TexasCHLforum.com

Beiruty wrote:the current tx house is almost 66% Republicans and assumed to be pro gun. I would love to see OC amd the other 2 bills Parking lots and campus carry all passed. Unified the pro gun lobby OC or CHL can be a potent driver. Unit do not fight.

66% Republican doesn't always mean anything. There are plenty of Republicans who are self-described "moderates," and they are not necessarily as passionate about gun-rights as their more conservative brethren and sistern.

I'm like the others in that I generally support the idea of OC, but I am unwilling to be in anyway associated with bomb-throwers. And "bomb-throwers" is a very good description of some of folks at opencarry.org. That stuff never will get a majority of legislators on board, Republican or not, because it is off-putting. On a purely human interaction level, it doesn't matter how constitutionally pure your argument and motivations are if all you do is tick-off the very people whose votes you need to get your bill passed.

I was totally for trying to get OC passed too, until Mr. Cotton explained to me that keeping 30.06 for CHL, and getting a new sign for OC, wouldn't fly. With only one sign for both CHL and OC, we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot by getting OC passed, since it will be much more "in your face" than CHL, more sissy customers would be aware and complain about it.

I'm still all for it if there was a way to keep OC signs separate from CHL signs, but I trust Mr. Cotton's judgement. The OC guys were also pretty confrontational in their approach. I didn't dig into the details, but the general feeling I got was that they made more enemies than friends of people who agreed with their message, but not with their methods.

My biggest problem with the whole OC thing is that I'm not sure how its passage would affect someone like me who wants my weapon to remain concealed. I have zero desire to openly carry and can't get behind a bill that may require me to do so if I choose to carry at all.

tacticool wrote:TSRA pushed their legislative agenda and the OC group pushed their legislative agenda. That's expected.

The opponents of civil rights chubbed and blocked parking lots, open carry and campus carry. If we're going to get mad, we shouldn't get mad at other pro-gun organizations. We should get mad at the anti-rights politicians who blocked all of us.

I would have to agree. It seems that every newsletter I get from TSRA says that they support every aspect of 2A rights from hunting, shooting sports, gun ranges and CHL. I don't compete in any shooting sports and I'm lucky to get dove hunting every 2 or 3 years but I support ALL aspects of gun rights, including OC. I would probably rarely OC if ever but I am 100% behind the effort. I fail to see why TSRA has shown opposition to it. If it's not something they can or want to address right now then thats their choice and I have no ill will towards then for that; but why stand in the way of someone else who is willing to try.

I will say that the 2009 session was probably not the place to try it but in the upcoming 2011 session, there really is no reason we can't have our cake, pie and cobbler and eat them too. IMHO

tacticool wrote:If Texas Republicans are pro gun, they will get them out of committee early in 2011 and pass the whole kit and kaboodle. With nearly 2-1 majorities, there are no more excuses.

The idea that everything is black and white is silly. For example, my representative is pro-CHL but isn't sure how to balance the rights of private property owners against the rights of CHL holders. She and I have an ongoing discussion about those issues. If legislating were as easy as you suggest, more people would be willing to serve.

This whole "the world will end if people start open carrying in Texas" reminds me far too much of "the streets will run with blood" when Florida CC was debated.

The world will not end.

Getting regular people used to the idea that regular people carry guns is pivotal in keeping the 2nd Amendment alive. Staying out of sight and out of mind will not accomplish this.

When the only people that have guns are criminals and government, pretty soon the government starts to act like criminals and criminals start to act like government.

I think with 2-1 majority, OC and all other goodies have a historic chance to pass. One has to study and observe what happened in Vermont, NH, and Arizona and draw conclusions.

Ziran wrote:This whole "the world will end if people start open carrying in Texas" reminds me far too much of "the streets will run with blood" when Florida CC was debated.

The world will not end.

Getting regular people used to the idea that regular people carry guns is pivotal in keeping the 2nd Amendment alive. Staying out of sight and out of mind will not accomplish this.

When the only people that have guns are criminals and government, pretty soon the government starts to act like criminals and criminals start to act like government.

The idea that more guns=less crime has been repeatedly proven.

That being said, Mr. Cotton has talked before about the advent of "no gun" signs after the CHL law was passed, and until 30.06 was passed in 97, those had meaning. Lots of stores put up "no guns" signs with no knowledge of the statistics, but the MSM message of "guns are bad, mmmkkkay" seems to get through to a lot of people.

The idea of "out of sight, out of mind" is a powerful one. There are plenty of people in Texas who aren't conservative, or moved here from places like California. Many of them may not even know about CHL laws. However, if they see someone open carrying, they'll begin to make a fuss. If it makes an impact on businesses, they'll begin to look for ways to legally prohibit carry. That will be mean MORE 30.06 signs.

So in that way, there is not only reason to believe OC might cause places to post 30.06, there is historical proof that businesses will post IF THE ISSUE COMES UP. This is the beauty of our CHL laws...it never comes up because no one ever sees it to complain.

I'd support OC, if there were 2 separate sign laws. Since those in the know have said we'd be stuck with one notification for both, I have no interest in my right to carry concealed being prohibited at places because someone else wanted to carry openly.

If a gunbusters sign could prohibit OC, but we still required 30.06 to prohibit CHL holders, I'd be okay with it. If its going to limit the freedoms I currently enjoy under CHL laws, then I'm not even interested. Period.

I am kind of sorta in favor of OC. I might or might not do it, but like many, I think it could make things easier in the HOT summer months or other circumstances. As far as a bill, though, wouldn't it be easier or better to get the laws removed that make OC illegal?

For my next question, I really don't know the answer so I'm not trying to set anyone up. In the states that have OC and CC, how does it work there? If there is anyone here from one of those states can you tell us? Does one sign prohibit both?

However, I would rather have more freedom to CC than the right to OC returned and lose some of our CC rights.

C-dub wrote:I am kind of sorta in favor of OC. I might or might not do it, but like many, I think it could make things easier in the HOT summer months or other circumstances. As far as a bill, though, wouldn't it be easier or better to get the laws removed that make OC illegal?

For my next question, I really don't know the answer so I'm not trying to set anyone up. In the states that have OC and CC, how does it work there? If there is anyone here from one of those states can you tell us? Does one sign prohibit both?

However, I would rather have more freedom to CC than the right to OC returned and lose some of our CC rights.

It actually depends on the State. States with constitutional carry (AZ, AK, and VA) allow you to carry anyway you want with or without a license. All other states with CC require a license, leaving OC to the actual laws of that state. Some of those states have licensed OC, others do not. States with OC typically have no provision for "Intentional Failure to Conceal" making that a non-crime in most cases.

So, then for the states where a CC license is needed to OC, I guess the same sign prohibits both? What I and others are wondering is in states that have both does one sign prohibit both or if two different signs are required and if only one sign is needed did the usage of that sign increase? The answer might be "no" because I would venture to guess that OC was legal long before OC was and not that many people OC in the first place.

I agree why is everybody tip toeing around this issue. Why must we just feel like taken baby steps and just getting parking lots and campus carry passed is enough. With 66% of the lawmakers in our favor ????? why are we not pushing harder. We want to build on what we have I agree, and yes I undstand the political process. We need to move forward with this as many PRO gun states have done years ago.

safety1 wrote:I agree why is everybody tip toeing around this issue. Why must we just feel like taken baby steps and just getting parking lots and campus carry passed is enough. With 66% of the lawmakers in our favor ????? why are we not pushing harder. We want to build on what we have I agree, and yes I undstand the political process. We need to move forward with this as many PRO gun states have done years ago.

66% being republican does not mean we have 66% in our favor. The Republican rep from Brazos county, Ogden, voted against Campus Carry. We would be making a mistake to assume that our agenda is the same as theirs.

The problem, as I see it is this: the OCDO group is a single-issue group. Specifically, OPEN carry.

That's fine and good..heck, when it comes down to it, I'm not a single-issue voter, but I am a "single-issue SHOWSTOPPER voter," so I can understand the position.

Problem is, they're all about OPEN CARRY at the expense (if necessary) of everything else. They aren't interested in baby steps. Granted as mentioned above that dancing around the issues doesn't solve the problem, but face facts: we didn't lose our 2A rights overnight, and we're not going to get them back overnight.

That said, I've always felt that a license to carry should be a license to carry. Who cares if you choose to carry openly or concealed--the fact is you've been licensed to carry.

They don't see it that way. While I'd prefer to carry my gun as I see fit, and let you carry yours as you see fit, that's not how the law is today. But I can carry my gun. That's much better than it was just a few years ago here in Texas. Now that I can carry my gun, I'd like to be protected by a parking lot bill (just like I am by the MPA), and removing the campus restrictions on my CHL.

That's more important in general (to me)than showing off my blaster.

Once we get these more important issues (one's an enhancement to current law, and one's a removal of current restrictions), then we can look at open vs. concealed. Done properly, and without showboating, it could be a simple change of the existing CHL statute to remove the "Concealed" requirement, and it could (possibly) even be done without a huge fanfare.

The TSRA never said they were against Open Carry, nor that they wouldn't support it. Just that they wouldn't support it (right then, or right now) at the cost of matters that they/we consider more immediately important.

To put it bluntly: If your choices are carry concealed or don't carry at all, which will you choose? Think carefully about your answer, because I'll bet it differs from the position over at OCDO.

I too have dropped out of sight over there, for just this reason. I admire their cause, but I question their rabid nature about it. Activism isn't pretty, but it doesn't have to hurt the big-picture cause either...

Just my $.02 worth of free opinion. It's really not worth what you didn't pay for it!