TexasCHLforum.com

flintknapper wrote:I have my doubts that 98% of the public harbors anti-gun/anti-carry sentiments, but I do share your concern about businesses taking a second look at their policies.

It's a valid point and possibility.

Oh, I don't believe it's anywhere 98% anti-gun either. I was just saying that CHLs only make up 1 to 2% of the population, so businesses balancing the numbers are looking at a much greater potential for problems if they support only the 2% that have CHLs.

I think the vast majority of people in the State never give citizen-carry (open or concealed) a second thought; somewhat of an out-of-sight-out-of-mind situation. My concern is that once guns are seen in grocery stores, shopping malls and daycare centers, we may have made the mistake Japan made by waking the sleeping giant.

Chas.

It is experiences like this that make me think open carry might be more accepted than many around here seem to think it would be.

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... =7&t=13800

Kalrog wrote:It is experiences like this that make me think open carry might be more accepted than many around here seem to think it would be.

Kalrog - I was not purposefully trying to be too argumentative in the other thread, I simply wanted the discussion to remain within the intended guidelines of the OP.

As to this thread, I suspect that you may be right. Unfortunately my gut, substantial that it is, tells me that the general populace, particularly those under the age of 35 and raised in a strictly urban or suburban environment, would not react well to OC.

This group has been inundated from birth with the mantra of the leftist media i.e. the evil of guns and they seem to have bought in to a general philosophy of passivity somewhat akin to the “peace� movement of the ‘60’s but due to a far different impetus.

shaggydog wrote:Kalrog - I was not purposefully trying to be too argumentative in the other thread, I simply wanted the discussion to remain within the intended guidelines of the OP.

Agreed. Which is why I switched to this thread for that comment. I didn't want to hijack that thread. This thread is already there.

Here's something I haven't seen proposed before.

How about a bill that would allow open carry:

1) On private property with the consent of any lawful occupant of said property. (This would not include common areas of apartments or condos, unless the apartment building's owner or the condo association specifically allowed it.)

2) In a motor vehicle under your control or with the consent of the person who is in control.

3) When entering or leaving such a vehicle. (Not sure of how I would word this legally. My intent is to provide for people to be able to don and doff cover garments when leaving and entering.)

This would allow for OC when at a friend's house or spread. Of couse in practice this is done every day without issues, but my proposed law would make it fully legal.

It would also make it convenient for people to be comfortable in their cars while at the same time to not worry about willful failure to conceal when covering or uncovering.

At the same time, since it just affects private property with the owner/occupant's consent, it should be pretty non-controversial.

Maybe it would help our camel get his nose into the tent.

Opinions?

I think putting out a media blitz before an open carry law is passed, would calm the masses enough to make OC relatively smooth. Kinda like DPS did with their seat belt law.

Dan

phddan wrote:I think putting out a media blitz before an open carry law is passed, would calm the masses enough to make OC relatively smooth. Kinda like DPS did with their seat belt law.

Dan

I would not count on the media to do anything but demonize our side of the issue...

I vote to keep the media as ignorant as we possibly can...We know the truth, I say let them continue to be dumb on the issue...

They can play catch up as far as I am concerned...

I revised and posted my shorter reply to Charles thread on OC and the very well thought out consequenses of pushing the OC issue to the legislature...

I totally agree...Its about time you posted this situation , the poll only reinforces, yet also illustrates a very nasty outcome from the results of gaining this capability at the cost and exhuberance of the OC community...OC is to me just an statement one can choose to make or not, depending upon how much crap you are willing to put up with and on where you're at at the time...

Until the burn to do it (post 30.06) correctly, with extreme penalties for not following the law are enacted, open carry will continue to be that occasional (possible) red herring every two years, if anyone ever has the political courage to walk the bill through the process...

When the situation becomes as legally detrimental to businesses (private entities), as the situation is to us (law-abiding citizens, not just CHL'ers), for potentially carrying in a place that is properly or improperly posted, not alot more can be done to improve our position on the issue...

OC is just simply exercising (openly) your right to keep and bear arms, for lawful purposes, illustrating the inalienable individual right to demonstrate your freedom to be empowered and take responsibilty (and be accountable) for your actions...

There are people who would like you not to be as free as you should to do this...They are well supported by organizations (foriegn and domestic) that want to breed this out of future generations...And the more we elect people into office that do not trust us with these means, the more we need to head candidates and elected officials like that off and never allow them to hold political office...

We just had a great example of that happen just recently...Chuck Rosenthal is gone! I believe we owe ourselves a great pat on the back for being a big part of the pressure over the last two years in seeing that come about...

I think this was better posted here than on the great thread Charles put up on the issue...

stevie_d_64 wrote:

phddan wrote:I think putting out a media blitz before an open carry law is passed, would calm the masses enough to make OC relatively smooth. Kinda like DPS did with their seat belt law.

Dan

I would not count on the media to do anything but demonize our side of the issue...

I vote to keep the media as ignorant as we possibly can...We know the truth, I say let them continue to be dumb on the issue...

They can play catch up as far as I am concerned...

I was thinking more of commercials and such, not relying on the putz's that wright the news.

Dan

frankie_the_yankee wrote:How about a bill that would allow open carry:

1) On private property with the consent of any lawful occupant of said property.

2) In a motor vehicle under your control or with the consent of the person who is in control.

3) When entering or leaving such a vehicle. (Not sure of how I would word this legally. My intent is to provide for people to be able to don and doff cover garments when leaving and entering.)

It's an interesting idea.

With (1) do you mean explicit consent? If the owner of a public accommodation wanted to allow open carry, would they have to post a sign saying that it was allowed, or give oral permission?

Some police agencies would object to (2) on the basis that it would promote weapons display in traffic altercations. I don't make this objection, but the official police point of view has a lot of weight with the legislature.

- Jim

phddan wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:

phddan wrote:I think putting out a media blitz before an open carry law is passed, would calm the masses enough to make OC relatively smooth. Kinda like DPS did with their seat belt law.

Dan

I would not count on the media to do anything but demonize our side of the issue...

I vote to keep the media as ignorant as we possibly can...We know the truth, I say let them continue to be dumb on the issue...

They can play catch up as far as I am concerned...

I was thinking more of commercials and such, not relying on the putz's that wright the news.

Dan

Yep, the creative control over the info in the PSA would be much better...I agree...

flintknapper wrote:My solemn promise to everyone:

I really, truly, honestly, absolutely, positively, am going to stay out of this one.

yup.... no talking with me on this one....came from open carry AZ. Been there, done that.

seamusTX wrote:

frankie_the_yankee wrote:How about a bill that would allow open carry:

1) On private property with the consent of any lawful occupant of said property.

2) In a motor vehicle under your control or with the consent of the person who is in control.

3) When entering or leaving such a vehicle. (Not sure of how I would word this legally. My intent is to provide for people to be able to don and doff cover garments when leaving and entering.)

It's an interesting idea.

With (1) do you mean explicit consent? If the owner of a public accommodation wanted to allow open carry, would they have to post a sign saying that it was allowed, or give oral permission?

Some police agencies would object to (2) on the basis that it would promote weapons display in traffic altercations. I don't make this objection, but the official police point of view has a lot of weight with the legislature.

- Jim

First off, I realize that one thing I didn't mention in my original proposal is that it would only apply to people who have a CHL.

I was thinking more along the lines of implicit consent. i.e. you're there, you're carrying, and no one's complaining. What I had in mind was "private" provate property, not necessarily public accommodations. For public accommodations, I would say they would have to post some kind of sign, while recognizing that few would do so.

With regard to 2/3, I would point to the (mostly trouble-free) experiences of other (OC) states. That, combined with the vast experience here in TX since 1996 showing CHL's to be "certified good guys" who pose no threat whatsoever to LEO's, should take care of any objections. Another point is that we now allow for concealed carry in vehicles without a license. So open carry by CHL's should be no problem.

And LEO objections might face a bit of an uphill climb. In 1995, they were putting out dire warnings of blood in the streets if we allowed for CHL's. Later on, a number of them, to their credit, were big enough to publicly admit that they had been wrong.

In my own mind, I think that someone putting on a leather vest or something as they leave their car might just have a salutory effect on some big mouth troublemaker who just might have forced him off the side of the road or something, whether he glimpses the gun or not.

And my proposed law would not do anything to change the legal circumstances related to drawing the weapon.

My whole idea is to come up with something that is easy to get passed. Limiting OC to private property with consent does away with the situation where Mr. & Mrs. Soccerpeople unexpectedly encounter people who are OCing. This would also help to keep the bill low profile, and give the media very little to scare people with.

Now, down the road...... What is it they say about the camel's nose?

Skipper5 wrote:

flintknapper wrote:My solemn promise to everyone:

I really, truly, honestly, absolutely, positively, am going to stay out of this one.

yup.... no talking with me on this one....came from open carry AZ. Been there, done that.

Yeah, I knew that was going to come up. I tried, really I did.

I am going back under my rock now. (slithering away smilie).

First, I have to say that I agree with Charles that it will be one big bad bloody fight to get OC passed in Texas, and we had better not have any other bills we want passed that year, and maybe for the next two or four years. I also think we would need to wait until after a quiet year to start on it. I am basing this on the way the media is covering the shootings of burglars now after the castle doctrine law (which did not even apply to most of them).

But, I do disagree with the predictions for the reaction of the people. First, I don't see a lot of people switching to OC real soon, so there will not be a mass uproar right away. It will be kind of a swell coming in both. I also see that the average person who would panic or call in would only do it once, and then even spread the word to others not to panic or that the police will not do anything. In this respect, I see it more as an education issue than anything else. We would need to be prepared with a media blitz ad campaign when the law passes, then a swell of it over the summer until maybe December of the year before we start dropping it back down.

I see it as a real possibility if we use some common sense in our tactics. We would need to start small and work up to what we want. We are on a roll right now with several small steps in the right direction, so lets keep doing it that way. Each time we get a law passed and there is no real downside, it makes it a little easier to get the next small step.

So, I propose to table the OC movement for a few years, and let's work on the current restrictions instead first. I like the idea of starting by putting in a definition of schools (and I would start by including all public and private elementary and secondary schools). After that, I would get a law through saying adult employees with CHLS, then adult employees period. Then add in parents, and then remove the school restrictions.

My next wish, which might come at the same time, would be to clean up the 30.06 posting laws. Clarify the law requiring hospitals to post (or remove it entirely), then make a penalty for invalid postings in governmental institutions.

And I do want a mandatory signature law where a Chief Law Enforcement Officer must sign the class III paperwork unless there is a disqualifier or he can give a reason that could be appealed through the court system.

My end goal is the removal of Chapter 46 from the Penal Code completely, and I just hope I live long enough to see freedom restored to the US.