TexasCHLforum.com

G.A. Heath wrote:When I leave work I can drive twenty miles to cross the state line into New Mexico and into an open carry state. As a general rule they have on average no more or fewer "no guns signs" than we do (our 30.06 included). I want to think that some businesses would post signs to prohibit carry while many more will take the Starbuck's approach and simply ignore the issue. The few that do post signs will get all the media attention while those that don't will get our money. A good OC/CC (Constitutional Carry) bill would have language to the effect that sufficient notice is all that is required to prevent open/unlicensed carry leaving 30.06 alone where it applies to license holders only. A good OC/CC bill would need to go out of its way to ensure that its goals do not conflict or reduce our current rights and the bill that was proposed last session would not have done that.

Refresh my memory--when was New Mexico's lengthy, heated, well-publicized legislative battle over open carry? Oh, that's right, they never had one. New Mexico never had a statutory prohibition against open carry. They had legalized open carry long before they had legalized concealed carry; therefore, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Also, New Mexico does not have specific signage requirements--a business owner can use any sign, no matter how big or small, to prohibit carry on the premises. And until next month, restaurant carry is still illegal. Convenience store/grocery store carry was illegal until 2007. And they still don't allow carry in state parks or on public transportation. In the seven years I've been a CHL holder, we Texans have had a lot more freedom in where we can carry than have our neighbors in New Mexico, so I don't really envy New Mexico's freedom in how they can carry.

cbunt1 wrote:At the risk of beating a dead horse, or *GASP* making sense, for those who are adamant about openly carrying, would you be satisfied with making a revision to Texas' current CHL -- perhaps make it a "Carry a Handgun License" rather than a "Concealed Handgun License"?

Despite the fact that OpenCarry.org was pressing for unlicensed open carry, I'm pretty sure the bill Rep. Riddle intended to file in 2009 would have tied open carry to CHLs, as you suggest. Personally, I see two problems with that approach:

1. It doesn't address what seems to be the main argument proffered by OC proponents: "One shouldn't be required to pay a fee or obtain a license to exercise a Constitutionally protected right."

2. It not only fails to address but also exacerbates the main concern of concealed handgun license holders who either oppose open carry or are on the fence about it: "Allowing open carry is likely to have the net effect of reducing the number of places where licensees can carry, by leading to an increase in 30.06 postings."

Charles previously stated that the Texas Legislature is unlikely to create two separate signage requirements, one for concealed carry and one for open carry. Whether or not that's true I'm not experienced enough to say, but it seems pretty obvious to me that if open carry is tied to concealed handgun licenses, the legislature is much more likely to keep 30.06 as the sole signage requirement.

Proponents of open carry frequently argue that open carry is not very common in the states where it's allowed and, therefore, wouldn't--as opponents claim--upset patrons and cause business owners to post 30.06 signs. What that argument fails to consider is the fact that nobody actually has to see an openly carried handgun in order for business owners to become concerned about the safety and peace of mind of their patrons. A well-publicized legislative battle is more than enough to persuade business owners to post no-carry signs. If you don't believe me, look at Ohio or any of the other states where a heated, well-publicized legislative battle recently led to the passage of shall-issue concealed handgun licensing. Before the first licenses had even been issued, "gunbuster" signs started popping up everywhere.

Unless I'm mistaken, there was a similar reaction in Texas in 1996, when Texas's concealed handgun licensing program first went into effect. A few years later, the Texas Legislature passed the the 30.06 signage requirements, and by that time, the hubbub over concealed carry had subsided to the point that few business owners took notice. But now that the 30.06 law is on the books, you can bet that if the legislature were to pass a controversial, highly-publicized bill legalizing open carry and tying it to the 30.06 sign, every newspaper in Texas would run articles on how the law will affect local businesses, complete with quotes from concerned small business owners and including specifications for posting a legal 30.06 sign.

So, while some licensees want the legal protection that legalized open carry would theoretically offer them, it seems to me that tying Open Carry to concealed handgun licenses fails to satisfy the majority on either side of the debate.

Conagher wrote:I am not sure how to even ask about SCCC since they are not a “Texas-based” organization; but if you think something there is applicable, maybe like how TSRA member feedback was solicited to ensure the majority of members supported this, then possibly this is something we can mimic also.

While I question the point of focusing on SCCC's state of incorporation, I feel obligated to correct Conagher's statement that SCCC is not "Texas-based."

SCCC was started by a student at the University of North Texas. The assumed name "Students for Concealed Carry on Campus" was first registered in Hays County, Texas. SCCC was later registered as a Texas-based LLC. Therefore, it should be noted that SCCC, though a national organization, is technically Texas-based.

More relevant to the topic at hand is the fact that SCCC's efforts in Texas are organized and led by SCCC's Texas leaders. SCCC has a Texas director and, at a number of Texas colleges, campus leaders and organized chapters. The Texas director makes sure that all the campus leaders operate from the same playbook, and the campus leaders make sure that all of their chapter members operate from the same playbook. That way, SCCC operates as a cohesive unit, rather than as a large group of loosely affiliated individuals each approaching the issue (sometimes counter-productively) as he or she sees fit.

It was November 2007 when SCCC first approached the TSRA about the issue of campus carry. Mike Guzman, then SCCC's campus leader at Texas State University, learned from Mike Cox, a Texas CHL instructor and the NRA's election volunteer coordinator in Driftwood, TX, that TSRA Legislative Director Alice Tripp would be hosting a brunch in Driftwood, for Texas State Representative Patrick Rose. Guzman and I attended the event and presented both Mrs. Tripp and Rep. Rose with information packets about SCCC and the issue of campus carry. Mrs. Tripp informed us that TSRA was already looking into the issue of decriminalizing concealed carry on the premises of Texas colleges and suggested that sometime after the holidays we should get together with her and Tara Mica, the NRA's Texas lobbyist, so that they could provide us with insights into the Texas legislative process and advice on lobbying the issue. She also informed us at that time that the Texas Legislature had already scheduled an interim session study into the issue of campus carry and that a question about campus carry had already been prepared for the TSRA's 2008 candidate survey.

chabouk wrote:

Douva wrote:

chabouk wrote:I've followed the issue from both sides, and in both major forums that discuss the matter. I don't think anyone equated TSRA choosing not to get involved as "opposition". I think the "opposition" sentiment comes mostly from the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus effort to disavow OC and throw any such bills under the bus, to gain traction for their own.

Before the 2009 Texas Legislature convened in Austin, SCCC's leaders asked the leaders of OpenCarry.org (the Virginia-based organization that spearheaded the 2009 fight for open carry in Texas) to help make it clear to the media that OpenCarry.org was pushing to legalize open carry in the places where concealed carry was already allowed and that there was no effort being made by either OpenCarry.org or SCCC to push for open carry on college campuses. The OpenCarry.org supporters initially agreed but, upon announcing this agreement on the OpenCarry.org message board, caught so much flack from their members that they backpedaled and adopted a position that can best be summed up as "You do your thing, and let us do our thing, and don't ask us to limit our thing to help your thing."

I really appreciate your insight, given your position at the time.

However, can we clarify one thing? OpenCarry.org is not an organization. There is no membership, system of dues, charter, bylaws, board, or office (either elected or appointed). OCDO doesn't "have" a message board, it is a message board, and nothing more. It is an online community of individuals, each of whom acts alone.

As an "organization", OpenCarry.org consists of exactly two people: Mike Stollenwerk and John Pierce.

At that time, I was no longer on the SCCC board of directors, but I was still acting as an adviser to the group. In earlier discussions about how OpenCarry.org's scorched earth tactics might adversely affect SCCC's efforts...

Can you clarify what it was that constituted a scorched earth tactic, and who it was that applied such tactics? Remember, OpenCarry.org isn't an organization, so you have to talk about a specific person.

Though lacking a formal organizational structure, OpenCarry.org does organize rallies, circulate petitions, draft and push legislation, etc. Therefore, I don't think it's a stretch to refer to it as an organization. At the time of Mike Guzman's statement to the reporter, many OpenCarry.org members (or supporters or whatever you want to call them) were using a "support us or start packing your desk" approach with Texas legislators, including many long-time gun rights supporters. Some of those long-time gun rights supporters were spearheading the push for campus carry, and some were still on the fence about campus carry. SCCC didn't appreciate seeing another gun rights group threaten the legislators who were in the process of authoring the campus carry bill. We also didn't appreciate that legislators who were still on the fence about campus carry were getting borderline-belligerent phone calls and emails from open carry supporters, as we felt that those phone calls and emails might create a backlash against any and all gun rights legislation in the 2009 session. Not helping matters was the fact that some open carry proponents were also voicing their support for campus carry in those belligerent phone calls and emails, potentially creating the impression that SCCC had adopted similar tactics.

Whereas SCCC was leading a campaign focused on educating legislators, OpenCarry.org members were trying to use their 50,000-signature petition as a club to beat legislators into submission. OpenCarry.org members were also encouraging people to withhold financial support from the TSRA unless the TSRA, which sets its legislative agenda two years in advance, agreed to support open carry, an issue nobody had even discussed until four months before the start of the session.

Perhaps the problem is that the open carry movement doesn't have a legitimate organization behind it. If it did, the organization might be able to provide members with a little guidance and prevent the type of lobbying free-for-all we saw in 2009.

chabouk wrote:I've followed the issue from both sides, and in both major forums that discuss the matter. I don't think anyone equated TSRA choosing not to get involved as "opposition". I think the "opposition" sentiment comes mostly from the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus effort to disavow OC and throw any such bills under the bus, to gain traction for their own.

Before the 2009 Texas Legislature convened in Austin, SCCC's leaders asked the leaders of OpenCarry.org (the Virginia-based organization that spearheaded the 2009 fight for open carry in Texas) to help make it clear to the media that OpenCarry.org was pushing to legalize open carry in the places where concealed carry was already allowed and that there was no effort being made by either OpenCarry.org or SCCC to push for open carry on college campuses. The OpenCarry.org supporters initially agreed but, upon announcing this agreement on the OpenCarry.org message board, caught so much flack from their members that they backpedaled and adopted a position that can best be summed up as "You do your thing, and let us do our thing, and don't ask us to limit our thing to help your thing."

After countless incidents of the media confusing the two issues and reporting on them as if open carry and campus carry were part of the same fight, and after the publication of editorials suggesting that the passage of both bills would lead to openly carried firearms on college campuses, and after numerous reports that OpenCarry.org members were making political threats against campus carry's supporters in the legislature who were reluctant to support open carry, SCCC President Mike Guzman (Mike has since retired, and SCCC has since abolished the position of president), made a poor public relations move. In response to a reporter's question about how an open carry bill might affect the campus carry bill, Mike, exasperated at having OpenCarry.org's efforts attached like a lead weight to his own organization's efforts, responded by stating what most of SCCC's Texas leaders were feeling but, until that point, had been smart enough not to say: He said that the concealed carry on campus movement would be better off if the open carry bill died in committee.

At that time, I was no longer on the SCCC board of directors, but I was still acting as an adviser to the group. In earlier discussions about how OpenCarry.org's scorched earth tactics might adversely affect SCCC's efforts, I'd advised Mike to avoid saying anything that might alienate open carry supporters. But after Mike's comments were published, leading to some dissent and consternation on SCCC's own message boards, I felt that the best course of action was to explain that Mike's comments were meant as a condemnation of OpenCarry.org's tactics, not a condemnation of open carry.

My message board response ticked off a few SCCC board members who wanted sweep the whole mess under the rug by portraying it as a case of a biased journalist misquoting Mike in an attempt to create tension between gun rights groups. But even though my response might have alienated a few people who'd chosen to support both SCCC and OpenCarry.org, it accurately summed up the feeling among SCCC's Texas leaders.

In short, Mike's comments were unfortunate but not inaccurate. Had OpenCarry.org agreed, from the beginning, to help SCCC avoid media confusion over the two issues, and had OpenCarry.org adopted lobbying tactics that didn't reflect negatively on the gun rights community as a whole, it's likely that no conflict between the two organizations would have materialized.

The whole unfortunate incident should serve as a lesson to everyone involved in the fight for gun rights.