I am well aware of the flurry of signs that popped up and the increase in anti-carry rhetoric that appeared, but it was fully expected. And it was equally expected to disappear with time, and it did. The same has been true following each and every pro-gun/pro-carry change that has been introduced and passed since. The same will be true with open carry if it is passed also, but just as the case with concealed carry and every other event, it will pass with time. It does not matter what the issue, there is always those who disagree with it and will try to oppose and protest it, but it does not mean we do not proceed, it merely means we deal with it in a logical manner. Just as those signs disappeared with acceptance, so will fear based opposition to open carry. As for your assertion that only Texas experienced this type of response to concealed carry passage and not being able to use the experiences of other states to predict how things will come to pass in Texas, well, that is simply foolish. Every state that has passed concealed carry experienced the very same thing as Texas did. Those states that do not prohibit posting had wide spread posting just as we did. And it was not the passage of 30.06 that removed the signs, the signs began to disappear with time. All 30.06 did was to protect the CHL holder from prosecution in the face of poor posting. While many who post did not change to the new signage, thereby making it legal to carry despite their postings, it did not cause them to remove the postings. It is clear that the vast majority of those knee jerk posting were voluntarily removed over time and few properties continue to post out of fear (most who continue to post do so for liability purposes based on legal advice and insurance requirements, with some doing so as a political position).Charles L. Cotton wrote:Based upon your post I didn't think you were aware of what happened for 28 months in Texas. I'm talking about the public response to SB60 and the epidemic of generic "no gun" signs that were springing up like weeds from about May, 1995 until HB2909 went into effect on Sept. 1, 1997. It was a very bad time for CHL holders in Texas and it required a legislative fix that included the 30.06 "big, ugly sign." So don't tell me that what happened in other states is a better predictor of what the public response will be to open-carry than what we experienced in Texas. It not theoretical, it's not hypothetical, it's not fear-mongering as you claim, it's a historical fact. A fact of which you said you are unaware.DocNTexas wrote:As for what you refer to as happening between May 1995 and Sept. 1997 being ignored, well, I guess I am having an Alzheimer’s moment there, because I can't seem to come up with anything relevant to this discussion. You will have to provide more info there concerning your point. However, I am assuming you are referring to the passage of the concealed carry law and the challenges that followed (correct me if I am off base). If so, I would point out that it was not ignored, in fact, it supports the position here, in that, none of the fact-less claims of gloom and doom thrown out in opposition came to pass (incidentally, a position clearly indicated by the 40+ other states that already had concealed carry prior to Texas passing it).Charles L. Cotton wrote: So pointing to an act that is legal but not done, then claiming the experience in those 44 states is somehow indicative of what the public reaction will be in Texas is not only illogical, it ignores what happened in Texas from May, 1995 until Sept. 1, 1997.
First off, every bit of your post is YOUR words and claims and was never said or even insinuated by me. I have never claimed that open carry was not a target of harassment by law enforcement or that some people did not freak out at the sight, or any of the other things you claimed I said. I agree that in many areas law enforcement uses every tactic they have to harass those legally openly carrying. I agree that the sight of someone open carrying a firearm causes some to call 911 to sound the alarm. What I said was that these events are rare and not the norm. The same could be said about concealed carry and vehicle carry. In every state, including Texas, when these laws were passed, LEO's went out of their way to disarm those they encountered with a CHL. I know of numerous cases locally where officers on traffic stops drew their weapons, ordered the person from the vehicle and disarmed them the moment they presented their CHL and indicated they were armed, for no reason other than to exercise their right to disarm those they felt should not carry. I have been quizzed at length about why I feel I need to carry. The same was true with vehicle carry. Officer vowed to arrest for it anyway, just because they disagreed with it. But over time all of this passed and it is now rare to hear of it occurring. The same is true for open carry. In the states where open carry has always been legal, it is rare to hear of a problem, and the few cases that do pop up are typically in the larger cities and involved uninformed officers. I have said it many times, that open carry does not occur on a wide spread basis in most of these states and this is where the problems occur....ignorance of the people. So, while you are right that there would be those who will openly and active oppose open carry if passed here, it too will subside with time and acceptance will occur, thus, your fears of the Texas population uprising and trying to do whatever you seem to fear they will do is unfounded.Charles L. Cotton wrote:First, it's not an assumption; I've read quite a number of posts from those 44 enlightened states in which open-carry is legal. The posts I see are much more in the nature of "how dare they do that to me," not "gee, this is open-carry Utopia!"DocNTexas wrote:I disagree with this assumption. OpenCarry.org exists to promote open carry where it is not allow and to protect the rights of those who choose to practice their right to do so where it is legal. Saying that OC.org would have no reason to exist is like saying the TSRA and NRA have no reason to exist because gun ownership is already legal and a constitutional right. Just because it is a legal right does not mean entities and people with opposing views do not infringe on those rights of those who practice this right, thus requiring protection.Charles L. Cotton wrote: If open-carry were truly not an issue in 44 states, then OpenCarry.org would not have any reason to exist. If you look at the majority of their posts, they deal with complaints about how people openly carrying were treated in the states where it is allegedly legal.
Most open-carry supporters, you included, claim that open-carry is not a problem in the 44 states where it is legal. You give the impression that in those 44 states, open-carry folks walk arm-in-arm with LEO and other citizens, wearing flowers in their hair and singing Cum Bi Ya. But you admit in this post that this is not the case. People are hassled for carrying openly even though it's legal. From the posts on OpenCarry.org, it's clear that people are arrested and the media very often makes a circus of it. You bet it's misleading when open-carry supporters paint a Normal Rockwell picture of open-carry bliss when the truth is far different.
Charles L. Cotton wrote:You need to reread your own admission about why OpenCarry.org exists and the abuse of people simply engaging in the legal act of carrying openly.DocNTexas wrote:I don't think there is much more to say here...you pretty much made the point I was making, which is, legalizing open carry in Texas would not pose a real problem, as proven by the other states that allow it. One, few people actually practice it, and; two, there are few issues with those who do.Charles L. Cotton wrote: Perhaps Texas is in the minority in terms of what is technically legal or illegal, but we not in the minority of what is actually occurring on a daily basis. As you acknowledged, people just don't open carry in the 44 states where it is allegedly legal.
Again, Charles, there is a big difference in public reaction and the abuse of power by our law enforcement community. As an attorney you should be more concerned with this than public opinion anyway. If the people want it and the legislators allow it, it is not up to our LEO's to circumvent it and you should address that rather than the few protestors that place signs on their property. As with most CHL holders I choose to shop where I am welcome. I support their right to post and my right to not shop their. As a result of this unity, coupled with the lack of gloom and doom associated with the practice, most stores have removed their signs and I rarely encounter a problem. Besides, the only problems you have cited is that those who choose to exercise their right might get harassed by the police. If that is the only concern then why oppose it? How does that hurt you or anyone else? The bottom line is that other states do not have any kind of legitimate problem with having an open carry law and other than your concern that I might get harassed by a LEO, you can not cite a legitimate, demonstratable concern associated with it either.
NO, Charles, I DID NOT! I said "he was using the same excuses and unfounded claims of gloom and doom as the anti-gun crowd used against concealed carry".Charles L. Cotton wrote:Yes, you are labeling people who disagree with your position and you used pejorative terms to do it. You weren't merely pointing out anything, you were intentionally insulting. As I said, if you can't state your position, including your disagreement with others, without being condescending and insulting, then don't post.DocNTexas wrote:First off, I was not labeling anyone, . . . I merely pointed out that these claims were unsupported by any fact or evidence and mirrored the tactics used by the anti-gun establishment to further their cause in the absence of supporting factual data.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Now you've gone way too far. Putting this kind of label on people who disagree with you is not acceptable here at TexasCHLforum.DocNTexas wrote:So stop supporting the fear mongering tactics of the anti-gun crowd by using them to impose personal views and opinions on others under the guise of public safety and start accepting reality and facts which support alternative situations and views.
This was a true statement and was in no way an abusive statement. I am all fore examining legitimate facts, but to date there has been nothing but "what ifs" and speculations thrown out there as evidence of a bad side to Texas having open carry. When we fought for concealed carry, we (including YOU) continuously pointed to the record of other states that that already had concealed carry as evidence of its safety and effectiveness. At the same time, we constantly countered the anti-crowds claims of increased murders, crimes of passion and even shootouts in the streets as baseless rhetoric, which was spouted in every state before us and evidenced by the fact that it has never come to pass as predicted. That is all I said here. I simply pointed out that his claims were baseless, i.e. having no evidence or basis to suspect they would come to pass here, and as such, the continued use of these claims is no different than when they are used by the anti crowd. I did not accuse him of being an anti gunner or anything else, I merely pointed out how such claims were no different in this case. If you or anyone else takes that to be "labeling" then it is you with the issue. I know you share the opinion of the person I was replying to in the original thread but you do not need to use your position to threaten and misrepresent the statements of other YOU disagree with just to foster YOUR position.
Again, there is absolutely NOTHING associated with the increase in sigh posting and the passage of open carry that relate, other than the expectation that the same people will react the same way and over time will subside, just as they did then. There is nothing is the event you refer to that would remotely suggest the passage of open carry would cause any kind of problem in Texas that has not occurred elsewhere or anything that would pose a public risk.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Please see my response above. It would be a good idea to do a search on this issue (try "SB60") and you'll find a wealth of information on what we went through when the media successfully terrified the general public. And they were afraid of guns they couldn't see, not guns openly carried next to them in the grocery store, movie theater, Home Depot, public library, . . .DocNTexas wrote:As for your statement of basing your opinion on "what actually happened in Texas", there again I am at a loss for your point.Charles L. Cotton wrote: I understand why many people want to carry openly during hot Texas summers and I understand that many people want to carry openly for other reasons. I respect those opinions and I don't disagree with them either. I have one and only one reservation to OC and it's based upon what actually happened here in Texas, not on the theoretical experience in other states.
Again, Charles, that is NOT what I said. I said, I respect everyone’s right to their opinion but I reserve the right to respond in kind, meaning, if someone is posting a false claim as fact, I will point out that the claim is not true and why. This is not insulting or a violation of the rules. You continue to claim that I was "insulting and labeling" the person in question, when in fact I was not. I merely compared the claims being made to those made by the opposing side on other issues. We did not condone their use of these claims then and we should not condone them now. The only different here is that you support this person’s position so you are willing to accept the use of these tactics to support your position. I, on the other hand, do no condone their use by EITHER side, EVER.Charles L. Cotton wrote:DocNTexas wrote:Charles, I support everyone’s right to an opinion and their right to express it, and I openly welcome them, even when I totally disagree with them. Furthermore, I do not "attack" people with my posts, but I do reserve the right to respond in kind and to point out things I feel they are doing which are detrimental to the group and the cause overall.Charles L. Cotton wrote: If you can't state your position without insulting those who disagree with you, then don't post.
I need to make something clear; you don't "reserve the right" to violate our rules, whether you feel you are responding in kind or not. I read the posts of which you complain and no one even approached an insulting and pejorative comment like you used. You can offer any opinions you like, so long as you don't violate our rules. I promise, this is the last time I'll try to get this point across. Your opinions are welcome, your condescending attitude is not. If they are inseparable, then we'll have to say good-bye.
Chas.
So, I support your right to oppose open carry or anything else you choose, for whatever reason you choose. I would even respect your right to simply say you don't like it and since you don't do it you won't support it, assuming you chose to, as that is an honest position, but I do not support anyone’s right to make unfounded claims to support a position that has no other legitimate basis for opposition. So, if you oppose open carry, by all means say so and stand on that side and I will respect you for it, but stop making all the fear mongering claims, twisting the words of others for which you oppose and basically being what you accuse others of being.
As for me, I will not be a problem for you (at least on here) any longer. I take great issue with having a site moderator twist my statements, make false claims about me and threaten to kick me off the site for holding an opposing position or questioning the actions being used to secure a position and I feel this is exactly what you have done here. I will gladly discuss anything you wish at any time and I am always more than happy to clarify any statement that I have made if there is a question about what I intended to say, so you have no reason to call me a liar and accuse me of saying things I clearly did not say. I realize you have worked to promote pro-gun laws in Texas for many years and I appreciate and respect that effort, but I assure you, I have worked just as long and just as hard as you have and for you to assume you to take the position you often do here is an insult to everyone else that has worked just as long and hard and really detracts from what you have accomplished.
With that, Charles, do what you wish. Delete my account; ban me; erase my posts; write a scathing, misrepresenting reply; whatever.....it really does not matter, because I will not be back. If you are that one sided that you are willing to go to such lengths to promote your opinions, then this is not a form I am interested in being a part of anyway. So, with that, I will leave you to enjoy your tightly controlled little group.
Doc