TexasCHLforum.com

I would open carry immediately if it does pass. I would finally be able to tuck my shirt in and not look "shabby" for the ladies!!! .

There are circumstances where I would immediately begin open carry.

There are also circumstances where I would just plain feel more comfortable. Today my wife and I particpated in the Plano Children's Christmas Parade, and then went to do a couple of errands and all I did was toss on a light jacket with nothing in the pockets. As a result my jacket blew open and rode up a couple of times and exposed my carry gun. I fully realize that an inadvertant exposure should not be considered intentional, but who knows what might transpire.

I already have a shoulder holster that I would have no qualms about using and I would probably purchase a Blackhawk Serpa to back up my leather holster which I can stand on my head with a 1911 in without it falling out.

I would only open carry my cowboy action .45 in a real holster, with a full stock of ammo, when I wear my cowboy outfit. Which isn't often

flintknapper wrote:

Skiprr wrote: I think the big thing anyone switching to open carry will have to take into account is, as bigolbigun mentioned, getting a holster that offers a retention mechanism. I don't know whether simple Level I retention would be enough. Most police departments I'm familiar with require a Level II, and I'd think that would make the most sense for open carry. (If OC does eventually pass, it will be interesting to see if the law mandates holsters that meet a minimum retention level, and if so I wouldn't be surprised to see that baseline set at least at Level II, if not Level III.)

If other States that have open carry do not require it, what is so different about Texas that would make it seem necessary?

I am not saying that a retention holster is a bad idea, but I think it should remain each person's choice. The police have retention holsters for very specific reasons, those reasons are directly connected to the job they do.

Sorry; didn't mean to infer that an accompanying law regarding retention holsters would be enacted, or even should be enacted; only that it's a possibility. Because, I suppose, I personally can't envision any conscientious gun owner going OC in a crowded, urban environment without a retention holster.

So now you've launched me into another long post. Maybe Charles should change the indicator to word-count rather than number of posts...

flintknapper wrote:The police have retention holsters for very specific reasons, those reasons are directly connected to the job they do.

Funny you should mention that. The largest analysis of its kind to evaluate law enforcement shootings (NYPD; Designated Department Order SOP 9) came up with these findings (including many others, of course):

In shootings that resulted in the death of the officer, the shooting distance was less than 15 feet in 90% of the cases:

Contact to 3 feet: 34%
3 feet to 6 feet: 47%
6 feet to 15 feet: 9%

In shootings where the officer survived, the shooting distance was less than 20 feet in 75% of the cases:

Contact to 10 feet: 51%
10 feet to 20 feet: 24%

The majority of the incidents occurred in poor lighting conditions, though none were considered to have been in complete darkness.

Firearms accounted for 60% of the deadly assaults on police officers. Knives were second-most common.

Incidents resulting in an officer's death showed that, the majority of the time, the officer was both alone at the time and he was confronted by more than one assailant.

Fully 65% of the officers who felt there was impending danger prior to the actual encounter had their handguns drawn and ready.

I highlight the above because a great many nationally-known instructors feel that civilian non-LEOs who carry handguns are at a disadvantage in both time and distance of encounter when compared to the average LEO shoot. Instructors that I'm personally familiar with who have expressed this include John Farnam, Gabe Suarez, Brian Hoffner, Kelly McCann, and Ralph Mroz, among others. The instructors at Gunsite also teach this.

The LEO's job often puts him in direct contact with a suspect when apprehending and cuffing. But in almost all cases he's taken great precautions to make sure the suspect is under control (and hopefully unarmed) before moving within immediate contact distance.

Still, even with a badge, retention holsters, and precautions to disarm suspects, 81% of officer shooting deaths occur at a distance less than six feet.

Less than six feet.

Conversely, we non-LEOs--concealed or open carry--have to be extremely circumspect and exercise very precise judgment before we ever unholster our weapons.

LEOs can be preemptive in preparation of their firearms. We can't.

If we ever have to use our handguns for self-defense outside of our own homes, the odds are it will be with a perceived primary threat within 10 feet of us--probably 6 feet or less--and that the encounter will involve more than one VCA (Violent Criminal Actor). If you are open-carrying, the VCAs will logically set their positions accordingly. In fact, their primary objective may very well be a snatch-and-grab of your firearm.

The reality is that the range work we do with stationary targets at 15 or 25 yards has an extraordinarily low probability of ever helping us in the real world. What is most likely to happen is that we'll find ourselves within just a few feet of one or more attackers, in a position where we'll have to go to combatives: we'll have to fight before we can get to the gun.

And the last thing anyone should want to do is go bad-guy mano y mano while carrying an uncovered, unsecured handgun on his belt.

If we were to set up realistic (contact padded) force-on-force 360-degree drills, and if I could have two untrained but athletic and aggressive "bad guys" (armed with either guns or training knives), and if the "good guy"--moderately-trained and athletic--who open-carried in an unsecured holster had to scrupulously obey Texas laws regarding the use of deadly force, I could set up very real urban scenarios where, all day long, the "bad guys" ended up with the "good guy's" firearm before the confrontation was over.

I'm armchair quarterbacking here, of course. Concealed carriers would fair better, IMHO, but not by a large margin. The success ratio might be better in the real world, however, because in any staged scenario the "bad guys" already know the "good guy" has a gun. In the real world, if carrying concealed, they wouldn't.

Any proponent of open carry who holds up draw-speed as a strong reason for OC is also armchair quarterbacking. Comparisons of handgun presentation speed under static conditions is irrelevant. The world doesn't come at you with a shot timer. The Force Science Institute not long ago revisited the "Teuller Drill," and found that the most athletic of its subjects, a training knife in hand, covered 21 feet to the target in 1.27 seconds. Twenty-one feet in 1.27 seconds. How fast can you react at, say, 10 feet? Or five feet?

If the bad guy standing in front of you knows you have a gun at your hip, at close-contact range nobody--not even Rob Leatham--can draw and present a handgun before the VCA can foul the draw. He's inside your OODA Loop. Your goal should have been to get inside his.

Here's where the argument of, "But, I have a gun on my hip and I'm intimidating" comes in. You'll be a deterrent to soft crime, but possibly a magnet to gang bangers who want your sidearm. If open carry is a significant crime deterrent, especially in urban areas, show me the validated statistics.

'Course, Flint, I know you carry in a shoulder holster, and that, more importantly, you have the martial arts training that can help you prevail in a contact-distance combatives situation.

Most people do not.

I don't plan to open carry, but certainly see it as a step in the right direction to have this option.

KBCraig wrote:having a gun makes up for certain anatomical deficiencies.

You mean the fact that no part of my anatomy can stop an armed attacker from 7-30 yards away?

If I were trying to compensate, my everyday carry would have a barrel much longer than 2.5".

mr surveyor wrote:

KD5NRH wrote:Well, since my most comfortable holsters are IWB, I'd just have to start wearing a belt and holster without pants.

well...THERE'S a mark against legalizing Open Carry


surv

...no shirt, no shoes, no service...

But please...wear pants!!! PLEASE!!!

Here's another real quick observation...

Other than the petition running around here...And if I have missed something as well, I apologize...

Has anyone seen a bill, or heard if a legislator has agreed to write one up yet???

At some point, very soon, someone of that capacity is going to have to do that...

I'll go do a quick check, but I have not heard a peep, officially...

If open carry passes, I would not be nearly as worried about accidently showing.

Most security guards don't seem to have high tech retention holsters. I typically see thumb straps at most. However, I don't see news reports of bank or armored car or jewelry store guards having their guns snatched. The same applies to gun shop employees who carry in exposed holsters.

Personally, I probably would continue to conceal in urban and suburban areas. However, I would likely carry in my SERPA holster in the great outdoors and have weather rather than legislation determine my clothing. As I mentioned elsewhere, I think the penalty for a CHL should be the same as for police who aren't in uniform. Ideally it would be legal (i.e. no penalty) but reducing the penalty to a fine like the seatbelt law would be an acceptable compromise.

We've had some observations/comments about OC in VA and PA. Some 18 years or so ago, Mrs. Oldgringo and I went to a Gun Show in Charlotte, NC when Open Carry must have been okay there. I've been around guns all of my life and have a healthy respect for, and absolutely no fear of, a gun itself. Does anyone here remember the movie "DELIVERANCE" ? What we saw at that show were what appeared to be characters from that movie strutting around with guns on their hips and cigarettes on their lips, male and female alike. It was not a pleasant, nor was it a comforting sight - in our view. We did not tarry.

Before anyone gets their nickers in a knot, I have signed the OC petition and would like to see the measure passed. I've even written my democrat state representative (CHL gun owner ) and asked him to pick up the banner. If and when it does pass, I'll probably not carry openly and like so many have said before me, I won't worry so much about the accidental exposure.

My 2¢ worth...again.

Well my friend, we have done this all before…but I am happy to revisit it.

Again, we see statistics (for LEO) being cited. The reason for this remains unclear to me, since LEO as a matter of job description actively seek, engage and apprehend criminal types. Naturally, this exposes them to things that can not reasonably be applied to the civilian populace (statistically speaking).

Just the same, there are some parallels that can be drawn…and I will presume that was your intent.


flintknapper wrote:

The police have retention holsters for very specific reasons, those reasons are directly connected to the job they do.

Skiprr wrote:

Funny you should mention that. The largest analysis of its kind to evaluate law enforcement shootings (NYPD; Designated Department Order SOP 9) came up with these findings (including many others, of course):

In shootings that resulted in the death of the officer, the shooting distance was less than 15 feet in 90% of the cases:

Contact to 3 feet: 34%
3 feet to 6 feet: 47%
6 feet to 15 feet: 9%

In shootings where the officer survived, the shooting distance was less than 20 feet in 75% of the cases:

Contact to 10 feet: 51%
10 feet to 20 feet: 24%

The majority of the incidents occurred in poor lighting conditions, though none were considered to have been in complete darkness.

Here, we have established that the majority of encounters (whether deadly or not) occurred at fairly close distances. It also tends to show that “distance is your friend” (when defending against attack). No surprise there. This pretty much holds true for all persons (regardless of occupation) if they have similar skill levels.

Firearms accounted for 60% of the deadly assaults on police officers. Knives were second-most common.

From this, we may conclude: The most common weapon used (that resulted in a death), was either a firearm or a knife. This particular statistic is probably applicable in some form to civilians as well.

However, it does not tell us WHO’S weapon (the cop or criminals) was used to commit the assault. This little “detail” is important…since it speaks to “retention” and “gun grabs” which will no doubt come up in this conversation.

Incidents resulting in an officer's death showed that, the majority of the time, the officer was both alone at the time and he was confronted by more than one assailant.

Fully 65% of the officers who felt there was impending danger prior to the actual encounter had their handguns drawn and ready.

There always exists the possibility of having more than one threat. This holds true for both LEO and civilians alike. In fact, there is an increasing trend for criminals (certain types of criminal activity) to be carried out in groups. Attendant with that…is the threat/possibility of encountering an overwhelming force. The truth of this is made self evident by the very statics you provide.

I highlight the above because a great many nationally-known instructors feel that civilian non-LEOs who carry handguns are at a disadvantage in both time and distance of encounter when compared to the average LEO shoot. Instructors that I'm personally familiar with who have expressed this include John Farnam, Gabe Suarez, Brian Hoffner, Kelly McCann, and Ralph Mroz, among others. The instructors at Gunsite also teach this.

I suspect this is true…since the “average” CHL has not received the level of training (awareness, tactical, equipment, etc) as the “average” LEO. The reason for this of course, is that CHL’s do not regularly put themselves in a position of pursuing/engaging BG’s, and do not feel the need to train to the same degree.

The LEO's job often puts him in direct contact with a suspect when apprehending and cuffing. But in almost all cases he's taken great precautions to make sure the suspect is under control (and hopefully unarmed) before moving within immediate contact distance.

O.K., so basically…we can dispense with this bit of information since CHL’s are concerned with avoiding threats, removing themselves (if possible) from the threat and not engaging if other options exist.

Still, even with a badge, retention holsters, and precautions to disarm suspects, 81% of officer shooting deaths occur at a distance less than six feet.
Less than six feet.

Many shootings (LEO or citizen) happen at this range. This has already been established.

What matters (and what has been left out) are the circumstances surrounding the shootings. Did both participants have a firearm?

Are you saying that the LEO’s weapon was taken from him and used in the crime? What percent of the criminals were killed at the same distance (probably the same), all these statistics show is that you are more likely to make a telling shot at arms length than at 20 feet. Statistics are funny things….and tend to show what the person presenting them wants them to show…especially when other pertinent information is omitted.

Conversely, we non-LEOs--concealed or open carry--have to be extremely circumspect and exercise very precise judgment before we ever unholster our weapons.

I agree, although there are circumstances where the “threat of deadly force” is allowed/preferred.

LEOs can be preemptive in preparation of their firearms. We can't.

To a greater degree yes, but this does not mean CHL’s (having recognized a possible threat) can not take measures to access their weapon as quickly as is possible. I think the actual “presentation” is what you meant to say.

If we ever have to use our handguns for self-defense outside of our own homes, the odds are it will be with a perceived primary threat within 10 feet of us--probably 6 feet or less--and that the encounter will involve more than one VCA (Violent Criminal Actor). If you are open-carrying, the VCAs will logically set their positions accordingly. In fact, their primary objective may very well be a snatch-and-grab of your firearm.

If you are drawing these conclusions from the LEO statics you cited above…then I am forced to challenge the validity of applying it across the board. I agree that most encounters happen at fairly close distances, I don’t agree that more than one VCA is a certainty (although the trend is increasing). It is possible that the incentive for an attack is a “snatch and grab”, but I submit it would be a rarity and certainly not a reason to discount OC.

The reality is that the range work we do with stationary targets at 15 or 25 yards has an extraordinarily low probability of ever helping us in the real world. What is most likely to happen is that we'll find ourselves within just a few feet of one or more attackers, in a position where we'll have to go to combatives: we'll have to fight before we can get to the gun.

Yes, long range practice (for civilians) is the least likely skill to be useful. Yes, the odds of an encounter favor shorter distances.

How many attackers…can not be reliably be predicted, but the presence of more than one complicates matters if you are unfortunate enough to have this happen.

As far as the need to “fight your way to your weapon” goes, it simply depends on the circumstance. It could be argued (and would make some sense), that the vast majority of criminals would avoid someone that was obviously armed.

Conversely, by concealing your weapon…there is no apparent reason not to attack you. That much touted “element of surprise” can evaporate rather quickly when you are getting the snot stomped out of you by two or three guys that know what they are doing.

If you simply want to make an argument for the desirability of some empty hands skills….then I’m with you. Day in and day out..these skills will serve you better (along with awareness) than will carrying a weapon (if you can not retain it). The problem of course, is that people have varying physical capabilities, access to training, etc…

So.. for most folks, a firearm remains the great equalizer.

And the last thing anyone should want to do is go bad-guy mano y mano while carrying an uncovered, unsecured handgun on his belt.

Well, I will “one up you” and suggest that “mano y mano” should be avoided regardless of mode of carry. At this point…an unsecured handgun (covered or not) can become dislodged. The idea of NOT getting into a scuffle is something less than novel.

If we were to set up realistic (contact padded) force-on-force 360-degree drills, and if I could have two untrained but athletic and aggressive "bad guys" (armed with either guns or training knives), and if the "good guy"--moderately-trained and athletic--who open-carried in an unsecured holster had to scrupulously obey Texas laws regarding the use of deadly force, I could set up very real urban scenarios where, all day long, the "bad guys" ended up with the "good guy's" firearm before the confrontation was over.

Well yes! And for obvious reasons: Time, distance, multiple attackers, level of training. NONE of which has anything to do with OC unless you are suggesting that the entire reason for the attack was to take the weapon.

We can logically apply the same thing to Concealed (unsecured) Carry as well, except any chance of getting to (and using your weapon) is slowed by virtue of carry mode.

Your scenarios would prove nothing that Martial Artists or Force on Force students don’t already know: A forceful attack by multiples (with similar or close to similar training/weaponry) will prevail against a single defender every time.

I'm armchair quarterbacking here, of course. Concealed carriers would fair better, IMHO, but not by a large margin. The success ratio might be better in the real world, however, because in any staged scenario the "bad guys" already know the "good guy" has a gun. In the real world, if carrying concealed, they wouldn't.

I disagree for the reasons stated above.

Any proponent of open carry who holds up draw-speed as a strong reason for OC is also armchair quarterbacking. Comparisons of handgun presentation speed under static conditions is irrelevant. The world doesn't come at you with a shot timer. The Force Science Institute not long ago revisited the "Teuller Drill," and found that the most athletic of its subjects, a training knife in hand, covered 21 feet to the target in 1.27 seconds. Twenty-one feet in 1.27 seconds. How fast can you react at, say, 10 feet? Or five feet?

Mode of carry is best left up to the person trying to defend themselves. The requirements for each person varies widely according to lifestyle and other constraints too numerous to address here.

But why would anyone object to allowing me another “option”. If you choose not to OC…that is fine with me. If (for my lifestyle/personal protection plan) I feel I would be better served by Open Carry, why should that matter to you, John Farnam, Gabe Suarez, or Brian Hoffner?

If the bad guy standing in front of you knows you have a gun at your hip, at close-contact range nobody--not even Rob Leatham--can draw and present a handgun before the VCA can foul the draw. He's inside your OODA Loop. Your goal should have been to get inside his.

If you take no measures to move off line, create distance, distraction, etc…then yes, what you say is true. I would hope that these rather remedial tactics are being learned and employed by ALL who carry (open or concealed).
Naturally, I agree that everyone should know what the “OODA loop” is and how to use it to your favor. My suggestion would be that folks use the same amount of time teaching this to people …as they devote to condemning open carry. I mean that in the most respectful way.

Here's where the argument of, "But, I have a gun on my hip and I'm intimidating" comes in. You'll be a deterrent to soft crime, but possibly a magnet to gang bangers who want your sidearm. If open carry is a significant crime deterrent, especially in urban areas, show me the validated statistics.

I would think it incumbent upon you to show me any different. What you will find…is the same thing “Frankie” found when we had this discussion. There does not exist enough reliable/documented information to support either position.

My attempt (and his) to poll the issue was not only unscientific…but resulted in no verifiable findings (although snatching attempts among those who professed to open carry were almost nonexistent). This forced Frankie to turn (as you have) to statistics for LEO…which also showed a fairly low occurrence rate despite them being far and away the most likely to incur it, (owing to the rigors of their profession).

'Course, Flint, I know you carry in a shoulder holster, and that, more importantly, you have the martial arts training that can help you prevail in a contact-distance combatives situation.
Most people do not.

I do carry in a shoulder rig most of the time. The only reason I do so…is because of a shoulder injury that no longer allows me to reach beyond my centerline (and lift up). At least I can’t do it repeatedly….so I do not practice this way…and have been forced to drop out of IDPA (because of cross draw rules). I do keep up my membership; I am still a safety officer… and lend a hand when I can.

I have found that shoulder carry actually provides an increased level of retention and security under most circumstances, but I do not offer it to be the ideal way to carry (open or otherwise). Obviously, there are holsters with better retention features.

My Martial Arts experience is something I wouldn’t trade for anything, and I can assure you I did not earn any of my belts standing along side some 8 yr. old with a black belt. I’ve been punched, kicked, thrown, locked, knocked out, cut, bruised, broken fingers, torn muscles, hyper extended elbows/joints, shoulder injuries, dislocated knee (that was fun), etc…

I have training in empty hands, stick, knife, cane, and various other weapons. BUT….I have NEVER had the illusion that I could not be beat. All it takes is one 15 yr. old street punk to get “lucky” with a knife or gun.

Having actually trained for…and fought against multiple opponents (both in real life and in the Dojo) I am keenly aware of the disadvantages you face when trying to defend against more than one threat. IMO, Open Carry (in some circumstances) could offer an advantage. If you think about it, there is a reason that LEO and Military carry openly, and that reason is: When everything has hit the proverbial fan, there is no faster, easier way to access your weapon than to have it open on your person.

From a purely tactical standpoint…I don’t see how this can be reasonably argued against.

The public’s perception/acceptance to Open Carry is another matter…and worthy of our concern and discussion. Still… I would love to have the “option” of OC (for whatever purposes I DECIDE), rather than be limited to CC because some legislator (who wouldn’t know self defense if it hit them in the head), thinks it would be too scary for folks.

Just my thoughts on it……..

Flint...

Venus Pax wrote:I don't plan to open carry, but certainly see it as a step in the right direction to have this option.

I think it is great that we should have the option to OC. However, I will continue to CC.

I personally will OC if given the chance. My boss will likely say "no guns at work" (software development office) but I'll carry anywhere else I can.