If you want to compare the actual history of the events regarding CHL in Texas, then let's do that. When CHL was passed there was a mass posting of signs. Originally, gunbuster signs were valid in Texas, and there WAS a huge movement by business associations and chambers of commerce to do this. It got to the point that in a later session the legislature had to pass the 30.06 sign requirement to limit the damage - making the sign large and specific enough that a company posting had to know exactly what they were doing to commit to posting, rather than simply posting some generic gunbusters sign because they were told to by someone else.Locksmith wrote:I read some, but I must admit I read less than 1/2 of the posts in this thread. I saw a couple of people who were worried that open carry would cause many more businesses to post 30-06 signs. This could be compared right along side of the earlier people against concealed carry who said there would be blood in the streets... "Maybe everyone will post signs!" Maybe they won't. Otherwise I respond with the following: Those places will likely become targets of bad guys. After several bad guys prove this for us, we can make commercials letting the public (and at the same time business owners) know that bad guys go around looking for these signs because they know there is little chance of themselves being harmed. Once the general public has been made aware of this, many business owners will likely change their mind about keeping that sign there because they don't want to lose business! Scare tactics can be used in many different ways, sometimes against us sometimes to benefit us. Another thing that could be done would be for a non gun owner to send a letter to a place of business who has posted a sign, and say: "Well I was going to frequent your business today, but then I saw that sign in your window that welcomes bad guys... Sorry but I wont come back to your business unless I see that you have removed that Bad-Guy-Welcome-Sign". Just some things to think about.
In light of those events, I think the concern is considerably more valid than you give it credit for. As has been discussed here before, the legislature is not going to go for a 2-sign requirement (one for CHL and one for open carry), so you're going to end up with single sign that bans both open carry and CHL. Given the visible nature of open carry, I think you would see a jump in postings in reaction to seeing people openly carrying. The reason this doesn't happen much with CHL is because the very nature of a concealed handgun makes it invisible to the public eye - out of sight, out of mind.
As for your latter proposal, I honestly think that would never work. Carry is too small of an issue for this to effectively come to light in the public eye like you describe. The public is not going to give the specific, prolonged, and informed thought required to make a reasoned observation and correlation of circumstances that you describe. For most people guns are guns. What they see in the news and in the media in general is that guns are used to rob, assault, and kill people. The obvious answer in the public eye is to ban guns in whatever places they think the guns are doing harm. It is counter-intuitive, yes. But that's how it is, and that's how it has played out for decades now. We all know that criminals do not obey the laws regarding guns, but the public as a whole is of the mindset that making laws is how you prevent crime. In reality, enforcing laws against specific acts mitigates the extent to which specific criminals can continue their criminal acts (and act as somewhat of a deterrent for those considering committing crimes), but laws do not prevent crimes. Society's willingness to tolerate crime and its willingness to effectively punish those who break the law plays a much bigger role in crime reduction.
Now, I have stated this before, but I see part of the problem with trying to make open carry legal right now is that there is a public perception that someone who carries a gun is likely to commit a crime with that gun. It is an emotional knee-jerk reaction without any specific thought-out reasoning to it, very much grounded in "what if" scenarios. The law does not help with this, because we are deemed not to be trustworthy to maintain proper conduct in certain areas - schools, meetings of government entities, 51% establishments, professional sporting events, etc. As long as the law reinforces the belief that a CHL holder is likely to "lose it" within the imaginary mental boundaries of these specific areas, I believe the climate for passing open carry legislation will not be good. Removing the official prejudice in the law against those of us who carry right now would make it easier to change public perception about people who carry firearms for self-defense in general. It is not going to happen overnight, and incremental steps towards more sane laws is the only way I see positive change coming about.
So, for those that believe the TSRA is wasting its energies on parking lot carry and campus carry bills rather than OC legislation, I sincerely disagree. These kinds of specific changes are part of a greater strategy to make carry in general more accepted. I can see this already with the Motorist Protection Act, in my interactions with folks who are relatively new to the idea of going about armed. Reducing the places in the law where we are not trusted to carry goes a long way in making carry in general a more accepted and normal practice, paving the way to a social and political climate where Open Carry is a realistic possibility.