TexasCHLforum.com

Grog wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:You don't agree with an organization responding to the wishes of its members? That's an interesting position to take.

I find it interesting that you can say you speak for every single member.

I speak for the organization and the organization responds to the concerns expressed by our members. Do you claim to know the will of the TSRA membership?

As I said, I find it interesting that you disagree with an organization responding to the wishes of its members.

Chas.

Grog wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

SA-TX wrote: That being the case, I'll simply say this: I don't understand how the only real gun lobby in Texas - who counts me as a life member - can say that we need to waitt for some undetermined number of legislative sessions to enjoy the freedom and libery from governmental interference with our core constitutional rights.

Because our members don't care about OC, that's why.

I'm not a member, good thing since I sure don't agree with what you said.

You don't agree with an organization responding to the wishes of its members? That's an interesting position to take.

Chas.

SA-TX wrote: That being the case, I'll simply say this: I don't understand how the only real gun lobby in Texas - who counts me as a life member - can say that we need to waitt for some undetermined number of legislative sessions to enjoy the freedom and libery from governmental interference with our core constitutional rights.

Because our members don't care about OC, that's why. Why can't you accept this fact? Do you expect 40,000 TSRA members who carry the financial burden of the Association to spend tremendous political capitol on an issue they care nothing about?

In 2008 I recommended OC supporters start a Texas organization to work responsibly for OC, but nothing happened. I continued to recommend that in 2009; again nothing happened. I recommended changes to the horrible bill proposed by OpenCarry.org; nothing happened. I explained that TSRA wouldn't take on the project until and unless our members wanted it, but that was ignored too.

This is my last post on OC. I'm tired of repeating myself and the discussion is getting nowhere.

Chas.

SA-TX wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jack010203 wrote:So let me get this straight. One of the arguments against OC is that ant-gun businesses will learn how to legally prohibit open carriers as well as CHLers. That seems like a good thing, now I would no longer have to wonder if my purchases were supporting someone with political views I do not support.

The problem with this argument is that you are willing to sacrifice my ability to carry and protect myself and family in stores I choose to trade with, or am forced to trade with, simply to enlighten you on the store owners' political positions. I'm not willing to let you make that decision for me and my family.

Chas.

This is not ipso facto: legalized OC does not necessarily have to lead to more 30.06 postings. I know the history in Texas from 1995 to 1997. I was here. CHL was new, it was a media sensation, and some businesses put up signs blocking CHL carry. TSRA did a great thing by passing 30.06. Even then, some 30.06 signs were posted. Since then, may have come down. People adjust. Blood didn't run in the streets.

It wasn't just "some" stores posting generic no-gun signs, it was an epidemic! They were everywhere in the major cities. When HB2909 passed and TPC §30.06 came into existence, very few signs went up because they were "big ugly signs." We have just about as many compliant signs now as we did in 1997. We have just about as many non-compliant signs that meet some but not all of the criteria of TPC §30.06.

When you say people adjusted to concealed carry, that is somewhat misleading. Yes, over the years since 1995, people have come to realize that concealed carry didn't result in the parade of horribles that our opponents claimed, but it was the lack of criminal activity that changed their minds, not seeing CHL's wearing guns.

SA-TX wrote:I continue to maintain that Texas would not see a rash of new 30.06 postings if OC were legal because very few Texas gun carriers will OC. Thus, no visibility; no problem.

If you are correct and no one is going to carry OC, then why on earth should anyone burn up political capitol to pass emotionally charged legislation that benefits virtually no one? You are also making a very strong argument for TSRA not to become involved.

SA-TX wrote:Can we try this out small-scale and determine once and for all? Start with rural OC. Counties of less than pick-a-number? 200,000? That would open up much of Texas yet exempt the urban areas that folks are worried about. Start there and see what happens. Any takers?

SA-TX

We'd have to fight this because it would result in unequal protection of the law. As a practical matter, it wouldn't achieve the result you seek. In many of the states touted as having legalized OC, it is more common in rural areas but unheard of in urban areas. So OC doesn't seem to spread from rural to urban areas.

Chas.

jack010203 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jack010203 wrote:So let me get this straight. One of the arguments against OC is that ant-gun businesses will learn how to legally prohibit open carriers as well as CHLers. That seems like a good thing, now I would no longer have to wonder if my purchases were supporting someone with political views I do not support.

The problem with this argument is that you are willing to sacrifice my ability to carry and protect myself and family in stores I choose to trade with, or am forced to trade with, simply to enlighten you on the store owners' political positions. I'm not willing to let you make that decision for me and my family.

Chas.

I am not making any decision for you or anyone else, you make your own decisions, which are apparently influenced by the store owner when he prohibited carry of any kind. I am also not prohibiting anyone from carrying, again it seems the owner has with the prohibition of carry.

Based on the express wording of your post, you are willing to have a store owner post against carrying simply so you will "no longer have to wonder if [your] purchases were supporting someone with political views [you] do not support." You don't seem to care that it may be more valuable for me and others to be able to carry in those stores than for you to identify stores "with political views [you] don't support."

Remember, my post was in response to yours that argues that there is a good side to stores posting against open and concealed carry. There's not one good thing about any establishment posting against citizens carrying handguns.

Chas.

jack010203 wrote:So let me get this straight. One of the arguments against OC is that ant-gun businesses will learn how to legally prohibit open carriers as well as CHLers. That seems like a good thing, now I would no longer have to wonder if my purchases were supporting someone with political views I do not support.

The problem with this argument is that you are willing to sacrifice my ability to carry and protect myself and family in stores I choose to trade with, or am forced to trade with, simply to enlighten you on the store owners' political positions. I'm not willing to let you make that decision for me and my family.

Chas.

bizarrenormality wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The legislature would never make it more difficult for private property owners to keep armed people off of their property, whether they are carrying concealed or openly.

That sounds like a good reason we shouldn't waste political capital on a parking lot bill.

Completely different from requiring two different signs for trespassing.

Chas.

Fangs wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Fangs wrote:The whole fear of 30.06 signs could easily be avoided by not having any sign that applies to open carry, only oral notice.

That would never pass.

Chas.

I can dream.

So why not have a sign the same size and letter height/width requirement as a 30.06 sign specifically for open carry? That way if it passes and there's a media frenzy about it, all the reports can talk about the new sign in a different part of the penal code and hopefully no one will be the wiser on concealed carry restrictions. Requiring two huge ugly signs to completely keep out legal gun owners might also work in out favor.

I'm not saying what you suggest would be undesirable from a CHL holder's standpoint. What I'm saying is the legislature will never pass something like that. The legislature would never make it more difficult for private property owners to keep armed people off of their property, whether they are carrying concealed or openly.

Believe me, we pulled a rabbit out of our hats when we passed HB2909 in 1997 and got the "big ugly sign" requirement. There's no way in the world the legislature will require a property owner to post two signs, even if only one was "big and ugly." Remember, unlicensed O-C has absolutely no chance of passage in Texas in the foreseeable future. This means if open carry does pass, it will apply only to people with CHL's. Most likely, the only thing that would be done is repeal of the concealment requirement and renaming of CHL to something like "Handgun Carry License." This means no change would be required to TPC §30.06, other than perhaps deletion of the word "concealed," and the current 30.06 sign would apply to any carrying of handguns.

If any other changes are made to TPC §30.06, gun owners will not be better off. No one truly appreciated how big the "big ugly sign" would be and none of us want a return to much smaller, less intrusive perhaps even generic signs. People who were here in 1995 and who were interested in CHL will remember the flood of small, generic no-gun decals popping up on doors all over the State. If we open up TPC §30.06 to amendment, gun owners aren't going to like the change.

Chas.

Fangs wrote:The whole fear of 30.06 signs could easily be avoided by not having any sign that applies to open carry, only oral notice.

That would never pass.

Chas.