TexasCHLforum.com

I think the open carry debate is getting us no where, and is getting us off topic. I do agree that constitutional carry would solve the issue, but constitutional carry is not open carry. Constitutional carry is unlicensed open AND concealed carry, which I feel should be our long term goal for solving this issue among others. The short term (meaning: before the next legislature) solution I feel is education. We need to educate the general public about the benefits (As mentioned by stephengauntt) of a Texas CHL over a non-resident license. Our mid-range solution (meaning for the next legislative session) should be the reforms outlined by Mr. Cotton, along with any others we can come up with.

I always believed that many of the rules written into our CHL requirements were written to appease folks who were afraid of allowing concealed carry. If I remember correctly, we had strong opposition to the CHL when it was first passed. The long classes with shooting range and high fees were designed to make it appear that a CHL would not be available to just any Tom, Dick or Harry. It was also meant to give the appearance of "training" so the argument concerning unqualified people getting a CHL would be addressed. The "end around" permits cancel out the comfort level our legislature had in passing a CHL law in the first place. Granted, the comfort level of citizens having a CHL has increased over time, but that comfort level can easily turn to discomfort once word is out that any Tom, Dick or Harry can now legally carry a deadly weapon. Sentimate can turn on us real quick if one of these "easy license" holders screws up and uses their weapon in a wrong situation and a life is taken.

I know from my personal associations that my daughter and son in law both were forced to get the Utah permit because of the cost of getting a Texas CHL. Now they have no choice, but somehow it does not seem right that only wealthy people can aquire a CHL in Texas. Cut the course time in half and reduce the license fee to something people can afford. A CHL should not cost more than a drivers license.

johnson0317 wrote: Actually, it is common sense passed along by the pro-gun community, including people like Ayoob and Bird. It makes sense that the BG is going to first go for those people who pose an obvious threat, and that would includes LEOs and anyone openly carrying. It is also advisable to not wear the obvious NRA attire, fanny packs, photog jackets, and so on. On the other hand, he might get my open open carry weapon, but he will only get part of my concealed carry one...the subsonic part.

RJ

If I recall, the warning given is that if you are carrying openly it makes you a prime target to take out first. I recall nothing about making you a target to take away your gun and use it on you. That is Brady, the VPC, et. al. mantra.

I do agree with you with regard to not carrying openly, except in certain situations, but not for the same reason. If your reason was valid all uniformed police would not open carry for the same reason. FWIW, if I was openly carrying in a social situation I'd use a holster with a good retention device just like those in uniform do. However I suspect that retention devices are not that needed for a casual grab the gun situation but are there in case the officer ends up in a physical confrontation.

I can not image a LEO with situational awareness so poor a bad guy could walk up and grab their gun. A private citizen be out of it that much either for that matter. As for me, the only place I've opened carried has been while hiking through the woods and hunting. I sometimes stopped and got a snack but that was as social as it got. (Was legal where I use to live.)

BTW, while fanny packs, photo jackets and so on may scream gun to us gun nuts, the vast majority of the public is oblivious. I suspect that it is similar as open carry to thugs. Might up their priority to take you out quick, but not to try and pick your pocket.

Jumping Frog wrote:

johnson0317 wrote:

Actually, it is common sense passed along by the pro-gun community, including people like Ayoob and Bird. It makes sense that the BG is going to first go for those people who pose an obvious threat, and that would includes LEOs and anyone openly carrying. It is also advisable to not wear the obvious NRA attire, fanny packs, photog jackets, and so on. On the other hand, he might get my open open carry weapon, but he will only get part of my concealed carry one...the subsonic part.

I am not going to get into an open carry versus concealed carry digression in this thread, so I ignored your first post on the topic. But since you've now asserted that twice, I'll simply say many reasonable people reach the opposite conclusion. Predators seeks the weakest prey.

I see my mistake. When I wrote my first post, I was being somewhat facetious. When I wrote my second one, I did not remember the tone of the first and could not understand why no one saw what I meant. No, I did not mean BGs will knock you down so that they can borrow your weapon...that was facetious. Yes, I do mean that a BG/psychotic nut will take you out first if you pose a bigger threat. Sorry for confusion.

As far as LEOs openly carrying, look at the two who got nailed in the ?coffee shop recently. You think the nut who did that job was going to save them for last? Nope.

I am not taking a stance on open carry. If it was passed here, then I am sure there are times I would do so. I was simply trying to add to the conversation, but did not do it well!

fickman wrote:With respect, in my opinion, these people are law-abiding and doing nothing wrong. That they found a loophole large enough to drive a train through isn't their fault, it's the legislature's. Their impetus in finding a creative solution also comes from the legislature - this isn't the "Utah problem", the "Florida problem", or the "Virginia problem". . . it's the "TEXAS PROBLEM"!

Their actions will certainly have a negative impact on the rest of us, but I choose not to blame them for the repercussions. Let's aim our venom at the ones responsible for the root cause and spend our energy there.

The Texas CHL is too expensive. It's too restrictive. It's too bureaucratic. It's too slow.

It is a TEXAS problem created by the Texas legislature. Lowering the price and reducing the bureaucratic hoops is the real solution to the problem. The proposal to meddle in reciprocity is as smart as Obama's economic policy.

The ten hour course is too long. It isn't supposed to include range time, fingerprinting, photos, lunch, waiting around for other people to shoot (and do fingerprints, photos, filling out forms, etc), but every person I have talked to who took a one day course has had this.

There is no good way to do a one day "all inclusive" 10 hour course, but that's what people want to buy, and that's what is being sold.

Even with all the extra time wasted on things other than instructional class time, there doesn't seem to be enough requried material to fill up 10 hours. My wife and I had two different instructors, and both of them spent the last hour or two of class randomly browsing youtube and showing vaguely gun related videos.

There also needs to be more emphasis from the state on making sure the instructors actually understand the laws. The amount of bad advice given out by my instructor, and the bad advice I've seen people talking about on forums that they got in their classes is sort of outrageous. Just a look at the debates over the law that get posted and reposted on this forum should be a clue that the classes are failing at what should be one of their core tasks.

Meh.

koolaid wrote:The ten hour course is too long. It isn't supposed to include range time, fingerprinting, photos, lunch, waiting around for other people to shoot (and do fingerprints, photos, filling out forms, etc), but every person I have talked to who took a one day course has had this.

There is no good way to do a one day "all inclusive" 10 hour course, but that's what people want to buy, and that's what is being sold.

Even with all the extra time wasted on things other than instructional class time, there doesn't seem to be enough requried material to fill up 10 hours. My wife and I had two different instructors, and both of them spent the last hour or two of class randomly browsing youtube and showing vaguely gun related videos.

There also needs to be more emphasis from the state on making sure the instructors actually understand the laws. The amount of bad advice given out by my instructor, and the bad advice I've seen people talking about on forums that they got in their classes is sort of outrageous. Just a look at the debates over the law that get posted and reposted on this forum should be a clue that the classes are failing at what should be one of their core tasks.

Meh.

My instructor filled up the class spinning yarns of his past. A couple of his stories were repeats with different endings...LOL. It was three hours worth of information, expanded to fill ten hours of class time. It was pretty obvious he was trying real hard to balance keeping us awake with finding something to eat up ten hours.

If they would drop the class to a four hour class with shooting included, the cost of the class might just drop. Instructors could fit two classes in a day.

koolaid wrote:My wife and I had two different instructors, and both of them spent the last hour or two of class randomly browsing youtube and showing vaguely gun related videos.

There also needs to be more emphasis from the state on making sure the instructors actually understand the laws. The amount of bad advice given out by my instructor, and the bad advice I've seen people talking about on forums that they got in their classes is sort of outrageous. Just a look at the debates over the law that get posted and reposted on this forum should be a clue that the classes are failing at what should be one of their core tasks.

That's the real travesty. They wasted hours of your time on filler but didn't have time to teach the law right?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
At the very least, we can count on seeing a bill filed in 2013 that will require Texas residents to carry only on a Texas CHL.

Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't see why that is a bad thing.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:At worst, we may see the reciprocity we currently enjoy with a huge number of states diminished significantly. And don't think that another F-rated Representative will be selected to carry the bill.

Now that I do see as bad.

steve817 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
At the very least, we can count on seeing a bill filed in 2013 that will require Texas residents to carry only on a Texas CHL.

Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't see why that is a bad thing.

If you like that, how about a bill eliminating reciprocity. Texas sells nonresident licenses. If someone wants to carry in Texas, make them buy a Texas CHL. Visitors are not exempt from following Texas laws, so if they're going to carry in Texas, they need to learn the law same as locals.

If it's good enough for native Texans it's good enough for Yankees.

koolaid wrote:The ten hour course is too long. It isn't supposed to include range time, fingerprinting, photos, lunch, waiting around for other people to shoot (and do fingerprints, photos, filling out forms, etc), but every person I have talked to who took a one day course has had this.

Just FYI -- the 10 hours DOES include time spent on the shooting range.

tbrown wrote:

steve817 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
At the very least, we can count on seeing a bill filed in 2013 that will require Texas residents to carry only on a Texas CHL.

Maybe I'm missing something here but I don't see why that is a bad thing.

If you like that, how about a bill eliminating reciprocity. Texas sells nonresident licenses. If someone wants to carry in Texas, make them buy a Texas CHL. Visitors are not exempt from following Texas laws, so if they're going to carry in Texas, they need to learn the law same as locals.

If it's good enough for native Texans it's good enough for Yankees.

????..... Did you not read the whole post? Where did that come from?

If we can't trust native Texans to carry on a nonTX license, we sure can't trust Yankees to carry on a nonTX license!

Here's the cold hard facts. The Legislature will not continue to let people ignore legislative intent and something is going to change. We can scream and cry all we want, but that's a fact. Some of us will try to make something good come out of it. Remember, while Nero was fiddling, some Romans were trying to put the fire out.

Chas.

We need to throw water on the legislators starting the fires and fanning the flames.

Good thing we have an election before the next session. Fix the legislators = fix the legislative intent.