TexasCHLforum.com

I voted yes.

However, I would like to see at least two levels of licensing. Level One would be our current "concealed only" license and Level Two would give the holder the option of concealed or open carry.

In order to obtain a Level Two license, the applicant would be requied to pass a physical agility test designed show the applicant's proficiency in dealing with the criminal who would grab guns from older, less fit, or disabled Level Two license holders.

Surely with all the attorneys in the House and Senate, they can come up with wording for a statute that does not "discriminate" while enhancing public safety.

While I would like to see open carry legalized, I doubt I would carry that way personally. I don't want John Q. Public to know that I am carrying, but, if open carry were legal, We wouldn't have to worry about inadvertantly flashing our weapon. It would render the intentionally failing to conceal law as invalid.

Therefore I voted no, because I would not carry in such a manner, but I would like to see it legalized.

I would probably open carry in a holster because of comfort and an assumed deterrant factor.

However, if I saw a person with an unholstered handgun stuck in their waistband (that's open carry also), it would greatly concern me.
Paul

i would like the option too, but would rarely do it.

that would also allow your shirt tail to fly up without getting in trouble.

or have to worry about "is it concealed" all the time.

I would support the open carry option for the same reasons already given, and would probably not do so for tha same reasons listed. It would be nice to have the option of carrying a long barreled .357 in a shoulder holster, or to take off my cover shirt. I think that it would be something to do more in rural areas. Packing my .44 mag into the Kroeger's in Fort Worth would probably cause public alarm, and I take great pains to be sure that my shirt doesn't ride up enough to expose the muzzle. Best regards to all.

Kyle Brown wrote:I voted yes.

However, I would like to see at least two levels of licensing. Level One would be our current "concealed only" license and Level Two would give the holder the option of concealed or open carry.

In order to obtain a Level Two license, the applicant would be requied to pass a physical agility test designed show the applicant's proficiency in dealing with the criminal who would grab guns from older, less fit, or disabled Level Two license holders.

Surely with all the attorneys in the House and Senate, they can come up with wording for a statute that does not "discriminate" while enhancing public safety.

Not a flame, and you have a right to your opinion, but exactly how much does one have to do to obtain a license to exercise a right given by God, affirnmed by the constitution, and infringed by all forms of federal, state and local governments?

A vast number of LEO would have extreme difficulty preventing a determined individual from taking their weapon.

The 2nd amendment says nothing about agility. If a 95 lb woman wants to pack openly, it is her right, not a privelidge granted by the government.

Anygun

open carry would be my choice anyway.

those that would be 'alarmed', too bad. it's the law, get over it.

The element of surprise? If 'lots' of people open carried, there would be no worry about surprise. what criminal in his right mind would try to rob a convenience store if every customer had a weapon?

Kyle Brown wrote:I voted yes.

However, I would like to see at least two levels of licensing. Level One would be our current "concealed only" license and Level Two would give the holder the option of concealed or open carry.

In order to obtain a Level Two license, the applicant would be requied to pass a physical agility test designed show the applicant's proficiency in dealing with the criminal who would grab guns from older, less fit, or disabled Level Two license holders.

Surely with all the attorneys in the House and Senate, they can come up with wording for a statute that does not "discriminate" while enhancing public safety.

I think this is one of those times I'd have to dissagree with you...

Even thought I understand and identify with what you just said...

And I think anyone here could jump through those hoops to qualify for that level two license...

But why???

If all we are doing is removing a vest, Hawaiian shirt, jacket or sports coat, why would the visability of the firearm "really" cause anything to change...

Other than "other" peoples perception???

Oh, look there, that man/woman has a "gun"!

(ok, get over it and move on)

I think there are growing pains with any issue like this that its population is just going to have to get used to...Like I have said before, other states do it with very little problems...

Education is key across the board...Law Enforcement and the general public is just going to have one more thing (unfortunately) to have to consider in cases like this...And eventually things will settle down, and rather quickly I might add...

I think Texas is ready for this...And I believe it should be attempted, and hopefully succeed, to get this done in the next session...

Everytime it comes up, nobody even wants to try, for one reason or another, and we'll have to wait another two years to consider bringing it up again...

I want the option, thats all...I choose when, and hopefully where I want to...Its that simple...

Yer still tops in my book Kyle...No worries...

People's perceptions can be crazy, illogical, and based on nothing other than fear.

Before CHL, circa 1992, my ex-wife and I were having lunch with a friend, a lady who had moved here from Germany. Two uniformed police officers and two detectives were at a nearby table. Our German friend was very offended when one of the detectives removed his jacket and went to the salad bar.

"That's not right. He shouldn't be able to just carry a gun like that. He should have to keep his jacket on or something."



Now, don't bother trying to find any logic there. There isn't any. She wasn't offended by the uniformed officers' weapons. She wouldn't be offended by the presence of a concealed weapon. It just didn't "look right".

Kevin

Voted yes, but not because i would carry openly.
"Printing" wouldn't a problem.
"Flashing" a concealed weapon as a threat, would no longer be illegal either. Basically, because it might be unprovable.

I think it would be a major advance for the law abiding "licenced to carry", vs. the criminal. Since, any kind of packing or flashing would be illegal for them.

Since the poll question asked if I would open carry, I voted no, but I would definitely support the option.

Most of all, I would like open carry so that we wouldn't have to worry about accidental flashing. Being new to CHL (I actually don't even have mine yet) it's something I worry about happening. But, I'm getting over it.

At the risk of sounding lame, I would consider carrying open if lot's of people did it. Like the example of who would rob a convenience store if everyone there had a gun on their hip. However, I wouldn't want to be the only person is sight with a gun. Say what you will about how safe you'd feel with an exposed gun, but I still feel like I would become a target for someone trying to rip it off of me. Some people are crazy enough to do that with cops, what'd stop them from doing that to an "ordinary" citizen? Lot's of other people around them also with a gun I presume.

I would like the option though. There are times and places I might consider doing it if it was available.

stevie_d_64 wrote:

Kyle Brown wrote:I voted yes.

However, I would like to see at least two levels of licensing. Level One would be our current "concealed only" license and Level Two would give the holder the option of concealed or open carry.

In order to obtain a Level Two license, the applicant would be requied to pass a physical agility test designed show the applicant's proficiency in dealing with the criminal who would grab guns from older, less fit, or disabled Level Two license holders.

Surely with all the attorneys in the House and Senate, they can come up with wording for a statute that does not "discriminate" while enhancing public safety.

I think this is one of those times I'd have to dissagree with you...

Even thought I understand and identify with what you just said...

And I think anyone here could jump through those hoops to qualify for that level two license...

But why???

If all we are doing is removing a vest, Hawaiian shirt, jacket or sports coat, why would the visability of the firearm "really" cause anything to change...

Other than "other" peoples perception???

Oh, look there, that man/woman has a "gun"!

(ok, get over it and move on)

I think there are growing pains with any issue like this that its population is just going to have to get used to...Like I have said before, other states do it with very little problems...

Education is key across the board...Law Enforcement and the general public is just going to have one more thing (unfortunately) to have to consider in cases like this...And eventually things will settle down, and rather quickly I might add...

I think Texas is ready for this...And I believe it should be attempted, and hopefully succeed, to get this done in the next session...

Everytime it comes up, nobody even wants to try, for one reason or another, and we'll have to wait another two years to consider bringing it up again...

I want the option, thats all...I choose when, and hopefully where I want to...Its that simple...

Yer still tops in my book Kyle...No worries...

Hey Stevie_d, thanks.

My "concern" centers around an aging population who refuses to "admit" they are aging...I know because I am a member of the "baby boomer" generation...

I also am acquainted with several people who plan to carry open if the law allows it in the future...some men and some women...However, none are "fit" ... I know I am not "what I used to be" ... and, I know that if a BG in need of a gun saw me and at the same time, saw a younger version of me, like my 21 YO son, there is no doubt I would be "tagged" for the grab...

You do make a good point...I think we should study the incidences of "grabbing" in states who allow open carry...Let's see if a concern like mine is warrented...

Later,
Kyle

Kyle Brown wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:

Kyle Brown wrote: You do make a good point...I think we should study the incidences of "grabbing" in states who allow open carry...Let's see if a concern like mine is warrented...

Later,
Kyle

Kyle,

Are speaking of having your weapon "grabbed" and used against you, or grabbed as in a "purse snatching" where the intent is to gain something by means of possession?

flintknapper wrote:

Kyle Brown wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:

Kyle Brown wrote: You do make a good point...I think we should study the incidences of "grabbing" in states who allow open carry...Let's see if a concern like mine is warrented...

Later,
Kyle

Kyle,

Are speaking of having your weapon "grabbed" and used against you, or grabbed as in a "purse snatching" where the intent is to gain something by means of possession?

"Grabbed" or taken away from you as in grabbing your body and then grabbing your gun from its holster...or...grabbing your body or otherwise holding you, then grabbing the gun from its holster.

It just seems that if some people, me included, wore a gun in plain view, then some in the criminal element might believe it would be easy to grab/take the gun before the person wearing the gun could "react" to someone grabbing them from behind or from the side.

Like I said, I don't know if this crime is common in areas where all persons are allowed to carry open.

Just a thought/concern. If we are going to present legislation in Texas allowing open carry, then IMHO, the subject of "grabbing" will more than likely come up.