Open Carry In Texas!

[stevie_d_64]

If open carry becomes approved, I think that there should be a distinction between prohibiting concealed carry via 30.06 and prohibiting open carry.

I too think open carry would turn more businesses to investigate banning licensed carry. However, there should also be a provision that if you ban any type of carry, you have to provide secure facilities while in that store/establishment.

[stevie_d_64]

How many restrictions on carrying will be implemented before they "get used to it?"

Let me ask these rhetorical questions. Would you continue to support open carry if it resulted in large numbers of businesses posting 30.06 signs on their property?

Would you continue to support open carry if it resulted in the Legislature expanding the number of locations that are statutorily off-limits to license-holders, as is the case in many other states?

It's been 11 years since SB60 passed and Texas finally got a CHL statute. Let's not forget how radical the idea of citizens carrying guns was only a little over a decade ago. Don’t underestimate the value of the out-of-sight-out-of-mind effect that concealing our handguns has on the 98% of Texans who haven't chosen to get a CHL.

Chas.

Good point Charles...I think I have the answer to that...

If you look at the history and the development of that bill, which I know you had a big hand in that development...

SB60 was the first big hurdle...SB501 tweeked and defined a lot of the ambiguities that we had to deal with for the first 8 or so years...

If the further enhancement and approach that legislators made with SB501, why would it be any more difficult to (especially with the momentum we have against the gun-control movement in this state) do the same thing with "open carry"???

I understand what you said above, but I think we have the advantage, and making sure we nip in the bud all of those "restrictions" that "could" be made, a moot argument...

I think that would be a better approach to alieviate your well founded concerns...

You may not totally agree with me, but I think you see what I'm getting at, at least...Right???

[Charles L. Cotton]

Whew, for a while I thought I made a mistake by posting. It's good to see more posts on this subject. There have been good discussions on both the practical and tactical aspect of open carry and I just wanted to touch on the political impact.

I also want to correct a factual error in my original post on open carry. I stated that Florida changed their law to allow open carry, but amended it in less than a year to return to concealed carry only. When I called to learn the reason for the change, I was told my information was incorrect and that Florida has not allowed open carry in many years. I apologize for the bad information.

Yes, many states allow open carry, but I am not aware of any that only recently changed their law to allow it. I may be mistaken, but if so I suspect such states are very few in number. I also suspect that no other state has gone from a 125+ year ban on open carry to allowing it. That is why I feel that other states' experience is not necessarily a good indicator of what we can expect in Texas.

I also have serious doubts as to how many states that technically don’t prohibit open carry actually see a great deal of open carry occurring. Texas doesn’t prohibit the carrying of long guns, so in theory I could walk into my downtown Houston office every day with an AR-15 slung over my shoulder. Buy in my 25+ years of having an office in downtown Houston I have never seen anyone carrying a long gun; not once! For that matter, I can’t recall the last time I’ve seen anyone openly carrying a rifle or shotgun anywhere in Houston. Rural areas are different, but our major cities have huge voting blocks and that’s a fact we simply can’t ignore.

Those who argue that there was no "blood-in-the-streets" after CHL passed are absolutely correct. That was a ludicrous argument that has proven to be false. But that has nothing to do with a store owner or manager watching his/her sales revenue going down because the soccer moms won't shop there because he won't post a 30.06 sign and stop "those people" from carrying guns. Also, the tremendous success of the CHL statute, and even the passage of SB501, hasn't stopped governmental entities and agencies from posting unenforceable 30.06 signs. It hasn't stopped some Texas cities from posting a 30.06 sign and declaring entire buildings (ex. city hall) off-limits to CHL's simply because the municipal court clerk has a small office somewhere in the building. The open carrying of handguns captured on videotape by anti-gun activists, especially those in the news media, will once again thrust the carrying of handguns by citizens into the public eye. Can you imagine the bad press we'd see if Houston's rabid anti-gun Ch. 2 TV followed people into stores, malls, school parking lots and daycare centers?

Our carrying of handguns is not being seriously attacked now because people don't give it a second thought. They don't give it a second thought because 1) the predicted genocide did not occur and our opponents lost face; and 2) people don't see our guns.

I realize I'm in the minority with this opinion and I respect those who disagree with me on this issue. This is one time when I'd like very much to be wrong and I may be just that. Those who believe open carry will not have any ill effects on our ability to carry handguns could also be wrong. Perhaps we should all consider this; where does the greater risk lie? Be careful what you ask for, . . .

I also want to say this. If the decision is made to push for open carry, I will put aside my concerns and fight for its passage just a diligently as I work for passage of the CHL bill. I just hope people will stake a step back and fully consider the risks this path may present. Do we really want open carry at any cost?

Chas.

[stevie_d_64]

I wouldn't say we should push it at "any" cost...But think about it like this...

Haven't we all paid enough for the silly-ness of not being trusted to have at least the option...

Sure, I come down on the side that would like the option to do so...That certainly didn't mean I would strap the 'ole hogleg on and go trotting into downtown Houston with all the nervous ninnies out there...

I believe our community is mature enough to carry in this manner when and where appropriate, and for the right reasons, and not just to do so because some law says we can...Kind of ironic, right???

I also don't believe a precentage of the 2% in this state now would not do anything to embarrass or make our rights subject to too much scrutiny...

You know I'd be right there with you to work this issue, if it needed anymore...We have that little topic called 2007 Legislative Session down there, and this subject came up with some of the same good points for both sides of the issue...

I can't even imagine something like this not at least getting to the floor for a debate...I think it'd be worth it to see that discussion...Remember it took a try ot two to get SB60 into that fracus...

I also believe that this would take off more in the rural parts of this state rather than the urban strongholds...I believe the maturity level and acceptance would be more welcome in that environment, because some of those very soccer moms would be some of the ones doing it...Another how Ironical, hmmm???

However passionate the divide is on the subject, I believe it is the right thing to do, and if its another chip away at gun-control, I think it makes it that much harder to infringe us in the future...

But nothing is absolute...I will give you that...

BTW, you remember Quannell X during the Republican convention here a while back???

His minions loaded up (long rifles and shotguns) and strutted their stuff around "outside" the GRB in Houston and even assaulted an old man I remember right on TV who confronted them...And amazingly...Nothing happened to them...

And to think they feel more threatened by people throwing eggs in City Counsel chambers more than people with CHL's...

I believe there is a way to do this, and it'll be another reason we can prove that there is nothing wrong with it...Not that we have to, but because it is right to do so...

I think our community is a little better mannered than Quannell X...

You are right though...Regardless of where you fall on the issue, I believe we are all on the same page, and ready to accept and support what happens regardless of the outcome...

[kw5kw]

I support open carry, as you know, however; if it's a choice between open carry in 2007 and the castle doctrine/right to stand our ground and protection against civil liability then I'm for the castle doctrine and protection against civil liability.

Russ

[jbirds1210]

His minions loaded up (long rifles and shotguns) and strutted their stuff around "outside" the GRB in Houston and even assaulted an old man I remember right on TV who confronted them...And amazingly...Nothing happened to them...

I thought one of them was arrested after the fact for his past felony status (oops). I remember the assault and the arrest had nothing to do with that.
Jason

[longtooth]

I support open carry, as you know, however; if it's a choice between open carry in 2007 and the castle doctrine/right to stand our ground and protection against civil liability then I'm for the castle doctrine and protection against civil liability.

Russ

You bet. Stand your ground & civil liability are #1 with out a doubt.

[Charles L. Cotton]

BTW, you remember Quannell X during the Republican convention here a while back???

His minions loaded up (long rifles and shotguns) and strutted their stuff around "outside" the GRB in Houston and even assaulted an old man I remember right on TV who confronted them...And amazingly...Nothing happened to them...

I do remember that and it's a great example of what I fear. Nothing happened to them because it wasn't illegal to carry a rifle or shotgun at a political rally or event. I don't have time to look at it now, but I'm pretty sure the preemption statute was amended during the first legislative session after this event. The amendment authorized cities to prohibit the possession of any firearm during a parade or political rallies. (This didn’t apply to CHL’s.). The bill passed solely because the public recoiled at a group of people doing what was perfectly legal -- carrying a long gun.

Chas.

[quidni]

I support open carry, as you know, however; if it's a choice between open carry in 2007 and the castle doctrine/right to stand our ground and protection against civil liability then I'm for the castle doctrine and protection against civil liability.

Russ

If we had to choose just one, for now, then better protection for our right to protect ourselves should come first. Expanding possible carry options can come afterwards.

[KBCraig]

BTW, you remember Quannell X during the Republican convention here a while back???

His minions loaded up (long rifles and shotguns) and strutted their stuff around "outside" the GRB in Houston and even assaulted an old man I remember right on TV who confronted them...And amazingly...Nothing happened to them...

I do remember that and it's a great example of what I fear. Nothing happened to them because it wasn't illegal to carry a rifle or shotgun at a political rally or event.

I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but I remember looking up the laws at the time. Per PC 42.01(a)(8):

§ 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;

It was pretty clear that the "Quannel X" march was "in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm". They should have been charged with disorderly conduct.

They also violated GC 431.011:

§ 431.010. ORGANIZATION PROHIBITED.
(a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a body of persons other than the regularly organized state military forces or the troops of the United States may not associate as a military company or organization or parade in public with firearms in a municipality of the state.
(b) With the consent of the governor, students in an educational institution at which military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction and soldiers honorably discharged from the service of the United States may drill and parade with firearms in public.
(c) This section does not prevent a parade by the active militia of another state as provided by law.

Kevin

[KBCraig]

Some quicky googling on "Quannel X" turned up the following links, among many others:

http://www.chronicallybiased.com/index.php?itemid=479

http://html.click2houston.com/hou/news/ ... 80701.html

Kevin

[stevie_d_64]

I may be wrong...(I usually am...)

But I thought in Texas we never had a duty to retreat, therefore a "castle doctrine" (and what that entails) would not be necessary, unless it was to extend the "no retreat" to outside your home or place of business (or space you occupy etc etc), at least that is what I recall being instructed on...

But i they pushed for it, sure...Why not...Anything to un-fetter us in the ability to make a better choice in what action we take to thwart a threat to us under the guidelines of the law, the better...

[Commander]

I'm with Charles on this one. I understand those who are for Open Carry and their reasons, but I think that it could open Pandora's Box for CHL Holders and we would see more restrictions or restricted places. Right now, I'd say that there is a significant number of the general public that don't know that a citizen can get a CHL and legally carry. These people walk around not seeing guns so they don't think much about them. Change that scenario, where handguns are visible to the general public and I would wager that "complaints" will rise, people becoming "alarmed' at the sight of an armed civilian, and the "anti" crowd jumping on the band wagon to fan the flames. I think we would regret the change. Let us count our blessings and just tweak the existing laws as needed for clarification as needed.

I've read many posts at opencarry.org from people who open carried in an open carry state and experienced various levels of problems. Some were hassled or even arrested by Police, all the way down to being questioned by someone who saw their gun. So just because a state is open carry doesn't mean its clear sailing for the gun owner.

I personally don't like to advertise that I am carrying a gun. I think that gives me an advantage should circumstances go bad in my presence.

[txinvestigator]

I may be wrong...(I usually am...)

But I thought in Texas we never had a duty to retreat, therefore a "castle doctrine" (and what that entails) would not be necessary, unless it was to extend the "no retreat" to outside your home or place of business (or space you occupy etc etc), at least that is what I recall being instructed on...

..

When using deadly force to protect yourself from anothers use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, the first "IF" in the law is "if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated"

Later it goes on to actually call it a "requirement";


(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time
of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the
habitation of the actor.


The law does not call it a duty, but it pretty much amounts to one.

Since it does not apply to your residence, it does seem that we sort of already do have a "castle doctrine" right?

[seamusTX]

Since it does not apply to your residence, it does seem that we sort of already do have a "castle doctrine" right?

In practical terms, people who defend their homes against criminal assailants are rarely prosecuted.

I've occasionally read about situations where the shooter and target knew each other; these were probably out-of-control family feuds and that sort of thing.

The term "castle doctrine" is applied to laws like Florida's that remove the duty to retreat everywhere. That seems like misuse of the term, but I'm more picky about that stuff like that than most people.

- Jim