledge of my own, though I do not want to disclose how.

"I can't tell you who I am... I'd have to kill you."

Okay, secret squirrel.

I have knowledge that allowing unrestricted unlicensed open carry in Texas will cause a 37% decrease in violent crime in the first three years and a 72% drop in ten years, though I do not want to disclose how.

That's a mighty bold assertion to be making, there.

aardwolf wrote:I have knowledge that allowing unrestricted unlicensed open carry in Texas will cause a 37% decrease in violent crime in the first three years and a 72% drop in ten years, though I do not want to disclose how.

Yes, but do you have the lottery numbers for Saturday night?

aardwolf wrote:I have knowledge that allowing unrestricted unlicensed open carry in Texas will cause a 37% decrease in violent crime in the first three years and a 72% drop in ten years, though I do not want to disclose how.

if you were to read John Lott's book More Guns = Less Crime, you might find some genuine statistics that coincide with that claim!
Dr Lott's book is actually more involved with Concealed Carry, but it does go to show that criminals who see a "hard" target, look elsewhere.