TexasCHLforum.com

Douva wrote:

SA-TX wrote: Charles thank you for your reply. i apologize in advance for not breaking up my reply based on your post. My Internet phone makes this very painful. I hope you will indulge me as I'm on the road.

If constitutional rights were only honored when it was convenient or politically popular we'd surly live in a different society.

As for equal protection, doesn't the Texas Legislature pass several bills every session that differiante their effect based on county population? My very cursory review of sections of Texas law that are of interst me find many example of this.

Why isn't freedom woth fighting for? Why isn't the liberty to exercise our own judgement independent of government dictate not a desirable thing?

What is TSRA's view of what the 2nd Amendment means? What is the core of the pre-existing right simply protected from infringment? And what do you plan to do if the USSC applies the 2nd to the states at the end of this month?

The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled that open carry is a Constitutionally protected right. The Supreme Court HAS ruled that some restrictions (short of an outright ban on possession) CAN be placed on the right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, if you want to win this fight by utilizing a Constitutional argument, you’re going to have to do so in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The truth is that most gun rights advocates are pretty selective about when they choose to break out the “shall not be infringed” argument. If I start arguing that thirteen-year-old kids should be allowed to carry guns to school (assuming it’s okay with their parents), not many of you are going to send out letters supporting that position or break out the “COME AND TAKE IT” flags and march on the state Capitol with me, even though that would be a literal interpretation of “shall not be infringed.” SA-TX, even you have suggested compromising on what you claim to be a Constitutionally guaranteed right: You’ve suggested pushing for either licensed open carry or open carry only in rural areas. Though you’re trying to portray Charles and the TSRA as refusing to stand up for freedom and the U.S. Constitution, you’re really just upset at them for adopting a “let’s take what we can get” position than differs from your own “let’s take what we can get” position.

The reason I’m having trouble getting behind the open carry movement is that it seems to be much less about ensuring citizens the right to defend themselves than about shouting at our opponents, “We’re here, we’re armed, get used to it!” It’s less an offshoot of the gun rights movement than of the political and philosophical backlash against America’s disintegration into a nanny state. It’s a way for people who feel oppressed by a system that is occasionally oppressive to stand up and shout, “Don’t tread on me!” That’s all well and good, until it starts undermining our ability to defend life and liberty. At that point, I start looking at you the way you’d look at me if I actually advocated allowing thirteen-year-olds to carry guns to school.

I'm not trying to cause trouble. I just want for Texans what forty odd some other states do not infringe upon: people to exercise their rights as they see fit.

I'm not a protest guy or someone who wants to show off. I don't have the time or incliniantion for such things. I just want Texas government to to respect our rights and focus their regulatory energies where they are needed.

SA-TX

Perhaps, SA-TX, you're in the other category of open carry proponents: the ones who are so incensed that citizens of other states enjoy an obscure, little-utilized gun right not available to Texans that they're blinded (to the unintended consequences of their efforts) by indignation.

You make good points. I'm on my phone again so I'll address them as I can.

True the USSC hasn't spoken to the "bear" part of the 2A yet. Heller addressed the "keep" part as you said.

However, the opinion did discuss the bear part as the opinion went through the history, decided that no militia service is necessary, and said that the ruling would not result in a wholesale overthrow of other federal regulations rregarding firearms because certain things were presumed, without the Court deciding them now, to be reasonable. It mentions carry in sensitive locations, regulating the commercial sale of arms, etc.

For exact quotes from Heller and the McDonald oral argument, see my post in this thread http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... 5&start=15.

As for my indignation blinding me to the consequences of what I advocate, I will say that I'm comfortable with my position. As a CHLer myself I do NOT want to see more 30.06 signs. The difference arises in that I do not believe that would be the result of legal OC and others do.

Doesn't the fact that 40-some other states either permit it or require via their constitution that folk be able to exercise their rights in this way suggest that Texas is out of step? I'm not quoting Patrick Henry and saying "give me liberty or give me death" or Barrry Goldwater in that "extremeism in defense of liberty is no vice". I recognize and admit that I'm taking an incremental one step at a time approach. I've never suggested otherwise. It is exactly this pragmatism towards the subject that makes me disinclined to believe that I'm blinded. I can't both a blinded zealot and a sell out at the same time can I? :)

SA-TX

As mentioned qbove, doing this by phone is painful. That being the case, I'll simply say this: I don't understand how the only real gun lobby in Texas - who counts me as a life member - can say that we need to waitt for some undetermined number of legislative sessions to enjoy the freedom and libery from governmental interference with our core constitutional rights. Texas is usually pretty "hands off" because we don't favor the nayy state approach. In this case, however, we are way behind the rest of the country. This is about choice & you making decisions vs. government making decisions. I trust you, the CHLer. I trust you, the average Texan. Just as the antis were wong that we couldn't be trusted with CC so I say that the sky won't fall and all businesses won't be posted if we have the right to decide our atire for ourselves while exercising our constitutional rights.

The Legislature isn't in session yet. the members that will serve haven't even been elected yet. We will have a watershed USSC decision by the the end of the month. Can't we decide a bit later if OC is simply too much to tackle this session?

Again, I apologize in advance for the formatting of this post.

SA-tX

Mandingo wrote:

jester wrote:

Mandingo wrote:The open carry idea is very odd to me. I am pro-gun- ownership, licensed concealed carry, purchase, carry in your car...thats all fine. However, I am a small buisness owner and I dont want some yahoo in my office with a gun on his hip.

It sounds like you should support open carry unless you have X-ray vision.

Well, licensed is the word there. Even though I think the class is a bit silly, at least someone has ~~300 bucks, some time invested, and a background check. That tells me the person is willing to jump through a hoop or two to legally carry a gun. If I understand it correctly, the open carry idea would allow anyone over a certain age to carry a gun exposed. To me at least, there is a big difference.

With the gun exposed your dragging the elephant into the room with you. In the world of concealed carry no one can see it.

-Manny

This is exactly the right response. If you don''t want someone's patronage, you are free to ask them to leave and Penal Code 30.05 gives this the force of law. Whether they are drunk, panhandling, beligerent, no shirt, no shoes you are perfectly within your right as a business owner to show someone the door. I continue to believe this is why this is why no signage need change as a result of legal OC. Unlike CC you know when someone is violating your wishes.

SA-TX

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

SA-TX wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jack010203 wrote:So let me get this straight. One of the arguments against OC is that ant-gun businesses will learn how to legally prohibit open carriers as well as CHLers. That seems like a good thing, now I would no longer have to wonder if my purchases were supporting someone with political views I do not support.

The problem with this argument is that you are willing to sacrifice my ability to carry and protect myself and family in stores I choose to trade with, or am forced to trade with, simply to enlighten you on the store owners' political positions. I'm not willing to let you make that decision for me and my family.

Chas.

This is not ipso facto: legalized OC does not necessarily have to lead to more 30.06 postings. I know the history in Texas from 1995 to 1997. I was here. CHL was new, it was a media sensation, and some businesses put up signs blocking CHL carry. TSRA did a great thing by passing 30.06. Even then, some 30.06 signs were posted. Since then, may have come down. People adjust. Blood didn't run in the streets.

It wasn't just "some" stores posting generic no-gun signs, it was an epidemic! They were everywhere in the major cities. When HB2909 passed and TPC §30.06 came into existence, very few signs went up because they were "big ugly signs." We have just about as many compliant signs now as we did in 1997. We have just about as many non-compliant signs that meet some but not all of the criteria of TPC §30.06.

When you say people adjusted to concealed carry, that is somewhat misleading. Yes, over the years since 1995, people have come to realize that concealed carry didn't result in the parade of horribles that our opponents claimed, but it was the lack of criminal activity that changed their minds, not seeing CHL's wearing guns.

SA-TX wrote:I continue to maintain that Texas would not see a rash of new 30.06 postings if OC were legal because very few Texas gun carriers will OC. Thus, no visibility; no problem.

If you are correct and no one is going to carry OC, then why on earth should anyone burn up political capitol to pass emotionally charged legislation that benefits virtually no one? You are also making a very strong argument for TSRA not to become involved.

SA-TX wrote:Can we try this out small-scale and determine once and for all? Start with rural OC. Counties of less than pick-a-number? 200,000? That would open up much of Texas yet exempt the urban areas that folks are worried about. Start there and see what happens. Any takers?

SA-TX

We'd have to fight this because it would result in unequal protection of the law. As a practical matter, it wouldn't achieve the result you seek. In many of the states touted as having legalized OC, it is more common in rural areas but unheard of in urban areas. So OC doesn't seem to spread from rural to urban areas.

Chas.

Charles thank you for your reply. i apologize in advance for not breaking up my reply based on your post. My Internet phone makes this very painful. I hope you will indulge me as I'm on the road.

If constitutional rights were only honored when it was convenient or politically popular we'd surly live in a different society.

As for equal protection, doesn't the Texas Legislature pass several bills every session that differiante their effect based on county population? My very cursory review of sections of Texas law that are of interst me find many example of this.

Why isn't freedom woth fighting for? Why isn't the liberty to exercise our own judgement independent of government dictate not a desirable thing?

What is TSRA's view of what the 2nd Amendment means? What is the core of the pre-existing right simply protected from infringment? And what do you plan to do if the USSC applies the 2nd to the states at the end of this month?

I'm not trying to cause trouble. I just want for Texans what forty odd some other states do not infringe upon: people to exercise their rights as they see fit.

I'm not a protest guy or someone who wants to show off. I don't have the time or incliniantion for such things. I just want Texas government to to respect our rights and focus their regulatory energies where they are needed.

SA-TX

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jack010203 wrote:So let me get this straight. One of the arguments against OC is that ant-gun businesses will learn how to legally prohibit open carriers as well as CHLers. That seems like a good thing, now I would no longer have to wonder if my purchases were supporting someone with political views I do not support.

The problem with this argument is that you are willing to sacrifice my ability to carry and protect myself and family in stores I choose to trade with, or am forced to trade with, simply to enlighten you on the store owners' political positions. I'm not willing to let you make that decision for me and my family.

Chas.

This is not ipso facto: legalized OC does not necessarily have to lead to more 30.06 postings. I know the history in Texas from 1995 to 1997. I was here. CHL was new, it was a media sensation, and some businesses put up signs blocking CHL carry. TSRA did a great thing by passing 30.06. Even then, some 30.06 signs were posted. Since then, may have come down. People adjust. Blood didn't run in the streets.

I continue to maintain that Texas would not see a rash of new 30.06 postings if OC were legal because very few Texas gun carriers will OC. Thus, no visibility; no problem. This forum is full of TX CHL-holding gun carriers. Perhaps there is better collection somewhere else but I'm not aware of it. Thus, I think this group would be fairly representative of CHLers as a whole. My reading of the posts here is that perhaps 5% responded that they might or would OC sometimes, usually depending on the circumstances. I can't recall anyone including the most ardent proponants of OC saying that they would OC most or all of the time. If they did actually OC even 10% of the times that they carry, which I doubt, wouldn't this be 1/2 of 1% of all gun carry would be OC (5% of CHLers might OC and if each did so 10% of the time thats .005%).

I think gun carry in Texas happens just about the same way it does elsewhere. Have there been controversies when other state's laws changed from no issue to shall-issue? Yes. Iowa is going through it now. Certainly the OK bill going from shall-issue CC to shall-issue CC/OC got much press. The same is true in Tennessee where restaurant carry is tied up in courts and the media went crazy with "guns in bars". Same with New Mexico. Notice how silly all that coverage looks since we in Texas know that carrying in a restaurant that happens to serve alcohol is a big non-issue. No problem. No worry. No second thoughts. Press coverage is fleeting and so is the trouble that it stirs up.

CHLers acted just like gun carrier in other states: law-abiding. Cops weren't put in danger or killed, traffic altercations didn't turn into shoot outs, etc. Therefore I beleive that OC would happen in Texas just like it does elsewhere. It would be legal but rare. Most merchants will never know that it IS legal because they will never see an OCer. In fact, the reason why OC controversies do make the news elsewhere is because of the rarity.

Can we try this out small-scale and determine once and for all? Start with rural OC. Counties of less than pick-a-number? 200,000? That would open up much of Texas yet exempt the urban areas that folks are worried about. Start there and see what happens. Any takers?

SA-TX