TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:And, the reason the OK Gov. cited for vetoing the OC bill is ridiculous. How do the police tell the GG from the BG now? I'm just wondering, but could it be their actions?

Yeah, that's mighty lame!

Chas.

frazzled wrote:

tacticool wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:I don't understand how Oklahoma was able to get the parking lot bill passed and yet Texas has failed repeatedly to get this done.

Maybe the Oklahoma legislature didn't waste the first couple weeks of their session wishing their biggest donors an official Texas happy birthday.

Maybe the Oklahoma legislature is more competent or more ethical than the Texas legislature.

No maybe about it. I'm voting anti-incumbent based on the last session.

You can only get change if you vote FOR change.

Then you are advocating defeat of long time friends who passed numerous pro-gun bills. That's not a recipe for success in 2011 or anytime. The best and quickest way for Texas to become New Jersey or California is for gun owners and pro-gun groups to abandon people who supported us.

Rather than oppose all incumbents, why not oppose those who voted against pro-gun bills or voted for anti-gun bills?

Chas.

frazzled wrote:Keep that thinking. Do what you're told.

Perilously close to a personal attack.

Chas.

SA-TX wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

SA-TX wrote:More importantly, why did we have to add that in TX? Were the police having problems with CHLers inappropriately using their handguns while in the police station?

The reason given was because LEO's couldn't disarm a CHL even in areas where their own officers were required to disarm due to the risk of prisoners "snatching" a handgun.

Chas.

Hmmm. You would have thought that a) existing disarming authority would been sufficient and b) that they would never let someone into an area where their own officers disarm because of prisoner proximity without screening.

Where we really need the lockbox is at courthouses. PA has this requirement. That would make reporting for jury duty much easier. In Dallas if you want to take DART into downtown, you can carry on the train but once you get to the courthouse you are stuck.

SA-TX

You asked why the provision was added; that's why. Procedures vary greatly depending on the size of the department, number of personnel, building layout, etc.

Chas.

SA-TX wrote:More importantly, why did we have to add that in TX? Were the police having problems with CHLers inappropriately using their handguns while in the police station?

The reason given was because LEO's couldn't disarm a CHL even in areas where their own officers were required to disarm due to the risk of prisoners "snatching" a handgun.

Chas.

Unless I completely misread your post, your statement about Texas gun laws was much broader than just our CHL-related statutes. If I am correct, I would point out that your response addresses nothing but CHL-related laws and even those are either incorrect or very minor in nature. Texas is extremely gun-friendly.

SA-TX wrote: I'm going to point out where I think Texas is worse and also differences (where I'm not necessary saying we are worse, but that we should consider what others are doing).

1) Cost. Texas has one of the most expensive licenses in the country between DPS fees and the mandated training. Some states are as cheap as $20. Worse.

I haven't done a study nationwide so I can't comment on the maximum fee. However, there are 50% discounts offered to many people such as people over 60 years of age and anyone ever in the military (not just those who retired). Active military get it free. The renewal is only 50% of the original fee. A CHL paying the full rate will have an average cost of $21/year for the first 10 years,decreasing there after. This is probably higher than some states, but hardly cost prohibitive.

SA-TX wrote:2) Requirements.

SSN. A federal court in PA threw out their SSN requirement as a violation of federal law which only grants the use of SSN for limited purposes. In TX, this is used to check for child support or student loan delinquencies. People shouldn't dodge either obligation but should those be disqualifiers for a CHL? Gun carry licenses, unlike hunting or fishing licenses, also aren't on the list of "recreational or professional" licenses for which federal law insists that child support records be checked and this is how other states avoid it. Remember that even when buying a gun your SSN is OPTIONAL on the federal forms. Worse.

You are really stretching in your attempt to show Texas law is worse than other states.

SA-TX wrote:Must have a Texas ID or DL. This keep the number of out-of-state licenses issues to far less than FL or UT. Worse.

It is no longer necessary to get a Texas ID; in fact DPS does not issue Texas ID's to non-residents.

SA-TX wrote:Picture. Believe it or not, many states don't have pictures on their carry licenses. They find it unnecessary and it drives up cost. PA and IA don't, to name 2 that I know of. Might also speed up processing times. No opinion.

To my knowledge, all but a very few states require a photo. Photos are not oppressive nor do they run up the cost of a CHL more than a very few dollars. Plus, as of May 1st, renewals don't require a new photo and soon Texas residents won't have to submit photos even with an initial application.

SA-TX wrote:Fingerprints. Many states require them, but not all. Presumably this aids in the background check. Might speed up processing times. No opinion.

There is no reason for Texas to require fingerprints, but as of May 1st it is not necessary to submit new fingerprints. If a state does not have access to the NICS database (Texas does) then "no fingerprints" means "no reciprocity" with many states.

SA-TX wrote:3) Education. Texas has one of the longest classes and it doesn't change quickly for renewals (on the 3rd renewal???). I'm not opposed to education on the law and safe gun handling but other states don't think it is necessary (IN, VA, WA, as examples) or at least not as much. Worse.

I agree that the mandatory 10 hr. class for initial licenses is too long. The material can be taught in fewer hours. I don't know the length of required courses in other states, but those who have no class requirement cannot get reciprocity with many states.

SA-TX wrote:3) Off-limits places. Professional/college/high school sporting events, bars, non-public police area (and that one was just added). Then there are those that technically aren't CHL-specific but are still unnecessary: polling place on election day, buildings in which there is a court or court office, race track, site of an execution, etc.

I'm not in favor of drinking and carrying but many states don't exclude bars (PA and IN are examples). Do they have drunken shoot-em ups? Not very often. Obviously there are other crimes when they do. Rather than off-limits places, why don't we criminalize behavior? If you use your gun in a bad way, no matter where you are, you face charges. The only truly off-limits places I think are reasonable are IN a courtroom, correctional facility, and the secured area of an airport. We could strip away all the other restrictions and we wouldn't have wild mayhem ensue. Worse.

The vast majority of states prohibit carrying in everyone of the locations you listed. In fact, the vast majority of states prohibit carrying in any establishment that serves alcohol and some prohibit carrying in any locations that sell alcohol even if it is not for on-premises consumption. Texas prohibits only carry in bars (51% locations).

"Law Enforcement facilities" are very narrowly defined and even when a facility qualifies, it is not off-limits. CHL's can be disarmed and their handguns secured in mandatory lock-boxes, but they cannot be required to return to their cars to lock up their guns. Name the states that allow carrying in police stations? I suspect they are very few.

SA-TX wrote:4) License categories. I know that nearly everyone gets SA so as a practical matter its irrevelant, but no other state that I know of licenses by action. Worse.

I agree. Again, this is very minor.

SA-TX wrote:5) Officer ability to disarm. They are supposed to have a reasonable sense you are danger to yourself or someone else. In practice, "officer safety" seems to be good enough. Worse.

Every officer in Texas has the authority to disarm anyone they stop "for the officer's safety." Including this in the Texas CHL statute added nothing and did not create authority where none previously existed. It was a political move to garner necessary votes to pass the bill.

SA-TX wrote:6) Reciprocity. Many states simply recognize ALL valid permits/licenses by other states. The new IA law does this. Very easy. We have agreements, governor makes proclimations, etc. Where's our recognition of MN for instance? They recognize TX but we don't them and I don't know why. Where's the report that the AG's office is suppose to provide to the legislative leaders every year on other states? Worse.

List the states that recognize every other states licenses. I suspect you will find that the majority of states don't recognize every state's license, especially since just under half of the states that have CHL statutes are "shall issue" states.

SA-TX wrote:7) Texas laws are way too confusing. Take the classic "church" example. Carrying here used to be off-limits and still appears to be but actually isn't because of (i). We seem to take the approach of sweeping prohibitions, outlawing the carrying of a handgun, then create many exemptions. Wouldn't we be better off if the law was cleaned up?

You claim our laws are way too confusing, but only list one example -- churches. You can add hospitals, nursing homes and meetings of governmental entities to the list, since the 30.06 sign required by TPC §46.035(i) applies to those locations as well. There is nothing confusing at all. In fact it's very clear; no sign - not off-limits.

SA-TX wrote:These are the ones that come to mind. I do appreciate you asking and I hope we'll work on these.

These are the ones that come to mind? I'm still waiting for something outside the CHL arena, as well as some within the CHL arena of substance. These are nothing more than nitpicking in an attempt to paint Texas as something other than a very gun-friendly state. This is yet another tactic commonly used by OC supporters; if a state doesn't allow OC, then it's not "gun-friendly."

Texas gun laws are very liberal, not perfect, there's certainly room for improvement, but the idea that many or most other states are more gun-friendly is erroneous.

Chas.

Conagher wrote:I really appreciate your explanation of the “big, ugly sign”. So in summary; a risk materialized, resolutions were planned and implemented, and the risk was mitigated. Great Job! I have not doubt and complete confidence that this activity could be repeated and effective risk mitigating action(s) could again be implemented.

Thanks & Have a Nice Day!

Remember, the "fix" had two elements: 1) "big, ugly sign," and 2) out-of-sight-out-of-mind. With OC, the second element is missing and the result will likely be different.

Chas.

SA-TX wrote:So, would that be different in Texas? When CC opponents said "there will be problems!", we said "the evidance from other states says otherwise". I believe that CHLers proved themselves to be like other lawfully armed folks: very law abiding. When that fact set in and the media wasn't running gun stories due to the novelity of the new law, the controversy evaporated. I predict the same thing with OC. It will be a big non-event once the news cycle has moved on to something else. OK should serve as a valuable example. If they have big problems, I'll be the first one to offer a mea culpa. Since they went with licensed OC, I simply won't believe that those good certified folks will all of a sudden become irresponsible until I see the evidance.

I agree; CHL's are law-abiding and this will not change if OC were to pass in Texas. My concern is not that CHL's would act unlawfully or irresponsibly, but that both anti-gunners and those who currently are ambivalent about carrying handguns will react emotionally and demand businesses post 30.06 signs. (I can almost promise that TPC §30.06 would be amended to cover both OC and CC.)

SA-TX wrote:Notice the number of folks in this pro-gun, pro-carry audience who say "I'll never OC!" You are talking about a small percentage of gun carriers, who are a small percentage of handgun owners, who are a subset of gun owners, who are a subset of the population as a whole. The amount of OCing that would occur would be very, very minimal and thus there just won't be many business owners being scared into posting 30.06 signs. Statistically speaking, it will be absolutely insignificant.

We agree here too. I understand your argument as to why we should work for passage of OC, but since it will affect very few CHL's, it would be a lower priority to the hundreds of thousands of CHL's who are defenseless commuting to and from work, because of an employers' policy of no guns in parking lots. It would also take a lower priority to adult CHL's who are college students and are disarmed and defenseless while on college campuses. Championing their rights is more than just principal, it's a matter of giving them both the means as well as the right to preserve their own rights.

Contrary to what many have said about me, I do not oppose open-carry; I do have one and only one concern, and that's the expansion of businesses posting 30.06 signs. The fact that I do not support OC does not mean I would oppose it. In fact, I absolutely would not oppose it, unless a horrendous bill like the one proposed last session is offered again. My opposition would be based upon the dangerous construction of the bill, not the concept of OC. I openly offered suggestions for simplifying and improving the bill, but the author had every right to ignore them as he did.

In the end, open-carry deals with how Texans can carry defensive handguns; I'm far more concerned with empowering more people to carry in more places. In my view, that should be our priority.

Chas.

chabouk wrote:In every other state (with the exception of the California "UOC" movement), OC just doesn't cause a problem for gun owners in general, or CC in particular. The Virginia OC folks actually fought for improved conditions for CCers, but trying to legalize CC in restaurants that serve alcohol (unlicensed OC is legal there, but licensed CC isn't).

If OC was not a problem in states where it is technically legal, then there wouldn't be an OpenCarry.org. Read their website and see the complaints about how OC'ers are being treated.

OpenCarry.org was hardly carrying the ball to get restaurant carry reformed.

Chas.

SA-TX wrote:

mr surveyor wrote:hhhmmmm.... are Six Flags and Government meetings "off limits" due to statute or due to 30.06 postings?

One of us needs to brush up on our knowledge of the Texas CHL laws in order to be more persuasive in our arguments.....maybe it's me


surv

eta: nope..it's not me.....I just checked, and the little item "i" is still in the code

Good point. You're are right about (i). That illustrates something I described in another post: general prohibitions with a million little exceptions. I don't think you have be a pie-in-the-sky idealist to point out that the section 46 of the Penal Code could be much simpler than it currently is. Instead of adding (i), why not remove (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c)?

That emphasizes my main point: I love Texas but our gun laws are not even close to the best in the country.

Other than no open-carry and not being able to carry in a bar, where do you feel Texas gun laws are worse than other states?

Chas.

Conagher wrote:

“idiot OC supporters” from last session:

I would like to try to close this and move forward. I hereby publically and humbly apologize to any and all that were offended, angered, slighted or otherwise disturbed by any and all OC supporters from last session. In all sincerity I ask that you accept this apology and allow this issue to be put to bed. I have spoken with my senator and representative, neither of which feel in the lease bit put-off on the Texas OC effort. If you have a legislator that feels otherwise, please send me a PM and I will personally contact them and apologize. Thank you.

No need for you to apologize; you were always rational and respectful in your support of OC. By the same token, you cannot apologize for the conduct of others. Plus, even a cursory review of OpenCarry.org quickly reveals that attitudes haven't changed.

Conagher wrote:“…giant surge in new locations posting valid 30.06 signs”:

Maybe a recognized risk, but I certainly do not see this as rationale to not pursue OC. It is true that there are no guarantees in the fight for freedom and civil liberties, and the fight is definitely not without risk. But risks are to be managed, not rationalized as justification for inaction. My understanding is the 30.06 sign was created to dwarf such an issue; so this risk is certainly not without a resolution.
. . .

We have businesses that post valid 30.06 signs now, and for the most part we simply choose not to darken the doors of their establishment. I think Starbuck’s stance is a prime example of how most of the national chains will respond. As for the local convenience store putting up a 30.06, I would simply cross the street to the next one. I personally believe this will be as rare as seeing someone open carry; but would gladly walk to the convenience store on the next corner in order to restore my liberty. If these businesses are really anti-2A I would prefer not to give them my business anyway.

Starbucks is only one company; how can we view the action of one company as indicative of what others will do? It's more revealing to look at the many hundreds of companies that posted generic "no gun" signs from May, 1995 until Sept. 1, 1997. That was the period before TPC §30.06 was created along with the 30.06 "big, ugly sign." With passage of HB2909, the small generic "no gun" sign was no longer effective and businesses would have to post the "big, ugly sign" if they wanted to exclude armed CHL's. The combination of the big, ugly sign and the "out of sight, out of mind" phenomenon brought an end to posting by most businesses. The conduct of one business is not indicative of the whole, but the conduct of hundreds of businesses just might be. I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge the risk exists; many OC supporters don't.

Chas.

boomerang wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:OC supporters repeatedly contend that OC is protected by the Second Amendment, but CC isn't.

I must be talking, online and IRL, with the wrong OC supporters because I've never heard such a thing.

It's all over OpenCarry.com and there are a number of posts here on TexasCHLforum. I understand the tactic; throw the legislature a bone (i.e. let them regulate concealed carry) in order to get open-carry passed using the constitutionality argument.

In my view, it's dangerous to sacrifice one aspect of gun ownership to further another; much like throwing 50 BMG to the wolves to protect shotguns, or black rifles.

The real irony is that two states passed open-carry after the end of the 2009 Texas Legislative Session, which should have been helpful in passing OC in Texas. However, the tactics used by OpenCarry.org in the Texas Legislature and the venomous attacks on any person, entity or organization that did not openly and actively support OC, has squandered what could have been a very good boost to the effort in Texas. Hopefully, there won't be a repeat of those tactics again in 2011.

Chas.

I'll have to prepare a more detailed reply to the questions you raise than I have time to do now. I'm heading to Charlotte tomorrow for NRA committee meetings, the Annual Meeting and a lot of other events. I promise I'll try to get to it sometime this week, but that may be impossible.

The bottom line is this; as Scalia stated, carrying a handgun was not an issue in Heller. I agree with you that there is good reason to believe that the Supreme Court will allow states to regulate the carrying of handguns. However, I don't think the Court will allow the absolute prohibition of carrying a handgun in view of its clear recognition of the right of self-defense. (This is the first S/Ct. opinion doing so and this is every bit as important as the Second Amendment portion of the opinion.) Also, I don't think Scalia's comments about concealed carry indicates a distinction between OC and CC. CC laws are now in 48 of the 50 states so it is natural that his dicta on "carrying" would be focused on CC. Further, I don't know if there are any states that issue a license solely for OC, but I may be wrong. If such laws exist, they are so few in number that they would not readily come to mind when Scalia was talking about carry laws. If this had been an issue briefed in the case, then a distinction between OC and CC would most definitely be significant.

I do not think there is a rational basis, and certainly no S/Ct. decisions, to argue that OC is a constitutionally protected right, but CC is not. Rather, I think the S/Ct. will allow states to decide for themselves whether either OC or CC will require a license. Some states may allow OC without a license and require one for CC under the guise that not being able to see if someone is armed somehow raises the threat level. While I disagree with that premise, I think the Court would find it rational and constitutional.

Chas.

SA-TX wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It hasn't happened. I've never seen a concealed-carry proponent argue that CC is constitutionally protected, but OC isn't. OC supporters are just mad that TSRA and NRA haven't taken up the OC banner. Not supporting an issue is not the same as opposing it and it certainly doesn't constitute throwing them under the bus. OC supporters repeatedly contend that OC is protected by the Second Amendment, but CC isn't. That's throwing CC under the bus.

Chas.

Charles is good, isn't he?

Yes he is. Being an attorney and one with great gun-rights bon fides, it concerns me that I find myself on the opposite side of the argument from him.

Charles, as you know I am not mad at TSRA and do not confuse not supporting something with opposing it. As for throwing CC under the bus, that certainly isn't my intention. I L-O-V-E what TSRA has accomplished in Texas. It was only a few short years ago that we had nothing and I haven't forgotten! I also support the goals that you have the upcoming session (campus, parking lot, and range protection). My position is that, in addition, I support open carry.

As for what is constitutionally protected, please put on your lawyer hat for a minute and help me make sense of what the SC said in Heller and what was said in the oral arguments for McDonald:

Beginning on page 42 of the official Heller decision where the Court is discussing the meaning of "carry", some early court cases are reviewed. Nunn v. State struck down a Georgia law against carrying pistols openly. The same is true in State v. Chandler from Louisiana. Here the Court quotes from Chandler:

]“This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble
defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”

It then goes on to discuss Aymette v State (TN) where the Court concludes that Aymett's holding is

Aymette held that the state constitutional guarantee of the right to “bear” arms did not prohibit the banning of concealed weapons.

Further the Court quotes J. Kent from "Commentaries on American Law" (12th edition, 1873). I've shortened the quote for brevity, but I don't think I've damaged the context. The italics are in the original.

whether a statute prohibiting persons, when not on a journey, or as travellers, from wearing or carrying concealed weapons,be constitutional. There has been a great difference of opinion on the question.”

On page 57, there is this:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example,
the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2
Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n.11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Question -- I took these passages from the Opinion of the Court section of the document. Can any of them be considered dicta? The rules on what is and what isn't are confusing to me.

From the oral arguments for McDonald:

JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, why would this one be resolved on the basis of statistics? If there’s a constitutional right, we find what the minimum constitutional right is, and everything above that is up to the States.
MR. GURA: That --
JUSTICE SCALIA: If they want to have, you know -- I think we mentioned in Heller concealed carry laws. I mean, those are -- those are matters that we didn't decide in Heller. And you may have a great deal of divergence from State to State. And on that, I suppose, you would do statistics, wouldn't you? Or the legislature would.

(page 17 of the official oral argument transcript)

Justice Scalia mentions that the status of concealed carry specifically wasn't decided in Heller. True enough, but his implication seems to be that concealed carry may not be inside the "minimum constitutional right" particularly considering that all of the 19th century cases cited either a) overturned attempts to ban open carry or b) upheld the banning of concealed carry.

In this passage, Feldman (for Chicago) is expressing concern about the Court's interpretation of "carry" because of its implications.

MR. FELDMAN: ... But even more than that, Heller construed the Second Amendment's "bear" -- the word "bear," "to keep and bear arms" -- to mean the same thing as "carry" in this Court's case in Muscarello, much later. And to carry -- generally to carry. Many -- there’s a long history of regulation of not just concealed carry, as the Court did recognize in Heller, but of banning open carry in a variety of jurisdictions. Again, generally, it's someplace that is -- it has a particular problem; it's a city or something like that.

(page 56)

I believe Feldman thinks that Heller stands for the proposition that concealed carry can be regulated (and presumably banned) by States and localities but no so for open carry.

SA-TX

tacticool wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I find it interesting that OC supporters are willing to throw concealed-carry under the bus to further their goal of OC.

No more than CC supporters have been willing to throw open-carry under the bus to further their goal of CC.

Better we should all work together but if "A" is willing to abrogate the rights of "B"
then "A" doesn't have a leg to stand on when "B" returns the favor.

It hasn't happened. I've never seen a concealed-carry proponent argue that CC is constitutionally protected, but OC isn't. OC supporters are just mad that TSRA and NRA haven't taken up the OC banner. Not supporting an issue is not the same as opposing it and it certainly doesn't constitute throwing them under the bus. OC supporters repeatedly contend that OC is protected by the Second Amendment, but CC isn't. That's throwing CC under the bus.

Chas.

SA-TX wrote:Open carry is the carry that the Constitution talked about.

Open-carry supporters claim this and I don't see any support in the Constitution. The Heller decision discusses it in dicta but Heller was a "keeping" (a/k/a possession) case, not a "bearing" a/k/a "carrying" case. Plus, OC supporters claimed this before Heller. I find it interesting that OC supporters are willing to throw concealed-carry under the bus to further their goal of OC.

Chas.