Please sign the Texas Open Carry Petition

[drw]

I would support open carry, but only under impossible circumstances.
...
As I've said before, I oppose open carry for one reason only; the strong probability that we will see a huge increase in businesses posting 30.06 signs.

Mr. Cotton,

Here's a possible two-part solution that I wonder if you've considered:

Part 1: As you know, the law allows for unlicensed concealed carry in automobiles, but with restrictions. You can't be committing a crime, be a member of a gang, etc. This is obviously an attempt to make sure the bad guys aren't carrying. Unlicensed open carry should contain the same restrictions. This way, obvious bad guys wouldn't be open carrying, so the general public isn't going to be exposed to gang-bangers carrying all over the place. I expect that the only exposure they would get would be decent law abiding citizens, and that would help get them used to seeing firearms. I also see reasonable restrictions like: Handgun must be in a holster at all times, unless being used to defend oneself (someone more experienced than me would have to come up with those "peace of mind" restrictions).

Part 2: But the bigger issue is your valid concern that customers would complain to management, who would in turn post 30.06 signs to keep out guns. I'm not confident that this would happen, but it is indeed a risk (albeit low) that is above your threshold. So, here is the proposal:

1) Keep 30.06 pertaining only to CHLs.

2) Create a new "30.06" that pertains ONLY to unlicensed open carry. (I'll call it 30.XX just for fun)

Then, when customers complain to management to "keep those scary guns out of here", the management would post a 30.07 that would contain language something like:

"Persuant to section 30.XX, a person not licensed to openly carry a handgun may not enter this property with a openly carried handgun."

The management can post this sign and the customers can breathe easier now that they don't see the scary guns anymore, and yet responsible licensed CHL holders can continue to secretly come into the establishment.

What do you think of this proposal?

[boomerang]

What do you think of this proposal?

What about signs that prohibit licensed security guards from carrying openly on their way to work and during meal breaks.

Then they also need signs that prohibit off duty police and feds from carrying.

[drw]

What do you think of this proposal?

What about signs that prohibit licensed security guards from carrying openly on their way to work and during meal breaks.

Then they also need signs that prohibit off duty police and feds from carrying.

Work out the wording. Basically, I'm proposing a sign that enables property owners from prohibiting unlicensed open carry, while permitting the obvious LEOs, etc.

[kauboy]

I apparently signed it quite a while back.
I was #230!!!

[anygunanywhere]

What do you think of this proposal?

What about signs that prohibit licensed security guards from carrying openly on their way to work and during meal breaks.

Then they also need signs that prohibit off duty police and feds from carrying.

Work out the wording. Basically, I'm proposing a sign that enables property owners from prohibiting unlicensed open carry, while permitting the obvious LEOs, etc.

We, the law abiding citizens of Texas, should be allowed to carry, open or concealed, anywhere LEO are allowed to carry. There should be no difference.

There will be some who understandably insist that courtrooms must be firearm free, and I can come to terms on this under one condition.

The condition is that the absurdity of prohibiting carry in governmnet buildings just because tyhere is a JP or municipal court in the building must go.

There. Anygun just admitted to a restriction. That is the only one I can think of that needs to exist.

I feel so dirty.

Anygunanywhere

[MBGuy]

I feel so dirty.

Anygunanywhere

Anyway, one thing I've thought of. On the one hand we're saying that no one would do it anyway, but on the other hand we're saying that all the complaints would cause a bunch of stores to post up signs. I'm not sure I buy that one, it's self-contradicting (Sorry Charles, and with all due respect). As I've seen in Kentucky and Louisiana, and as Charles has also noticed on his travels in open carry states, open carry has not been seen by us on those travels. My relatives and friends that live there have never seen it done. Just how many soccer moms does it take to complain to management about guns? If the local flower shop has one complaint per year, is the owner going to post a sign? Maybe, it's the owner and she might know the repeat customer. But wal-marts and other chains? No, too many hoops I would think just to appease to that 1 or 3 per year at most. Besides, as has been seen a couple of times, mgmt would know the law and would hence educate said complainer that no law is being broken (rare, but true). Where open carry would happen the most, is where people are most used to guns, small towns. Also in a small town, people may know you or at least know who you are and that you're a good guy, so no complaints. Out on the street or as for me, on the bus, there is nothing that can be done by complainer except whine away.

But, I am afraid of the repealing of the CHL if open carry allowed strategy that Charles mentions. That's the scary one, and the antis know it. Talk about a hair raising wally walk doing open carry!

[Keith B]

Besides, as has been seen a couple of times, mgmt would know the law and would hence educate said complainer that no law is being broken (rare, but true).

No necessarily. I came from an open carry state (Missouri) and you do not see it there unless you are in the REALLY rural area of a farm town (pop 300-500 or less) and then it is very rare.

There was an incident just a few months ago in my home town (population ~25K) where an individual was in the grocery store and open carrying a revolver. While not against the law, it prompted quite a few calls of 'Man with a gun' to the police. This included a call from the store management.

When the police arrived, they asked him to please go out and put the gun in the car as he was upsetting the clientèle and management. He started yelling 'You can't have it, it's my gun' and walking away from them in the store. They were finally able to convince him to leave. AFAIK he never showed back up at any other businesses.

[dac1842]

I must side with Chas on this. One for the same reasons he stated as far is raising the number of buisnesses that will prohbit firearms. No one really raises much cane because we carry concealed, out of sight , out of mind. IF open carry were to pass a lot more folks would raise cane and subsequently more businesses would bow to the pressure.
Secondly, in my opinion a guy walking down the street intending to do harm might just try to rob someone if they do not see a weapon and take the chances on the victim being a CHL Holder. IF he sees a weapon there is the chance he may take the shoot now and take away the threat approach to the robbery. Granted he might decide not to attack, but I really feel if you open carry then you have in effect played your ace already and you lose the element of surprise.
I know many will not agree, but that is what is so neat about our country, you can disagree and I wont shoot you for it!

[HerbM]

This is just not a problem anywhere that you can point to and say see -- it is just speculation and the same junk argument as the Brady Bunch folks use.

Don't scare the sheeple

[anygunanywhere]

I must side with Chas on this. One for the same reasons he stated as far is raising the number of buisnesses that will prohbit firearms. No one really raises much cane because we carry concealed, out of sight , out of mind. IF open carry were to pass a lot more folks would raise cane and subsequently more businesses would bow to the pressure.
Secondly, in my opinion a guy walking down the street intending to do harm might just try to rob someone if they do not see a weapon and take the chances on the victim being a CHL Holder. IF he sees a weapon there is the chance he may take the shoot now and take away the threat approach to the robbery. Granted he might decide not to attack, but I really feel if you open carry then you have in effect played your ace already and you lose the element of surprise.
I know many will not agree, but that is what is so neat about our country, you can disagree and I wont shoot you for it!

So if it happened once, this one issue would make you against the restoration of your right to open carry for everyone?

Several CHLers in Texas have died while intervening in situations with third parties with their concealed weapons. I do not know how many CHLers have died while defending themselves.

I suppose this means carrying concealed does not work. BGs are still surviving. Turn in your license, unload your handguns, and put them in the safe.

Anygunanywhere

[Jason73]

I must side with Chas on this. One for the same reasons he stated as far is raising the number of buisnesses that will prohbit firearms. No one really raises much cane because we carry concealed, out of sight , out of mind. IF open carry were to pass a lot more folks would raise cane and subsequently more businesses would bow to the pressure.
Secondly, in my opinion a guy walking down the street intending to do harm might just try to rob someone if they do not see a weapon and take the chances on the victim being a CHL Holder. IF he sees a weapon there is the chance he may take the shoot now and take away the threat approach to the robbery. Granted he might decide not to attack, but I really feel if you open carry then you have in effect played your ace already and you lose the element of surprise.
I know many will not agree, but that is what is so neat about our country, you can disagree and I wont shoot you for it!

I respect your opinion, however based on the reasons you stated, I get the impression that because you personally dont agree with open carry it shouldnt be an option for anyone. Yes, if the BG see's my weapon I've played my ace - but it should be my decision to make. I also don't believe that BG's are going to start "profiling" their victims based on the absence of a holstered weapon being visible. They simply arent that smart imo.

This is kinda like the govt telling me I have to wear my seatbelt in my car, but I can hop on a motorcycle and ride it without a helmet....

Jason

[Charles L. Cotton]

This is just not a problem anywhere that you can point to and say see -- it is just speculation and the same junk argument as the Brady Bunch folks use.

Don't scare the sheeple

Give me the name of a state that has recently approved open-carry after 125 years of prohibiting it. Speculation? Are you not speculating that open-carry wouldn't be a problem.

BTW, I've just about had it with your insults by calling anyone who disagrees with you anti-gun or "Brady Bunch folks."

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

This is just not a problem anywhere that you can point to and say see --

Texas, 1995 -- 1997. I've said this three times now and you've not responded once, not one single time.

Chas.

[HerbM]

This is just not a problem anywhere that you can point to and say see -- it is just speculation and the same junk argument as the Brady Bunch folks use.

Don't scare the sheeple

Give me the name of a state that has recently approved open-carry after 125 years of prohibiting it. Speculation? Are you not speculating that open-carry wouldn't be a problem.

BTW, I've just about had it with your insults by calling anyone who disagrees with you anti-gun or "Brady Bunch folks."

Chas.

I didn't "call you" or anyone anything (see above), but if you use the arguments of the gun ban organizations like Brady then you might want to rethink that.

No gun control can we shown to work -- none. I don't much like gun control and hope you don't either.

You are however arguing for gun control when none if can be shown to work, so please don't use their arguments. Here is what you will have to refute if you wish to use facts and logic:

None of the CDC, the National Academy of Sciences, nor DoJ were able to find that ANY gun control reduces VIOLENT CRIME, MURDER, SUICIDE or ACCIDENTS in any significant manner. NONE.

Don B. Kates and Gary A. Mauser, "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence" (June 6, 2006). ExpressO Preprint Series. Working Paper 1413.
http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1413
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent. ... t=expresso
<<In this connection two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004 the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences released its evaluation from an review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government
publications and some empirical research of its own. It could not identify any gun control that had
reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.(15) The same conclusion was reached in a 2003
study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of then-extant studies"(16)

(15) Charles F. Wellford, John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie (eds.),
FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE: A CRITICAL REVIEW
(National Academy of Sciences, 2004). It is perhaps not amiss to note that the review panel,
which was set up during the Clinton Administration, was almost entirely composed of scholars who, to the extent
their views were publicly known before their appointments, favored gun control.
(16) “First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws� (CDC,
2003) <http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm>
>>

[Mike1951]

This is just not a problem anywhere that you can point to and say see --

Texas, 1995 -- 1997. I've said this three times now and you've not responded once, not one single time.

Chas.

I, for one, also remember the knee jerk reactions after passage in 1995.

All of the Pappas owned restaurants were posted, all of the Chili's restaurants, Lowe's, etc.

And this from reactions to guns that couldn't even be seen!

It is NOT imagined!!