TexasCHLforum.com

PATHFINDER wrote:If OC is legalized in Texas no one will be forced to OC. As for as the 30.06 sign concern - the purpose of the sign is to serve written notice to persons carrying HANDGUNS that their patronage is not wanted on the premises. The signs refer to CONCEALED handguns simply because that's the only way they can be worn in Texas. Why would someone who would be legally open carrying attempt to proceed past a current 30.06 sign? " What's that ? Who me ? OH - I'm OK . I 'm not carrying concealed so your sign doesn't apply to me."

We can argue all day about signs and there are very good suggestions that could be made about signage. But the simple fact is the legislature will not create a situation where a property owner had to post two signs to keep guns off of their property. It absolutely will not happen; it will be considered too much of a burden on property owners. TPC §30.06 will be amended to cover both open and concealed carry. I don't care if the OpenCarry.org bill from 2009 didn't address signage; the committee an OC bill goes to will add the TPC §30.06 change.

PATHFINDER wrote:This in-fighting between TSRA and OCDO needs to be halted. I think there's plenty of "heartburn" in both camps. We all need to chew on some rolaids and get past it.

I don't speak for TSRA, but there is no in-fighting. TSRA has never said anything about OpenCarry.org, but the reverse is not the case. OCDO has repeated claimed that TSRA opposed OC and that it worked behind the scenes to kill it. This is a lie, pure and simple.

PATHFINDER wrote:The OCDO folks started from scratch 2 years ago tryiing to resolve a constitutional conflict that is all the more apparent since the McDonald decision . No they aren't well versed in legislative lobbying.

That's like saying Hitler wasn't much of a statesman! OCDO was an absolute disaster in 2009. They alienated the entire staff of every Senator and House Member in Austin. The tactics they used on poor Rep. Debbie Riddle was not merely mistakes of inexperience, it was indicative of the approach taken by most people posting on OCDO. Now that we are getting close to the 2011 session, I look at the OCDO Texas forum and nothing has changed. Most people still label as anti-gun or anti-Second Amendment anyone who doesn't buy their "kill them all and let God sort it out" approach. Two of their members who took a much more level headed approach used to post here also. I saw their posts on OCDO calling for a more respectful approach to promoting OC in Texas and they were rebuffed.

PATHFINDER wrote:I think we all need to air out our "attics" a bit, and strive to work together this go-around.

Again, I don't speak for TSRA, but no well respected Second Amendment organization that enjoys a good reputation and working relationship in Austin will work with any organization with a scorched earth approach.

The sad thing is that if a proper approach had been taken in 2008, 2009 or 2010, open-carry could have possibly passed this session, though more likely in 2013 because so much time will be spent on redistricting and the $25 billion budget shortfall. I made this suggestion in 2009 and nothing was done. I'm starting to better understand how John the Baptist felt, that is "a voice in the wilderness . . ."

Chas.

My comment will be editied, My Intensions are not to personal insult anyone. Certainly not to you Mr. Cotton who has worked so hard for the rights we have today in Texas. Sometimes the process just seems frustrating. I apoligize if my comment offend anyone.

I'm a bit confused. I thought property owners currently had to post 2 separate signs if they want to ban all guns from their property. Does a 30.06 sign apply to long guns?

I think that requiring Texans to conceal is an infringement, and it doesn't matter if the law requires you to conceal your handgun, conceal your religion, conceal your sexual preference, or conceal your political beliefs. People should have the option to keep any of those private, but that doesn't mean people who pray in public should be locked up for intentionally failing to conceal their religion.

Katygunnut wrote:I'm a bit confused. I thought property owners currently had to post 2 separate signs if they want to ban all guns from their property. Does a 30.06 sign apply to long guns?

Don't confuse them with the facts.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:We can argue all day about signs and there are very good suggestions that could be made about signage. But the simple fact is the legislature will not create a situation where a property owner had to post two signs to keep guns off of their property. It absolutely will not happen; it will be considered too much of a burden on property owners. TPC §30.06 will be amended to cover both open and concealed carry.

There is another alternative. We can have a sign (something like the picture below) to prohibit open carry (make it a trespass):

http://i880.photobucket.com/albums/ac6/ ... CF0087.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And we can have big obnoxious 30.06 that prohibits BOTH open carry and concealed carry. You post one or the other. Since people that seem to have something against guns already post these gunbusters (even though they mean nothing in TX) they should continue to do just that.

Except that it has been mention several times that the legislature will NOT require 2 signs. They will modify the code to have 30.06 cover OC and CC.

KC5AV wrote:Except that it has been mention several times that the legislature will NOT require 2 signs. They will modify the code to have 30.06 cover OC and CC.

Only one sign required:

Option A: Gunbuster
You do not get to open carry

Option B: 30.06
You do not get to open carry and you do not get to conceal carry

To play Devil's advocate:

Why not let them incorporate it into the 30.06 sign? How many places currently get it right? Few.
All the reports of places that allow OC say you almost never see it, so how many shop owners would be faced with the realization that their signs weren't effective? Fewer still.
Most police officers are completely unaware of the intricacies of CC. There are almost no court cases that have worked through the ambiguities because no one is getting arrested, so it is being handled at the local level just fine without complaint. So how many police would arrest and shop owners would press charges and DAs would prosecute when they could continue doing what they're doing now which is getting little to no court action?

My guess is that not much would change at all except the current CHL holders would be able to OC in more rural areas where it wouldn't be problematic and they wouldn't be as concerned with printing or the wind blowing their cover garments around.

On the other hand, if it wouldn't change much, would it be wise to waste all the time and money on fighting that fight to get it passed to make such a small impact when there are other things much bigger that will have much wider impact and will significantly increase who can carry and where they can do so? Probably not.

I don't know if my opinions are read much here, or just skipped over, but I'm going to try to express an opinion on this subject again, with a new challenge for those of you that think open carry will have no effect on concealed carry as we now know it.

Go to 10 businesses with the generic gunbusters sign popsted in your home town (not mine, we don't have 30.06 signs around that I know of) and ask to speak to the owner or general manager. Not people you already know, but total strangers. Tell them you are doing a simple public opinion poll regarding passage of an open carry law in Texas and ask if they would be against their patrons openly carrying handguns in their place of business. Then report back on the number of them that point to the gunbuster sign they have hanging up with the response they don't allow guns in their shop anyway. You then have the option of biting your tongue and hoping they don't find out that they are not giving effective notice to all the chl holders that may carry past their threshold every day, or spill the beans and inform them of the intricascies of proper notice under 30.06. You can bet that when the first open carried handgun shows up in their shop, or their friend's shop down the road, they will all be posting the proper signage to prohibit all licensed carry. I own and operate a small business, and know several of the business owners in town. Many of those folks that I personally know probably have absolutely no idea what the current "proper signage" is, and think "no guns means NO guns. Wait until something wakes them up.

As long as we still have a state that respects private property rights (generally speaking), business owners will have the right to refuse service under legal guidelines.

There was a "challenge" to post results from other states experiences with the move to OC. I've made a simple challenge that will most certainly prove the point.

Any takers?


surv

As for the Challenge I travel to New Mexico a lot (Its less than 50 miles away). NM is an OC state with CHL laws and regulations being less than ideal. For Example you can not carry more than one handgun concealed in NM. Every time I have to go into NM I have to make a choice before I get out of my car: A. Remove my BUG or B. OC my primary. I prefer the tactical advantage of CC, but I prefer having that BUG in case my primary fails. I have tried both methods and have gotten some mixed results when OCing. The little wannabe gang members look at you and move off while almost everyone else either ignores you. Some folks will comment on "that nice gun" while some will ask if your a police officer. But here's the catch, I am dressed professionally (nice shirt, tucked in slacks or nice jeans, ect) when I OC over there. In all honesty I prefer to CC to the point that I will all most always leave my BUG in my vehicle while I am in NM. Hopefully NM will get a new director for their DPS who will strike the 1 concealed gun rule since they got a new governor.

The difference between Texas and some other states, is that other states never made OC illegal, so there was no 'legalization' of it.

So there was no huge news stories about it becoming legal that was broadcast to the unwashed masses by the liberal media to scare them.
There was no huge public debate on the issue, further scaring the masses.
There was no huge 'celebratory' Open Carry rush of people doing it everywhere (which would happen in Texas on day one).

That's the difference. If OC was never illegal in Texas to begin with, it wouldn't be an issue here as well.
It's sort of like what would happen if Marijuana was ever legalized. Everyone and their mother would go out and smoke it in public for everyone to see, simply because they now could.

(I'm actually FOR the legalization of pot, just saying that it's similar)

PATHFINDER wrote:...would simply like to see Texas join the other 43 open carry states.

I would very much like to see a list of those 43 states where open carry is legal, and recognized by law enforcement as a civil right against which they are not allowed to encroach.

I'm betting that you can't provide such a list. There are lots of states where it is legal, but many of those states have local preemption laws. For instance, Nevada is an open carry state, but try to open carry in Las Vegas. They kill people there for concealed carry in the Costco. And as it happens, Clark County Nevada, where Las Vegas is, has an ordinance against open carry. So if a state has legal open carry, but local preemption permits most counties and municipalities to make it illegal at the local level, than you can't in all honesty add that state to a list of those where OC is legal. To do so is disingenuous. And that is the problem with the bomb-throwers in the movement: they make broad statements about OC being legal in 43 states, but they fail to mention that it will still get you arrested in most of those 43 states.

The REAL truth is that unrestricted OC is found in perhaps a half dozen states.

I would really like to see a state constitutional amendment:

ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

Just delete the red part above.

Somehow, I don't think I'm gonna get my wish.