TexasCHLforum.com

Lonnie Wilson wrote:. . . The only reason open carry is illegal in Texas is due to political bargaining.

It has been illegal since the 1870's. It was never "bargained for" and in fact, the anti-gun opposition to the CHL statute tried to amend the bill to allow only open-carry. They did so because they knew the public outcry at seeing citizens carrying handguns would result in the repeal of the statute. So, the only legislative attempt to pass open-carry in Texas since the 1870's was mounted by anti-gunners. Before anyone quotes me on another board as saying anyone who supports open-carry is anti-gun, that is not what I'm saying and that's certainly not what I feel. But to imply that we don't have open-carry because those of us who worked for CHL and to improve it over the years bargained away open-carry is not correct.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Lonnie Wilson wrote:. . . The only reason open carry is illegal in Texas is due to political bargaining.

It has been illegal since the 1870's. It was never "bargained for" and in fact, the anti-gun opposition to the CHL statute tried to amend the bill to allow only open-carry. They did so because they knew the public outcry at seeing citizens carrying handguns would result in the repeal of the statute. So, the only legislative attempt to pass open-carry in Texas since the 1870's was mounted by anti-gunners. Before anyone quotes me on another board as saying anyone who supports open-carry is anti-gun, that is not what I'm saying and that's certainly not what I feel. But to imply that we don't have open-carry because those of us who worked for CHL and to improve it over the years bargained away open-carry is not correct.

Chas.

Chas:

At least from me, a big thankyou to you and anyone else who was involved with getting CHL in Texas. I wasn't here at the time, but I'm certainly taking advantage of your work now that I am here. Again, thanks!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Before anyone quotes me on another board as saying anyone who supports open-carry is anti-gun, that is not what I'm saying and that's certainly not what I feel. But to imply that we don't have open-carry because those of us who worked for CHL and to improve it over the years bargained away open-carry is not correct.

Chas.

Never crossed my mind, nor would I believe anyone who says you would...

Lonnie Wilson wrote: The only reason open carry is illegal in Texas is due to political bargaining.

Not true. The reason open carry is illegal in Texas is that most of our weapons laws date from the Reconstruction era. During that time, they made it illegal to carry pistols at all unless traveling. They allowed long guns to be carried due to the prevalence of Indians and hunting, but short guns were used against the carpet baggers too often and thus made illegal.

As time went by, we added a few more exceptions to the law, such as commissioned security officers. But, the basic law was from that era and the concepts had not changed much in over 100 years. This is why some of our court cases on traveling mention the overnight stay or the county lines (consider crossing a county by horseback). As a matter of fact, the pre-eminent court case on traveling (where the courts asked the legislature to define traveling) dates back 100 years now.

The image and the laws are different, but Texas has had one of the most repressive gun laws for a long time.


Edit: Sorry Charles, I posted my answer before I saw you had also corrected the error about the bargaining. We did it from different points of view though, so maybe both answers will help someone.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Texas population: Approx. 22,000,000
Number over 21: Approx. 14,000,000
Number of CHL's: 258,165

Ratio of eligible population to CHL's: 54 to 1.
Ratio of total population to CHL's: 85 to 1.

We're grossly outnumbered and a minuscule number of us, relatively speaking, open-carrying aren't going to force a huge majority to accept anything. What we'll do is wake a sleeping giant.

Remember folks, this is a hypothetical question asking you to presume open-carry would result in widespread posting of 30.06 signs. The goal is to see how many people would be willing to sacrifice our ability to carry in vast numbers of businesses that currently don't post 30.06 signs.

Chas.

IMO, this presumes the "huge majority" is either anti-gun or would be so intimidated by anyone they knew to be in possession of one, that it would result in your hypothesis. I just don't think this is the case (in this state).

If I am wrong...then we have already been reduced to a colony of lepers...and "carry" in any mode will die a slow death.

The key to a successful transition from "concealed only" to "concealed or open" lies in showing the general public that we conduct ourselves (in all areas of our lives)...lawfully, respectfully and responsibly. I believe, the greater the number of people who know you carry, AND trust you to be a stable, law abiding citizen...the better it is for all of us.

If we do the aforementioned, it leaves no room for "soccer moms" (or anyone else) to appear "reasonable" if they freak-out over the sight of a handgun.

In the event OC is ever adopted in this state, I would hope that those who choose to carry in that manner would be doubly aware that they represent us all in their every action. Of course, I'd like to think that applies to CC as well.

Just my .0002

flintknapper wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Texas population: Approx. 22,000,000
Number over 21: Approx. 14,000,000
Number of CHL's: 258,165

Ratio of eligible population to CHL's: 54 to 1.
Ratio of total population to CHL's: 85 to 1.

We're grossly outnumbered and a minuscule number of us, relatively speaking, open-carrying aren't going to force a huge majority to accept anything. What we'll do is wake a sleeping giant.

Remember folks, this is a hypothetical question asking you to presume open-carry would result in widespread posting of 30.06 signs. The goal is to see how many people would be willing to sacrifice our ability to carry in vast numbers of businesses that currently don't post 30.06 signs.

Chas.

IMO, this presumes the "huge majority" is either anti-gun or would be so intimidated by anyone they knew to be in possession of one, that it would result in your hypothesis. I just don't think this is the case (in this state).

If I am wrong...then we have already been reduced to a colony of lepers...and "carry" in any mode will die a slow death.

The key to a successful transition from "concealed only" to "concealed or open" lies in showing the general public that we conduct ourselves (in all areas of our lives)...lawfully, respectfully and responsibly. I believe, the greater the number of people who know you carry, AND trust you to be a stable, law abiding citizen...the better it is for all of us.

If we do the aforementioned, it leaves no room for "soccer moms" (or anyone else) to appear "reasonable" if they freak-out over the sight of a handgun.

In the event OC is ever adopted in this state, I would hope that those who choose to carry in that manner would be doubly aware that they represent us all in their every action. Of course, I'd like to think that applies to CC as well.

Just my .0002

Its not about whether we think it's a good idea, or even whether CHLers are good people or not. The legislature works in a " what's the benefit of this bill for me, my contributers, and my constituents" . In other words how do we sell it it to the boneheads in Austin. A bill that less than 2% of the population is interested in needs to have a broader appeal. The original CHL bill had the appeal of making Texas safer. What our legislators need to know is, how will this benefit everyone.

It's called politics, and it is almost never about what is right or wrong.

Liberty wrote:

flintknapper wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Texas population: Approx. 22,000,000
Number over 21: Approx. 14,000,000
Number of CHL's: 258,165

Ratio of eligible population to CHL's: 54 to 1.
Ratio of total population to CHL's: 85 to 1.

We're grossly outnumbered and a minuscule number of us, relatively speaking, open-carrying aren't going to force a huge majority to accept anything. What we'll do is wake a sleeping giant.

Remember folks, this is a hypothetical question asking you to presume open-carry would result in widespread posting of 30.06 signs. The goal is to see how many people would be willing to sacrifice our ability to carry in vast numbers of businesses that currently don't post 30.06 signs.

Chas.

IMO, this presumes the "huge majority" is either anti-gun or would be so intimidated by anyone they knew to be in possession of one, that it would result in your hypothesis. I just don't think this is the case (in this state).

If I am wrong...then we have already been reduced to a colony of lepers...and "carry" in any mode will die a slow death.

The key to a successful transition from "concealed only" to "concealed or open" lies in showing the general public that we conduct ourselves (in all areas of our lives)...lawfully, respectfully and responsibly. I believe, the greater the number of people who know you carry, AND trust you to be a stable, law abiding citizen...the better it is for all of us.

If we do the aforementioned, it leaves no room for "soccer moms" (or anyone else) to appear "reasonable" if they freak-out over the sight of a handgun.

In the event OC is ever adopted in this state, I would hope that those who choose to carry in that manner would be doubly aware that they represent us all in their every action. Of course, I'd like to think that applies to CC as well.

Just my .0002

Its not about whether we think it's a good idea, or even whether CHLers are good people or not. The legislature works in a " what's the benefit of this bill for me, my contributers, and my constituents" . In other words how do we sell it it to the boneheads in Austin. A bill that less than 2% of the population is interested in needs to have a broader appeal. The original CHL bill had the appeal of making Texas safer. What our legislators need to know is, how will this benefit everyone.

It's called politics, and it is almost never about what is right or wrong.

I am intimately familiar with "politics" and particularly the agendas of those in Austin (having grown up there). But to answer your question: Half the battle is won and already in place (Concealed Carry). If CHL was passed on the premise of making Texas safer, then open carry may ride on its coat tail. It only augments what is already in place. Nothing special need be done to implement it (aside from defining the law concerning it).

If it is "added" to CC (and does not replace it), then it gives those who lawfully carry in Texas some "options". One "option" that comes immediately to mind involves how one has to "dress around" their weapon as it stands now. Lets face it, Texas is hot for about 5 months out of the year, and this is one 'ol boy that would like to leave that jacket, vest, shirt, or whatever you use to "conceal" at home.

How many times has a weapon been left at home, or otherwise not on a person because it was difficult or uncomfortable to conceal. Untold numbers, I would wager. So, if we're going to play the "CC makes Texas/Texans safer" card, then I would submit that the option of OC could only enhance that.

How is this unreasonable?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:My goal, which isn't working, is to get a feel for the number of people here that would support open-carry even if it would result in many businesses becoming off-limits to CHL's. What I trying to learn is how many people would say “it’s worth it� if a year after open-carry were to pass, we saw a huge jump of businesses posting 30.06 signs. There are plenty of arguments on both sides as to what, if anything, would be the backlash against open-carry, but that was not the purpose of this question.

Chas.

Thanks for the reponse. I think I understand the question better now.

If it helps, count me unambiguously among the "it's worth it' group, with regard to 30.06. I don't mind so much because while I think there might be a spike in the beginning, I also think that it would reverse itself over time.

OTOH, if it would mean a tradeoff where more places were added to the exclusion lists, I'd be opposed. There are already too many places excluded, and that would be a step backward, IMHO.

flintknapper wrote:

Liberty wrote:

flintknapper wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Texas population: Approx. 22,000,000
Number over 21: Approx. 14,000,000
Number of CHL's: 258,165

Ratio of eligible population to CHL's: 54 to 1.
Ratio of total population to CHL's: 85 to 1.

We're grossly outnumbered and a minuscule number of us, relatively speaking, open-carrying aren't going to force a huge majority to accept anything. What we'll do is wake a sleeping giant.

Remember folks, this is a hypothetical question asking you to presume open-carry would result in widespread posting of 30.06 signs. The goal is to see how many people would be willing to sacrifice our ability to carry in vast numbers of businesses that currently don't post 30.06 signs.

Chas.

IMO, this presumes the "huge majority" is either anti-gun or would be so intimidated by anyone they knew to be in possession of one, that it would result in your hypothesis. I just don't think this is the case (in this state).

If I am wrong...then we have already been reduced to a colony of lepers...and "carry" in any mode will die a slow death.

The key to a successful transition from "concealed only" to "concealed or open" lies in showing the general public that we conduct ourselves (in all areas of our lives)...lawfully, respectfully and responsibly. I believe, the greater the number of people who know you carry, AND trust you to be a stable, law abiding citizen...the better it is for all of us.

If we do the aforementioned, it leaves no room for "soccer moms" (or anyone else) to appear "reasonable" if they freak-out over the sight of a handgun.

In the event OC is ever adopted in this state, I would hope that those who choose to carry in that manner would be doubly aware that they represent us all in their every action. Of course, I'd like to think that applies to CC as well.

Just my .0002

Its not about whether we think it's a good idea, or even whether CHLers are good people or not. The legislature works in a " what's the benefit of this bill for me, my contributers, and my constituents" . In other words how do we sell it it to the boneheads in Austin. A bill that less than 2% of the population is interested in needs to have a broader appeal. The original CHL bill had the appeal of making Texas safer. What our legislators need to know is, how will this benefit everyone.

It's called politics, and it is almost never about what is right or wrong.

I am intimately familiar with "politics" and particularly the agendas of those in Austin (having grown up there). But to answer your question: Half the battle is won and already in place (Concealed Carry). If CHL was passed on the premise of making Texas safer, then open carry may ride on its coat tail. It only augments what is already in place. Nothing special need be done to implement it (aside from defining the law concerning it).

If it is "added" to CC (and does not replace it), then it gives those who lawfully carry in Texas some "options". One "option" that comes immediately to mind involves how one has to "dress around" their weapon as it stands now. Lets face it, Texas is hot for about 5 months out of the year, and this is one 'ol boy that would like to leave that jacket, vest, shirt, or whatever you use to "conceal" at home.

How many times has a weapon been left at home, or otherwise not on a person because it was difficult or uncomfortable to conceal. Untold numbers, I would wager. So, if we're going to play the "CC makes Texas/Texans safer" card, then I would submit that the option of OC could only enhance that.

How is this unreasonable?

with Flintnapper. We loose our rights because we do not exercise those rights.

Liberty wrote:

flintknapper wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Texas population: Approx. 22,000,000
Number over 21: Approx. 14,000,000
Number of CHL's: 258,165

Ratio of eligible population to CHL's: 54 to 1.
Ratio of total population to CHL's: 85 to 1.

We're grossly outnumbered and a minuscule number of us, relatively speaking, open-carrying aren't going to force a huge majority to accept anything. What we'll do is wake a sleeping giant.

Remember folks, this is a hypothetical question asking you to presume open-carry would result in widespread posting of 30.06 signs. The goal is to see how many people would be willing to sacrifice our ability to carry in vast numbers of businesses that currently don't post 30.06 signs.

Chas.

IMO, this presumes the "huge majority" is either anti-gun or would be so intimidated by anyone they knew to be in possession of one, that it would result in your hypothesis. I just don't think this is the case (in this state).

If I am wrong...then we have already been reduced to a colony of lepers...and "carry" in any mode will die a slow death.

The key to a successful transition from "concealed only" to "concealed or open" lies in showing the general public that we conduct ourselves (in all areas of our lives)...lawfully, respectfully and responsibly. I believe, the greater the number of people who know you carry, AND trust you to be a stable, law abiding citizen...the better it is for all of us.

If we do the aforementioned, it leaves no room for "soccer moms" (or anyone else) to appear "reasonable" if they freak-out over the sight of a handgun.

In the event OC is ever adopted in this state, I would hope that those who choose to carry in that manner would be doubly aware that they represent us all in their every action. Of course, I'd like to think that applies to CC as well.

Just my .0002

Its not about whether we think it's a good idea, or even whether CHLers are good people or not. The legislature works in a " what's the benefit of this bill for me, my contributers, and my constituents" . In other words how do we sell it it to the boneheads in Austin. A bill that less than 2% of the population is interested in needs to have a broader appeal. The original CHL bill had the appeal of making Texas safer. What our legislators need to know is, how will this benefit everyone.

It's called politics, and it is almost never about what is right or wrong.

Both you and "flint" really hit it right dead on...Its what I have been saying for years...Its based upon a "trust" issue that has never been there even with the passage of the original bill...Sure, we have it now, and there have been some things done "politically" to weaken, and strengthen it to this day...

I personally don't think we'll ever get the OC provision...Because it is basically asking a body of people to decide whether or not to trust us to be "visibly" responsible and to be "ambassadors" for a cause that not a lot of people (I would go so far as to say a majority of the population) support, much less think about as often as we do...

I stand to be corrected, but I do not think there is a single state in the union that has a CCW program, that didn't also have an open carry provision for some if not all citizens who are legal to carry in the state, regardless if they have a "permit" or not...At the time of the inception of their CCW program...At least nothing jumped out at me to give me a history as to how to develop a provision to carry openly after the fact...

So Texas would probably be the first, and last to try this, if it ever got legs...

I've also concluded that the average population in states that have a CCW program that the precentages are about the same...3-4% tops of the states population...So yes, there is a political side that will always stand to the majority to oppose doing something "special" for just 3-4% of their consituency...Thats the frustration some of us feel when this issue comes up...

Like I said before I am for the "option", if I choose to do so...And am prepared to be among a great many others I know, an ambassador to the concept of self-defense, which is what most (politicians) do not want us to be...

I believe we do a great job doing this now, but think of the surge in people who would take a serious and introspective look at the issue further, if they saw people like us going about their everyday business...Armed and safe...

You know...I almost hate to do this, but this whole issue is almost like being in the homosexual community...Everyone knows there are people out there that are this way...And we understand that it is a lifestyle that is both lauded and critisized at the same time...And for many years people stay in the closet, and do not openly reveil their beliefs...

I believe it is time for the 2nd Amendment to come out of the closet...

[disclaimer]

I am not of the homosexual persuasion..."Wife Unit" can attest to that...

I know I am sooo going to get lectured for this!!! I am a bit reluctant to hit "submit"...

Too late!

All that I would ask would be to strike PC §46.035 (a) from the code and let it be.

Russ

stevie_d_64 wrote:You know...I almost hate to do this, but this whole issue is almost like being in the homosexual community...Everyone knows there are people out there that are this way...And we understand that it is a lifestyle that is both lauded and critisized at the same time...And for many years people stay in the closet, and do not openly reveil their beliefs...

I believe it is time for the 2nd Amendment to come out of the closet...

[disclaimer]

I am not of the homosexual persuasion..."Wife Unit" can attest to that...

I know I am sooo going to get lectured for this!!! I am a bit reluctant to hit "submit"...

Too late!

No lecture here.

stevie_d_64 wrote:I stand to be corrected, but I do not think there is a single state in the union that has a CCW program, that didn't also have an open carry provision for some if not all citizens who are legal to carry in the state, regardless if they have a "permit" or not...At the time of the inception of their CCW program...

As far as I know, you are correct. The states where open carry is legal now never made it illegal. Some banned concealed carry but not open carry. Then they allowed concealed-carry permits.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:I stand to be corrected, but I do not think there is a single state in the union that has a CCW program, that didn't also have an open carry provision for some if not all citizens who are legal to carry in the state, regardless if they have a "permit" or not...At the time of the inception of their CCW program...

As far as I know, you are correct. The states where open carry is legal now never made it illegal. Some banned concealed carry but not open carry. Then they allowed concealed-carry permits.

- Jim

Yeah, so I am thinking the hurdle is getting back to aquiring the "option" to carry in whatever manner the individual deems appropriate or necessary...

I believe everyone agrees that that is the hardest part of the political/idealogical issue...For both sides of the debate...

Maybe we should remind people why OC was taken away in the first place (too many carpetbaggers shot after the war), and then we can argue that "carpetbaggers" are no longer an issue, so there is no longer a need for the law.