TexasCHLforum.com

flintknapper wrote:03Lightingrocks wrote:

This seems a little fatalistic to me.

Then maybe you're waking up. Do you NOT see your gun rights dieing a slow death? Each year, are not more and more attempts (and success) at eroding the rights of law abiding gun owners realized. So...ask yourself, is what was written really "fatalistic" or perhaps more "prophetic"?

I don't believe our right to keep and bear arms hinges on allowing open carry. If it did, we would have already lost the right to keep and bear arms, since open carry has been outlawed for more than a hundred years.

Just because a person thinks people shouldn't be strutting around openly brandishing a deadly weapon does not mean they are anti gun or that firearms ownership is in trouble.

LEO do it every day (except the "strut"), and don't get so much as a second glance from most folks. What are your specific reasons/concerns about citizens doing the same?

It isn't so much the gun folks are afraid of as it is the person carrying it. Folks see LEO as being charged with protecting the public. Folks see LEO as the "expert" with special training and the authority to do what is right. Folks don't know anything about Joe Six pack or Harlem homeboy.

The majority of folks are neither here no there on gun ownership...meaning neutral.

Well.....this would seem to contradict what many have said here, when we consider that one of the prime objections would be the backlash/startling effect of the citizenry and business owners. How do you reconcile this? Which is it?

My point is, until you make it an issue by allowing everyone to walk around with a gun on their hip they are neutral. Being confronted by the wild west will likely bring out the fear in the masses. People are neutral because they are allowed to be neutral. Start packing guns openly all over the place and they will likely become fearful of the very concept. So obviously there is nothing to reconcile here.

Quite frankly...if anything in your reply had any merit, we would have already lost our rights to own firearms since open carry has not been allowed for over a hundred years.

Open carry of pistols to be exact. And "concealed" carry of pistols is a "privilege" we have only recently regained. My point (apparently lost on some) is that continued lack of action to promote reinstating every gun right that we can....will eventually result in our losing them all. We have several Nations we can look to for confirmation of this.

Your point is not lost on anybody. It is just that not everybody thinks the two issues are interwoven so tightly as you do. I stated as proof of this the fact that open carry has been outlawed for more than 100 years and we still maintain our right to keep and bear arms.

Your trying to tell us that all of a sudden, forbidding open carry has some meaning it hasn't had in over one hundred years?

No, I am trying to tell you its way past time for gun owners to "stand on their hind legs" and fight for their long lost rights. For everything there is a time.

I did not realize that gun owners had quit fighting for their right to keep and bear arms. We do however have to choose our battles wisely.

I will say this about it all. Initially I voted for having open carry without a license. As I consider what this means exactly, I am not so sure I think it is a good idea to do this. Open carry without a permit or license means ANYBODY can carry a weapon and not be questioned. This includes some very unsavory types that frequent many of the larger cities in Texas. It could make it very hard to know the good guys from the bad guys.

The other issue we should consider is the possibility that many folks who have no real "position" on gun control could very well swing to the "anti-gun" side of things once they are confronted with a daily life that involves firearms everywhere they go. This IS NOT the same as the concealed carry issue...so don't try to go there. Concealed carry does not put it in their face each and every day.

flintknapper wrote: If those who oppose OC are so convinced that the citizenry of Texas (or the business men and women of this State) will react adversely....then I submit gun ownership (of any kind) is already a lost cause.....and it is just a matter of time until we lose those rights too.

This seems a little fatalistic to me. Just because a person thinks people shouldn't be strutting around openly brandishing a deadly weapon does not mean they are anti gun or that firearms ownership is in trouble. The majority of folks are neither here no there on gun ownership...meaning neutral.

Quite frankly...if anything in your reply had any merit, we would have already lost our rights to own firearms since open carry has not been allowed for over a hundred years. Your trying to tell us that all of a sudden, forbidding open carry has some meaning it hasn't had in over one hundred years?

srothstein wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Cool...then by this logic, we should all be allowed to walk around naked in public, scream fire in a crowded theater and wear a T shirt with a swastika emblem on it in a Jewish Synagogue, all without being charged with creating a public disturbance.

With two out of three of these, you have made the classic mistake of thinking something is prohibited when it is not. You can legally yell fire in a crowded theater and wear a swastika in a synagogue. You may be held legally responsible for the results of your actions, but the act is not prohibited. This is the same as saying you can legally own a firearm but can be charged with aggravated assault if you shoot someone.

As for the first one, you are correct that it is prohibited. The arguments about that would require a different thread in a forum where there is no ten year old daughter rule.

The point I was trying to make is that in REAL LIFE(beyond internet chat boards) all of our rights have limitations or constraints to keep anarchy from ensuing.

tarkus wrote:I support open carry for the same reasons I support open free speech, open freedom of the press and open religious freedom. I also support the right for people to conceal their guns and keep their religious views private if they want.

For all the people who support concealed carry only, do you think religion should only be legal if it's concealed?

Cool...then by this logic, we should all be allowed to walk around naked in public, scream fire in a crowded theater and wear a T shirt with a swastika emblem on it in a Jewish Synagogue, all without being charged with creating a public disturbance.

Mike1951 wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Quite frankly...I doubt many folks will carry open anyway.

I disagree. My perception is that in most of the states where it is technically legal, it was simply never prohibited. IOW, business as usual. The few there that are motivated enough to open carry will never be concentrated either in time or location.

In Texas, where it has been prohibited since 1871, the passage of open carry is anxiously awaited by many tens of thousands who are chompin' at the bit to be able to open carry. My guess is that effective Sept 1st of whatever year it passes will see all of these and more exercising their newfound freedom. Most will abandon it after the new wears off but this initial exhibition could well trigger the foretold backlash.

IMO, the only valid comparison between open carry here and elsewhere would be another state that had the right restored after more than a century.

Makes sense....

TheArmedFarmer wrote:If open carry is made as a licensed privilege and if 30.06 is amended to remove the word "concealed", then I see a huge risk of an increase in 30.06 signs. Because of that risk, I would argue vehemently against licensed open carry legislation.

But, I'm advocating unlicensed open carry. A business who then wants to get rid of guns will simply post a gunbuster sign, and that would be that. Complaints from his customers would stop since they wouldn't be seeing any evil 6 shooters any more. It wouldn't make sense for the owner to post 30.06, as that would do nothing to stop open carrying. I would also submit that in his quest to learn how to stop open carrying in his business, a 30.06 wouldn't even cross his mind.

This is why unlicensed open carry is the only reasonable approach, as far as I can see.

If anything, CHLs would be granted a whole new level of respect. After all, these are licensed people who (from the public's perspective) can be "trusted" to carry, and the weapon is concealed as well, so the customers don't even know about it.

The terrified masses don't want to disarm the cops or known-good guys ("CHLs"), they just don't want joe six pack walking around with a six shooter. I do believe (but can't prove) that the vast majority would get used to it in a real fast hurry, especially once the benefits (crime reduction) of a visibly armed populace become apparent.

I can definitely see reason in this line of thinking, but I also believe that ignorance is bliss to many people. We shall see. Ya know, the more I think about it the more I wonder if it is such a great idea. Maybe it won't be much of an issue in the less populated areas but holy smoley...Houston and Dallas are just chalked full of jerks just looking for trouble. I hate to think of how they will act if they can just start strapping on a gun without so much as a by your leave.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

AWB09 wrote:I thought about the 30.06 argument and it makes sense. For that reason we shouldn't push for campus carry and parking lot carry because that will only make people more aware of concealed carry and result in more 30.06 signs.

That really isn't the same thing. The difference being that with Concealed campus carry...it is concealed...not in your face like open carry is. You can make a silly analogy out of anything you want I suppose. Do you really not see the difference???? I can go on but I think most folks see the very real difference here.

Just for the record...I said it is POSSIBLE that this could backfire. Who knows...it may not. Quite frankly...I doubt many folks will carry open anyway. Furthermore...I doubt it will even be passed. Speaking of college campus carry, I really wish the energy being put toward open carry would be redirected to campus concealed carry.

LOL...well except for Flintknapper...

AWB09 wrote:I thought about the 30.06 argument and it makes sense. For that reason we shouldn't push for campus carry and parking lot carry because that will only make people more aware of concealed carry and result in more 30.06 signs.

That really isn't the same thing. The difference being that with Concealed campus carry...it is concealed...not in your face like open carry is. You can make a silly analogy out of anything you want I suppose. Do you really not see the difference???? I can go on but I think most folks see the very real difference here.

Just for the record...I said it is POSSIBLE that this could backfire. Who knows...it may not. Quite frankly...I doubt many folks will carry open anyway. Furthermore...I doubt it will even be passed. Speaking of college campus carry, I really wish the energy being put toward open carry would be redirected to campus concealed carry.

TheArmedFarmer wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

dac1842 wrote:First let me say I am a strong believer in our right to carry. Everyone should have at least one. However, I did vote no to open carry and here is why. Right now there are a lot of places that allow concealed carry primarlily because it is out of sight and out of mind. if no one knows you carry, no one cares. With open carry I see lots of places that are currently silent on it barring everything. The oppressed will protest loudly and the establishment will ban all weapons instead of just open carry.

If we can get all restrictions lifted on concealed carry, except for carrying in a bar, then I don't care what the open carry does. I just don't want those that want the open carry to affect the rights of those that carry concealed. I see that happening. I personally don't see open carry passing, but if it does, then it needs to be licensed, and the 30.06 signs need to be modified to give property owners the right to ban open carry but allow concealed.

I hadn't thought of this angle before but I think your right. Places with 30:06 signs are going to triple over night. The average citizen out there is not going to differentiate between open carry and concealed...and I don't believe it is anything but delusional to think we are going to educate them all. Heck...they don't want to be educated. They want to feel safe...even if it is a false sense of security. This move could actually back fire big time.

I don't understand this fear. 30.06 signs are exclusively for licensed concealed carry. If someone wanted to stop unlicensed open carry in their building, then a 30.06 would be completely ineffective as it doesn't address unlicensed individuals. So it would make no sense for them to post it. Someone would be able to open carry right past a 30.06 sign!

A gunbuster sign would be used instead, and us CHLs would walk right past it.

I took the liberty of putting my comment back into the context it was made. Now it should all make sense again once I elaborate for you.

First, I should have said postings in general...both gun busters and 30:06.

Many times, an issue is not an issue until you point it out. Kind of like when we don't notice that our kids are doing something right in front of us that we normally would not be comfortable with them doing, but as soon as someone points it out...we jump on them about it. Once a few folks are seen strutting around with their six guns at their sides, it very likely could cause an over reaction from the masses. That over reaction can cause some to think of the issue when they would not have considered it before. Once they think of the issue, they then begin to make the moves that emotionally will give them a warm fuzzy. We often forget in our little circle that not everybody is as comfortable with firearms as we are.

Like I said before...the possibility is there. If we think about it rationally, from the perspective of the citizen with no real feelings about it either way. They are not likely going to think that open carry is a bad thing but concealed carry is good. Most don't think about it at all, but that is because they don't know we are walking around with a loaded(cocked and locked) pistol on us. If confronted with it on a daily bases...they may have fears of it. This could cause an over reaction that will spill over into concealed carry as well as open carry. "In your face" tactics can be like poking a stick at the Tiger.

dac1842 wrote:First let me say I am a strong believer in our right to carry. Everyone should have at least one. However, I did vote no to open carry and here is why. Right now there are a lot of places that allow concealed carry primarlily because it is out of sight and out of mind. if no one knows you carry, no one cares. With open carry I see lots of places that are currently silent on it barring everything. The oppressed will protest loudly and the establishment will ban all weapons instead of just open carry.

If we can get all restrictions lifted on concealed carry, except for carrying in a bar, then I don't care what the open carry does. I just don't want those that want the open carry to affect the rights of those that carry concealed. I see that happening. I personally don't see open carry passing, but if it does, then it needs to be licensed, and the 30.06 signs need to be modified to give property owners the right to ban open carry but allow concealed.

I hadn't thought of this angle before but I think your right. Places with 30:06 signs are going to triple over night. The average citizen out there is not going to differentiate between open carry and concealed...and I don't believe it is anything but delusional to think we are going to educate them all. Heck...they don't want to be educated. They want to feel safe...even if it is a false sense of security. This move could actually back fire big time.

I voted yes to unlicensed open carry, but maybe not for the same reasons as some others here voted that way. I am thinking that the BG is going to shoot the guy with the gun on his hip first, giving me time to either get the heck out of there or head for cover so I can return fire if need be. . I assume they will be handing out signs that say..."Shoot me first"...for the folks that want to open carry?

Seriously...there is no way I would open carry. I feel the element of surprise is too valuable to give up. I'm not much into doing the quick draw with some Home Boy fresh out of "hate school". But I do 100% believe folks that want to show off their wares should(correction...DO) have the right under the constitution to do so. Heck...while we are at it...what's with having to get a special license to exercise my right to carry at all? Concealed or otherwise.