TexasCHLforum.com

alpmc wrote:

Liko81 wrote:* OC is, unequivocally, faster to draw from than CC. Period. CCers can argue all they want how pretty darn close they can get, but an unobstructed pistol at 3:00 OWB is always the benchmark. If it were faster to draw from concealment, you'd never see a gun because police officers would conceal all the time for performance reasons.

Absolutely false. Period.

Nope - it depends on who's drawing and the experience level of each participant. Someone who practices drawing from CC will likely win against someone who doesn't practice drawing from OC. And vice versa. Police carry their firearms on their side for a number of reasons - their uniform and as a symbol of authority are just two.

Liko81 wrote:* OC is a visual deterrent. In addition to it being faster, police officers carry at 3:00 because that gun is, at all times, a signal that the officer can handle any situation.

OC is not a visual deterrent in most if not all situations. OC by the general public is still meant for personal protection. A criminal intent on committing a crime will do so whether an OC'er is present or not.....the OC'er will just become the first target/victim or he will wait till your gone.

First OC is a deterrent. Criminals in prison when asked said they'd move to an unarmed person first. A criminal that is committing a crime is not thinking on all cylinders. He is likely running on adrenalin and/or drugs. His focus is to get the money and get out of there as fast as possible. He's not going to scan the store and take out OC first. As for proof - look at the other 43 states where OC is legal and point to situations where that's happened - it's very rare. How many bank robberies in the other OC states have you heard about where the OC'ers have been taken out?

Liko81 wrote:To those who state that OC would just get you shot first, I have two rebuttals: first, how was your daydream?

I'm one who claims that OC is the act of painting a target on your back and may cause you to become the recipient of unwarranted criminal attention that you would not get with a CC. Daydream? That's a bit harsh.

Liko81 wrote:When carrying, openly OR concealed, you should be in Col. Cooper's Condition Yellow at all times.

I agree.

Liko81 wrote:A person who was shot before they had a chance to draw got blindsided.

I agree. Which leads me to my next two points.

Liko81 wrote:Second, you can only get shot when the bad guy has a gun. An assailant with a baseball bat or a knife is going to take one look at you and find someone else to work over.

Not true! The gun your carrying is probably more valuable than anything a bad guy can get off someone else, not to mention that you may carry more cash because you believe you can defend it. The bad guy just presents himself in a non-threatening manner and approaches you without raising your heightened sense of awareness, then he bops you, stabs you, or just sucker punches you to La-La land and then he's the new proud owner of your OC'd weapon and other valuables.

While this can happen, if you are truly in Condition yellow, you should be headed to red when an unknown person approaches you. This is not going to happen on a busy street but more likely in an area with few people. In red, you won't let the person get within 5 feet of you and your hand should be close to your firearm. This is situationally dependent.

Liko81 wrote:Guns are force equalizers; if you as a bad guy know I have a gun, even if you have a gun, you're going to want to point it at someone else.

Not true.....the bad guy knows you have a gun.....you don't know that he has a gun. Along with the above mentioned scenario, he has the absolute element of surprise. You lose the fight before it ever starts.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

billv wrote:As for LEO's and OC in Texas, they already know the laws (or should) on concealed carry and this law doesn't change anything but allow one to open carry. The LEO, seeing someone with a firearm, can assume that the person is licensed.

Any LEO seeing someone openly carrying a gun will be justified to stop them and ask of they have a CHL. You can bet this will happen a great deal, especially in urban areas.

Yes they will, and that will decrease as they realize they keep talking to law abiding CHL holders 99% of the time.

billv wrote:As for more 30.06 signs - yes there will likely be a flurry of them put up. That can be dealt with.

How? Sorry, we won't be able to deal with it and a huge, in my view unforgivable, mistake was made when HB2756 intentionally amended TPC §30.06 to make it apply to both open and concealed carry. This clearly threw CHL's under the buss for absolutely no reason. This is an event that supporters should have been prepared to oppose, even to the point of pulling down (killing) their own Bill; not a situation they intentionally created. This is the single issue most often cited by CHL's as a concern about open-carry and those concerns where not merely ignored, they were made a reality by those who want open-carry at any cost.

How? In other states, OC'ers contact store manager that post sign, avoid the store and inform others to now do business at the store. It works about 1/2 the time.

billv wrote:Most large business follow the state laws on firearms - that likely won't change. If these larger multi-state business already have a policy against firearms, they likely already have a 30.06 sign up.

This is not the case now. There are very very few valid 30.06 signs anywhere in Texas. Let someone walk through Home Depot or HEB with a 1911 showing and this will change. It did in 1995 through 8/31/97 when we changed the law and there's no reason to think it won't happen again.

The large box stores that have multi-state operations have already dealt with the firearm issue simply because there are 43 other states that allow open carry.

Here are some responses From Lowes, Home Depot and Walmart. All three follow state laws. So if open carry is legal, they allow open carry. Some local store managers sometimes try to ban firearms and are set straight by corporate. As I said it'll be the local stores that are the issue - like HEB. They will lose some business to firearms friendly stores.

Home Depot
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... ost1492944" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

lowes

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... ost1494126" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

walmart

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... ost1375352" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

billv wrote:In NC, stores that ban firearms are announced in forums, their management is contacted by many people, telling them that they won't shop there any longer and their foolishness and unrealistic paranoia. Many pull down the signs soon after. Some don't. Some pull them down when they realize that they are losing business. Moreover, OC'ers tend to frequent stores that are firearm friendly so their business increases.

No stores pulled down generic "no guns" signs in Texas from 1995 to Sept. 1, 1997 when the TPC §30.06 "Big Ugly Sign" became a requirement. And we were dealing with guns the general public couldn't see. We see this "we'll educate them" response often, but the idea that less than 3% of the Texas population is going to teach of 97% is groundless. If a business owner has to choose between alienating 3% of the population or 97%, we'll lose.

This is a bit disingenuous. 97%? You make the assumption that these 97% are all going to be anti-firearm. IMO It'll be much less. You could be right, but I think things have progressed some and I think this will be a minor issue, certainly not the magnitude you are implying.

billv wrote:Finally I've seen mention in this thread that the open carry issue could have been fixed with a simple two page bill. If it was so easy, they why wasn't that done?

Because the guy who claims to have written it didn't know what he was doing is my guess. I can think of no justifiable reason to open numerous sections of the Government Code and Penal Code up to anti-gun amendments. For example, here are some of the subjects we have improved over the last 15 years that HB2756 opens up to amendment:

Good point. I hope that it doesn't come to that.

• Eligibility/requirements for getting a CHL
  "Shall issue" requirment (rather than "may issue")
  Application processing
  Reciprocity
  Renewal procedures
  CHL classes/training requirements
  Background checks
  Fees
  Revocation of a CHL
  Employer rights
  Carry on or at:
  • LCRA property
    Government meetings
  All "not applicable" provisions in TCP Chp. 46

Every single one of these areas are subject to amendment, including anti-gun amendments. HB2756 took the same approach as did the horrendous open-carry bill promoted by OpenCarry.org during the 2009 Texas Legislative Session. I cautioned then that it was too broad and noted how easily open-carry could be achieved. Texas has a very stringent germane rule that protects us from tampering during the amendment process. But this bill throws that protection down the toilet.

billv wrote:Let's not fight between those who wish to OC and those who don't. With this current bill you can do both. It's a first step in the right direction, just like getting the ability to conceal carry was a step.

Sorry, but I disagree. If HB2756 gets a committee hearing, the amendment to TPC §30.06 has to be brought up and it must be amended (i.e. removed) from the Bill. We cannot stand by while someone intentionally creates a one-size-fits-all sign and let 461,000 CHL's be harmed. If anti-gun amendments are promoted, then the danger increases and this would most likely come as Floor Amendments during debate. If any stick, then the Bill must be "fixed" in the Senate, by any means necessary.

I absolutely agree with you about not letting personalities be a part of the discussion. However, if you look at OpenCarry.org I believe the comments you see there will show the animosity comes from the open-carry camp. Their approach is the "if you aren't with us, you're against us." Any legitimate concerns about a huge increase in 30.06 signs are met with claims that those holding those views are "CHL elitist" who somehow feel special and want to keep it that way. We are labeled as people who don't respect the Second Amendment and numerous other slurs. A small number of posters on OpenCarry.org were banned here on TexasCHLforum for numerous rule violations, so they respond with attacks against the Forum and its Members. One openly brags of re-registering here using a spoofed IP address and different user name and email address, as if sneaking in like a thief at night is somehow noble. The key to bringing civility back into the discussion of the best way to promote open-carry lies in expelling the radical extremist element in the open-carry movement and becoming statesmen. I think you have a better chance of brokering a peace treaty between Israel and Hezbollah!

Chas.