TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote:A handgun that is open carried is not a head turner nor high profile. The number of times I have open carried have never been high profile. No one even noticed. No one cared.

I doubt nobody noticed (especially if you were in public-public like a grocery store or downtown while OCing), but if nobody cared, then that's great, and it goes to my point; whether it turns heads or not, if nobody objects to it then there's no problem.

If the DPS don't care in Alpine, fine, but you bet the rent that the Metroplex, Houston, Austin, San Antonio and El Paso PDs are going to do more than bat an eyelash. I find it very hard to believe that League City would not care about OC up towards Clear Lake or down by the docks. The public in the big cities must accept it just like the country boys in order for OC to have the necessary public support, and that change will be slow in coming when city PDs have to deal with places like Oak Cliff or East Austin and people nearby hear about shootings every day on the evening news. You and I both know that guns in lawful owners' hands would reduce crime in those areas, but how are you gonna tell 3 million Dallasites that the solution to the problems in Oak Cliff is to put MORE guns in Oak Cliff?

If OC were "quietly" legalized it'd mean the Brady bunch have moved out of Texas. I'd cheer that day, but it ain't gonna happen. They condemn Texas gun laws every day, and you bet they keep an eye on legislative proceedings. They screamed bloody murder over permitless CC in vehicles and the Castle Doctrine, which passed because nobody listened to them. This is a very good thing; public opinion in Texas does not side with the Bradys. But I think the public, especially the big-city public, would not be so apathetic to open carry. I would be very happy to be proven wrong, however.

mgood wrote:Open carry may eventually be legal, if we keep moving in the direction we're going. But it may take many years. As people become more comfortable with the idea that people around them are armed, and concealed carry becomes more and more common, and more people become comfortable with it, we gradually move toward a society where everyone knows many are armed and no one really thinks about it. THEN it will gradually become irrelevant whether or not the weapons are concealed. And we can have serious consideration of legalizing open carry of handguns.

Long guns are legal to open carry. Hardly anyone does. I don't hear stories of gang-bangers strolling around with shotguns and rifles. They probably prefer to have their weapons concealed in most cases for a number of reasons.

Mostly because it is not difficult to make the argument that someone walking down the street with a shotgun or rifle is bransishing, because they are openly displaying the weapon with the intent to intimidate. It's also legal to OC a rifle because it's nigh on impossible to conceal a legal rifle on your person so making OC illegal would make it impossible for you to legally move it between store, car and home.

People like a low profile; that's the major remaining reason we can't OC handguns and the primary reason we don't OC rifles. You gotta admit an OCed handgun is high-profile. It's different from other head-turners like a rare car or barely-there dress because of the fact that it is a gun. The less that makes a difference in the public eye, the more accepting the public will be even if it still turns heads.

txinvestigator wrote:So violating a law is not wrong? Violating a law is not immoral?

The things I learn on this forum.

Legal and moral are two different things. There are moral arguments on both the consequentialist side (an act is wrong because it produces an undesireable result for society as a whole) and the categorical side (an act is wrong because it produces a logical contradiction if the act were universally accepted as right) that support the idea that to act illegally is immoral, but arguments can be made in both systems of moral thought that NOT following a law is morally acceptible if following the law is morally prohibited.

The Kantian (categorical) argument would be based on the Golden Rule: The theory of law is that laws are established because they benefit people or entities who would otherwise be at an unfair disadvantage, and limit those who would otherwise have an unfair advantage. If you were to break a law it would put the person protected by the law at an undesireable disadvantage. If such actions were universalized (it's OK for everyone to break laws) you would inevitably be placed at a disadvantage which you yourself would not wish to be in because someone else had broken a law. It is it creates a logical contradiction to desire to perform an action whose results if performed relative to you would be undesireable (the Golden Rule); that's the basis of the Categorical Imperative. Therefore obeying the law is always right in a Kantian world view.

This would seem to put Kantian theory in conflict with itself in certain cases; however consider this argument's fundamental tenet; that the law is created to benefit those at a disadvantage. A law which puts people at an unfair advantage or disadvantage to other people does not fit the theory. That puts the law in question in conflict with the fundamental tenet of the argument concerning law in general, and thus the argument is inapplicable and a new argument is required that considers a situation in which a law does not conform to the theory of law. In that situation you would find the opposite applies; you would not want a law to be followed by others if it put you in an unfairly disadvantageous situation. Thus you should not follow a law that puts others at a disadvantage. Similarly, you would not want a law followed which put someone else unfairly ahead of you; thus you should not follow a law that puts you unfairly ahead of others.

From a consequentialist standpoint, an act is always judged in hindsight by its actual consequences, and decided upon before performing it by its forseeable consequences. It is important that such consequences should take all parties into account, otherwise it's simply nihilism. You are faced with the choice of obeying the law or breaking it. If the forseeable consequences of obeying the law are worse than the consequences of breaking the law, or alternately if the consequence of breaking the law is better than obeying it, then breaking the law is morally permissible.

For instance; the Nazis made being a Jew a crime, thus by hiding a Jew in Nazi-controlled territory you were aiding and abetting a criminal and thus a criminal yourself. However, to obey the law and not shelter a Jew meant thhat that Jew would inevitably be murdered. It is morally required by consequentialist thought to act to prevent murder if there is a chance of preventing it, because the consequence to society of a living innocent person is preferable to that of a dead innocent person. Therefore, it is actually morally required by consequentialism to break such a law forbidding the hiding of Jews, because the only alternative results in an (in)action whose consequences make it morally prohibited by the same system.

aardwolf wrote:

Liko81 wrote:Except that "man with a gun" is a big deal

I didn't know it was a big deal. I see a few every day in Texas. Maybe I should start calling them in.

Clarification: someone calling 911 to report a man with a gun is considered a big deal. It carries the implication of someone holding the firearm in their hand, in public, waving it around and/or shooting it. That's unlawful no matter what carry provisions are in effect, and the last thing any police department wants is a Columbine or Omaha in their precinct, so they're going to take it seriously (they may not send the whole precinct, but they'll definitely spare a couple unis).

Luckily we're in Texas, not California. If that happened, and you were detained, cuffed, and questioned before it was determined you did nothing wrong, you could do precisely nothing about it. You couldn't take any legal action against the store, the person who called 911, or the police. Any party to a 911 call made in good faith is untouchable in civil court in California. Now, in Texas, there is no such immunity; if someone sees you printing and calls 911 to report a suspicious person or MWAG, and you're found to be doing nothing wrong, you can go to town... or try. Texas courts still use "good faith" doctrine; if you as the plaintiff cannot prove the person had intent to harm you by calling 911, a court will likely find for the defendant.

aardwolf wrote:I'm not sure if I understand the argument. If it's legal, why would a LEO have to respond?

Suppose you're strolling around Wal-Mart openly carrying a Koran. If someone calls the cops, do they respond?

Suppose you're strolling around Wal-Mart openly wearing a crucifix. If someone calls the cops, do they respond?

Suppose you're strolling around Wal-Mart wearing a blue shirt. If someone calls the cops, do they respond?

Suppose you drive 52 in a 55 zone. If someone calls the cops, do they respond?

If the LEO is "not going to be happy about having to respond" the LEO should be mad at the crank who called it in.

Except that "man with a gun" is a big deal, until they find out it's just someone OCing. "Man with a gun" without any other information, by prudence, requires all emergency personnel to deal with it like an impending mall massacre. 911 dispatchers will have to be trained to answer questions like "ok, has he pulled it out or used it in a threatening manner towards anyone?" "Has he fired shots?". They should be trying to get this kind of information already, but currently a MWAG report means a crime has been committed, either failure to conceal, unlawful carry, or more malicious crimes like brandishing, aggravated assault, or criminal homicide, so their responding will end in some punitive action or other.

This is in contrast to someone reading a book or wearing a religious symbol around their neck. You call 911 for that and the dispatcher is either going to drop you, or they'll get your current location so they can send an officer to issue a summons for a prank emergency call.

Just playing devil's advocate here; by no means am I saying we shouldn't have the option of open carry. However I do not think it will be a viable option unless the state comprehensively re-thinks a lot of aspects of law and law enforcement/first responder policy. Just a few of the things that would have to change:

* Unlawful carry statutes (Section 46) would omit references to "handgun", or change those references to "illegal handgun" and add a definition that made the overwhelming majority of handguns legal (for instance, Virginia actually prohibits open carry of a "firearm", but they changed the definition of "firearm" for that statute to require a carrying capacity over 20 rounds or a length over 20 inches, so virtually all factory handguns and handgun mags are legal).
* All law enforcement personnel including dispatchers would have to be briefed on the change and its implications. There have been cases in Virginia where police arrested and held people who carried openly when no crime had been committed. Likewise, the public must be informed that OCing is lawful, and no permit is required, thus hopefully heading off most MWAG calls.
* The idea behind Section 30.06 would have to be rethought, as there is currently no way, if OC became legal, for businesses to ban it. 30.06 could be changed to apply to OC with or without a license, or a seperate statute could allow a sign prohibiting OC and/or a combination sign.
* TABC regs would have to be considered. "Unlicensed posssession" signs in businesses with a liquor license would leave a LOT of places still off-limits (you couldn't even carry into your grocery store if it has a wine aisle, nor could you carry into any convenience store). There is of course no "license" to carry openly if we're considering "unlicensed open carry" .
* CHL would likewise have to be rethought related to the above. Does a CHL count as a "license" for OC as well, thus allowing CHLs to ignore the same signs when OCing that they can when CCing (if they remain in effect)? If you're going to have the permit, there must be an advantage beyond the additional option of concealing or people will just OC and forego the headache of getting and keeping the CHL. On the minus side, it creates a class system of "haves" and "have nots", and might "encourage" police to stop OCers and ask for permits in areas that are off-limits to non-CHL carriers.
* There will still be places where either CC or OC or both will be illegal. Someone carrying lawfully up to that point will be forced to leave their firearm in their vehicle if they wish to enter that place. That must always be a legal option, regardless of who owns the parking lot and what policies they have concerning firearms. This is a VERY touchy subject; businesses and landowners claim the parking lot as their private property, while gun owners state that banning guns from parking lots is a de facto ban on carrying during any trip that includes that parking lot and thus a sweeping infringement of rights that carries far beyond the boundaries the landowner actually controls. On top of that, most businesses deny responsibility for theft or damage occurring in their parking lots, and gun owners say businesses can't have it both ways; either the business has BOTH control AND responsibility, or it has neither.

I've been burned on both sides of the fence on this one. And if you stay on the fence you have to dodge the bullets coming both ways.

On the plus side, open carry without permit is the RKBA at its finest; it would be government recognizing that "shall not be infringed" are not just four pretty words but something that applies everywhere in the country and cannot be overruled at a lower level. States that allow permitless open carry do not have any more or less trouble with people carrying guns and not knowing how to use them than states that allow OC by permit or ban it.

On the minus side, Johnny Gangbanger in Vickery Meadow or Oak Cliff can wear a gun on the street and unless the cops know his face and know he's a convicted criminal, they would have to assume he's legally carrying. The alternative OC scenario is equally unpleasant; OC is allowed with state pre-emption but there is no requirement of LEOs to assume legality; that would allow police to stop anyone OCing on the street and look for anything the person is doing wrong that could be cause for punitive action (ticket/summons/arrest).

I think if Texas modified the wording of the RKBA in its Constitution, or rewrote PC 46.02 to allow OC, it would also have to involve a comprehensive rethink of Texas gun law. Do we continue to ban unlicensed carry in liquor-selling establishments (which would make OC very restrictive; you couldn't even carry in a supermarket in a wet jurisdiction)? Does a CHL count as "licensing" for OC as well in such places? We currently don't have a limit on ammo capacity of a carried handgun, just the practical limits for concealability; do we impose a capacity limit on OC (say 20 rounds like Virginia)?