TexasCHLforum.com

joe817 wrote:

TLE2 wrote:Parking lot and campus carry are too important to be bogged down by open carry, IMHO.

OC might best be saved for future legislative sessions....but not this next one coming up.

Parking lot & campus carry should be the major focus this go around.

Hello Gentlemen,

I understand and appreciate your perspective. However, let me assure you Texas Open Carry will be pursued for the 2011 legislative session. This should not even be a question in anyone’s mind. As a matter of fact it is already being pursued through letters, emails, and phone calls being made to Texas legislators prompted by the success of the OK OC effort. IMHO our best chance to ensure coherency with the parking lot and campus carry effort as well as the administration of priority, political clout, etc. is for us (TSRA) to manage the Texas OC effort. Activities to date, have not, and will not make this issue disappear. It is impractical thinking to believe otherwise. I believe the best way to management this effort is to take control of it and we (TSRA) have that opportunity. Knowing the risks of having this proceed un-managed by us, and it will; I question our legitimacy to complain of the consequences if we choose inaction.

Thanks & Have a Nice Day

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Contrary to what many have said about me, I do not oppose open-carry; I do have one and only one concern, and that's the expansion of businesses posting 30.06 signs. The fact that I do not support OC does not mean I would oppose it. In fact, I absolutely would not oppose it, unless a horrendous bill like the one proposed last session is offered again. My opposition would be based upon the dangerous construction of the bill, not the concept of OC. I openly offered suggestions for simplifying and improving the bill, but the author had every right to ignore them as he did.

In the end, open-carry deals with how Texans can carry defensive handguns; I'm far more concerned with empowering more people to carry in more places. In my view, that should be our priority.

Chas.

Hello Charles,

I do want you to know there are those of us that very much appreciate your contributions. Did you have the opportunity to review and comment on Representative Debbie Riddle's Open Carry bill she had drafted for last session? If not, would you be willing to extend your generocity in reviewing and offering suggestions to her draft bill? I know she as been a great asset to TSRA and our 2A rights.

Thanks & Have a Nice Day!

The Annoyed Man wrote:Actually, SA-TX and Cohagher have so eloquently stated their position, that I am more favorably disposed to their cause than I was. Even so, I still think things like the parking lot bill should have some primacy of position before the legislature because that legislation will more directly affect those very CHL holders whom both of you admit will mostly not OC. In other words, it is a more immediately pressing issue for a majority of those who carry guns legally; and therefore, it should be addressed first.

The reason I believe this is that, if you move OC up to the top priority position, and even if it passes, it will likely still permit employers to bar any employee who carries concealed or openly from disarming and securing their weapon in the parking lot before entering the premises. So what you are then left with is a situation in which a right which you both readily admit most CHLers won't practice has been enabled, but for whom they still have to be disarmed on the way to and from work — a net setback for those who choose to obtain a CHL — and another legislative session squandered.

So how do you address that possibility?

Hello T.A.M.,

Thank you for your question.

I cannot speak for SA-TX, but I honestly do not see this as an either/or situation. I have no issue with the parking lot bill and even campus carry taking priority over an OC bill. With all the great ground work laid for these two bills over the last few years hopefully we will have smooth sailing this next session. I do not believe OC had anything to do with either of these bills failure to advance last session – but rather more to do with demo’s antics on the voter id bill.

Please understand I am not asking for OC to be “the top priority position”, I’m just appealing to have it on the list; and I do not believe that having the other two bills as priority necessitates the exclusion of OC.

I hope this addresses your question.

Thanks & Have a Nice Day!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Starbucks is only one company; how can we view the action of one company as indicative of what others will do? It's more revealing to look at the many hundreds of companies that posted generic "no gun" signs from May, 1995 until Sept. 1, 1997. That was the period before TPC §30.06 was created along with the 30.06 "big, ugly sign." With passage of HB2909, the small generic "no gun" sign was no longer effective and businesses would have to post the "big, ugly sign" if they wanted to exclude armed CHL's. The combination of the big, ugly sign and the "out of sight, out of mind" phenomenon brought an end to posting by most businesses. The conduct of one business is not indicative of the whole, but the conduct of hundreds of businesses just might be. I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge the risk exists; many OC supporters don't.

Chas.

Thank you for the response Charles. I did highlight Starbucks since they have been very visible as of late directly relating to this issue. However my intent was to express my believe that not just one store, but that all national chains would continue to adhere to their current corporate policies which for the most part will be to abide by the resident State laws. As an example, I do not anticipate that Wal-Mart, Albertsons, Bass Pro, McDonalds, Home Depot and on and on, will suddenly change corporate policy because Oklahoma legalized OC. I hope this helps to clarify my intent.

I really appreciate your explanation of the “big, ugly sign”. So in summary; a risk materialized, resolutions were planned and implemented, and the risk was mitigated. Great Job! I have not doubt and complete confidence that this activity could be repeated and effective risk mitigating action(s) could again be implemented.

Thanks & Have a Nice Day!

IMHO 2011 is the right time for Open Carry in Texas.

My rationale:

• Oklahoma legislature passing what is said to be “veto proof” bill.
• Starbuck’s very visible support of 2nd amendment to include OC.
• OC deterred armed robbery in Georgia
• Tea Party political clout.
• And numerous national and international media attention on OC.

Please allow me to address a few of the issues in the above posts:

“idiot OC supporters” from last session:

I would like to try to close this and move forward. I hereby publically and humbly apologize to any and all that were offended, angered, slighted or otherwise disturbed by any and all OC supporters from last session. In all sincerity I ask that you accept this apology and allow this issue to be put to bed. I have spoken with my senator and representative, neither of which feel in the lease bit put-off on the Texas OC effort. If you have a legislator that feels otherwise, please send me a PM and I will personally contact them and apologize. Thank you.


Even if it passed I would still carry concealed:

I think as a general rule this will be true for the vast majority of CHL’s, including me at times. However, I also believe that most CHL’s will practice OC to some extent, even though they may not visualize that now. Let’s take a few examples. To my knowledge, all of the below are currently illegal w/o OC.

• Removing your jacket/vest which was providing your concealment before you get into your car during our hot Texas summers (assuming not on your property).
• Keeping the handgun exposed on your hip while driving your vehicle.
• Exiting the vehicle prior to putting on your jacket to conceal your handgun (assuming not on your property).
• Showing your buddy the new 1911 you just purchased at his backyard BBQ.
• Removing your handgun from bodily concealment to store in a lock box in your vehicle prior to entering your child’s school.
• Laying your trusty 45 LC in the truck seat next to you to dispense of hogs, coyotes, mexican buzzards, snakes, etc. as you go check on your neighbour’s heifer that is suppose to calve while he is out of town for the weekend (OK, may this one is just me).
• And I’m sure others can think of many, many more.


“…giant surge in new locations posting valid 30.06 signs”:

Maybe a recognized risk, but I certainly do not see this as rationale to not pursue OC. It is true that there are no guarantees in the fight for freedom and civil liberties, and the fight is definitely not without risk. But risks are to be managed, not rationalized as justification for inaction. My understanding is the 30.06 sign was created to dwarf such an issue; so this risk is certainly not without a resolution.

I assume there were those that believed Rosa Parks should have given up her seat and not caused any trouble. After all, they were allowed to ride on the back of the bus and pushing the issue could result in banning them from the bus completely. Thank God for the Rosa Parks, we are a better country for it. I am almost embarrassed as a man that I do not exhibit equal courage as this woman. Accepting restrictions and limitations on our freedoms and liberties for fear of losing the status quo seems to run counter to my perception of America history.

We have businesses that post valid 30.06 signs now, and for the most part we simply choose not to darken the doors of their establishment. I think Starbuck’s stance is a prime example of how most of the national chains will respond. As for the local convenience store putting up a 30.06, I would simply cross the street to the next one. I personally believe this will be as rare as seeing someone open carry; but would gladly walk to the convenience store on the next corner in order to restore my liberty. If these businesses are really anti-2A I would prefer not to give them my business anyway.

How to move forward?

Mr. Cotton mentioned last year that if TSRA members wanted OC then they would push for it. (Charles please correct or qualify as necessary). So if you are a member of TSRA (if not, please consider joining) please communicate to Charles Cotton and Alice Tripp that you would like OC in the 2011 session.

I think there will be attempts at OC in 2011 with or without TSRA involvement. My belief is the best shot at having OC in 2011, and certainly my preference, would be to have TSRA spear-head this to ensure coherency with other 2A legislative activities. So please, contact TSRA and let them know your wishes.


Thanks and Have a Nice Day.