A good summary of how I believe both the citizenry of Texas and the Legislature feel about this issue at the present time. You have an excellent understanding of "how things are" and "what it will take" to change that.If you want to compare the actual history of the events regarding CHL in Texas, then let's do that. When CHL was passed there was a mass posting of signs. Originally, gunbuster signs were valid in Texas, and there WAS a huge movement by business associations and chambers of commerce to do this. It got to the point that in a later session the legislature had to pass the 30.06 sign requirement to limit the damage - making the sign large and specific enough that a company posting had to know exactly what they were doing to commit to posting, rather than simply posting some generic gunbusters sign because they were told to by someone else.
In light of those events, I think the concern is considerably more valid than you give it credit for. As has been discussed here before, the legislature is not going to go for a 2-sign requirement (one for CHL and one for open carry), so you're going to end up with single sign that bans both open carry and CHL. Given the visible nature of open carry, I think you would see a jump in postings in reaction to seeing people openly carrying. The reason this doesn't happen much with CHL is because the very nature of a concealed handgun makes it invisible to the public eye - out of sight, out of mind.
As for your latter proposal, I honestly think that would never work. Carry is too small of an issue for this to effectively come to light in the public eye like you describe. The public is not going to give the specific, prolonged, and informed thought required to make a reasoned observation and correlation of circumstances that you describe. For most people guns are guns. What they see in the news and in the media in general is that guns are used to rob, assault, and kill people. The obvious answer in the public eye is to ban guns in whatever places they think the guns are doing harm. It is counter-intuitive, yes. But that's how it is, and that's how it has played out for decades now. We all know that criminals do not obey the laws regarding guns, but the public as a whole is of the mindset that making laws is how you prevent crime. In reality, enforcing laws against specific acts mitigates the extent to which specific criminals can continue their criminal acts (and act as somewhat of a deterrent for those considering committing crimes), but laws do not prevent crimes. Society's willingness to tolerate crime and its willingness to effectively punish those who break the law plays a much bigger role in crime reduction.
Now, I have stated this before, but I see part of the problem with trying to make open carry legal right now is that there is a public perception that someone who carries a gun is likely to commit a crime with that gun. It is an emotional knee-jerk reaction without any specific thought-out reasoning to it, very much grounded in "what if" scenarios. The law does not help with this, because we are deemed not to be trustworthy to maintain proper conduct in certain areas - schools, meetings of government entities, 51% establishments, professional sporting events, etc. As long as the law reinforces the belief that a CHL holder is likely to "lose it" within the imaginary mental boundaries of these specific areas, I believe the climate for passing open carry legislation will not be good. Removing the official prejudice in the law against those of us who carry right now would make it easier to change public perception about people who carry firearms for self-defense in general. It is not going to happen overnight, and incremental steps towards more sane laws is the only way I see positive change coming about.
So, for those that believe the TSRA is wasting its energies on parking lot carry and campus carry bills rather than OC legislation, I sincerely disagree. These kinds of specific changes are part of a greater strategy to make carry in general more accepted. I can see this already with the Motorist Protection Act, in my interactions with folks who are relatively new to the idea of going about armed. Reducing the places in the law where we are not trusted to carry goes a long way in making carry in general a more accepted and normal practice, paving the way to a social and political climate where Open Carry is a realistic possibility.
I agree OC (if it has any chance), must be done incrementally...and have stated that for at least a couple of years we've been talking about it. Much must be done in preparation...and your outline of what would be required is spot on IMO.
That is why I find it discouraging (sickening really) that so many folks are not willing to start the educational process needed to pave the way for other advances that will restore our gun rights. Instead... they seem only interested in avoiding any and all conflict, dissent or oppostion...they just want to "keep what they have".
That is the pinnacle of complancency...and that is what I am railing against.
The institution of Gun Rights (or all rights) will not be not be accomplished by the timid (all of those...please take a seat in the back..and get out of the way).
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"?
