TexasCHLforum.com

MBGuy wrote:Thank you, you proved my point.

I'd say we also restrict how we practice religion in this state, as Baptists are the majority. And let's go ahead and abolish alcohol, it just causes so many problems.

Amazing....I didn't know the whole state of Texas was "metropolitan". Wow, what I've been missing....

Oh, and by the way, I OC'd in Louisville. Not quite Houston, but "metropolitan" nevertheless. No one freaked out.

SA-TX wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I won't go so far as to say that open-carry supporters are selfish, nor do I feel that way, but the fact is a relatively small group of people are willing to risk the creation of a lot of new off-limits businesses (via TPC §30.06 signs) just to have the option to openly-carry. When I say "relatively small group" I am making the assumption that, if open-carry ever passes, it will be licensed open-carry. Unlicensed open-carry has absolutely no chance of passing any time soon, and if it ever does, it will come only after successfully passing licensed open-carry.

Chas.

Charles, I think you are making a couple of other assumptions:

1) TPC 30.06 would be updated to apply to licensed open carry. Depending on how the CHL law was changed to allow licensed open carry, that may or may not happen. Why not? It seems to me that one of the reasons a sign is necessary for the protection of property rights is that, by definition, the owner cannot see a concealed handgun. Thus, the sign communicates his wishes. This isn't a problem with open carry.

2) That a 30.06 sign is the way to keep someone from open carrying and thus is going to be the action taken. If the owner doesn't like your exposed sidearm, he can ask you to leave. The verbal request is just as binding and is an immediate response to unwelcome open carry. Additionally, as noted in 1) above, it might be the ONLY recourse if the wording of 30.06 isn't updated.

I'm less concerned about wide-spread 30.06 postings in response to open carry (either licensed or unlicensed) because:

a) It seems to me that the trend over time has been fewer postings, not more.

b) The media has written/broadcast CHL stories that contain 30.06 information before (probably every time a CHL bill get traction in the Legislature) but their impact is short-lasting and ultimately minimal (see above).

c) Open carry would be practiced by so few that it is unlikely spawn mass postings.

d) Anti-carry business owners probably ALREADY have their businesses posted.

I'm willing to take the risk, because I evaluate the probability of many new postings as highly unlikely. My weighing of the cost versus benefits is that legal open carry is desirable for both practical and philosophical reasons and I believe it can be had with few, if any, disadvantages.

Just so I'm not misunderstood, I want to say that open carry is not my top CHL-related priority. I believe that parking lot carry and campus carry are both more beneficial to the CHL population as a whole. I strongly supported them last session and will continue to do so. I also would like to see a reduction in off-limits places (whole buildings because of a court or court office, voting places on election day, professional sports events, etc.).

Respectfully, SA-TX