TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote: I don't like that idea one bit. How would a person know when they crossed into a City that forbids OC?

Signs at every public ingress/egress. Works in old western shows... :-)

mamabearCali wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Just for the record, this thread is not about how one feels about open carry. The topic was about how one feels about "in your face" tactics by a very small but very vocal minority of OC proponents. Somehow it is being twisted to discuss how one feels about OC and how prevalent it is or will be.

They are being pushed into making ridiculous in your face tactics due to the fact that they are dismissed by gun owners and CHLers on the whole. If they had not been dismissed as kooks and dissed by Internet memes as above, perhaps they would have been able to be more circumspect. People ignored, who desire the freedoms they have been promised, will tend towards more and more drastic action.

The problem with this argument is that it is an extension of the "you're either with us or you're against us" philosophy long espoused by the open-carry supporters like those found in VCDL, OpenCarry.org, LoneStar CDL, and more recently Open-Carry Texas. That's a blatant attempt to force others into supporting their issue and it has been an abject failure. The fact is most gun owners and Texas CHLs aren't the enemy of open-carry supporters, it's simply a matter of their issue not being our issue. Texas gun owners are far more concerned with who can carry and where they can carry than how they can carry. You seem to argue that open-carry supporters somehow deserve the support of all gun owners regardless of their own priorities concerning legislative and/or legal battles that lie elsewhere. That's unfounded. Open-carry supporters are no more entitled to widespread support than are campus-carry supporters, or those seeking to reduce the number of off-limits areas for CHL's, or those seeking to remove deferred adjudications from the definition of "conviction" for CHL eligibility purposes, or those who want to change knife laws. We each have our priorities and if we feel strongly enough to get involved, we join and support groups and organizations that share those goals. Rational people do not then label everyone outside that group as an enemy.

If a group of convicted felons organized to change Texas and federal law so as to allow them to own, possess and carry firearms, that would be their right. The fact that other gun owners and/or organizations didn't join in their effort wouldn't mean those refusing to do so are anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment, or even in opposition to their goal. It would simply mean that their issue isn't our issue. However, this is precisely what the more radical open-carry supporters claim about CHLs and anyone else who doesn't join their quest. Taking the entire Texas gun-owner community as a whole, only a very small percentage care about open-carry one way or the other. Attacking them and the organizations representing them as being anti-gun, elitists, or any other pejorative term within their vocabulary is a poor method of attracting people to their cause.

Chas.

03Lightningrocks wrote:OK... here we go again JIm. You really want to debate me saying I would shoot a "zombie"? Why not. First... NO cop is going to just come walking in the mall dressed like that with no other circumstances going on to call for it.

Go back and read carefully - "Suppose, for instance, that guy just happens to be a LEO coming into the mall to warn of an active shooter situation going on in the parking lot and everyone is to stay inside? And you just shot him in the face?"

03Lightningrocks wrote:I have to question your situational awareness when I have to tell you how to know when a situation is out of the norm or when cops are involved in a situation that calls for a Bane outfit. I suppose you would have liked my post better had I said I almost drew on a suspicious looking guy walking up to me at the gas station.

Now you're not even making any sense at all.

And you didn't bother to explain the difference between shooting someone for the way they look and shooting "that guy" for "that look."

03Lightningrocks wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:There you go. Let's do it like alcohol except that the amendment is reversed; i.e., the state is OC with political jurisdictions being allowed to vote no OC. Happy now?

I don't like that idea one bit. How would a person know when they crossed into a City that forbids OC?

Notices at the edge of town; you know, kinda' like the no cell phone signs in school zones maybe? Actually, this probably wouldn't be an issue except in metropolitan areas.

Oldgringo wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:There you go. Let's do it like alcohol except that the amendment is reversed; i.e., the state is OC with political jurisdictions being allowed to vote no OC. Happy now?

I don't like that idea one bit. How would a person know when they crossed into a City that forbids OC?

Notices at the edge of town; you know, kinda' like the no cell phone signs in school zones maybe? Actually, this probably wouldn't be an issue except in metropolitan areas.

That cell phone law is gonna get me. I use a bluetooth ear piece, (You probably don't know about this technology yet.Just think of it as a fancy cordless phone that fits in your ear. ). I get to talking business on it and forget. I look up and am smack in the middle of a school zone. I have no desire to get busted for an OC gun crime because I cross over some City line from conservative to liberal. My bet is that the Austin area would be off limits. As well as Dallas. Plano would be a toss up. We have way to many yankees that won't go home.

I think your bluetooth ear piece saves your bacon.. I believe hands-free devices are excluded.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:There you go. Let's do it like alcohol except that the amendment is reversed; i.e., the state is OC with political jurisdictions being allowed to vote no OC. Happy now?

I don't like that idea one bit. How would a person know when they crossed into a City that forbids OC?

Notices at the edge of town; you know, kinda' like the no cell phone signs in school zones maybe? Actually, this probably wouldn't be an issue except in metropolitan areas.

That cell phone law is gonna get me. I use a bluetooth ear piece, (You probably don't know about this technology yet.Just think of it as a fancy cordless phone that fits in your ear. ). I get to talking business on it and forget. I look up and am smack in the middle of a school zone. I have no desire to get busted for an OC gun crime because I cross over some City line from conservative to liberal. My bet is that the Austin area would be off limits. As well as Dallas. Plano would be a toss up. We have way to many yankees that won't go home.

1. I have Bluetooth as well as indoor plumbing - thank you.
2. It doesn't matter because OC is not going to be accepted in Texas. In states where OC is accepted, it doesn't matter there either.
3. I saw a guy with a Sneaky Pete holster in W-M today. I suspect, of the masses therein, he and I might have been the only ones who knew he was carrying. Like I said, it doesn't matter.

It's time.

Oldgringo wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:There you go. Let's do it like alcohol except that the amendment is reversed; i.e., the state is OC with political jurisdictions being allowed to vote no OC. Happy now?

I don't like that idea one bit. How would a person know when they crossed into a City that forbids OC?

Notices at the edge of town; you know, kinda' like the no cell phone signs in school zones maybe? Actually, this probably wouldn't be an issue except in metropolitan areas.

That cell phone law is gonna get me. I use a bluetooth ear piece, (You probably don't know about this technology yet.Just think of it as a fancy cordless phone that fits in your ear. ). I get to talking business on it and forget. I look up and am smack in the middle of a school zone. I have no desire to get busted for an OC gun crime because I cross over some City line from conservative to liberal. My bet is that the Austin area would be off limits. As well as Dallas. Plano would be a toss up. We have way to many yankees that won't go home.

1. I have Bluetooth as well as indoor plumbing - thank you.
2. It doesn't matter because OC is not going to be accepted in Texas. In states where OC is accepted, it doesn't matter there either.
3. I saw a guy with a Sneaky Pete holster in W-M today. I suspect, of the masses therein, he and I might have been the only ones who knew he was carrying. Like I said, it doesn't matter.

It's time.

Make mine a Macallen 18! I didn't realize they finally got water out there to you. Congrats on the flush toilet! I think you are right about it not happening.

03Lightningrocks, I replied to your last directed at me in a PM. I am done with that line in this thread if anything else interesting turns up I might reply.

My advice to the OC movement would be to generate plenty of good PR, considering his recent conviction of a class B I think it would be advisable that Mr. Grisham step down (at least temporarily) from his position in OCT and concentrate on his appeals process and any legal issues he may face in regards to his position in the military. This would allow him to better concentrate on his issues and avoid any image of impropriety. I also know that he has been unable to meet with the DPS in his capacity as President of OCT due to his trial, so he has already had issues due to said appearence of impropriety. Also his string of arrests at the capital building nees to be addressed as well, before continuing his duties as president of OCT.

Looks like there may be more to the Grisham arrest story.

I'm sure some of the cops on the board won't see a problem and some of the mere citizens will.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11 ... iting-for/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He will win the appeal.

Now that situation makes me angry at the cops. That was an extreme over reaction on their part. Me thinks the cops anti gun sentiment showed through all to clearly. I could not believe they allowed their bloated ego's help them make the decision to actually arrest that guy.

One more thing. That fat cop said a person called in. Is there any proof of that?

03Lightningrocks wrote:Now that situation makes me angry at the cops. That was an extreme over reaction on their part. Me thinks the cops anti gun sentiment showed through all to clearly. I could not believe they allowed their bloated ego's help them make the decision to actually arrest that guy.

One more thing. That fat cop said a person called in. Is there any proof of that?

Is it a "power" mindset? If I have a eargosplitten loudenblaster and he/she doesn't, I have the power. Cold this be what it's about at the LEO/guv'mint level? Say it ain't so.

Oldgringo wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Now that situation makes me angry at the cops. That was an extreme over reaction on their part. Me thinks the cops anti gun sentiment showed through all to clearly. I could not believe they allowed their bloated ego's help them make the decision to actually arrest that guy.

One more thing. That fat cop said a person called in. Is there any proof of that?

Is it a "power" mindset? If I have a eargosplitten loudenblaster and he/she doesn't, I have the power. Cold this be what it's about at the LEO/guv'mint level? Say it ain't so.

I don't think all cops are suffering "little mans" complex, but that cop certainly was and his partner was not much better.

Definitely not all cops. The family members in my family that are or have been cops did not and they despise those that did, as do I.