TexasCHLforum.com

I know there has been a lot of discussion lately about open carry and how it will be structured well here's the document that was posted on opencarry.org...
I would have copy and pasted but it changes the formatting.

Ace_Inthe_O wrote:I know there has been a lot of discussion lately about open carry and how it will be structured well here's the document that was posted on opencarry.org...
I would have copy and pasted but it changes the formatting.

TX_open_carry_rights_restoration_bill_8_OCT_08.doc

Understand this is just something someone has put together as a 'wish list' of how they would like to see the law. It is not an actual bill that has been submitted to the House or Senate for consideration.

Yeah I saw that I just thought it could be some sort of starting point for people talking about how the bill could be structured.

Ace_Inthe_O wrote:Yeah I saw that I just thought it could be some sort of starting point for people talking about how the bill could be structured.

...for seven pages.



whoever did that, did a fairly decent job of it.

I'm all for whoever wants to open carry, as long as we still have the choice to carry concealed. But, what kind of indirect ramifications do yall think that allowing open carry will on us concealed folk? Such as people protesting against it, store owners that don't currently bar concealed carry from their stores keeping all guns out, etc... Am i making sense here???

Aggie_engr wrote:I'm all for whoever wants to open carry, as long as we still have the choice to carry concealed. But, what kind of indirect ramifications do yall think that allowing open carry will on us concealed folk? Such as people protesting against it, store owners that don't currently bar concealed carry from their stores keeping all guns out, etc... Am i making sense here???

yes, that's Charles' perspective on the issue.

Oh, guess my logics are a little late...

DoubleJ wrote:

Aggie_engr wrote:I'm all for whoever wants to open carry, as long as we still have the choice to carry concealed. But, what kind of indirect ramifications do yall think that allowing open carry will on us concealed folk? Such as people protesting against it, store owners that don't currently bar concealed carry from their stores keeping all guns out, etc... Am i making sense here???

yes, that's Charles' perspective on the issue.

The solution that would make concealed carriers more comfortable is to change the criminal trespass penalties.

We fought so hard to get 30.06 because the penalty for trespass while armed jumps from a Class C misdemeanor (like a traffic ticket) all the way to Class A (a year in jail). Change that (even if just for CHL holders), and change the accompanying administrative penalties, and the problem goes away. Modify 30.06 to include whatever version of open carry gets passed, and everyone should be happy.

Stores could still post 30.06, a CHL who was caught would still be punished. It would be enough to serve as a wakeup call (like a speeding ticket gets your attention), but it would be a far cry from the penalty imposed today. Quite unlike a simple speeding ticket, violating 30.06 costs you your license and penalties equal to DWI.

Looks to me like a giant step backwards in light of churches, hospitals, etc.

jimlongley wrote:Looks to me like a giant step backwards in light of churches, hospitals, etc.

How so?

No private property, whether churches, hospitals, schools, sporting events, or bars, should ever be statutorily off limits. All private property, including those, should have the ability to restrict entry to those they find undesirable (not going into the "protected classes" argument here). But those they restrict should not be singled out for harsher punishment than other trespassers, as is currently the case with those who trespass while otherwise legally carrying firearms.

I too think a Class A Misdemeanor (1 yr in jail and/or $4,000 fine) is way too high for merely possessing a firearm while trespassing. If a person unlawfully used a gun during a trespass, then there will be other statutes that could be used to prosecute at a higher level.

I also think the "intentional failure to conceal" should be lowered from a Class A a Class C (i.e. fine only and not CHL disqualifying). Again, if a CHL pulls a gun without justification, then there likely will be other violations that can be charged. If not, then it was a very minor breach and doesn't warrant jail time or loss of CHL. Failure to tender a CHL to an officer should no longer be a violation, but if it remains, it should be a Class C as well.

Chas.

KBCraig wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Looks to me like a giant step backwards in light of churches, hospitals, etc.

How so?

No private property, whether churches, hospitals, schools, sporting events, or bars, should ever be statutorily off limits. All private property, including those, should have the ability to restrict entry to those they find undesirable (not going into the "protected classes" argument here). But those they restrict should not be singled out for harsher punishment than other trespassers, as is currently the case with those who trespass while otherwise legally carrying firearms.

Because of this:

(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the person has written authorization of the hospital or nursing home administration, as appropriate;
(5) in an amusement park;
(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship;

Which appears without the mitigating language that is present in the current law.

Actually it looks to me as if they cut and pasted sections and moved them around and forgot the part about being given notice.

Don't get me wrong, I still think OC is a good idea, but the law may have to be rewritten from the ground up to accomplish it, poor editing leads to unforeseen pitfalls.

The same mitigating language is there, you might have missed it being moved so far. I missed it the first time I read it too.

But here it is:

(g) Subsections (b)(4-6) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

DoubleJ wrote:

Aggie_engr wrote:I'm all for whoever wants to open carry, as long as we still have the choice to carry concealed. But, what kind of indirect ramifications do yall think that allowing open carry will on us concealed folk? Such as people protesting against it, store owners that don't currently bar concealed carry from their stores keeping all guns out, etc... Am i making sense here???

yes, that's Charles' perspective on the issue.

Ditto...We need to be very clever about this...

Some people are very passionate about being pro-choice when it comes to making it easy to take a life...

In a way, I guess I feel a little hypocritical about feeling the same way, from a certain point of view...Of course, don't be confused...I take my self-defense very seriously, and know I will be held responsible and accountable for my actions...Not like in the first case...

From what I've discovered the O.C. advocates in Texas seems to think citizens in O.C. states commonly carry in public, yet from what I've discovered few in those states actually take advantage.

From what I've read, it seems the majority of the Texas CHL holders on this forum wouldn't take advantage even if available to them either.

Personally, I'd feel a little foolish wearing an O.C. rig in public. I can imagine the reaction of folks in the grocery store and elsewhere. I'm sure the response from the non-gun toting public at large would range from bemusement to outright contempt. Snuffy Smith goes grocery shopping...Yehaw!!

Yet, I too think O.C. should be available if one so chooses. But, if I encountered a rigged out O.C. guy in public, I'd wonder if he isn't simply desiring some type of ego bolstering/compensating attention, especially since the loss of advantage concealment provides isn't made up for in physical comfort.

It'll be very interesting to see what the outcome will be if O.C. is enacted into law in Texas. My guess is few will ultimately take advantage.