TexasCHLforum.com

Unicorn Rancher wrote:Welcome Ice. That's a provocative first post. It didn't happen in Texas so am I to presume the story is about you, in accordance with Rule 9?

The story is about the doctor, not a LEO post, so Rule 9 doesn't apply.

Chas.

Jason K wrote:If OC does pass, we really need to work on changing this attitude of holstered OC gun automatically means threat....

I agree. Unfortunately, that job has been made harder by open-carry demonstrations with long guns and to a lesser degree with black powder handguns. I wrote an article during the 2013 legislative session designed to lessen fears that the general public might experience if open-carry passes. (Some people think there will be no such fears, but that's precisely what happened in 1995 when CHL passed.) I didn't think it would pass in 2013, so I intended my article as the first in an effort to educate the public about the great track record CHLs have earned and to put folks at ease at the sight of openly armed citizens.

The plan was to write more articles and hold live and video conference "town hall meetings" on the open-carry issue with a goal of building a strong consensus among all Texans that open-carry does not post a threat and that those doing so are CHLs who are 16 times less likely to commit a crime than the general public. The political landscape has changed and I don't think such efforts would help. In fact, they may even hurt the cause because people could well think they are nothing more than a political stunt designed to counter demonstrations.

Chas.

Jim Beaux wrote:
EEllis wrote:
Jim Beaux wrote:
The first 10 Amendments are called the "Bill of Rights".

There is no ambiguity. These10 amendments clearly apply ONLY TO the PEOPLE. The Bill of Rights establish and guarantee the freedoms for the people ( and grant to the people everything that is not specifically given to the fed.)
No it doesn't. Not historically. The States were not bound by the Bill of Rights, just the Feds. It wasn't until the 1800's that the courts applied Constitution to State laws as individual rights. Mind you most States have Constitutions that are very close to the fed but.....
No it doesnt???? If not intended to guarantee the rights of the people, then just what does The Bill of Rights mean & who does it apply to?? Also explain why you think the states can ignore the Bill of Rights?

The U.S. Constitution protects citizens and states from the federal government. It was not initially intended to limit state action against its citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court has applied some but not all of the first 10 amendments to the states to protect citizens from state action.

As to so-called "constitutional carry" (a/k/a open-carry), people need to recognize that the U.S. Supreme Court has just refused to consider a New Jersey law requiring a person seeking a carry permit to show a "special need" beyond self-defense. This leaves the appellate court decision upholding the law in tact. The challenge was that the Second Amendment protects a right to carry (bear) arms outside one's home. As I've said countless times before, regardless what I or anyone else thinks the Constitution means, only the opinions of at least 5 of 9 Supreme Court justices matter. Perhaps now folks will stop trying to elevate open-carry to a constitutional right. We may get there some day, but we haven't yet and the U.S. Supreme Court just declined the opportunity to so proclaim.

Chas.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
canvasbck wrote:Let me get this straight, a couple of dozen mouth breathing jerks behaved in a way that irritated a couple of dozen legislators (could be less could be more , I don't know). I'm assuming that said legislators are being made aware that the buffoons do not represent the vast majority of CHL holders.

Texas CHL holders, as a group, have been proven to be the most law abiding among all citizens. More law abiding than those who write and those who enforce the laws. CHL holders have overwhelmingly spoken out against the tactics employed by over zealous OC supporters (at least on this forum). The majority of CHL holders either support or do not oppose OC but the actions of a few mouth breathers will prevent reasonable legislation from passing because they irritated the wrong folks? The difference between a law abiding CHL holder and a law breaking CHL holder will remain the presence or absence of a peice of cloth because one shunned chapter in one movement didn't behave the way they were told to.

For reference, I support OC. I think the guys parading around with ARs are making fools of themselves. I don't want OC because I want to parade around and have folks look at me. I want it to pass because I find the concealment requirement to be silly. "It's only legal if we can't tell your doing it". It would also be convenient to just go to lunch after an IDPA match without either changing clothes or disarming. (I won't go out to eat in my pink vest)
I wish only a couple of dozen people in and outside the Legislature were upset. Calls from constituents who were present as well as those who saw the numerous negative TV new reports are demanding that something be done about "those people." You are correct that the demonstrators are not representative of all CHL holders and not all demonstrators are acting inappropriately. However, to the voters who are contacting their elected representatives, the people who are causing them fear or concern are the very people who will be most likely to open-carry if a bill passes.

Right or wrong, this is how open-carry demonstrations are being viewed by the public and it's harmful to the cause. I'm not arguing their evaluation is correct; I'm saying damage is being done on a scale much larger than ardent open-carry supporters are willing or capable of admitting.

Chas.
Do we need to contact our reps in support of CHL?

Not now. It's way too early. The best thing that could happen at this point is for open-carry to fall off the radar screen. When the legislative session begins, calls-to-action will go out at the proper times.

Chas.

canvasbck wrote:Charles,
I hope you understand my frustration. A VERY small minority of OC supporters is poisoning the well not only in the legislature, but with our own lobby. The vast majority of OC supporters are sitting back and waiting for calls to action and letting the people who know how to affect legislation do their thing. What we want is in jeopardy of never seeing the light of day because of these folks. It's like the whole family being seen as odd because of our crazy uncle Ron. We have not asked these groups that look like the Occupy Wall Street crowd with guns on their backs to get involved nor can we control what they do.

Almost makes me want to organize my own Brady campaign that uses in your face tactics to support gun control so that we can kill all proposed gun control legislation.

I understand your frustration quite well and I share it. While these tactics may be poisoning the legislative well, they are not poisoning the lobby well, but only the former get to vote on bills. We'll keep working on open-carry, but the chances of success are diminishing.

Chas.

canvasbck wrote:Let me get this straight, a couple of dozen mouth breathing jerks behaved in a way that irritated a couple of dozen legislators (could be less could be more , I don't know). I'm assuming that said legislators are being made aware that the buffoons do not represent the vast majority of CHL holders.

Texas CHL holders, as a group, have been proven to be the most law abiding among all citizens. More law abiding than those who write and those who enforce the laws. CHL holders have overwhelmingly spoken out against the tactics employed by over zealous OC supporters (at least on this forum). The majority of CHL holders either support or do not oppose OC but the actions of a few mouth breathers will prevent reasonable legislation from passing because they irritated the wrong folks? The difference between a law abiding CHL holder and a law breaking CHL holder will remain the presence or absence of a peice of cloth because one shunned chapter in one movement didn't behave the way they were told to.

For reference, I support OC. I think the guys parading around with ARs are making fools of themselves. I don't want OC because I want to parade around and have folks look at me. I want it to pass because I find the concealment requirement to be silly. "It's only legal if we can't tell your doing it". It would also be convenient to just go to lunch after an IDPA match without either changing clothes or disarming. (I won't go out to eat in my pink vest)

I wish only a couple of dozen people in and outside the Legislature were upset. Calls from constituents who were present as well as those who saw the numerous negative TV new reports are demanding that something be done about "those people." You are correct that the demonstrators are not representative of all CHL holders and not all demonstrators are acting inappropriately. However, to the voters who are contacting their elected representatives, the people who are causing them fear or concern are the very people who will be most likely to open-carry if a bill passes.

Right or wrong, this is how open-carry demonstrations are being viewed by the public and it's harmful to the cause. I'm not arguing their evaluation is correct; I'm saying damage is being done on a scale much larger than ardent open-carry supporters are willing or capable of admitting.

Chas.

After Making National Headlines Group Promises "Greatest Open Carry" Rally Ever Seen

I think I'm just going to go fishing.

Chas.

Beiruty wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:I can't go into detail, but if the current tactics continue, then open-carry will be DOA in the 2015 Texas Legislative Session. The legislative response is bad and getting worse and it's not because our friends in Austin are anti-gun as some will scream from the rooftops.

Chas.
I hope that this info is relayed to OCT in some fashion. Coordination is the key. Maybe unarmed demonstrations could be as effective. Rally and political speakers could be enough.

It has been. Everyone can/should listen to G.A. Heath's podcast of the roundtable with C.J. Grisham, Alice Tripp and me on the open-carry issue.

No demonstrations, armed, unarmed or with signs, are necessary and they are counterproductive at this point. Passing a bill when you start in damage control mode does not bode well for one's legislation. I know this is going to fall on deaf ears for many who believe, or want to believe, that they are helping to pass open-carry. I/we can't control these folks and if they sink open-carry then perhaps they will reconsider their approach in 2017.

As I've said before, open-carry is not my issue; I'm far more concerned with removing off-limits areas, repeal of some unfair eligibility requirements, volunteer church "security," repeal of some CHL instructor eligibility requirements, repeal of certain sections of TPC § Chp. 9 that hamper self-defense, and other gun/self-defense related issues. I have also said repeatedly that I'm a good soldier and when the decision is made to pursue open-carry, I will dedicate myself to it's passage. However, speaking only in my personal capacity and not for the NRA, TSRA or Alice Tripp, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to stay motivated to promote open-carry when others are making the task much more difficult and potentially impossible.

Chas.

I can't go into detail, but if the current tactics continue, then open-carry will be DOA in the 2015 Texas Legislative Session. The legislative response is bad and getting worse and it's not because our friends in Austin are anti-gun as some will scream from the rooftops.

Chas.

I really haven't heard anyone claim they were carrying a rifle or shotgun into a store to exercise their constitutional right. Oh, perhaps there was one or two who said that on camera, but I really don't recall.

The overwhelming majority of people who are carrying long guns into stores in Texas are doing so to promote passage of open-carry of handguns, or so they claim. So the real question is "does this help or hinder passage of open-carry?" The clear answer is that it is hurting the cause, even though some will claim otherwise. The negative media coverage combined with pro-open-carry elected officials and their staff asking for such tactics to stop should be all the proof anyone needs. I can't help but wonder if part of the reason these in-your-face tactics haven't stopped is because of a division among open-carry supporters on the issue of licensed v. unlicensed open-carry.

Chas.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 10 matches

Re: Is Open Carry Activism Threatening our CHL rights.

Re: Is Open Carry Activism Threatening our CHL rights.

Re: Is Open Carry Activism Threatening our CHL rights.

Re: Is Open Carry Activism Threatening our CHL rights.

Re: Is Open Carry Activism Threatening our CHL rights.

Re: Is Open Carry Activism Threatening our CHL rights.

Re: Is Open Carry Activism Threatening our CHL rights.

Re: Is Open Carry Activism Threatening our CHL rights.

Re: Is Open Carry Activism Threatening our CHL rights.

Re: Is Open Carry Activism Threatening our CHL rights.