TexasCHLforum.com

DFWTT wrote:Absolutely not for either option. I cannot begin to fathom the negative impact that either might have. Agreeing with other posters, some of which are more "no guns allowed" signage and forget about campus carry, criminal element posing as law abiders and reduced shock value over time. There are many, many reasons.

RVN War Dawg wrote:Unlicensed open carry could be scary! In my last CHL renewal class I saw a person load a 9mm magazine backwards. The concept of pointy (or semi-pointy ) end first into the breech was unknown. I was a USAF Security Police member for 20 years. I went to the range twice a year for 4 courses of fire. Some people still had problems. Weapons training is a must before carrying any firearm. I don't have a problem with a training requirement before firearm ownership. We require a drivers license. How many idiots do we still see on the road? But, I fear that the "Yankee" politicians would use a training requirement to stop or limit gun ownership. Chicago and DC are still limiting gun ownership, by adding unreasonable requirements. We all know how safe those cities are!

SA-TX wrote:Since the question asked whether I support licensed or unlicensed open carry, I chose unlicensed because I do not think that fundamental constitutional rights should be licensed. From the perspective of political tactics is a licensed OC bill probably a better first step? Yes, I think it is. Does it stand a better chance of passage? I suspect it does. Would I support it even though I'd prefer to see more freedom? Absolutely.

SA-TX