Open Carry.Org Targets Texas

[camjr]

After reading the posts, paying particular attention to several members' posts, I'm not opposed to it as long as it has no impact on my ability to carry concealed. I will continue to carry concealed (I even carry concealed on my own property--I don't want anyone to know I'm armed except my wife). It's nobody's business how I choose to protect myself, my family, and my property. If given the option, I don't think I would change.

I absolutely respect your position. The part I highlighted is something both sides of this debate believe in. No one wants to take away your ability to carry concealed -- we're just asking for free choice for everyone.

I've never been one to push my opinions on people, and I keep thinking that the open carry effort has a certain amount of that to it (that's why I loved the codpiece analogy in the earlier post)...

The codpiece analogy was offensive, and everyone who has debated an anti-gunner should understand why: their favorite accusation is that we only like guns to make up for a deficient manhood. To hear fellow carry advocates make the same accusation towards someone who wants the option to carry openly instead of concealed is not just an insult, it's a betrayal.

The Texas ad campaign for OCDO has brought a lot of new members to the site. Many are curious, and ask honest questions that are answered politely. Many others are trolls who show up to tell open carry advocates how wrong they are. One recent example (from Texas) signed up with the user name of "Youguysaremorons" and proceeded to declare that anyone wanted to carry openly must be a tiny, insecure little man, but because he's 6'4" and "in great shape", he doesn't need to "show off" his gun by OCing. Totally missed the point, and issued a blanket ad hominem attack in one fell swoop.

I enjoy the comity of this forum, but sometimes trolls just really deserve to be nuked in place. They get that on OCDO.

KBCraig: I probably should have said the comment was funny. However, if you feel that my reference to the inappropriate piece of clothing mentioned in an earlier post was an "insult or betrayal", I take offense to that. I do agree with you that it is not appropriate nor is it effective in debate. However, I do think that people choose to dress a certain way, drive a certain vehicle, behave in such a way, or associate with certain people in order to help define their personal identity or advertise their beliefs, not to make up for a perceived deficiency. That was the context of my comment. Having said that, I fully realize and appreciate the other factors at play with the OC movement. I feel that many pushing OC have divergent reasons or motivations for doing so. That doesn't mean that the concept of OC is wrong or inappropriate. Personally, I feel that OC should allowed. I fully understand that the goal of the active supporters of OC is not to make OC and CC mutually exclusive. My point was that I would not choose to OC at this point in my life should it come to pass.

[Rex B]

liko81, thank you for a great post, and one I agree with wholeheartedly.

I am going to write my state rep and ask her to sponsor this bill

[Right2Carry]

I don't really care one whit or another about whether Texas allows open carry. Even in the states where it's legal, we've already seen numerous reports that far fewer people do it than might be expected. I won't go into all the very good reasons that's so, but I could envision very few circumstances I would open carry.

But what deeply concerns me is that we have issues that are important to Texans; issues that have been on the table for years and that failed to make it out of committee in the 2007 Legislature; things like the Parking Lot Bill, for one.

Who knows how the political landscape in Texas will look in two more years? We need to accomplish this session those issues that are most pressing to Texas. We don't need the important, focused, legislative agenda interrupted, confused, or diluted by Pierce and Stollenwerk deciding to "mess with Texas" from their Virginia homes in order to foster their own agenda and belief sets.

Wow. I had thought I wasn't going to reply; my views on OC are pretty well-known around here. This post is a bit long, but please continue reading:

I'll make it quite plain; this is not Virginians interfering in Texas, this is not a bunch of people creating a ruckus over something they won't actually end up doing, and the "agenda and belief sets" that OCDO is attempting to foster are that which every person who says he supports the 2A should be in agreement with. Parking lot exemptions, definition of "schools", etc etc are issues that need to be discussed, but they're just the tip of the iceberg. Focusing on these while ignoring OC is like focusing on scrubbing off one rock in the midst of an oil spill. Sure, you can get that rock all nice and clean, but it doesn't make the beach much cleaner, and while you're focusing on the next rock there's every likelihood that the next wave will undo all your efforts. By comparison, hemming in the spill and putting down mats to soak it up focuses on the root cause, then allowing you to clean up the rest. In this case, the problem is that the State of Texas has one HUGE law running contrary to the majority of States in general, the majority of our neighbor States and even its otherwise pro-gun stance. Open carry is the keystone; you can chip away around it, but if we get OC many other current gun rights issues go away entirely, and the rest become far easier to negotiate for.

This is a Second Amendment rights issue. "Shall not be infringed". When the only possible way to exercise the right to bear arms in self-defense is to pay roughly $250 for the class, qualification, and application in order to be granted permission by the State, the Second Amendment is being infringed. It's a poll tax; those who can spare $250 can get a CHL, while those who can't cannot carry at all. Now, I'm sure that I can scrounge up $250. I probably have it to spare right now if I looked closely enough at the next couple of weeks' finances, and it is important enough to me that should there be absolutely no other choice, I would pay it. The question is, why should I have to? Why should anyone have to? The right to keep (defined as "to retain in one's possession") and bear (defined generally as "to be equipped with", and in this context defined specifically by Webster as "to carry or possess [arms]") recognizes the necessity, without restriction, to be armed in general, not just in certain areas with government permission. I could be mugged or assaulted just as easily at Texas Stadium (a "gun-free zone") as I could at home, in my car, or out and about. In fact I would say the chances are higher that I might need a gun to defend myself from violent fans of some other football team than I would need a gun in a grocery store.

If you want more practical reasons, I can come up with plenty, not the least of which is that OC will always, always, be faster than drawing from concealment. If I have a split second to act, I don't want to be fumbling to get my shirt untucked so I can get to an IWB. Open the thumb break, pull, point, and if necessary shoot. I'm also sick of hearing that OCers are the first ones targeted. Head over to that forum and look in their "Self-defense stories" board, and you will find that the statistics are true; 92% of gun carriers who have used that gun to defend themselves never had to pull the trigger. Many stories, in fact, end without the carrier ever having to draw; the minute the BG notices the gun, the encounter is over. Why this is has to do with a tenet of fighting that Sun Tzu knew very well, as do most criminals and lawyers, but is less commonly known among more decent folk; "The wise general will not engage in battle unless and until the battle is already won". A fair fight leaves too much to chance; a criminal wants an easy target, and most will disengage the moment they are no longer sure they'll get what they want. Therefore, advertising the fact that you are armed is a help, not a hindrance. If you're armed and aware of your surroundings (Remember St. Cooper's words; if you are carrying, you are in Condition Yellow at all times), 92% of criminals will avoid getting in a tangle with you, and the other 8% will be seen, marked and confronted before your visible weapon can ever become a hindrance.

To put it back on you, why would you want to hide the fact that you have a gun, and by so doing look like any other unarmed person? You then attract many times more criminal interest. The element of surprise is only effective for the aggressor; Tojo, MacArthur, OBL, etc. needed and planned for surprise because they were attacking. You as a gun owner should NEVER be the aggressor. It's like putting the window stickers on your home saying "this home protected by ADT". If you don't, yeah, you're still protected, but a burglar has to break a window to find that out. Why bother, when a little blue stop sign, or back to the case in point a visible weapon, makes a criminal that much less likely to even consider you as a potential victim? A burglar virtually never takes the time to try to disable an alarm system; he simply chooses another house. There is only one real advantage to concealment, and that is "out of sight, out of mind"; the normals aren't put off by a gun they can't see, and neither are they overly curious. At least until most people have seen a few OCing civilians, the only way to go about your business in a casual manner is to conceal. Make no mistake, that's a serious advantage for any civilian gun carrier, but it's no reason to discount any and all advantages of displaying that holstered weapon.

Other practical concerns include comfort and versatility. There are limited options for concealing a handgun under clothing; usuallly it's at 1:00, 4:00 or 6:00 IWB, with shoulder, ankle and pocket holsters pretty much rounding out the feasible methods of on-body carry. If you must conceal on a hot day, a shoulder holster is out of the question; you have to be wearing an overshirt, and there is no possibility of taking it off. Likewise, though the problem is lessened with IWB carry as you can take the overshirt off and tie the sleeves around your waist, you're still dealing with a lump of metal in a cloth or leather pouch pressed against your skin; the shirt underneath, or the holster itself, will be soaked through after a few hours walking around outdoors in a Texas summer. Pocket and ankle holsters are the best option, but severely limit weapon choice, and at least in the case of ankle holsters are the absolute slowest to draw from. OC has precisely none of these limitations. The gun is worn more away from the body, drastically reducing discomfort in such situations, while allowing carry of any weapon, anywhere, with virtually any wardrobe, with far faster draw speed than any concealment option.

30,000 people who support this measure are not "nobody". That's about 1.5% of the general population. Doesn't sound like much, but any gun manufacturer's marketing department would give their eye teeth to put their new model in the hands of 1.5% of the general population. Also, consider the following; say that half of the people who support OC would be carrying at any one time. 15,000 armed, openly-carrying civilians at any given moment. Currently, the number of on-duty patrol officers in the state at any given moment is about one-fifth the sworn force (the force is divided into three or four shifts, with a substantial portion of each driving a desk), which if you do the math (I have; I'll find where I posted it earlier) works out to only about 7,500 officers. So even if only half of the OC supporters would follow through once they could legally OC, you've just tripled the percentage of people that criminals don't like to see. If every signer of the petition OCed in public, that quintuples the chances that someone openly carrying a gun will be able to respond quickly to some situation, and in addition deter criminal activity by openly promising a fair fight. This is not to be sneezed at; wouldn't you rather be five times less likely to be assaulted or robbed if you weren't carrying a gun?

What it comes down to, at the end of the day, is my freedom of choice. Though not specifically mentioned as a right, it is a fundamental tenet of "liberty" which this country stands bound to preserve by its Constitution. Currently I can choose to conceal or not to carry at all. 13 years ago, Texans didn't even have that choice; you could own a gun but could not have it with you except in your home. You now can make your preferred choice, to conceal; I want the extra choice that 44 of 51 jurisdictions currently provide; the choice to carry openly. I think it's hypocritical for anyone, especially a fellow gun rights advocate, to say that I, an upstanding, lawful citizen of the State of Texas and the United States, should not have the ability to make my choice while at the same time zealously safeguarding that same ability for themselves.

[Morgan]

and that's why I support it in principal. But the legislation has to be written correctly or the bad legislation has to be removed correctly. I'm not a law maker, but I know there are bad ways to go about good things.

[jimlongley]

We get things done by dealing with how things are, not how we wish them to be. Reasonable minds can differ on whether open-carry should be pursued in Texas, and if so, how should it be done (licensed v. unlicensed, etc.) and who should carry the flag. Since valid, rational arguments can be made on both sides of the debate, there is no reason to question the dedication of people who don't share our opinions on this very emotional issue.

Chas.

Exactly my opinion, and I AM on the opposite side from you, Charles. We have to be as crafty as the anti-gun nuts and get our rights back by increments. Just like cooking that frog.

[Skiprr]

Wow. I had thought I wasn't going to reply; my views on OC are pretty well-known around here. This post is a bit long, but please continue reading:

Liko81, since you chose to put my name at the top of your post, I'll take a moment to respond even though I have deadlines I'm working against...which, to everyone's relief, will force me to keep this (relatively) short.

If you read my posts, in particular on December 2, you would know that I am in no way opposed to the concept of open carry. I want to make that very clear because your choosing to quote me at the start of your post makes it seem as if I am, and most of your message addresses open carry itself, not the realities of the political and legislative landscape, which is my real concern.

Is open carry something I personally feel I would exercise? Probably not. If I did, it would be very seldom, and not in most metropolitan settings. But that is not at issue.

My concern is that OpenCarry.org really doesn't have a draft for a viable bill and I see no evidence that there is a Texas legislator ready to carry this flag, nor do I see any cooperation or support from important gun-rights lobbying groups like the TSRA and NRA. OCDO seems to be attacking the issue without a reasonable plan or strategy; the approach seems to be saber-rattling and megaphones: buying "sound-bite" ads on billboards and radio and signs on Austin taxis, and seeking air time on television and radio news shows.

As you yourself said, Sun Tzu wrote, "The wise general will not engage in battle unless and until the battle is already won." Entering a legislative "war" of this magnitude without having knowledgeable and experienced "generals" who understand where, when, and how the "battles" should be waged is a recipe for defeat. Moreover, and my main fear, a noisy "war" may sensitize legislators and anti-gun lobbyists and damage the chances of important bills that have been in the works for months and even years.

If we magically had open carry in Texas when we woke up tomorrow morning and none of our other rights or privileges were impinged or impeded, I'd stand and applaud with gusto. Open carry does not trouble me. What troubles me is whether this war is being chosen and engaged wisely.

30,000 people who support this measure are not "nobody". That's about 1.5% of the general population.

The use of the quotation marks around "nobody" makes it seem as if this is something I said. It is not. I've not referenced the petition or the OpenCarry.org numbers in any way.

Since you brought it up, though, I'd like to offer a small correction. The Texas Department of State estimates for 2008 put the population of Texas at 24.2 million. So 30,000 people represent 0.12% of the general population, not 1.5%. To get to 1.5% would mean 363,000 individuals. Not saying 30,000 is anything to sneeze at, mind you.

The number of officers on the street really isn't germane, and I'll try to locate your other post about it to learn more. Just want to mention that in fiscal 2007 TCLOSE regulated 70,155 peace officers and 26,487 correctional officers; that number, of course, doesn't include any federal agencies with presence in Texas.

I think it's hypocritical for anyone, especially a fellow gun rights advocate, to say that I, an upstanding, lawful citizen of the State of Texas and the United States, should not have the ability to make my choice while at the same time zealously safeguarding that same ability for themselves.

Again, since you chose to put my name at the top of your post and you don't clarify to whom you speak in this closing section, I want to make it absolutely clear that I have never stated or even intimated the stance these words reflect. I am confident you were not addressing me individually, but I don't want any readers to infer that you were.

And here I think is a good place to repeat what Charles said, because I believe it is an important level-set and all of us should hear it again:

I wish it were different, but it is not. We get things done by dealing with how things are, not how we wish them to be. Reasonable minds can differ on whether open-carry should be pursued in Texas, and if so, how should it be done (licensed v. unlicensed, etc.) and who should carry the flag. Since valid, rational arguments can be made on both sides of the debate, there is no reason to question the dedication of people who don't share our opinions on this very emotional issue.

[Pinkycatcher]

I'm gonna go with.....

If a bill gets put up I'll support it with everything I've got! But I just don't want to ruin other bills with this idea. Though I really want open carry to pass, I really do believe it should happen and happen in my lifetime. I just think the time politically might not be right for it, though give it time, at one point concealed carry was just as radical as this though.

[Liberty]

I would not open carry but like the idea of not worrying about if my gun is printing or does show.

Why on earth would you worry about such a thing?
You can worry about whether your training is good enough to match a demand. Worry if you have enough firepower. but sweating out an accidental flash or print is obsessive.

[kw5kw]

...but it would be nice to not have to worry about getting busted for failure to conceal.

picking nits but...

PC s46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

-Cain

The DPS FAQ addresses this as such:

Q: What does “Concealed” mean?
A: “Concealed” means that the weapon cannot be visible, and that its presence cannot be discernible through ordinary observation. It is a criminal offense for a license holder to carry a handgun in plain view, or to intentionally fail to conceal the weapon. (italics are mine)

This is the part that bothers me--"it's presence cannot be discernible through ordinary observation." An unintentional "flash" at a gas pump could be considered by some: "I saw it through ordinary observation of this person filling up his car, the wind blew his shirt open and there it was...."Brvroom in plain sight!... a GUN!"

This kind of question could be manipulated in court by a DA who wanted to make a statement and/or case law.

Good point...and one that has been discussed here many times. Problem is, who gets to decide what "intentional" is/was.

The answer of course, a jury or a judge...which means you are already deep into the legal system. Can't be fun or inexpensive.

And, if this is the case you will also have a criminal record--even if you're found innocent--for the rest of your life. The arrest doesn't go away from a criminal history file if you're found not guilty or if it is dropped by the prosecutor or if it's no-billed by a grand jury. If you've taken the ride it WILL be there as a weapon's charge.

I hope nobody here wants to have a record, but being a test case will result in having one.

[CainA]

I think Charles made a (good) point about this (I didn't feel like searching the post for it though) about how many people have been prosecued about "intentionally failing to conceal".

I don't think I would lose too much sleep about it.

-Cain

[Oldgringo]

why don't you define that for the rest of the board.

Because if I have to explain it you wouldn't understand anyway...

I understand what it means and it does not meet the 10 yo daughter rule.


Anygunanywhere

I've never had a daughter. Will someone please tell me what the "10 yo daughter rule" is.

[nitrogen]

Basically don't say anything here you wouldnt want your (hypothetical) 10 year old daughter reading.

[flintknapper]

Oldgringo wrote:

I've never had a daughter. Will someone please tell me what the "10 yo daughter rule" is.

It is in reference to a forum rule that basically forbids anyone posting anything that you wouldn't want your 10 yr. old (seeing, hearing, thinking). In other words..."keep it clean". No specific list of "offenses" has been enumerated (to my knowledge), and I hope it will never be necessary to do so.

Anyone with a lick of sense...should know when they are crossing the line. If they don't...we will help point it out.

One of the tenets of this forum...is that it is intended to be "family friendly". If you wouldn't feel comfortable having your 10 yr. old daughter reading over your shoulder here, then we're not doing our job (or haven't discovered the offense yet).

My hat is off to the moderators of this site, and to Chas. for the excellent job they do in allowing spirited discussion to exist...while maintaining order and civility at the same time. Good job mods!

[iratollah]

Basically don't say anything here you wouldnt want your (hypothetical) 10 year old daughter reading.

From Hamlet: Aye, there's the rub. (Rub in this context means impediment or speed bump.)

My daughters are now 19 and 18 (as of last week). Our family conversations at the dinner table, especially when granma was over, were somewhat unabashed. There may be topics that I found acceptable for my daughters at age 10 that others would not. For that matter, there may be topics or conversations that I find acceptable or normal for my daughter at age 18 that other fathers may not.

I will endeavor to more strictly adhere to the rules of this forum and appreciate the efforts of the moderators.

Please allow me to rephrase...I think anyone who feels compelled to carry open is making a statement or showing off.

[Oldgringo]

Basically don't say anything here you wouldnt want your (hypothetical) 10 year old daughter reading.

From Hamlet: Aye, there's the rub. (Rub in this context means impediment or speed bump.)

My daughters are now 19 and 18 (as of last week). Our family conversations at the dinner table, especially when granma was over, were somewhat unabashed. There may be topics that I found acceptable for my daughters at age 10 that others would not. For that matter, there may be topics or conversations that I find acceptable or normal for my daughter at age 18 that other fathers may not.

I will endeavor to more strictly adhere to the rules of this forum and appreciate the efforts of the moderators.

Please allow me to rephrase...I think anyone who feels compelled to carry open is making a statement or showing off.

Mrs. Oldgringo and I appreciated your earlier comment; however, we're 3 score and seven years and were never blessed with 10 year old daughters. I was just wondering what one could say around a 10 year old daughter when she wasn't glued to Hannah Montana.

Thanks for clearing that up.