TexasCHLforum.com

Ericstac wrote:I see open carry frequently and just assume they are off duty law enforcement.. If we had a chl open carry rule I would think the common person would still think the guy wearing a gun on his hip is law enforcement..

I agree, but only if open-carry could pass quietly without any media coverage and the public would be largely unaware. Unfortunately, it will be big news, just as it was in 2011 when an open-carry bill was filed.

Chas.

apostate wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:I'm curious about what sort of difficulties have been encountered in Arizona since they went to "constitutional carry". Were a lot of places already posted prior, did more post after, more "MWAG" calls after the law went into effect, etc.?

Unlicensed open carry has been legal in Arizona a long time. It wasn't new when I was first there in 1993. Heck, the desk clerk at the Best Western didn't bat an eye at my 1911 when I checked in. It's only unlicensed concealed carry that's recent. (2010 IIRC)

Back in the early '80s we lived in northern Arizona. It was a VERY sparsely populated area but it was nothing to see folks in town open carrying. One family diner we use to eat at is where a lot of the old timers gathered. It looked like a scene from the Jerry Jeff Walker tune "Desperados waiting for train". Bunch of weathered old men dressed in their work clothes, gun on their hip, drinking coffee and hat hair. Yep, that was back when real cowboys knew it was rude to come to the table with a hat on.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

johnferg69 wrote:

Keith B wrote:I just believe that the legialature would feel the sign needed to be more visible than a gun buster sign and would say 'We already have a sign, so just modify it to prevent any carry.' Then those businesses who today don't really know people are carrying would then post signs to prevent open carry and the single sign would prevent concealed carry too. It's the old adage, out of sight, out of mind. When people started open carrying I can garuntee you would see a new crop of signs go up.

Well the newest state to go open carry is Oklahoma. We'll see how much pandemonium ensues.

"Pandemonium?" You asked Keith about two signs and he explained (quite well) why the Texas Legislature won't require property owners to post two signs. How does his position suggest "pandemonium" in Texas?

Chas.

I wasn't suggesting that his position would cause pandemonium in Texas. I was merely stating that Oklahoma will be a good place to watch to see how smooth the transition goes to open carry.

I would like to see open carry pass; it is what the second amendment is all about.

It won't be the person with open carrying firearm who is the problem, it would be the ninnies who call the police every time they see a scary gun. In time and with enough 911 operator training this can be overtime with a simple, "sir, a gun in a holster is legal in Texas, have a good day." click.

As for laws and signage, I would prefer a couple state models. Kentucky has the right idea for concealed, signs mean nothing, only being asked to leave and not doing so is breaking the law. If we adopt that philosophy for concealed and allow "no guns" signs to regulate open carry but still no crime until asked to leave and the person refuses, then that pretty much covers the signage issue and does away with the 30.06.

For licensing, I would like to use Arizona as a model; open or concealed, with or without a license. Sure, keep a licensing system in place for reciprocity states, but not required in Texas to carry, easy. Heck, we could even increase the requirements for the license so to allow greater coverage in reciprocity but those who seldom leave the state are not affected.

Pipe dream, you bet. I have been accused of being a dreamer before.

Jaguar wrote:I would like to see open carry pass; it is what the second amendment is all about.

Part of it, at least. Imagine if there were laws against wearing religious jewelry or praying in public, unless it was hidden from view, or on church property. Would religious organizations hesitate to label those laws and lawmakers anti-religion?

I'd prefer to keep it concealed. If we unconceal our weapons, then the anti-gunners and libs (is there a difference?) will be re-energized to find ways to block us legally.

Currently, there are untold 'gunbuster' signs that we carry past every day, because we understand our rights, and they do not. Since we are concealed, they are left thinking they did it right, and yet we know better. I find that to be a nice equilibrium.

As soon as we start to open carry past those signs they will know immediately, and they will educate themselves. Then, we'll start seeing a rapid increase in correct postings, and we will have no-one to blame but ourselves when we find that we can carry in less places than before. Is that what we want?

OK, flame on... I'm flying back home to Texas from one of the 'stans in a couple hours, so you'll have about a full day to torch me with replies before I'm able to defend myself.

Folks, on the issue of signage, 30.06, ghost-buster signs, etc., the Texas Legislature and a vast majority of 22 million Texans will never accept the concept that private property owners should not be able to prohibit entry to their property. Forcing them to allow entry, then hope they can catch the person and ask them to leave it will never pass, absolutely never!

So when discussing open-carry, understand that in terms of signage, TPC §30.06 must remain applicable only to concealed-carry, or it's a deal-breaker.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:So when discussing open-carry, understand that in terms of signage, TPC §30.06 must remain applicable only to concealed-carry, or it's a deal-breaker.

Makes sense to me.

I have no problem with a gun outline with a slash through it scribbled in crayon on a brown paper sack constituting effective notice regarding unlicensed open carry. However, if 30.06 gets re-written so the one single sign applies to both unlicensed open carry and licensed concealed carry, then that is a problem.

If the signage can of worms gets opened and they are performing the legislative sausage grinding, then a careful insertion of the word "intentionally" would help, with "knowingly" being a second choice.

I just hope that if a bill makes it this time, that the author knows what he is talking about in the first place and expresses the intent/process clearly in the text so that it will have a chance of at least being read and understood.

No one is going to vote yea for something that they cannot comprehend.

I voted for open carry. I already open carry at gun ranges, and while hunting, while traveling, from/to your car, from/to your gun range, so why not everywhere where CC is legal. Keep 30.06 for CC and make verbal request for Open Carry to leave.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:So when discussing open-carry, understand that in terms of signage, TPC §30.06 must remain applicable only to concealed-carry, or it's a deal-breaker.

That's the way it reads already, AFAICT. A generic "NO GUNS" sign is sufficient to prohibit rifles, shotguns, unlicensed handgun carry by travelers, MPA in non-employer parking lots, commissioned security guards with handguns, and many other combinations of guns and people. The only gun exceptions I see in 30.05 are for concealed handguns carried by licensed people, and for handguns or other weapons carried by LEO.

Another suggestion I liked in a previous session was to keep the requirement to conceal on the books, but make the penalty for intentional failure a $10 fine. That keeps it illegal for the people who have a strong emotional attachment to infringing the right to keep and bear arms, but takes us a baby step closer to constitutional carry.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Folks, on the issue of signage, 30.06, ghost-buster signs, etc., the Texas Legislature and a vast majority of 22 million Texans will never accept the concept that private property owners should not be able to prohibit entry to their property. Forcing them to allow entry, then hope they can catch the person and ask them to leave it will never pass, absolutely never!

So when discussing open-carry, understand that in terms of signage, TPC §30.06 must remain applicable only to concealed-carry, or it's a deal-breaker.

Chas.

I understand the difference between Texas and Kentucky, I've live(d) in both. From my vantage point, KY was much more "east coast" than TX ever dreamed of, yet they get along fine without a 30.06 type law. My bad I guess, I will cease and desist on the subject.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Folks, on the issue of signage, 30.06, ghost-buster signs, etc., the Texas Legislature and a vast majority of 22 million Texans will never accept the concept that private property owners should not be able to prohibit entry to their property. Forcing them to allow entry, then hope they can catch the person and ask them to leave it will never pass, absolutely never!

So when discussing open-carry, understand that in terms of signage, TPC §30.06 must remain applicable only to concealed-carry, or it's a deal-breaker.

Chas.

That is how I would like OC. Leave 30.06 alone.

However, I really don't understand why it couldn't work the way you say it would never be allowed. Isn't this is the way Oklahoma has it and a few other states. Now, maybe, after a couple years of our closest neighbor, OK, having OC like this without changing it or having too many issues don't you think our legislature might at least consider it? Or is Texas really that much more property/business owner friendly than some of these other states?

I am 100% for open carry but would NEVER practice it. Just like my jiujitsu, you won't see it until it's being used on you. That said, if someone else wants to show their stuff, go ahead. Its your decision.

On my recent visit to Arizona I don't recall seeing ANY signs. Saw a couple of folks open carrying, could've been citizens or LEO. Didn't ask, didn't care. All I know was I held my breath for the two weeks in CA and was glad to cross into the REAL United States once again.

As to OC. I would like to see it passed and unlicensed similar to New Hampshire. I would also like the CC license reduced to a minimum cost recovery fee in keeping with some of the other states.

I would probably not carry openly as a rule but the elimination of "interpretation" by LEO for whether an exposure was intentional or not would relieve a lot of anxiety...at least for me. Secondly, there is always the occasion that being able to "strap up" when heading out of the door in a hurry instead of carefully dressing around the firearm, crossing off of your property to help with a varmint or some such thing, etc. There are plenty of situations where open carry is a convenience and in the current landscape would get you a ride whether you end up beating it or not.

Finally, I have said before I have NO problem with a property owner, proprietor or management refusing entry onto the property for anyone. I DO have a problem with an otherwise, open to the public property making me a criminal if I enter when they are not required to control access or take any measures to ensure my safety. The last mall I went to (incorrect signage) there were plenty of folks that were cause for a level "orange" SA status. With Christmas holidays coming up there are just sometimes that, to get THAT present you need to go to THAT store. Property rights yes, discrimination against me for going through the extra steps to be trained and licensed while the "gangstas" run free in your place of business? Nonsense.

If you put up a 30.06 sign, you should be required to take extra steps to ensure me or one of mine is not in danger by being on your property.

Some wishful thinking I'm sure and peppered with a bit of a rant, I'll go back to my recuperation now.