TexasCHLforum.com

Oldgringo wrote: I have a dream (sound familiar).

Let's do what Colorado, an OC state, has done. Allow statewide OC and let the metro areas (Dallas, Houston, Austin, et al) opt out and deny OC within the city boundaries.

If my plan is made into law, the occupants of rural areas (where a gun is not usually needed) are allowed to OC. In the metro areas (where a gun may be needed) OC is not allowed. Now then, everyone is happy and we have an OC state. Is this a great state in a great country or what?

Great idea, OG! Let's do it! You da' man!

It should be noted that the Colorado Legislature didn't set out to have it this way. Denver was lucky to get a tie vote in their Supreme Court keeping the underlying decision favoring them intact. If we are going to propose Texas learning from another state, I'd propose Pennsylvania. There you can OC without a license throughout the state except in Philadelphia. There you can do so only with an LTCF.

Your idea about rural vs. urban worth considering. Several other things make it through the Legislature exactly this way (there are population figures written into the statute). The downside is that you have folks who might not know the difference and wander into a non-OC area. Perhaps penalty in non-OC areas should be a Class C misdomeanor, fine only, so that someone's CHL isn't jeopardized. Even though I live in Dallas County and thus would certainly be in a non-OC zone, I think it is worth discussing. That will give Texas some actual experience and I'm confident would prove that a) OC is rarely practiced and b) when it is, nothing bad happens.

Charles, how about it? Say, a county population of 500,000 or more and Class C w/fine only punishment for violators? That would apply to, roughly, the 4 major D/FW counties, 2 in the Greater Houston area, San Antonio, Austin, El Paso, and Brownsville/South Padre. Sounds about right to me.

Data extracted by Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Reference/Documents staff from
http://www.census.gov/popest/counties/t ... -01-48.xls" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Suggested Original Source Citation:
Table 1: Annual Estimates of the Population for Counties of Texas: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007 (CO-EST2007-2007-01-48)
Source: Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau
Release Date: March 20, 2008

COUNTY POPULATION
Harris 3,935,855
Dallas 2,366,511
Tarrant 1,717,435
Bexar 1,594,493
Travis 974,365
El Paso 734,669
Collin 730,690
Hidalgo 710,514
Denton 612,357
Fort Bend 509,822

frazzled wrote:We also outnumber them by about 8 gazillion to one. Whats New Mexico's largest city? Is it even comparable to a burb of Houston or DFW? Same to same for Louisiana. I have nothing against either state but comparing Texas to then, and what we should do, is like comparing New York to South Dakota.

I'm not sure that the constitutional right to self-defense should depend on population. Even if it does, one could make the argument that you need that protection and the possible deterance of OC -- or at least the option -- even more. Where are the stories of people in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Virginia, etc. having their OC gun taken from them? Finally, while Texas has several large urban and suburban areas, it also has many, many rural areas. Our current law keeps us from OCing there, too. Why?

You raise a fair issue however and let's examine that in more detail. Here are a couple of tables showing a) the number of states with approximately 10 million or more population and b) the top 15 overall (going down to about 5 million) and their open carry status taken from the census bureau at (http://www.census.gov/population/www/pr ... gesex.html).

So of the top population states, they are split 4 and 4. For the top 15, 10 allow OC 5 do not.

States with 10 million or more population:
Census 2000 State 2000 Census Population Open Carry status
United States 281,421,906
California 33,871,648 Unlicensed OC in unincorporated areas; unloaded open carry legal elsewhere
Texas 20,851,820 Illegal
New York 18,976,457 Illegal
Florida 15,982,378 Illegal
Illinois 12,419,293 Illegal
Pennsylvania 12,281,054 Unlicensed OC legal except Philly where a license is needed
Ohio 11,353,140 Unlicensed OC statewide
Michigan 9,938,444 Unlicensed OC statewide

Top 15 states:
Census 2000 State 2000 Census Population
United States 281,421,906
California 33,871,648
Texas 20,851,820
New York 18,976,457
Florida 15,982,378
Illinois 12,419,293
Pennsylvania 12,281,054
Ohio 11,353,140
Michigan 9,938,444
New Jersey 8,414,350 Illegal
Georgia 8,186,453 Licensed OC
North Carolina 8,049,313 Unlicensed OC
Virginia 7,078,515 Unlicensed OC
Massachusetts 6,349,097 Licensed OC legal
Indiana 6,080,485 Unlicensed OC
Washington 5,894,121 Unlicensed OC

frazzled wrote:Why on earth would I care about what Louisiana and New Mexico do? This is Texas. We go our own way.

True and I'm proud that we do, most of the time. In this case when we needlessly restrict Texans' rights without good reason, I think we need to reconsider.

My point is that they have roughly the same climates that Texas does (Louisiana's for the Eastern 1/2 of the state and New Mexico's for the Western). It is HOT (and in some parts of the state humid), yet we have to cover our sidearms. Does it REALLY make sense that the difference between legal and illegal is a bit of material? If we all agree that CHL's are very law abiding, why would that change when the clothing is different? I think most agree that it wouldn't change the CHLer's behavior but it could frighten those around. In that case my question becomes, don't we as Texans believe in individual liberty meaning that we let others do as they wish even if we don't like it. In other words, we don't use government as a busy-body to enforce our preferences and we let people choose for themselves.

In short, what I am asking for is this: a logical defense for taking the drastic step of depriving Texans of something -- especially given our climate -- that most other states allow and that hasn't proven to be an inducement to crime.

SA-TX

Charles L. Cotton wrote: If open-carry were to pass, the legislature absolutely would adopt a single sign to prohibit carrying of handguns, either openly or concealed. The legislature would never agree to a two-sign requirement forcing a property/business owner to post one sign to bar open-carry and another one to bar concealed-carry. It simply will not happen because the opposition argument would be that it's too costly, too confusing and would require a business owner to post two ugly signs.

I agree with you that a two sign solution wouldn't pass and is silly. I think pro-open carry folks shouldn't propose such a thing. My position would be that the Legislature should leave 30.06 alone and keep the sign to just concealed carry. No sign is needed to prohibit open carry as owners already have sufficient means of enforcing their wishes on that. Additionally, if the the legal wording is changed and the requirement is still that the sign be "identical", a strict reading would imply that all existing 30.06 signs would be invalid forcing all owners to change or leave them unenforcable. Finally, recalling your argument regarding opening up a section to unfavorable amendments, NOT changing PC 30.06 when adding open carry shields it from mischief.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: If a business owner doesn't want people open-carrying, I seriously doubt they will refrain from posting a sign and opt to walk around asking people to leave if they have a gun. If they make the decision to bar open-carry, it will probably be in response to customer complaints and posting a sign is the most expedient option.

I agree with you that truly anti-gun businesses are probably already posted, but it's not them I'm not worried about those businesses. I'm concerned about business owners or managers who aren't anti-gun or who are actually pro-gun, but who will post their property in response to customer complaints.

True, but two things make me predict that this would happen very rarely: a) open carry itself will be very rare, even when legal, thus creating few opportunities to create opposition and b) business owners are generally pretty focused on running their business and it would take a pretty bad encounter or many complaints to make them go to the trouble to post legally. Additionally, they run the risk of losing business either way. Open carriers are pretty adament about not patronizing businesses that don't feel the same way that they do. Acceeding to the request of the anti, will almost certainly drive away the OCer. Again, I think that the extremely small amount of open carrying will make this a near non-issue.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Has the non-gun-owning/non-carrying public become accustomed to concealed-carry? I think that's possible, but the out-of-sight-out-of-mind element is still a factor that weighs heavily in our favor. My concerns are based upon the response we saw to passage of the CHL statute in 1995 until the creation of TPC §30.06 in 1997. Fears of the public's reaction may prove unfounded, or they may prove to be very accurate. One thing is certain, we won't know until/unless open-carry passes and if I'm right, we won't be able to close Pandora box.

Out-of-sight-out-of-mind could be another way of describing conditioning. It was once outrageous to see someone with a facial piercing, but now it is commonplace. For good or for ill, we adapt to our environment. Things that used to be rare, shocking, and noteworthy lose their provocativeness when the exposure becomes broad enough. In 1995, concealed carry was scary because it was new and controversial. I don't know what the polling was on CC support then, but I'll bet it is much higher now. Why? People have adjusted and the nightmare scenarios didn't come true. I predict the same with open carry. Like then, it will get news coverage the when the bill passes and when the law takes effect, and then there will be a lots of silence.

Additionally, we might as well get out ahead of this. What will happen if the SCOTUS applies the 2nd Amendment to the states at the end of this term, as predicted? We know that restrictions/licensing for concealment probably isn't the "bear arms" part that is beyond infringement because Heller said that most 19th century courts to consider the issue said so. While Heller and the follow on cases have so far dealt only with the "keep" portion, eventually the "bear" portion will be tested. When it is, what could core of that right be? Certainly 19th history says that open carry was the accepted form and highwaymen and card cheats carried concealed. Taken together, my best guess is that open carry is the protected right.

What's wrong with Texas joining the vast majority of the US in allowing legal open carry? Heck, it is an embarrasment that we are lagging behind. Our neighbors in Louisiana and New Mexico aren't having problems and I'm confident that Texans are as trustworthy, if not more so. Given your well-deserved reputation, if I and others can't convince you & TSRA, we stand no chance with the Legislature as a whole. Therefore, I have to keep working.

SA-TX

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I won't go so far as to say that open-carry supporters are selfish, nor do I feel that way, but the fact is a relatively small group of people are willing to risk the creation of a lot of new off-limits businesses (via TPC §30.06 signs) just to have the option to openly-carry. When I say "relatively small group" I am making the assumption that, if open-carry ever passes, it will be licensed open-carry. Unlicensed open-carry has absolutely no chance of passing any time soon, and if it ever does, it will come only after successfully passing licensed open-carry.

Chas.

Charles, I think you are making a couple of other assumptions:

1) TPC 30.06 would be updated to apply to licensed open carry. Depending on how the CHL law was changed to allow licensed open carry, that may or may not happen. Why not? It seems to me that one of the reasons a sign is necessary for the protection of property rights is that, by definition, the owner cannot see a concealed handgun. Thus, the sign communicates his wishes. This isn't a problem with open carry.

2) That a 30.06 sign is the way to keep someone from open carrying and thus is going to be the action taken. If the owner doesn't like your exposed sidearm, he can ask you to leave. The verbal request is just as binding and is an immediate response to unwelcome open carry. Additionally, as noted in 1) above, it might be the ONLY recourse if the wording of 30.06 isn't updated.

I'm less concerned about wide-spread 30.06 postings in response to open carry (either licensed or unlicensed) because:

a) It seems to me that the trend over time has been fewer postings, not more.

b) The media has written/broadcast CHL stories that contain 30.06 information before (probably every time a CHL bill get traction in the Legislature) but their impact is short-lasting and ultimately minimal (see above).

c) Open carry would be practiced by so few that it is unlikely spawn mass postings.

d) Anti-carry business owners probably ALREADY have their businesses posted.

I'm willing to take the risk, because I evaluate the probability of many new postings as highly unlikely. My weighing of the cost versus benefits is that legal open carry is desirable for both practical and philosophical reasons and I believe it can be had with few, if any, disadvantages.

Just so I'm not misunderstood, I want to say that open carry is not my top CHL-related priority. I believe that parking lot carry and campus carry are both more beneficial to the CHL population as a whole. I strongly supported them last session and will continue to do so. I also would like to see a reduction in off-limits places (whole buildings because of a court or court office, voting places on election day, professional sports events, etc.).

Respectfully, SA-TX