TexasCHLforum.com

Cobra Medic wrote:They're not crimes but handog and others know that not a crime doesn't mean not a problem.

mgood wrote:But there is no printing issue. Unless it's an intentional fairlure to conceal, then printing and wardrobe malfunctions are not crimes.

jester wrote:Your argument that the Second Amendment doesn't apply in Texas might have had the illusion of merit before the McDonald decision.

Oldgringo wrote:

jester wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:IDEA! Let's have an amendment whereby the voters can decide if a "political jurisdiction" wants OC or not. Let the voters decide. Ain't that the American way?

Do they also get to decide if they will allow Mosques? How about allowing Negros to vote?

Constitutional rights are Constitutional rights, no matter how much bigots don't like "those people" having rights.

The Negro voting question was answered a long time ago and I'm okay with that.

The mosque question was answered on 9/11/2001as far as I'm concerned. Anything I didn't already know about Islam was driven home in a murderous lesson that day by cowardly religious fanatic zealots bent on destroying the United States. No mosques allowed in this country! It's way past time we quit apologizing for being Americans.
Back to OC in Texas, if you please.

Oldgringo wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:I suspect Ole Gringo may be yanking a few chains just to see who rattles.

Not really. If the OC question was put to a popular vote, the question would be answered - win, lose or draw.

Assuming for a moment that the OC question was on the ballot, how would I vote? I dunno', how would you vote?

BLG wrote:My employer has a policy against employee's having firearms on company property. They have every right to that policy and to enforce it.
When I started 20 years ago no one had thought to write such a policy. Now replacing the medical insurance that has kept my wife alive the last 10 years would not be easy if even possible.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Sorry, you're wrong. If a property owner wanted to prohibit both concealed and open carry, then they would have to post both a 30.06 sign and another sign. The legislature will never allow that requirement to remain. TPC §30.06 will be amended to cover both concealed and open carry.
Chas.

canvasbck wrote: Seriously, for me, the parking lot issue is a much bigger problem. Why on earth do we have laws that allow everyone without a criminal history to protect themselves as long as they are not heading to/from work?

canvasbck wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:I still believe the result of open carry will be more places restricting gun carry... it just doesn't seem worth it to me. I can already carry, why should I give a crud if someone who doesn't want to go to the same trouble I did is allowed to carry? Point two.... if your truly a tough guy and capable of handling yourself, you don't need to run around showing off your ability too shoot someone. Open carry in 2010 is simply show boating in my humble opinion and I have ne desire to help anyone do it by risking the places I can carry.

I have refrained from posting in this topic because my reason for wanting to have the OPTION of OC is very limited and does not reflect most CHLers. My wife and I trail ride frequently and I can now honestly say that CC is literaly and figuratively a pain. OC would be much simpler and easier. I know that my situation is unique and I would not want others to be imposed to satisfy my niche.

I am offended by the supporters of OC who have attacked pro 2A folks who don't feel that their cause is worth pressing in the current environment.

I am equally offended by your condescending tone towards those of us who support an OC movement. Saying that everyone who supports OC is either A) too lazy to go through the CHL process or B) is a jerk who just wants to look cool is a narrow minded view that ignores many valid and reasonable arguments in support of OC. (Although it would be cool to JUST ONCE walk through Wally World with the .500 on my hip. )

That said, I think that OC is now and should remain a back burner topic until we first, get the parking lot law passed and second, get campus carry.

Edit to add that I posted this before you added the second paragraph that softened your post.

Bart wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Hmmm... so are they allowed to consummate the relationship in the open... or does the law require concealment of this activity?

I think there are laws against waving it around in public.

74novaman wrote:

tacticool wrote:It's frustrating to realize that most Texans are not pro gun enough to accept open carry.

If we want to sugar coat it, we can say they're "not comfortable enough with guns" to tolerate open carry, but it boils down to the same thing. If people got upset whenever they saw an interracial couple holding hands, and tried to pass laws against it, we could say they're "not comfortable" with it, but it doesn't change the facts.

It has NOTHING to do with how "pro gun" we are. It has EVERYTHING to do with the political realities in Texas. snip.........................................

and snip again......... If OC advocates are not willing to take those steps, accusing the concealed carry crowd "not pro gun" is certainly not going to help you. If you're willing to insult those who have the most in common with you, good luck convincing legislators who aren't your friends to back your cause.