TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I'll have to prepare a more detailed reply to the questions you raise than I have time to do now. I'm heading to Charlotte tomorrow for NRA committee meetings, the Annual Meeting and a lot of other events. I promise I'll try to get to it sometime this week, but that may be impossible.

The bottom line is this; as Scalia stated, carrying a handgun was not an issue in Heller. I agree with you that there is good reason to believe that the Supreme Court will allow states to regulate the carrying of handguns. However, I don't think the Court will allow the absolute prohibition of carrying a handgun in view of its clear recognition of the right of self-defense. (This is the first S/Ct. opinion doing so and this is every bit as important as the Second Amendment portion of the opinion.) Also, I don't think Scalia's comments about concealed carry indicates a distinction between OC and CC. CC laws are now in 48 of the 50 states so it is natural that his dicta on "carrying" would be focused on CC. Further, I don't know if there are any states that issue a license solely for OC, but I may be wrong. If such laws exist, they are so few in number that they would not readily come to mind when Scalia was talking about carry laws. If this had been an issue briefed in the case, then a distinction between OC and CC would most definitely be significant.

I do not think there is a rational basis, and certainly no S/Ct. decisions, to argue that OC is a constitutionally protected right, but CC is not. Rather, I think the S/Ct. will allow states to decide for themselves whether either OC or CC will require a license. Some states may allow OC without a license and require one for CC under the guise that not being able to see if someone is armed somehow raises the threat level. While I disagree with that premise, I think the Court would find it rational and constitutional.

Chas.

Charles, have you had a chance to do any further research on 1) what was said in Heller particularly as it applies to McDonald and the arguments made? Given that a decision will be issued shortly, I'm sure the TSRA has contingency plans no matter how it is decided.

Thanks, SA-TX

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Contrary to what many have said about me, I do not oppose open-carry; I do have one and only one concern, and that's the expansion of businesses posting 30.06 signs. The fact that I do not support OC does not mean I would oppose it. In fact, I absolutely would not oppose it, unless a horrendous bill like the one proposed last session is offered again. My opposition would be based upon the dangerous construction of the bill, not the concept of OC. I openly offered suggestions for simplifying and improving the bill, but the author had every right to ignore them as he did.

In the end, open-carry deals with how Texans can carry defensive handguns; I'm far more concerned with empowering more people to carry in more places. In my view, that should be our priority.

Chas.

When given an either-or choice, I do not disagree. My request is that we consider whether we can do both rather than only one or the other.

How about this: forget the previous bill author. Will you draft a bill or work with others to draft one that addresses your concerns? I don't want more 30.06 signs. I don't know any CHLer who does including those who would like the option to OC. We don't want this to be 1 step forward, one step back. It is exactly your/TSRA's expertise in understanding how to craft legislation that is needed.

I say let the process work. Draft an OC bill along with campus carry, parking lot carry, range protection, and everything else that we want. Take feedback from all interested parties. Try to address their concerns. Work with our friends in the Legislature. Try and advance as large a pro-2A agenda as possible. If/when the time comes where items have to ranked by priority because we're are told in no uncertain terms that we aren't going to get everything we want, THEN we make some choices. Is this an unreasonable approach?

SA-TX

frazzled wrote: Really, you think emails mean something. Ok.
You think after you burned the poiticans anyone's going to carry your water?

I'll be the first to say that some on OpenCarry.org were less diplomatic and thoughful than they should have been. 2A freedom matters and is worth getting excided about (thus the heated rhetoric) but principles don't implement themselves. Tactics matter. Working with those who are key to your success is critical. Everyone should take into account the consequences of their actions. I and others said so at the time.

I hope we won't paint with too broad of a brush. Did Frazzled make outrageous statements and fire off heated emails to legislators calling for their heads? I know I didn't. Incidentally, do emails matter or do they not? They can't not matter if that was the primary way politicians were "burned". My point is: not everyone who supports open carry or is a member of OpenCarry.org had it in for good pro-gun members simply because open carry didn't get any attention last session. I'd wager that most Texas member of OCDO did NOT.

That said, aside from some venting of frustration, was there really any "burning" of politicians? Most politicians I've had any contact with seem to have pretty tough skins because criticism comes with the job. They also get email and letters from groups/people of all stripes and, as you mentioned, widely ignore them. If you aren't from their district, your opinion doesn't mean very much. Heck, when you ARE from their district you sometimes don't get a response. The last 2 times I've written to my Texas rep and senator through the Texas.gov website, I've gotten NO RESPONSE at all. Not even the pro-forma canned response.

May I gently suggest that we: a) forget the past and b) dedicate ourselves to working together for more 2A freedom in Texas? It seeems everyone is in agreement on parking lot carry, campus carry, and range protection. I'm right there with you and will be doing everything I can do to get them passed. No hesitation. No horse trading. No quid pro quo. I'll be there because it expands 2A freedom. I agree with Charles 100% on not trading one thing for another thing. Even though I personally probably won't benefit from campus carry, I'm 100% for it and will work hard to make it happen.

In addition -- not as opposed to or instead of -- I would like to see TSRA take up the topic of open carry. As a start, let's discuss it internally. Let's think through ramifications. Let's run an article in the newsletter. Let's take a poll or let the wider TSRA audience (who doesn't visit this website) sound off about the matter. Be evenhanded about it. Have a writer chronicle what's happened in other states in the past couple of years, mention OK since that's recent, and call for feedback from the membership.

Why do we think at this early stage -- before the McDonald decision, before the elections in November, before the legislature is even sworn in -- that there won't be an opportunity to deal with 4 gun bills instead of only 3? Aren't we being presumptious? I said before that I don't mind making practical trade offs when necessary. Until then why are we limiting ourselves?

SA-TX

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

SA-TX wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

SA-TX wrote:More importantly, why did we have to add that in TX? Were the police having problems with CHLers inappropriately using their handguns while in the police station?

The reason given was because LEO's couldn't disarm a CHL even in areas where their own officers were required to disarm due to the risk of prisoners "snatching" a handgun.

Chas.

Hmmm. You would have thought that a) existing disarming authority would been sufficient and b) that they would never let someone into an area where their own officers disarm because of prisoner proximity without screening.

Where we really need the lockbox is at courthouses. PA has this requirement. That would make reporting for jury duty much easier. In Dallas if you want to take DART into downtown, you can carry on the train but once you get to the courthouse you are stuck.

SA-TX

You asked why the provision was added; that's why. Procedures vary greatly depending on the size of the department, number of personnel, building layout, etc.

Chas.

Thank you for answering and I do appreciate the insight. I was just musing aloud about their given reasons. They seem very weak to me because I have a high bar for how severe a problem has to be before we resort to passing a law restricting heretofor legal behavior.

Charles what do you think about PA's (and there may be another state or two that requires this) lockbox requirement? Because courthouses are off limits, they MUST provide gun carriers the ability to check their sidearms.

This is particularly important since we still have the "court or court office" situation where you don't even think you are going to a "courthouse" but rather a "records building" or a "city office" only to find the entire building has been declared to be off-limits. I say if the place is a) a public (i.e. -- government) building, and b) carry is banned for whatever reason, c) the facility must provide for the checking and secure storage of legally carried arms, and d) it isn't a violation to unconceal your firearm while checking/retrieving it at such a facility.

SA-TX

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

SA-TX wrote:More importantly, why did we have to add that in TX? Were the police having problems with CHLers inappropriately using their handguns while in the police station?

The reason given was because LEO's couldn't disarm a CHL even in areas where their own officers were required to disarm due to the risk of prisoners "snatching" a handgun.

Chas.

Hmmm. You would have thought that a) existing disarming authority would been sufficient and b) that they would never let someone into an area where their own officers disarm because of prisoner proximity without screening.

Where we really need the lockbox is at courthouses. PA has this requirement. That would make reporting for jury duty much easier. In Dallas if you want to take DART into downtown, you can carry on the train but once you get to the courthouse you are stuck.

SA-TX

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Unless I completely misread your post, your statement about Texas gun laws was much broader than just our CHL-related statutes. If I am correct, I would point out that your response addresses nothing but CHL-related laws and even those are either incorrect or very minor in nature. Texas is extremely gun-friendly.

Correct. See my preface below "I'm going to point out ...". Later I mention that some of the statues aren't specific to CHL -- they apply to all firearms -- but help to explain why I think that Texas "gun laws" are confusing and overly restrictive. Before I go any futher I want to make sure that my true point of view is captured: I agree that Texas and Texans are gun-friendly and this isn't a meant to be a 'bash Texas' post! I LOVE Texas. I simply want us to examine what other states are doing and make Texas law as good as it can be. Neither should this post be view as an attack upon you, Charles, or the TSRA. The laws were much worse before prior to CHL and have been getting better every session.

SA-TX wrote: I'm going to point out where I think Texas is worse and also differences (where I'm not necessary saying we are worse, but that we should consider what others are doing).

1) Cost. Texas has one of the most expensive licenses in the country between DPS fees and the mandated training. Some states are as cheap as $20. Worse.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I haven't done a study nationwide so I can't comment on the maximum fee. However, there are 50% discounts offered to many people such as people over 60 years of age and anyone ever in the military (not just those who retired). Active military get it free. The renewal is only 50% of the original fee. A CHL paying the full rate will have an average cost of $21/year for the first 10 years,decreasing there after. This is probably higher than some states, but hardly cost prohibitive.

I agree that it isn't cost prohibitive but it is higher than most states. I did a quick survey based on the data at handgunlaw.us. Of the 5 year states, the average cost was $85 (original, not renewal). For the 4 year states, it was $38. Adjusting them to a 5 year # would make them cheaper than Texas, too.

SA-TX wrote:2) Requirements.

SSN. .... Worse.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: You are really stretching in your attempt to show Texas law is worse than other states.

I'll let the fact that a federal court thought it was against federal law speak for itself. I'm just pointing out that not all states require it.

SA-TX wrote:Picture. Believe it or not, many states don't have pictures on their carry licenses. They find it unnecessary and it drives up cost. PA and IA don't, to name 2 that I know of. Might also speed up processing times. No opinion.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: To my knowledge, all but a very few states require a photo. Photos are not oppressive nor do they run up the cost of a CHL more than a very few dollars. Plus, as of May 1st, renewals don't require a new photo and soon Texas residents won't have to submit photos even with an initial application.

I agree that it doesn't run up the cost that much. Again, I'm just pointing out where we in Texas have to take a step that many staes don't. Here's where I miss good ol http://www.packing.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. They had pictures of licenses. Here's the way I remember it. I could be wrong on some of these and the laws might have changed but these licenses didn't have pictures: WA, CA (if you are fortunate enough to get one), MT, IA, IN, PA, VA, GA, RI. It also wouldn't surprise me if this was true for some of other really cheap fee states (SD, NH, ID).

SA-TX wrote:3) Off-limits places. Professional/college/high school sporting events, bars, non-public police area (and that one was just added). Then there are those that technically aren't CHL-specific but are still unnecessary: polling place on election day, buildings in which there is a court or court office, race track, site of an execution, etc.

I'm not in favor of drinking and carrying but many states don't exclude bars (PA and IN are examples). Do they have drunken shoot-em ups? Not very often. Obviously there are other crimes when they do. Rather than off-limits places, why don't we criminalize behavior? If you use your gun in a bad way, no matter where you are, you face charges. The only truly off-limits places I think are reasonable are IN a courtroom, correctional facility, and the secured area of an airport. We could strip away all the other restrictions and we wouldn't have wild mayhem ensue. Worse.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: The vast majority of states prohibit carrying in everyone of the locations you listed. In fact, the vast majority of states prohibit carrying in any establishment that serves alcohol and some prohibit carrying in any locations that sell alcohol even if it is not for on-premises consumption. Texas prohibits only carry in bars (51% locations).

While I suspect you are right about the "vast majority" prohibiting carrying in bars (but PA, IN, OH, NH do not, to name a few), I respectfully challenge the statement that the "vast majority of states prohibit carrying in any establishment that serves alcohol". I don't have time at the moment to try to determine the "restaurant carry" status of each state but that has improved recently (NM, AZ, VA and TN, although TN is still in litigation). I would say that Texas and the majority of carry states allow restaurant carry. With NM finally getting non-premises and restaurant carry fixed, I can't think of any shall-issue state that prohibits carry anywhere alcohol is present.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: "Law Enforcement facilities" are very narrowly defined and even when a facility qualifies, it is not off-limits. CHL's can be disarmed and their handguns secured in mandatory lock-boxes, but they cannot be required to return to their cars to lock up their guns. Name the states that allow carrying in police stations? I suspect they are very few.

NH, for one (Ridley Report on Youtube). More importantly, why did we have to add that in TX? Were the police having problems with CHLers inappropriately using their handguns while in the police station? I, for one, have carried in the non-public area of a Dallas Police Department substation and all was just fine. My point is this: if someone uses their handgun in a dangerous/criminal way, arrest them under existing law. Why do we keep creating new no-carry zones? What problem does it address that can't be taken care of with existing law?

SA-TX wrote:5) Officer ability to disarm. They are supposed to have a reasonable sense you are danger to yourself or someone else. In practice, "officer safety" seems to be good enough. Worse.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Every officer in Texas has the authority to disarm anyone they stop "for the officer's safety." Including this in the Texas CHL statute added nothing and did not create authority where none previously existed. It was a political move to garner necessary votes to pass the bill.

Perhaps we're using "officer safety" differently. I'm using it to mean a generic phrase that LEOs use without any individualized circumstances. That sounds different to me than what the law requires (again, SRothstein comes to mind) "reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of ... ". I have no problem with a CHLer being disarmed when the officer has RAS that he isn't fully in command of his facilities (drunk, drugged, falling over tired, medical emergency, etc.) or a true officer safety situation (CHL is visibly hostile/agitated, argumentative, acting erratically, etc). What I oppose is a policy disarming as SOP. If that truly is permitted by Texas law then I suggest that it should change.

SA-TX wrote:6) Reciprocity. ... ? Worse.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: List the states that recognize every other states licenses. I suspect you will find that the majority of states don't recognize every state's license, especially since just under half of the states that have CHL statutes are "shall issue" states.

According to handgunlaw.us, these states recognize ALL licenses: AK, ID, UT, AZ, SD, OK, IA, MO, MI, IN, KY, TN. Did I say "majority"? I think 12 counts as many.

I'm confused by this your statement that "just under half of the states that have CHL statues are "shall issue" states." Handgunlaw.us classifies CA, MA, NY, CT, NJ, DE, MD, AL, and HI as having CHL statues and as "may issue", that's 9 of 48 (WI and IL having no CHL) meaning 39 are shall-issue (and AL appears to be shall-issue in all but name only) for a shall-issue/may-issue ratio of more than 4 to 1. Did I misunderstand?

SA-TX wrote:7) Texas laws are way too confusing. Take the classic "church" example. Carrying here used to be off-limits and still appears to be but actually isn't because of (i). We seem to take the approach of sweeping prohibitions, outlawing the carrying of a handgun, then create many exemptions. Wouldn't we be better off if the law was cleaned up?

Charles L. Cotton wrote: You claim our laws are way too confusing, but only list one example -- churches. You can add hospitals, nursing homes and meetings of governmental entities to the list, since the 30.06 sign required by TPC §46.035(i) applies to those locations as well. There is nothing confusing at all. In fact it's very clear; no sign - not off-limits.

And don't forget amusement parks. Yes, I used church as an one example that illustrates a broader theme. I could name more. The point is that (i) is fairly obscure. There have been many posts here and elsewhere trying to udnerstand "meetings of government entities" in light it the original prohibition, plus (i), plus the pre-emption of governmental units posting 30.06. Not all of us have that legal training so it seems very difficult to follow sometimes. We know the "court of court office" situation is interpreted differently depending on which government body you are talking to. I simply think that we could do a better job with some of these provisions. Rather than (i), why not just repeal the original prohibition? Those areas are then just like everywhere else; no 30.06 = carry on.

SA-TX wrote:These are the ones that come to mind. I do appreciate you asking and I hope we'll work on these.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: These are the ones that come to mind? I'm still waiting for something outside the CHL arena, as well as some within the CHL arena of substance. These are nothing more than nitpicking in an attempt to paint Texas as something other than a very gun-friendly state. This is yet another tactic commonly used by OC supporters; if a state doesn't allow OC, then it's not "gun-friendly."

Texas gun laws are very liberal, not perfect, there's certainly room for improvement, but the idea that many or most other states are more gun-friendly is erroneous.

Chas.

Wow. You really blasted me. I don't believe I said Texas was not "gun-friendly" nor did I ever say that any state that doesn't allow OC is not "gun friendly". In fact I don't think I mentioned OC in the entire post. Actually, my opinion is quite the opposite: Texas is so gun-friendly that I have a hard time believing OC would be a big deal.

I'll agree with you that the "idea that many or most other states are more gun-friendly is erroneous". I never made that claim, so I'm not sure on what basis it was made.

My contention was that Texas gun laws -- which I should enlarge to "weapons" since that's how PC 46 is titled -- are 1) confusing and 2) overly strict. I truly believe that we could get rid of most of 46.02, 46.03, and 46.035 and Texans would still be the same law-abiding bunch they are now.

One of these days when I have some time I'll post my model Penal Code Chapter 46. It will be much shorter I can tell you that.

SA-TX

frazzled wrote:

With all the great ground work laid for these two bills over the last few years hopefully we will have smooth sailing this next session.

Hardly. Private business associations are generally against the parking lot bill. It will be rough sledding indeed to get this passed in the next five years, much less the next session.

OC has absolutely no chance on its own. This is not Arizona, Louisiana, or any of those states. You have large metropolitan areas-larger than the total populations of the states mentioned. There is very little history of non-long gun OC in this state in urban areas. Absent long term preparation, baby steps to improve the environment, any thought of OC is fantasy in this state.

That's because it has been illegal for 120+ years.

What makes TX so different from NM, OK, LA and its near neighbor AZ? If population is the issue, what about Seattle? What about Philadelphia? What about Pittsburgh? What about Phoenix? What about Cleveland or Cincy? The VA suburbs of D.C.? Vegas, baby? What specifically about the large populations in Texas cities is a problem for open carrying that these cites aren't experiencing?

Assume that you convinced me that it is somehow just too dangerous to allow legal OC in cities. Would you support OC except in counties of say 500,000 population or greater? The legislature passes laws like this all the time. Aside from DFW, metro Houston, Austin, and SA, you'd probably be good to go everywhere else in the state.

I'll say it again: I never said OC should be our top legislative priority. I think parking lot carry should be. I agree that college carry is a worth issue. I certainly want range protection. I just want OC in the mix. I want a bill. I want some discussion. I want some debate. I want some hearings. Yes, it might take a session or two but if we don't start it will never happen. Baby step one is to discuss an OC proposal while we are advancing the other worthy bills.

Maybe it is just because I work with computers all day but I expect parallel rather than sequential processing. Is that too much to ask?

SA-TX

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

chabouk wrote:In every other state (with the exception of the California "UOC" movement), OC just doesn't cause a problem for gun owners in general, or CC in particular. The Virginia OC folks actually fought for improved conditions for CCers, but trying to legalize CC in restaurants that serve alcohol (unlicensed OC is legal there, but licensed CC isn't).

If OC was not a problem in states where it is technically legal, then there wouldn't be an OpenCarry.org. Read their website and see the complaints about how OC'ers are being treated.

OpenCarry.org was hardly carrying the ball to get restaurant carry reformed.

Chas.

Charles is right that many folks don't realize OC is legal and call the police. When police respond THEY sometimes don't know that it is legal or even if they do they impermissibly detain the person. In NM a city/officers just lost a federal civil rights lawsuit where a guy was pulled out of a theater while watching a movie, detained, disarmed, serial number ran, questioned and eventually let go. The court said OC is legal and thus there was no PC for the police to contact him at all. This has been the result in a suit in LA that I know of and I'm pretty sure in some in PA and VA, as well.

Those incidents are definitely the bad that comes with the good. Fortunately, many states are educating their police forces and citizenry. A couple of years ago there were several incidents in NH. Now there haven't been any reported in long time. The same is true in Virginia. VCDL has done a great job of working with police agencies to ensure that everyone follows the law. Same in CT with guidelines recently being issued to CT state troopers. Same in CA about how to deal with UOC. Same in WA. There are still occasional problems in PA (particularly eastern PA where Philly and its surrounding communities seem to think they are immune to PA state law) and NV (Las Vegas is the Philadelphia of Nevada) but things are getting better.

I support police officers. They have a very, very difficult job. They deal with not-so-nice members of our society day in, day out. That's why I especially appreciate folks like SRothstien who seem to keep in all in perspective. He's a great example that officers don't have to acceed to the cynical -- but natural, given their exposure -- view that everyone they encounter is a criminal and should be treated as such. Notice that he never disarms CHLs for "officer safety". He understands the intent of the law and gives respect to follow citizens until he has reason not to. We had our share of officers (and DAs ) who didn't want to adjust to CHL, but they did and they would to OC as well.

That said, if we truly have the rule of law and not of men, then police officers have to follow it too. Where the law or facts are unclear, they get the benefit of the doubt (limited immunity). 4th Amendment guidelines have long been laid out and they must be followed. OC, where legal, simply isn't a reason for law enforcment to contact someone because it is no different than wearing a pink shirt with purple pokadots -- it might draw attention; people might find it rude; it might strike some as unnecessarily provocative but it isn't illegal. I don't personally like biker chains or mowhawks or wife beater shirts or multiple piercings but they aren't illegal either and the agents of our government must clearly understand the line between enforcing the law and acting on preferences. They certainly have plenty of actual crime to deal with.

Freedom isn't easy but it is worth fighting for. I'd rather have CHL and the occasional officer who automatically disarms every CHLer he comes across as SOP rather than "the hassle". He can be educated. The same is true with OC. There will be occasional incidents but they should reduce in number as everyone adjusts to the situation. Liberty can be messy sometimes. We have to be tolerant of other doing things that we wouldn't do.

Restaurant carry in VA? VCDL and OpenCarry.org have a significant overlap and, IIRC, both were very active in getting restaurant CC. Whatever the sins of the past for OpenCarry.org, I hope that we can all work together for a very productive pro-2A session in 2011!

SA-TX

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

SA-TX wrote:

mr surveyor wrote:hhhmmmm.... are Six Flags and Government meetings "off limits" due to statute or due to 30.06 postings?

One of us needs to brush up on our knowledge of the Texas CHL laws in order to be more persuasive in our arguments.....maybe it's me


surv

eta: nope..it's not me.....I just checked, and the little item "i" is still in the code

Good point. You're are right about (i). That illustrates something I described in another post: general prohibitions with a million little exceptions. I don't think you have be a pie-in-the-sky idealist to point out that the section 46 of the Penal Code could be much simpler than it currently is. Instead of adding (i), why not remove (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c)?

That emphasizes my main point: I love Texas but our gun laws are not even close to the best in the country.

Other than no open-carry and not being able to carry in a bar, where do you feel Texas gun laws are worse than other states?

Chas.

I'm going to point out where I think Texas is worse and also differences (where I'm not necessary saying we are worse, but that we should consider what others are doing).

1) Cost. Texas has one of the most expensive licenses in the country between DPS fees and the mandated training. Some states are as cheap as $20. Worse.

2) Requirements.

SSN. A federal court in PA threw out their SSN requirement as a violation of federal law which only grants the use of SSN for limited purposes. In TX, this is used to check for child support or student loan delinquencies. People shouldn't dodge either obligation but should those be disqualifiers for a CHL? Gun carry licenses, unlike hunting or fishing licenses, also aren't on the list of "recreational or professional" licenses for which federal law insists that child support records be checked and this is how other states avoid it. Remember that even when buying a gun your SSN is OPTIONAL on the federal forms. Worse.

Must have a Texas ID or DL. This keep the number of out-of-state licenses issues to far less than FL or UT. Worse.

Picture. Believe it or not, many states don't have pictures on their carry licenses. They find it unnecessary and it drives up cost. PA and IA don't, to name 2 that I know of. Might also speed up processing times. No opinion.

Fingerprints. Many states require them, but not all. Presumably this aids in the background check. Might speed up processing times. No opinion.

3) Eduacation. Texas has one of the longest classes and it doesn't change quickly for renewals (on the 3rd renewal???). I'm not opposed to education on the law and safe gun handling but other states don't think it is necessary (IN, VA, WA, as examples) or at least not as much. Worse.

3) Off-limits places. Professional/college/high school sporting events, bars, non-public police area (and that one was just added). Then there are those that technically aren't CHL-specific but are still unnecessary: polling place on election day, buildings in which there is a court or court office, race track, site of an execution, etc.

I'm not in favor of drinking and carrying but many states don't exclude bars (PA and IN are examples). Do they have drunken shoot-em ups? Not very often. Obviously there are other crimes when they do. Rather than off-limits places, why don't we criminalize behavior? If you use your gun in a bad way, no matter where you are, you face charges. The only truly off-limits places I think are reasonable are IN a courtroom, correctional facility, and the secured area of an airport. We could strip away all the other restrictions and we wouldn't have wild mayhem ensue. Worse.

4) License categories. I know that nearly everyone gets SA so as a practical matter its irrevelant, but no other state that I know of licenses by action. Worse.

5) Officer ability to disarm. They are supposed to have a reasonable sense you are danger to yourself or someone else. In practice, "officer safety" seems to be good enough. Worse.

6) Reciprocity. Many states simply recognize ALL valid permits/licenses by other states. The new IA law does this. Very easy. We have agreements, governor makes proclimations, etc. Where's our recognition of MN for instance? They recognize TX but we don't them and I don't know why. Where's the report that the AG's office is suppose to provide to the legislative leaders every year on other states? Worse.

7) Texas laws are way too confusing. Take the classic "church" example. Carrying here used to be off-limits and still appears to be but actually isn't because of (i). We seem to take the approach of sweeping prohibitions, outlawing the carrying of a handgun, then create many exemptions. Wouldn't we be better off if the law was cleaned up?

Here's a bonus question: even with a CHL can you carry/possess a pistol on MURVAUL LAKE in Panola County or is this prima facie evidance you've committed a crime? Hint: see Parks & Wildlife 283.022.

These are the ones that come to mind. I do appreciate you asking and I hope we'll work on these.

SA-TX

Keith B wrote: In order to get an OC law passed, just like any other bill, there would more than likely be compromises that would have to be made. In this case, there would more than likely be a method for preventing carry in private business by signage. Since that already exists today 30.06, that would probably be the method they would want used.

I could also see the potential of the state allowing cities to preempt open carry, so you would have the plethora of scattered municipalities where it would be off limits and without a program, you would never know where you could and couldn't carry openly. (See my note below on my home state.)

I diagree on signage. Not necessary with OC. Business owners can see you are carrying so there is no need for a sign. If they don't like it, they ask you to leave. Signage is for when they CANNOT see if their wishes are being honored. As far as compromises go, you take what you can get and then come back and remove it when blood doesn't run in the streets. Same as CHL. Even if every big city in Texas made OC illegal by ordinance, there's a bunch of this state that would be left. The reality is that even all the big cities wouldn't go to the trouble.

Keith B wrote:Your difference here is it would be something new (vs many other states where it has always been legal) and highly publicized by the media. And, as with everything, if it was unlicensed open carry, there would be a major surge of unlicensed folks 'trying it out'. This would lead to the media following people around, just like the have done in California and Virginia (aka Starbucks, etc.) And all this media coverage would lead to the postings. And who in Texas doesn't want to wear a really nice six-shooter on their hip when they go out with their hat and boots??

I grew up in an open carry state (Missouri.) I too rarely saw people carrying there in town, but it was not uncommon to see it in the country when folks were hunting. The other thing is Missouri allows cities to preempt open carry, so without looking at the ordinances, you can't tell if it is legal or not.

True, my post focused on licensed OC but I support unlicensed OC. I disagree that there would be a major surge of unlicensed folks "'trying it out". Gun carriers are a special breed. We all know it is a heavy responsibility. It isn't something that you take on lightly. Sure, you might have the occasional person but statistically speaking anyone who OCs is likely a CHL-holder now. Heck, when people CC for the first few times they are terribly paranoid about people knowing. Strapping on a sidearm and heading out to Wal-Mart just isn't something a non-gun carrier is very likely to do. Again, we have the unlicensed OC states to look to. Where are the problems in AZ? Where are the problems in VA? WA? They just aren't there. Most businesses get along just fine and never see an OCer. Even those that do encounter one once in a while usually don't care. It is a very, very small percentage who are fearful and want to banish them.

Keith B wrote:Here you are talking about those that are licensed. Like I stated above, there will be many folks who are not licensed that would immediately start open carrying because the could (assuming your full 2A rights restored.)

Now, is all of what I stated the actual future if open carry was established in Texas? We wouldn't know until it happens. However, I can guarantee you it is probably a pretty solid theory on how it would go down.

Again, I disagree that people who don't have a CHL (or other recognized license/permit) would all of a sudden strap on hog leg and head to the favorite retailer. How about this: we both work HARD for OC in Texas and place a small wager on what will happen. At our celebration of the 1 year anniversary of its passage, the beer is on me if I'm wrong, same for you.

I predict it will be like everywhere else (and OK is about to demonstrate for us): there will be news stories at first but very little actual OCing. From what little OCing there is you'll have the occasional man-with-a-gun call from someone who doesn't know the law has changed. That's it. Very, very few additional 30.06 signs. Most CHLers will continue to CC. It will be a big non-event. 10 years hence if you stop a random person on the street and ask them if they've seen an OCer they'll say "No! Isn't that illegal?"

SA-TX

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Starbucks is only one company; how can we view the action of one company as indicative of what others will do? It's more revealing to look at the many hundreds of companies that posted generic "no gun" signs from May, 1995 until Sept. 1, 1997. That was the period before TPC §30.06 was created along with the 30.06 "big, ugly sign." With passage of HB2909, the small generic "no gun" sign was no longer effective and businesses would have to post the "big, ugly sign" if they wanted to exclude armed CHL's. The combination of the big, ugly sign and the "out of sight, out of mind" phenomenon brought an end to posting by most businesses. The conduct of one business is not indicative of the whole, but the conduct of hundreds of businesses just might be. I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge the risk exists; many OC supporters don't.

Chas.

Like Conagher, I recognize that OC could lead to more 30.06 signs. I've thought about this quite a bit and I take the argument very seriously. As a CHL-holder that's the last thing that I want. Out-of-sight, out-of-mind is a powerful thing and even some legit 30.06 signs that went up have come down because business owners heard from CHLs who said "I'll go elsewhere with my money". We certainly need to keep that momentum going.

For me the key question is: what is the liklihood that OC would bring about a significant increase in 30.06 postings?

I travel quite a bit for business so I've had a chance to visit most states in the country. Some that I visit the most frequently are WA, NC, and NV. All 3 are OC states. In the last 3 years I have probably racked up 25 one-week trips to those states alone, so I have a pretty good sample size. With the exception of a gun shop employee on lunch break going next door to a convenience store to get a soda, I've never seen an open carrier.

So, would that be different in Texas? When CC opponents said "there will be problems!", we said "the evidance from other states says otherwise". I believe that CHLers proved themselves to be like other lawfully armed folks: very law abiding. When that fact set in and the media wasn't running gun stories due to the novelity of the new law, the controversy evaporated. I predict the same thing with OC. It will be a big non-event once the news cycle has moved on to something else. OK should serve as a valuable example. If they have big problems, I'll be the first one to offer a mea culpa. Since they went with licensed OC, I simply won't believe that those good certified folks will all of a sudden become irresponsible until I see the evidance.

Notice the number of folks in this pro-gun, pro-carry audience who say "I'll never OC!" You are talking about a small percentage of gun carriers, who are a small percentage of handgun owners, who are a subset of gun owners, who are a subset of the population as a whole. The amount of OCing that would occur would be very, very minimal and thus there just won't be many business owners being scared into posting 30.06 signs. Statistically speaking, it will be absolutely insignificant.

Why then undertake the effort of changing the law? Because I believe in restoring as much God-given freedom as possible in a day and age where government is growing and liberty is shrinking. Not just for gun carriers; I'm for business owner freedom too and have no problem with them asking an OCer to leave. For that matter, if a business owner who truly doesn't approve of guns and doesn't want them on his property but is ignorant of the 30.06 law finds out about it, whether by someone OCing or some other means, and posts, I'm not concerned by this.

SA-TX

mr surveyor wrote:I am a business owner, and have been for 27 years. No one sent me any kind of information to alert me that there was such a sign as a "30.06" that would effectively give notice to legal CHL's that their concealed handguns weren't welcome in my place of business. I have several other friends and acquaintances that also own businesses of various types, and not one of them knows the difference between a "gun-busters" sign and a 30.06. Since they never actually "see" a handgun in their place of business, they are oblivious to the CHLs that come and go on a daily basis. Once a few "Bareque" guns start showing up, and a few of their customers get that "not so fresh feeling", they WILL find out about proper signage that will no doubt include prohibiting concealed as well as open carry. THAT will limit my currently wonderful freedom to carry. No doubt about it. The only "remedy" would be to completely trample private (business owner's) property rights.... but we've beat this one to death, and it seems no one has changed their minds.


surv

Your hypothetical has some assumptions built in:

1) "Once a few [guns] start showing up ..." Open carry is rare even where legal. Your friends are not likely to ever see it even if Texas allowed OC tomorrow. Based on reports, I'd say that PA, VA, WA, NV, and AZ are probably the most active OC states. I've been to all of them (and all but VA in the last 12 months) and the only time I've seen someone OCing was when a gun store employee went to the neighboring convenience store to buy a soda. How often do merchants in downtown Seattle see an open carrier? Almost never. Most would probably tell you that OC is illegal in WA even though they would be wrong.

2) "... customers get that 'not so fresh feeling' ..." This is Texas and as a rule, folks aren't anti-gun and won't be prone to freak out at the sight of a sidearm. If I remember your location, you are in East Texas. While the I can imagine there might be some discomfort from tourists at Dealy Plaza in downtown Dallas if they saw an open carrier -- or maybe not; they probably expect it from us crazy Texans -- I doubt that would be the case for most folks in Athens or Texarkana. It has been my experience that the residents of smaller cities/towns away from the major metro areas tend to be easy going and many have grown up in rural environments. Both of those characteristics lend themselves to being tolerant of if not pro-gun.

Moreover, customers have to notice before they can become frightened. Open carriers report that they are actually somewhat surprised at how FEW people notice. Cell phones, iPods and a myriad of other distractions keep folks pretty pre-occupied such that they really aren't that aware of their surroundings.

3) " ... they WILL find out about proper signage ... " Perhaps. That means that they aren't strong 2A supporters themselves.

I'll agree with you that:

IF 1) open carry becomes so frequent that 2) the number of customers exposed to it means that the few who react negatively 3) complain enough to put a business owner in a tough spot and 4) that business owner values the business of the anti over the business of the OCer 5) then he might go to the trouble to post a 30.06 sign.

All things considered, I am personally convinced that we can have OC be legal and have very few new 30.06 signs. In fact, depending on how the law was changed, a 30.06 sign might not even be valid against OC. Regardless, the business owner can ALWAYS simply ask the person to leave and, by law, they must. No sign, no fuss, no muss. That seems like the best solution to me.

mr surveyor wrote:hhhmmmm.... are Six Flags and Government meetings "off limits" due to statute or due to 30.06 postings?

One of us needs to brush up on our knowledge of the Texas CHL laws in order to be more persuasive in our arguments.....maybe it's me


surv

eta: nope..it's not me.....I just checked, and the little item "i" is still in the code

Good point. You're are right about (i). That illustrates something I described in another post: general prohibitions with a million little exceptions. I don't think you have be a pie-in-the-sky idealist to point out that the section 46 of the Penal Code could be much simpler than it currently is. Instead of adding (i), why not remove (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c)?

That emphasizes my main point: I love Texas but our gun laws are not even close to the best in the country.

74novaman wrote:

SA-TX wrote: Charles, as you know I am not mad at TSRA and do not confuse not supporting something with opposing it. As for throwing CC under the bus, that certainly isn't my intention. I L-O-V-E what TSRA has accomplished in Texas. It was only a few short years ago that we had nothing and I haven't forgotten! I also support the goals that you have the upcoming session (campus, parking lot, and range protection). My position is that, in addition, I support open carry.

My only response is that we've achieved what we have by little steps, and must continue to work towards our goals step by step.

To that end, which is more important? That you can leave a gun in your car when you go to work? That you can attend or work for an institution of higher learning without forfeiting your right to self defense?

Or is it more important we get OC passed so we can show off our bar-b-que guns in places we can at least CC right now?

I far prefer increasing the amount of places we CAN carry and then quibble about HOW we carry.

Just my .02 on the subject.

I'm in not interested in showing off anything but I would like to know what a bar-b-que gun is .

I definitely want parking lot carry and campus carry. If I could only choose 1, I'd choose parking lot carry because I think it affects the most people. But why do we only have to choose two (parking lot and campus) or three (parking lot, schools, and range protection)? Isn't the Legislature capable of dealing with multiple 2A proposals in a given session? As I said originally, I'm a pragmatist. If I have to settle or take a 1/2 loaf or bargain down from what I really want I'm willing to do that at the appropriate time but before the discussion is even undertaken?

It should be noted that we don't have an infinite amount of time. Until the mid-90's when Texas became a Republican state, we had no carry at all and hadn't had for over 100 years. The Republicans nearly lost the Texas House during the last election. While I think they will pick up seats this time, it will still be fairly close. It requires a 2/3rd vote in the Texas Senate to advance any bill (assuming the blocker bill is in place). Governor Perry could also lose re-election and I doubt his opponant would be as pro-gun. The fact is there is very little margin for error. We have to move as much pro-2A legislation as we can while we've got a relatively friendly legislative and executive branch. Never let a session go to waste because it sometimes take a couple to get an idea over the hump. The later you start, the later you will finish, IF you finsh. Getting anything passed into law in this state is hard, and deliberately so. That means that repealing something is harder still. We've got to do all that we can to advance 2A freedom while the circumstances are favorable. I hope we can work together to do just that.

SA-TX

Skiprr wrote: Of all the 50 states' gun laws, you know where I'd like to live?

Texas.

Me too, but in spite of the gun laws . I've lived here for 35 years and my age begins with a 4. There's no place I'd rather be. That doesn't mean that we couldn't use some improvements.

Skiprr wrote: Carry under Government Code Subchapter H, Chapter 411 is consistent State-wide.

Consistent State-wide. This is very important.

Agreed. Many open carry states have pre-emption, just like Texas. According to http://www.handgunlaw.us, WA, OR, CA (yes, even CA has some pre-emption! That's how the recent vote in San Fran was overturned), ID, MT, NV, WY, UT, AZ, CO, NM, ND, SD, OK, MN, IA, LA, MI, KY, TN, AL, GA, OH, ME, NH, PA, VA, and NC all have pre-emption statues. I've tried to exclude those that have grandfather clauses of recent vintage. I would submit that these are evidance that state-wide consistency isn't incompatible with open carry.

Skiprr wrote: We are a shall-issue State, and our State statutes don't allow municipal governments--or individual PDs--to decide who should be allowed a CHL...or where they can carry.

Of the above states, all but AL and CA are shall-issue. AL is practically shall-issue. CA is closer to "no-issue" but there are some exceptions. Again, what about open carry prevents effective premption?

Additionally, even our consistency has some flaws. Can you carry anywhere in your local municipal building that has a court or court office in one part of it (think of a 4 or 5 story building with 1 city traffic court & offices on floor 4 and a city water department pay window on floor 1)? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on the city. Can police officers disarm you simply for "officer safety" or must they have reason to think that you are a danger to yourself or someone else? This seems to be very officer dependent.

Skiprr wrote: Research carefully the "open carry" states. Where, how, and what you can carry will vary significantly.

State to state, that's true. Within a given state, there are some that have different rules for open versus concealed carry but others have exactly the same rules -- either the place is off limits or it isn't. As for what you can carry, what other shall-issue state issues licenses that include handgun classes (SA vs. NSA)? How many ban professional sporting events? Polling places on election day? Horse race tracks? Six Flags? Govenment meetings? I'd make a small wager that most of the open carry states have fewer off-limits places than Texas.

Skiprr wrote: Not to mention that almost all non-LEOs still choose to carry concealed. And logically so.

The OC faction can hammer Texas all it likes. But the fact is, the State of Texas has one of the best concealed handgun licensing programs in the nation.

I agree that CC is more popular. I agree that it is logical. There are definitely tactical advantages. Even if OC were legal in TX tomorrow most CC's aren't going to switch. Even as a proponant, I wouldn't go from 100% CC to 100% OC but I can think of some occasions where OC would be convenient. Whatever our personal preferences, is the fact CC is more popular a good reason for OC to be illegal? What's wrong with having the freedom to choose?

I have to respectfully disagree about our CHL system and gun laws in general. I'm a Texas homer as much as the next guy and I defend her on almost all other grounds, but I believe our gun laws are needlessly restrictive, confusing, and expensive. Shall we go down the list and discuss the desirability of each? I only scratched the surface above. It will be a long discussion.

SA-TX