TexasCHLforum.com

Protect Our Rights wrote:Well, seeings how I sit in a very friendly OC state, I have no obligation to Texans or their rights. As a friend of mine put it (on a site that is hated by moderators here (OCDO)) The best way to protect rights is to protect the rights of others. I never siad the politician had to be OC friendly, just 2nd amendment friendly. Legal battles are being fought all over the country right now that are in favor of gun owners. Now is the time to press on our legislators and let them know that what they have been doing is great but it is not enough. We can't afford to wait until Obama and his czars mess with the system. OC time and time again has proven to be a deter to criminal activity. Look at statistics on how percentage wise how many how many CCers have to pull and fire on a criminal compared to OCers. It's just sad today that people go around preaching that they are pro-2nd amendment but then in the same sentence say that OC is wrong. That I find very amusing and heretical.

OK, so you admit you're from out of state, and you want to tell Texans, to whom you owe no obligations, how we should be managing our in-state strategies to achieve open carry. I believe the term "carpetbagging" applies. And in keeping with your friend from bombthrowers.org, you think that the best way to protect your rights in [name your state], is to tell Texans how to protect their rights in Texas. And by the way, you said that you would not vote for any politician who was not "100%" (your words, not mine) for the 2nd Amendment, and then proceded to say that the only way to fully express the 2nd is through open carry. You even said that even 1% "against"/99% "for" was enough for them to lose your vote. That means that, in your eyes, any politician who won't support open carry, no matter how good he is on every other aspect of the 2nd, is not "100%" and that you think we should not vote for him.

One of the vanities of arrogance is the assumption that others should be grateful for one's interference in their affairs to set them straight. Since we don't know in what state you reside, we have no way of knowing if your state's history with regard to the RKBA closely parallels that of Texas or not. If it doesn't parallel ours, then your state's arrival at OC is irrelevant to our own journey, and you're not in a position to advise Texans. How about being bold enough to tell us your state?

Protect Our Rights wrote:Well since my last post was locked, I will post it here Texas NEEDS open carry. I can't wait till the day that there is constitutional carry in every state. Any politician that is even 1% against the 2nd amendment will NOT get a vote from me or any of you hopefully. If they are against the 2nd then they are prolly against the rest of them as well.

I understand, and I long for Constitutional Carry also, but I don't think you're being realistic about the political issues. Here's why I say that.

Lots of politicians serve districts were the balance of voters on the left and on the right are nearly evenly balanced. A representative from such a district, who barely got elected by a majority, has to include among those voters who voted for him or her some who are more conservative than others. Those voters who are only slightly right of center, and those who are registered independents who voted for this person might be perfectly OK when it comes to CHL, but they might definitely not be OK when it comes to OC. But you have to remember that his constituency is the entire voter base in his district, not just the ones who elected him. If he makes his constituency is angered by something he does, those slightly right of center voters, PLUS all of the independents, PLUS all of the left of center voters might constitute a large enough majority to throw this representative out of office the next time around and elect someone who is more to the left on issues. The problem is that this new politician won't be just more to the left on gun rights. He or she will also be more to the left on everything else that you might care about. So, if you as a strong supporter of all 100% of the 2nd Amendment are unfortunate enough to live in this district where your views can easily become unrepresented overnight, and you vote against the reelection of this legislator who is "only 98%" in favor of the 2nd Amendment, as you put it, you will shoot yourself in the foot.

Now, at this moment in time, we have a huge republican majority in the legislature, and this legislature's meeting and perhaps the next are times to strike while the iron is hot. But that majority can vanish in one election cycle if republicans mismanage the state, and it seems that making incremental advances toward the ultimate goal of constitutional carry is the best way to go, and it makes it easier and easier to make arguments against the opposition when you can establish a history of incremental advances of the RKBA which did not result in blood running in the streets.

We lost those rights incrementally, and it nearly stuck. The way to get them back and make it stick is also incrementally.

tacticool wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:But I do have to take exception with you on #1. I can assure you - and forum members who have met me will agree - I don't look like any kind of cop, and if I'm open carrying, nobody is going to mistake me for one. And yet, I will face having been given effective and binding notice to leave because I will look like a non-LEO with a gun,

Can someone show me where the bill would force us to open carry?

Otherwise the argument is a red herring, because we would still have the option, the CHOICE, to conceal if we want. Let me repeat that. People who are concerned they "face having been given effective and binding notice to leave because [they] will look like a non-LEO with a gun," will still have the CHOICE to conceal. Same as the change in 46.035 gave churches the CHOICE to allow guns or prohibit guns, instead of the government denying them the CHOICE.

Dude, you missed my point entirely.

I didn't say that the bill would force me to open carry. Go back, and read my words. It's. Not. There.

I was pointing out some genuine problems with his logic:

The other gentleman made the statement, as have others, that most people will not notice OC because they'll just assume you're a cop. That's fine, if you're between the ages of 21 and 50, reasonably fit, and have "cop attitude" written all over you and a bad haircut. But there are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of CHL holders who would like to OC once in a while, but we don't look remotely like a cop. Nobody in their right mind is going to think that an overweight and gimpy guy with white hair and white beard is a cop. Well, that describes me. So if I walk into Mimi's restaurant open carrying, people WILL notice. "What's that old fat guy who looks like Santa doing walking in here with his cane and a gun? Somebody call the cops." OK, so now I have been given effective notice that I may not carry in there. And because I've been given effective notice, I can't go back in there with my gun concealed either... ...because I am a law-abiding citizen. And thus, I am left without any choice at all other than to take my business elsewhere from a restaurant that I used to go to, and carried concealed without any problem. What kind of choice is that?

Why shouldn't I enjoy all the same rights as someone who looks like a cop, but isn't one? This is NOT a red herring. Unless OC advocates are very careful, the fallout from their actions will negatively affect people like me. Don't be so dismissive of my concerns, just because you can't answer them. And like I've said, over and over again, I support OC. I just want it handled in a way that won't negatively affect the gains already made, which I am able to enjoy today. Dismissing the legitimate concerns of large swathes of people who have a stake in the outcome is the realm of the Rahm Emanuels of the world. Don't be like them.

Believe me, I want Consitutional Carry in the worst way. But I won't sign onto any half-baked plan that hasn't taken into account and honestly addressed the legitimate concerns of stakeholders in the outcome by properly crafting a bill so that these things are taken care of.

steveincowtown wrote:

flintknapper wrote: snip.....
I do not believe the public will have fainting spells over OC should ever become law.

Nor do I...

#1> Will Open Carry cause the demise of CHL's everywhere and make signs appear everywhere. Nope. We have already established that OC'ing is so rare, and most people just think they are LEO, etc. Who is going to panic when so few will do it, and of those who do it, so few with be noticed?

#2> Is the proposed Law the way it should be done? I don't think so. It is sloppy and leaves to many open ends. I think we have learned from CHL statute that all bases need to be covered...twice.

#3> (The following is not meant disrepectfull, but...)There are a lot of CHL instructors on this board. Having a discussion with someone who earns income off the current law about pushing forward with full Constitutional Carry is somewhat like your boss calling you into a meeting to get your input on how to eliminate your position.

Steve, I agree with #2, and I agree with others on #3, that being a CHL instructor is probably nothing more than supplementary income for most instructors, who do what they do for fairly altruistic reasons and can probably get along without the licensing income. Besides, many of them are also NRA certified safety instructors, and CHL isn't their only "gun income."

But I do have to take exception with you on #1. I can assure you - and forum members who have met me will agree - I don't look like any kind of cop, and if I'm open carrying, nobody is going to mistake me for one. And yet, I will face having been given effective and binding notice to leave because I will look like a non-LEO with a gun, at which point I will not even be able to legally carry concealed in that place. This will likely affect most of the older members of this forum the exact same way. Nobody is going to look at all these fat gimpy old guys with white hair and a visible gun strapped on and mistake them for cops. You, and others who support OC, as I actually do also, have been speaking in generalities about what will or won't happen when OC is passed, but at the end of the day, those generalities boil down to individuals who are going to individually bear the brunt of these policy changes, and that is not fair or just.

That is just one of the reasons why Charles Cotton is so right when he insists that it is incumbent on OC activists to craft legislation that will not adversely affect the carry rights of people like me.