I understand and respect your opinion. You know mine is different.SA-TX wrote:Charles, I think you are making a couple of other assumptions:Charles L. Cotton wrote: I won't go so far as to say that open-carry supporters are selfish, nor do I feel that way, but the fact is a relatively small group of people are willing to risk the creation of a lot of new off-limits businesses (via TPC §30.06 signs) just to have the option to openly-carry. When I say "relatively small group" I am making the assumption that, if open-carry ever passes, it will be licensed open-carry. Unlicensed open-carry has absolutely no chance of passing any time soon, and if it ever does, it will come only after successfully passing licensed open-carry.
Chas.
1) TPC 30.06 would be updated to apply to licensed open carry. Depending on how the CHL law was changed to allow licensed open carry, that may or may not happen. Why not? It seems to me that one of the reasons a sign is necessary for the protection of property rights is that, by definition, the owner cannot see a concealed handgun. Thus, the sign communicates his wishes. This isn't a problem with open carry.
2) That a 30.06 sign is the way to keep someone from open carrying and thus is going to be the action taken. If the owner doesn't like your exposed sidearm, he can ask you to leave. The verbal request is just as binding and is an immediate response to unwelcome open carry. Additionally, as noted in 1) above, it might be the ONLY recourse if the wording of 30.06 isn't updated.
I'm less concerned about wide-spread 30.06 postings in response to open carry (either licensed or unlicensed) because:
a) It seems to me that the trend over time has been fewer postings, not more.
b) The media has written/broadcast CHL stories that contain 30.06 information before (probably every time a CHL bill get traction in the Legislature) but their impact is short-lasting and ultimately minimal (see above).
c) Open carry would be practiced by so few that it is unlikely spawn mass postings.
d) Anti-carry business owners probably ALREADY have their businesses posted.
I'm willing to take the risk, because I evaluate the probability of many new postings as highly unlikely. My weighing of the cost versus benefits is that legal open carry is desirable for both practical and philosophical reasons and I believe it can be had with few, if any, disadvantages.
Just so I'm not misunderstood, I want to say that open carry is not my top CHL-related priority. I believe that parking lot carry and campus carry are both more beneficial make teh entance to the CHL population as a whole. I strongly supported them last session and will continue to do so. I also would like to see a reduction in off-limits places (whole buildings because of a court or court office, voting places on election day, professional sports events, etc.).
Respectfully, SA-TX
If open-carry were to pass, the legislature absolutely would adopt a single sign to prohibit carrying of handguns, either openly or concealed. The legislature would never agree to a two-sign requirement forcing a property/business owner to post one sign to bar open-carry and another one to bar concealed-carry. It simply will not happen because the opposition argument would be that it's too costly, too confusing and would require a business owner to post two ugly signs.
If a business owner doesn't want people open-carrying, I seriously doubt they will refrain from posting a sign and opt to walk around asking people to leave if they have a gun. If they make the decision to bar open-carry, it will probably be in response to customer complaints and posting a sign is the most expedient option.
I agree with you that truly anti-gun businesses are probably already posted, but it's not them I'm not worried about those businesses. I'm concerned about business owners or managers who aren't anti-gun or who are actually pro-gun, but who will post their property in response to customer complaints.
Has the non-gun-owning/non-carrying public become accustomed to concealed-carry? I think that's possible, but the out-of-sight-out-of-mind element is still a factor that weighs heavily in our favor. My concerns are based upon the response we saw to passage of the CHL statute in 1995 until the creation of TPC §30.06 in 1997. Fears of the public's reaction may prove unfounded, or they may prove to be very accurate. One thing is certain, we won't know until/unless open-carry passes and if I'm right, we won't be able to close Pandora box.
Chas.