TexasCHLforum.com

Bullwhip wrote:

74novaman wrote:

billv wrote:How many bank robberies in the other OC states have you heard about where the OC'ers have been taken out?

Not a bank robbery, but how about a guy that got his gun stolen as he was OCing?

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/95999354.html

I think I read that turned out to be bogus.

cbr600 wrote:A gunbuster or generic "weapons prohibited" sign will be sufficient to prohibit open carry by non-cops, while having no effect on legal concealed carry. Same as now.

canvasbck wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote: Saying you want OC to protect you in case you accidentally display your firearm is like a person saying public intoxication should be legal in case they accidentally get drunk. Actually, it is even sillier than that, since accidental display is not illegal. One person out of several hundred thousand does not a precedent make. Your odds of dying in a traffic accident are far higher.

Your straw man argument about "accidentally" getting drunk makes absolutely no sense. After reading about one of our members being arrested and the ensuing legal troubles, are you telling me that it wouldn't make you uneasy to mount a horse 200 yards from a state park guard post and then realize that your CCW is now OUTSIDE of your cover garment? This has happened to me, so I can say with certainty that it makes me nervous.

I'll say it again........I don't think the time is now, we have more important bills right now. But 2013, I will have a very different opinion. I'm sick of people on both sides of this debate forming a circular firing squad over it.

zero4o3 wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

74novaman wrote:

redlin67 wrote:It seems that a lot have the fear of "signs" that may appear because of open carry. When will you not be afraid? 2 years, 4 years, ever?

If gunbusters applied to OC and 30.06 to concealed carry only, then I would stop worrying about signs at all.

EXACTLY..... as would most of us. The voices of reason are repeatedly saying, NO connections between OC and CC. But that is not good enough for them. Maybe others are right and it was done from ignorance but I believe the connection is deliberate.

I feel like my points were ignored because they couldn't be overcome

Edit to ad I was not referring to you more so agreeing with you and pointing it out again

pcgizzmo wrote:

zero4o3 wrote:

pcgizzmo wrote:I have yet to see anyone post what an open carry bill would look like that would make everyone happy.

I see it as a no win situation in that CHL's are going to continue to be concerned about postings that keep them out with Open Carry.

I don't want my current rights to change but I do want open carry. I can't think of a way to get that w/out possibly taking a chance on a few things changing. I haven't seen anyone post a good solution on how to change w/out causing some issues. So, I'm curious if those CHL'ers that say they are for Open Carry really are for it or are they just saying that because there for 2nd Amendment rights but would prefer not to rock the boat because we have it pretty good right now as is.

I think a good solution would be to make OC not require a licenses and let any form of gunbuster sign give notice not to carry.

That's what I'm saying. There is no good way to have OC and not at least have some possibility of changing the current CHL laws or at least the possibility that there would be less access to places CHL's can go now. So, my best guess is that some who say they are for full 2nd amendment rights even though deep down that may be half true secretly they don't want to change anything because that would mean changing our current CHL access and possibly more 30.06 signs going up and or having to do away with them all together and allowing any "not allowed sign" to take it's place.

I'm not sure you can make the OC omelet w/out breaking some eggs.

my suggestion is a perfectly good way, and if its not point out the flaws.

If the State required continuing education and a $70 fee in order to vote, or to be a journalist, or to argue your legal case before a jury, you'd be screaming to anyone who'll listen about infringement of rights. Yet because it's guns, you say pay the money, hide your gun and be thankful. In Texas, no less; stereotypically regarded as the most gun-friendly state in the Union. The state that, historically, is REALLY the most unrestrictive is up in New England; Vermont, which is and always has been so unrestrictive about modes of carry that it doesn't even offer a concealed carry license for reciprocity with other states.

And thank you sir, for making my point with this part of your post, your upset that we CHL holders don't fully support this CURRENT OC legislation, and in your argument you point out costs, but YOU who want to OC would pay that same 140 / 70 dollar fee to OC if it got passed would you not?

This is not to say that I don't want some form of OC, just that I don't want the current legislation.

74novaman wrote:

redlin67 wrote:It seems that a lot have the fear of "signs" that may appear because of open carry. When will you not be afraid? 2 years, 4 years, ever?

If gunbusters applied to OC and 30.06 to concealed carry only, then I would stop worrying about signs at all.

jsimmons wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:A former (banned) Member of TexasCHLforum claims to have written it and I suspect this is true.

Why did you feel the need to add the "(banned)" modifer. I want open-carry. Are you going to ban me, too?

Keith B wrote:

Protect Our Rights wrote:Well, seeings how I sit in a very friendly OC state, I have no obligation to Texans or their rights. As a friend of mine put it (on a site that is hated by moderators here (OCDO)) The best way to protect rights is to protect the rights of others. I never siad the politician had to be OC friendly, just 2nd amendment friendly. Legal battles are being fought all over the country right now that are in favor of gun owners. Now is the time to press on our legislators and let them know that what they have been doing is great but it is not enough. We can't afford to wait until Obama and his czars mess with the system. OC time and time again has proven to be a deter to criminal activity. Look at statistics on how percentage wise how many how many CCers have to pull and fire on a criminal compared to OCers. It's just sad today that people go around preaching that they are pro-2nd amendment but then in the same sentence say that OC is wrong. That I find very amusing and heretical.

Well, I will tell you that you are NOT in a VERY friendly open carry state. If Indiana WERE a friendly state, then the law would specify that it was legal to openly carry. The real fact is that the law is silent on how you must carry with the license (concealed or open), and that is the only thing that makes open carry permissible. AND, you must have a LTCH (License To Carry a Handgun), so again if they were VERY friendly they would not require you have a license.

While it may not be an issue out in the rural areas where I believe you live, but there are many LEO's in Indiana that think that the license is implied for concealed carry, and they have and can harass you about it, even though it's legal (just search the open carry forums.) And, the state allows government buildings to restrict carry in them at their discretion. Texas law excludes government buildings from prohibiting you from carrying, so unless there is a court there or 30.06 (see below) posted meeting of government officials, then you can carry. Even our capitol building allows concealed carry.

In Texas, we also have a very large sign that must include the wording from Penal Code section 30.06 in English and Spanish to prohibit concealed carry if not an already prohibited place. In Indiana, you just need a little 'gun busters' sign and that is legal.

Additionally, Indiana is a MAY issue state, unlike Texas which is a SHALL issue state. If the local LEO in your Indiana town who is in charge of approving your request for a permit just doesn't think you should have one, then they can send a disapproval notice to the superintendent and then you have to challenge the decision. In Texas you just have to meet the qualifications and you will get your permit.

So, you can come in here trolling with your open carry rhetoric, but sounds to me like Texas, even with its restrictions are better than your supposed friendly state. I suggest you go talk to YOUR state legislators and see if you can get some of the restrictions removed in YOUR state before you talk trash about ours.

Beiruty wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Is it really that much trouble to strap on a gun at the competition?

With stiff gun belt, setting up your rig (holster and 2 mag carrier) is not horribly bad but it is not like you are pulling up your pants either. What I do, is get set up at home and throw on a wind breaker or light fleece jacket. You need that in pistol matches because you need to unconceal and draw while shooting unless it is too hot in the summer where we get a waiver. Also, usually I take one pistol to the match. I carry it concealed till I am at range.

Keith B wrote:I heard the way to end up with a small fortune teaching CHL classes is to start out with a large fortune.

G.A. Heath wrote:#1: I don't think that OC will cause the "demise" of the CHL, but it will hurt licensees. Larger cities, and businesses such as chain stores, will see more valid 30.06 signs.
#2: Your right here, the proposed bill could/shoulda been written better.
#3: I'm not a CHL instructor, but I really don't think they are making a living off of their CHL classes. Of the few that I personally know one barely breaks even. Besides we are not talking about constitutional carry at this time and I would honestly prefer that when we do start looking at it we go about it the same way that AK and AZ did. They have legal open and concealed carry without a permit, but the permit is there for those who wish to take advantage of reciprocity agreements and carry in other states.