TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:

johnferg69 wrote:

Keith B wrote:

jordanmills wrote: Last time I asked, I was told by the TSRA that there is no support for open carry and they will continue working their agenda instead. That sounds like opposition to me.

This 'if you're not with me, yore against me' attitude is the problem. You and many of the open carry advocates expect the TSRA AND NRA to jump fully on board with your specific agenda and ignore other pro-gun legislation. Had they done that last session we wouldn't have gotten the parking lot bill passed, we wouldn't have been able to expose the legislators and public to campus carry, and we still wouldn't have gotten open carry. The TSRA, Charles and the pro-gun legislators know how and when to introduce the next thing during a session and I think we need to stand with them and their agenda to get as much of a realistic chance as we can in regaining ground for gun owners.

So when will OC be on their agenda?

When the majority of members say they want it and the time is right.

Keith B wrote:

jordanmills wrote: Last time I asked, I was told by the TSRA that there is no support for open carry and they will continue working their agenda instead. That sounds like opposition to me.

This 'if you're not with me, yore against me' attitude is the problem. You and many of the open carry advocates expect the TSRA AND NRA to jump fully on board with your specific agenda and ignore other pro-gun legislation. Had they done that last session we wouldn't have gotten the parking lot bill passed, we wouldn't have been able to expose the legislators and public to campus carry, and we still wouldn't have gotten open carry. The TSRA, Charles and the pro-gun legislators know how and when to introduce the next thing during a session and I think we need to stand with them and their agenda to get as much of a realistic chance as we can in regaining ground for gun owners.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I'm not putting up with one more post falsely claiming TSRA or NRA doing anything to oppose open-carry. It not true and don't do it again.

Chas.

KingofChaos wrote:

johnferg69 wrote:So where do we stand on the first step and why MUST TPC 46.035 be repelled first?

Repealing TPC 46.035 would effectively created licensed open carry. You wouldn't be able to violate any of the laws the specifically specify exceptions for "concealed" handguns though. The clean-up he's proposes would fix this. That's my interpretation at least.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

johnferg69 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

DEB wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:I am FOR OC.
I would not OC myself. But OC would make it easier to carry concealed OWB without worry about unintentionally unconcealing.

This is exactly the reason I am for OC. Before anyone states that it isn't a problem, tell that to that young soldier arrested in Metroplex in Killeen, where L.E. first stated that the reason he was arrested was due to the bulge he saw.

It's not a problem! You point to an arrest that was allegedly made for something that was not illegal. If a LEO is going to do that, then they will arrest someone for open-carrying when that's not illegal either. Don't say that won't happen; just read OpenCarry.org (if you can stomach it) and you'll see countless examples. All an officer would have to do is claim the person "display[ed] a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm" in violation of TPC §42.01(a)(8). Simply putting one's hand on their openly-carried pistol would support such an arrest.

Open-carry does not solve any problems. OC supporters do not help their cause by trying to create a problem to solve. TPC §46.035(a) could not be more clear, one must "intentionally" fail to conceal their handgun before they have created a violation. Arguing otherwise will put people in the position of having to testify in public hearings that this is not a problem under current law and this hurts the open-carry cause.

Sell open-carry for what it is, an option that does not negatively impact public safety.

Chas.

Grant, I don't spend a lot of time on this forum but has there ever been an OC bill you supported?
Have you ever written, helped write, consulted or advised on a OC bill?

Only one open-carry bill has been introduced in the Texas Legislature and that was in the 2011 session. I didn't write that thing and I did not consult on it. I work on NRA and TSRA bills, as well as bills I am asked to write for Representatives and Senators. None of those persons or entities have put open-carry on their legislative agenda.

I have publicly stated/posted that open-carry should be approached with a two-prong, two-session strategy by simply repealing TPC §46.035(a) in one session, then filing an appropriately captioned "clean-up bill" the following session to remove the word "concealed" except in TPC §30.06. Yes, this takes two sessions, but it greatly reduces the chance of anti-gun amendments being added to a bill like the one filed last session. (Last session's open-carry bill opened virtually every important section of the Government Code and Penal Code to anti-gun amendment.) I've been even more vocal and published more about the need to maintain TPC §30.06 as it appears now and not amend it to cover both open-carry and concealed-carry as was done in last session's bill.

My suggestions have been ignored by the folks who claim to be spearheading the open-carry movement in Texas. In fact, the President of LoneStarCDL has expressly stated "they" will never accept leaving TPC §30.06 to cover only concealed-carry. In his words, it must be amended to cover both open-carry and concealed-carry to prevent a so-called "double standard." If an open-carry bill amends TPC §30.06, it will again fail.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

DEB wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:I am FOR OC.
I would not OC myself. But OC would make it easier to carry concealed OWB without worry about unintentionally unconcealing.

This is exactly the reason I am for OC. Before anyone states that it isn't a problem, tell that to that young soldier arrested in Metroplex in Killeen, where L.E. first stated that the reason he was arrested was due to the bulge he saw.

It's not a problem! You point to an arrest that was allegedly made for something that was not illegal. If a LEO is going to do that, then they will arrest someone for open-carrying when that's not illegal either. Don't say that won't happen; just read OpenCarry.org (if you can stomach it) and you'll see countless examples. All an officer would have to do is claim the person "display[ed] a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm" in violation of TPC §42.01(a)(8). Simply putting one's hand on their openly-carried pistol would support such an arrest.

Open-carry does not solve any problems. OC supporters do not help their cause by trying to create a problem to solve. TPC §46.035(a) could not be more clear, one must "intentionally" fail to conceal their handgun before they have created a violation. Arguing otherwise will put people in the position of having to testify in public hearings that this is not a problem under current law and this hurts the open-carry cause.

Sell open-carry for what it is, an option that does not negatively impact public safety.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

johnferg69 wrote:

Keith B wrote:I just believe that the legialature would feel the sign needed to be more visible than a gun buster sign and would say 'We already have a sign, so just modify it to prevent any carry.' Then those businesses who today don't really know people are carrying would then post signs to prevent open carry and the single sign would prevent concealed carry too. It's the old adage, out of sight, out of mind. When people started open carrying I can garuntee you would see a new crop of signs go up.

Well the newest state to go open carry is Oklahoma. We'll see how much pandemonium ensues.

"Pandemonium?" You asked Keith about two signs and he explained (quite well) why the Texas Legislature won't require property owners to post two signs. How does his position suggest "pandemonium" in Texas?

Chas.

apostate wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:I'm curious about what sort of difficulties have been encountered in Arizona since they went to "constitutional carry". Were a lot of places already posted prior, did more post after, more "MWAG" calls after the law went into effect, etc.?

Unlicensed open carry has been legal in Arizona a long time. It wasn't new when I was first there in 1993. Heck, the desk clerk at the Best Western didn't bat an eye at my 1911 when I checked in. It's only unlicensed concealed carry that's recent. (2010 IIRC)

Keith B wrote:I just believe that the legialature would feel the sign needed to be more visible than a gun buster sign and would say 'We already have a sign, so just modify it to prevent any carry.' Then those businesses who today don't really know people are carrying would then post signs to prevent open carry and the single sign would prevent concealed carry too. It's the old adage, out of sight, out of mind. When people started open carrying I can garuntee you would see a new crop of signs go up.

Keith B wrote:

johnferg69 wrote:

Keith B wrote:Well, I'm not voting because it is not a black and white thing of for or against. It depends on how the open carry law would be written.

Ok, let's say that the law was written that open carry was an option for CHL holders only. And that there were two seperate laws for signage, 30.06 stayed in place for cc only and the gun-buster ONLY applied for open carry!

Now what would the problem be?

Licensed open carry and seperate signage. That helps. Don't think the seperate sign thing would happen, but I can cast a vote now.

Keith B wrote:Well, I'm not voting because it is not a black and white thing of for or against. It depends on how the open carry law would be written.