Search found 1 match

by Jumping Frog
Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:14 pm
Forum: 2011 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: Licensed open-carry or unlicensed open-carry?
Replies: 75
Views: 12614

Re: Licensed open-carry or unlicensed open-carry?

I support unlicensed open carry for many reasons.
  • First and foremost because I truly believe that our right to self defense is a God-given right, not granted to us by a government. If a citizen is required to purchase training and pay a tax, how does that fit in with the whole concept of "shall not be infringed"?
  • Second, the many, many times I have open carried have been examples of my exercising BOTH my Second Amendment right AND my First Amendment right. Open carrying a handgun in our modern urban society is most definitely an exercise in political "speech".
  • I have found that open carrying is a great opportunity to educate and convert people who are curious about guns but not part of the gun culture. I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone get really excited about learning that open carry was their right as a citizen under the state constitution. I've spoken to many, many, many random people over the years while open carrying, and the vast majority of those conversations helped to advance our gun rights by helping to convert people's attitude, one person at a time. You'd be surprised at the questions I get asked. For example, many people assume from watching TV that they have to "register" a gun, and are amazed when they realize that isn't necessary at all.
  • I also like to open carry because it is comfortable. I haven't yet experienced a Texas summer, but an Ohio day that is 95 degrees and 100 percent humidity is far easier to dress for when open carrying.
  • As far as gangsters and thugs are concerned, they don't carry their handguns in a holster. Every police officer that I have interacted with when open carrying assumed I was a legitimate citizen when open carrying, because a properly holstered handgun on the hip isn't something that a gangbanger does.
  • I've never had a policeman remove my handgun or ask for identification. I've simply talked calmly with them. Of course, since there was no RAS for a Terry stop, they didn't have any probable cause or statutory basis to disarm me or require ID. (I am not stupid, however. I do carry a voice recorder.)
  • I get irritated by fellow CHL'ers that get a whole superior elitist attitude which assumes since they have jumped through the hoops and paid the money to get licensed, they are somehow better than other people who also need self defense. The poor black and hispanic women who are in downtown Houston cleaning office buildings and then riding a bus back to poor neighborhoods at midnight have an even greater need for self defense, and they should have to be priced out of the market to protect their life.
  • Finally, if you make it licensed open carry, then you will create a group who have an economic interest in maintaining high prices, barriers to entry, and the status quo. That group includes the instructors lining up every two years to pay their $100 tax and get blessed by the bureaucracy so that they can charge the public, as well as the government staff who directly or indirectly benefit from the jobs created and the license fees paid.
  • For the people who think that the "sheeple" aren't ready for it, that change in public perception can only start happening when it gradually becomes normal, and thus un-alarming, to see armed people. Ohio is way more liberal that here; I can't believe this can't work in Texas.
Beiruty wrote:Another issue is disarming the OCer by LEO. if CHLer can be disarmed why not OCer in normal contact by LEO?
Why be content to line up to be a good sheep? I don't think CHLers should be disarmed either.
hangfour wrote:I support licensed open-carry. There is something comforting to me knowing that CHL'ers have been vetted and have at least a little training in the use of weapons.

There is something comforting to me knowing that I am an American with rights paid for with my ancestor's blood. I trust ordinary American common sense more than I trust a government bureacrat, anyday. Of course, the flip side to freedom is if someone doesn't take responsibility for themselves, their own training, and their own behavior, then there are natural consequences.

ron1n1 wrote:From a public policy perspective, requiring background checks, competency tests, etc. before carrying in public makes a certain amount of sense. Think about a driver's license--it's nice to know that (in theory, at least) the 'other guy' on the road has demonstrated a basic understanding of the laws involved and some minimal level of competency in operating a moving vehicle.

A drivers license never made it into the Bill Of Rights. Carrying a handgun is a basic human right.

In Unlic carrry, can a LEO stop and ask for ID and check if the OCer is not a felon? Or do you allow the violent felons to OC?

It it is unlicensed, then the police are required to have reasonable articulable suspicion to detain someone. Besides, felons aren't open carrying anyway. A holstered handgun on your belt is far too visible for the gangbangers.

Agreed. If OC is licensed, then the law will most certainly require that we show our ID and license upon demand. (Similar to what we already have for CHL.)

I agree. I also belive the mandatory notification is bad policy anyway. It does nothing to protect a police officer from a felon with a gun in the car. It simply serves as a reason to make an accidental criminal out of an otherwise law abiding citizen. For example, we had one case in Ohio where a licensee was charged because he couldn't interrupt the LEO in time and the dashboard camera showed it took him 51 seconds to notify.

But the most important reason of all is this - when it comes to 2A rights, any licensing scheme is nothing more than a system of bribes. That includes both OC and CHL. It's no different from a poll tax, and it has its roots in the same insidious racism. Requiring a class and a license places an undue burden on all classes of people and especially serves to disenfranchise the poor - those who need the right most of all. Also, the time required to issue the license thwarts those whose need is most urgent (think domestic abuse). Martin Luther King Jr. stated, "A right delayed is a right denied." I would add to that, "A right which must be purchased is no right at all." In Texas, it is currently illegal to carry a firearm without a mandatory expense and waiting period (aka a CHL). This flies in the face of the Constitution, and licensed OC would do nothing to resolve this abhorrence.

I agree 1000%

Return to “Licensed open-carry or unlicensed open-carry?”