Open Carry.Org Targets Texas

[Charles L. Cotton]

Arggggggggh. As Popeye says I can't stands no more.

Just wanted to throw out an observation from one who spends and has spent way too much time in Virginia. Virginia ie the holy grail of OC; from the OC.org website - OpenCarry.org was founded in 2004 by Virginia gun-rights activists John Pierce and Mike Stollenwerk and has served to ignite the "Open Carry Movement".

Keeping it brief, OC is allowed in VA. Going into ANY restaurant that serves alcohol precludes concealed carry, hence the frequent web references to taking your coat off at the door.

My point is, that in all my time in VA I've seen... wait for it... NO ONE open carrying. Not one single person other than uniformed LEOs. Yes I've heard all the blather (web postings) about OC get togethers at restaurant xyz. BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT EVEN ONCE.

I can only conclude that either it's not frequent (not many people wish to), or some of the proponents preach but don't practice. I don't know the answer, maybe a bit of both?????

I'm on the company's nickle so you can jolly well bet I'm eating out all three meals a day, yet in five years of going up there, from my point of view - no one seen to be OC'ing.

I would love to watch someone OC'ing down King Street in Alexandria. Pop into some snooty art gallery w/ a great big ole pistol on their hip for all the world to see. Or, into go into 219 for a nice dinner with it shining in the sun. Yeah right, sure you would do it. How about the Ruth's Chris in Pentagon City (or is it Crystal City) - and walk through the neighboring mall to get there. More

"Rare occurrence" is the key phrase.

Over and Out.

That mirrors my experience in eight years of going to Virginia at least 6 to 8 times a year. I go to Arlington and Fairfax primarily, but have been to other cities/towns on rare occasions. In fact, this mirrors my experience in traveling all over the country for over 30 years.

Chas.

[NcongruNt]

Did you just equate your inability to openly carry your handgun to the suffering and injustice endured by people of color in this nation prior to the civil rights movements? Really?

Here we go with the strawmen. No, I didn't. I equated the means of achieving change on civil rights not the suffering and injustice. It's certainly a legitimate argument to look at our history for what has been effective at achieving change on hotly contested political issues. The civil rights movement of the 60s is a good example of that. War triggered by gun confiscation would be another, especially for Texas. For example, would it be better to only seek incremental change for CHL in order to minimize public backlash, or would it be better to organize a march of 30,000 people openly carrying handguns on the state capital to go along with the introduction of this bill? Would that help all gun rights issues around the country or hurt it? Would it matter if the bill ever got passed or even introduced?

You're suggesting that the issues are even near the same caliber and require such drastic measures. Equating action required to ensure the rights of millions of people of color to have a chance to vote and enjoy all the other freedoms and protections of the law... to a fight for open carry of handguns.

Secondly, this is not a "hotly contested issue". Maybe it is for you, but the vast majority of the state doesn't care at this point. We don't have threats of lynching, burning churches, assassinations and the like over Open Carry. And I sincerely doubt you'd get more than a handful of folks willing to blatantly violate the law by openly carrying handguns in a march to the Capitol, let alone 30.000. And then you'd all go to jail for either UCW or IFC. You seem to be living in a fantasy here.

As it is, you're pushing people away from your cause.

I don't have a cause. I have a point of view in one OC thread on one Internet forum.

You've essentially invoked Godwin's Law (EDIT: actually, it's Dodd's Corollary) on this argument with me.

Nazis? Who said anything about Nazis?

From what I've read above, it certainly seems to be a cause for you.

As far as Dodds Corollary is concerned, the entire idea behind it and Godwin's Law is the tendency of people on the internet, out of desperation, will make a comparison or parallel in a relatively minor disagreement to the Nazi regime and its actions. Someone making that ridiculous of an argument has essentially conceded their argument (according to Dodds Corollary). Just because you're not talking about the Nazis doesn't mean your comparison of the fight for OC to the fight for Civil Rights isn't equally ridiculous.

Just because an action works on a bigger issue, doesn't mean it is appropriate for a more minor one.

[iratollah]

"Your... argument really isn't making any sense, Frank....er I mean Ira.

I don't see where I was yelling and thanks for the personal attack.

Anygunanywhere

I never said you were yelling, rather you were being shrill. People do that sometimes when they aren't getting their way.

Ahhh, I see. You use the "Do as I say, not as I do" rebuttal methodology. My name's not Frank, Skippy. But I see that you'd prefer that I defer to your name calling and tuck my tail and cower. Well Yessir, you can have it your way. I won't call you Skippy anymore since it is somehow more offensive or personal than you calling me Frank. My friends call me tollah, you may call me sir.

[Keith B]

OK guys, play nice or the thread gets locked.

[NcongruNt]

OK guys, play nice or the thread gets locked.

Don't tempt me like that!

[anygunanywhere]

"Your... argument really isn't making any sense, Frank....er I mean Ira.

I don't see where I was yelling and thanks for the personal attack.

Anygunanywhere

I never said you were yelling, rather you were being shrill. People do that sometimes when they aren't getting their way.

Ahhh, I see. You use the "Do as I say, not as I do" rebuttal methodology. My name's not Frank, Skippy. But I see that you'd prefer that I defer to your name calling and tuck my tail and cower. Well Yessir, you can have it your way. I won't call you Skippy anymore since it is somehow more offensive or personal than you calling me Frank. My friends call me tollah, you may call me sir.

I didn't object to how you addressed me.

I call people sir out of respect.

How you address me does not bother me. As the old saying goes, just don't call me late for supper.

People address me often as Anygun.

That is why I addressed you as Ira, the firsty part of your handle.

I will just address you as iratollah.

Your "why don't you guys OC your long guns if you want to OC because it is legal...." is a red herring argument, addds nothing to the discussion, and is irrelevant to the OC discussion since we are addressing the legalization of OC of handguns.

The OC of long arms is significantly more intimidating then OC of handguns. Ask those who recall Quannell the tenth doing it once in Houston.

If you have ever seen LEO anywhere toting long arms then you should agree it is intimidating.

People see LEO all the time with OC handguns. It is not as near intimidating.

Anygunanywhere

[Oldgringo]

I'm loving it!

[mr.72]

The OC of long arms is significantly more intimidating then OC of handguns. Ask those who recall Quannell the tenth doing it once in Houston.

Mr. Anygun,

That is an interesting point, in light of the fact that it is legal to OC long guns but not handguns in TX. This is a good illustration of how the law does not have the intended effect. What is the intended effect anyway? Why do we have a general prohibition against carrying handguns without a license, and a complete prohibition of carrying handguns openly by regular citizens, while carrying of long guns in open is perfectly legal?

I think it probably is the other way around. In fact the discussion about OC of handguns and the relationship to the civil rights movement may have a lot more in common than we are letting on. We fail to recall history if we believe that the prohibition on carrying handguns openly in TX was intended to apply equally to whites as blacks in the 1870s. I would like to see a reasoned, accurate accounting of this gun law history in Texas. Remember this was well over 200 years ago!

I wonder if the prohibition against OC of handguns was not because they could be concealed, while you would know immediately if someone was carrying a long gun. If that is the case then the current law making concealed carry legal while OC is not makes absolutely no sense.

But whomever made the suggestion that it is the TX Constitution that needs changing and not the Penal Code is spot on.

[flintknapper]

Arggggggggh. As Popeye says I can't stands no more.

Just wanted to throw out an observation from one who spends and has spent way too much time in Virginia. Virginia ie the holy grail of OC; from the OC.org website - OpenCarry.org was founded in 2004 by Virginia gun-rights activists John Pierce and Mike Stollenwerk and has served to ignite the "Open Carry Movement".

Keeping it brief, OC is allowed in VA. Going into ANY restaurant that serves alcohol precludes concealed carry, hence the frequent web references to taking your coat off at the door.

My point is, that in all my time in VA I've seen... wait for it... NO ONE open carrying. Not one single person other than uniformed LEOs. Yes I've heard all the blather (web postings) about OC get togethers at restaurant xyz. BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT EVEN ONCE.

I can only conclude that either it's not frequent (not many people wish to), or some of the proponents preach but don't practice. I don't know the answer, maybe a bit of both?????

I'm on the company's nickle so you can jolly well bet I'm eating out all three meals a day, yet in five years of going up there, from my point of view - no one seen to be OC'ing.

I would love to watch someone OC'ing down King Street in Alexandria. Pop into some snooty art gallery w/ a great big ole pistol on their hip for all the world to see. Or, into go into 219 for a nice dinner with it shining in the sun. Yeah right, sure you would do it. How about the Ruth's Chris in Pentagon City (or is it Crystal City) - and walk through the neighboring mall to get there. More

"Rare occurrence" is the key phrase.

Over and Out.

That mirrors my experience in eight years of going to Virginia at least 6 to 8 times a year. I go to Arlington and Fairfax primarily, but have been to other cities/towns on rare occasions. In fact, this mirrors my experience in traveling all over the country for over 30 years.

Chas.

Gentlemen,

It is not being asserted that Open Carry is especially common (Concealed Carry isn’t either).

If the point you are trying to make is that OC is a bad idea (not socially acceptable) and you seek to prove the same by pointing out how rare it is….then you must concede that Concealed Carry follows very closely behind it.

I believe with all my heart that Texans would have pretty much the same questions and reactions to OC as are presented in this post from a source in PA.

http://paopencarry.org/ocqa.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It might be well for everyone to take a minute to read the following and see if you think these are valid questions and honest/likely answers. (I know I do).

Some of what is written below (as concerns the law) is not applicable to Texas, but the bulk of the questions and answers presented are the same as folks have in most states:

1) Is open carry legal in PA?
Answer: Yes, with some restrictions.
Anyone whom can legally own a firearm in the commonwealth can openly carry, on foot, with the exception of court facilities, federal buildings, motor vehicles and cities of the first class (Philadelphia)
Those person possessing a valid License to Carry Firearms are also permitted to carry openly (or concealed) while in a vehicle and in cities of the first class.

2) Do I need a permit to open carry in PA?
A PA License to Carry Firearms (LTCF) is needed to open carry in a vehicle and cities of the first class (Philadelphia)
A LTCF is not needed for open carry on foot in the rest of the commonwealth save for prohibited areas.

3) Can I be charged with "brandishing" or "disturbing the peace" if I open carry in PA?
Short answer: Yes, you could be charged with a number of violations by an unknowing LEO. BUT, the charges would not be applicable, per the statutes, for merely open carrying. Commonwealth v. Hawkins 1996 clearly states that open carry, in and of itself, lacking any actual threatening or illegal behavior on the part of the person open carrying, is not grounds for a "stop and ID" by police. As such, open carry can not be anything warranting a "stop and ID" or greater reaction such as detainment or arrest.
Long answer: There is no "brandishing" or "disturbing the peace" law in PA. The most often threatened charges against someone open carrying is "disorderly conduct", and "terroristic threats".
§ 5503. Disorderly conduct.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:
1. engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;
2. makes unreasonable noise;
3. uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
4. creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.
Though this section does not deal with firearms, due to the nature of this code, this law has been cited by officers to suppress or discourage lawful open carry. Since a person who is not licensed per §6109 or exempted by §6106(b) MUST open carry their firearms on foot in order to avoid criminal charge, nor is there any duty for anyone licensed to conceal their handgun, open carry is not disorderly conduct. The open carrying of firearms is not by itself threatening, nor does it cause a hazardous or physically offensive condition. There are also two cases that that specifically state that a person may carry a firearm openly: Commonwealth v. Ortiz and Commonwealth v. Hawkins.
In summary, with case law to support, OC is legal and does "serve a legitimate purpose of the actor". Therefor OC can not be Disorderly Conduct per the letter of the code itself.
§ 2706. Terroristic threats.
(a) Offense defined. A person commits the crime of terroristic threats if the person communicates, either directly or indirectly, a threat to: commit any crime of violence with intent to terrorize another; cause evacuation of a building, place of assembly, or facility of public transportation; or otherwise cause serious public inconvenience, or cause terror or serious public inconvenience with reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror or inconvenience.
(e) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "communicates" means conveys in person or by written or electronic means, including telephone, electronic mail, Internet, facsimile, telex and similar transmissions.
As with disorderly conduct, this code section has been used to suppress or discourage lawful open carry. “Convey” means to communicate, either orally or by written or electronic means. Because the open carry of firearms is not a communication as defined by this section, it cannot be terroristic threatening.
Also, again, Commonwealth v. Hawkins 1996 clearly states that open carry, in and of itself, lacking any actual threatening or illegal behavior on the part of the person open carrying is not grounds for even a "stop and ID" by police. As such, open carry can not be anything warranting a "stop and ID" or greater reaction such as detainment or arrest.

4) Is open carry common? I never see anyone doing it...
Open carry is generally more common the more rural the area. However, recently, open carry has been becoming more common throughout the commonwealth. Additionally, many people fail to recognize people open carrying.

5) I prefer the element of surprise. Why would anyone would want to open carry.
Opponents of OC often fail to think about the effect of deterrence.
A crime deterred = no "surprise" needed. A Surprise you may not be able to get to before you're injured or dead.
On the other hand, there is the rare scenario where having a gun could make you a "target". IMO way less likely than the more common thug that wants nothing to do with a "hard" (armed) target.
In the end, OC/CC is a crap shoot. One circumstance may be better handled with OC while another better handled with CC.
Open carry is simply another option. Weigh your odds in your area and carry appropriately.
LINK: An interesting read on open vs. concealed carry.

6) Is there any places I can not open carry?
Yes. Off limits to open carry and concealed carry are:
- ANY Court facility
- ANY Federal Property (Unless Authorized)
- State Parks (except while in vehicle)
- Detention Facilities (Adult & Juvenile)
- Air Carrier Airport Terminals (secure areas, common areas OK)
Open carry in a vehicle requires a valid PA License to Carry Firearms or a carry license from any other state.
Open carry in Philadelphia requires a valid PA License to Carry Firearms.

7) What are the advantages to open carry?
This is a partial list:
• Tactics. Quicker access to your defensive weapon.
• Deterrent. Most criminals seek easy or weak prey.
• Comfort. Open carry can be more comfortable in many situations and climates.
• Political activism. Openly carried firearms remind us of our rights and our duties to defend ourselves, our families and our communities. It puts normal "everyday Joe and Jane" faces with GUNS. It squashes the irrational concept that people whom carry guns are dubious or odd.

8) What are the disadvantages of open carry?
This is a partial list:
• People know you are armed. This is an advantage AND a possible disadvantage. It depends on the situation. It would be a rare but possible case for an aggressor to be willing to attack or otherwise confront you at all costs. In this type of situation open carry can give the aggressor a chance to sum up your capabilities and plan accordingly.
• Your firearm is easier to take away from you. Retention is a good thing to have training in and active retention holsters are a very good idea for open carry. An affordable level II retention holster is the BlackHawk SERPA CQC.
• Harassment. Unfortunately we live in a backwards world where many people do not understand the concept of self defense. Open carry is generally a non-issue according to those whom practice it regularly. However, as can be imagined, there are extremists and ignorant people that would harass you verbally or by refusing you service (such as at a restaurant) for your lawful open carry. No different than they may discriminate against you for having hair dyed pink.

9) Do businesses allow open carry in their establishments?
Yes, most businesses allow carry. Some do not. Some allow concealed but not open. Some allow only police to carry. Etc.
Businesses are private property and they have the right to allow or disallow any behavior they please. Unfortunately most businesses do not post these rules, particularly their policy on allowing or prohibiting firearms. In PA, signs carry no legal weight in regards to private property rules. This may be part of the reason why few businesses post signs clarifying their policy on carrying of firearms. If a business has a policy against carrying firearms in their establishment they have to ask you to leave, at which time you are obliged to do so. Failure to do so can result in trespass charges being filed.
For businesses that do post signs stating their policy against carrying firearms it is best to heed such signage if you are openly carrying. No sense in going onto a property whose intentions are known only to be told the same by someone once inside. Honor their wishes by simply shopping elsewhere.

10) Is open carry a good idea?
This is a question that only each individual can answer for themselves. Consider the advantages, disadvantages and the circumstances around where you are carrying.

11) Will I be harassed by law enforcement even if I am legally open carrying?
Unfortunately there are a small number of law enforcement officers that will give you a hard time over openly carrying. They may not know or understand the law or they may have a personal disagreement with open carry. That said, there is really nothing that police can do to prevent you from open carrying within the laws. Nor can they harass or editorialize (lecture) you within the law. Does it still happen? Yes, as with racism, illegal searches and other police abuses there is always a few bad apples that will violate the law. As a whole, police harassment of open carriers in PA is very low. There is a lot of rumor about OC harassment but most of it seems to be just that, rumor.

12) My Sheriff said open carry is illegal. How can you say that it is legal?
Many people trust the police to be able to confirm what is legal and what is not. There are a lot of laws in PA and the police can not know them all. Police can also pass on misinformation that was incorrectly given to them. And some may even intentionally give you incorrect information to encourage you not to do something they disagree with.
Without making this topic more lengthy than it is, the best thing to do in regards to legal questions is to ask an attorney that specializes in the area of law you have a question about. Asking law enforcement for legal advice is not a good idea in almost any circumstance.
I post the relevant laws and case law that show the legality and restrictions to open carry as confirmed by the PA Supreme Court. If any of this information is unclear you need to consult a qualified attorney for clarification.

13) Can I open carry in other states?
Yes. More than 40 states allow open carry. Some without a license and some with. You will have to research the laws of the particular state you are interested in open carrying in. The best resource currently available for getting information on and links to state by state open carry laws is http://www.opencarry.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

14) Who can open carry?
Any persons 18 years of age and older whom are not prohibited by law from owning firearms may openly carry a holstered handgun in plain sight with no license except in vehicles*, cities of the first class** (Philadelphia) and where prohibited specifically by statute.
* Open carry in a vehicle requires a valid PA License to Carry Firearms (LTCF)
or a carry license from ANY other state. Ref: Title 18 §6106
** Open carry in a city of the first class requires a valid PA
LTCF or a carry license from ANY other state. Ref: Title 18 §6108

15) Will I get funny looks if I open carry?
Depends. In some areas, yes. I've noticed many of the occasional "double take" type of looks. I wouldn't read into them too much. If I saw an open carrier I might stare too because I was trying to see what model handgun they were carrying. But seriously, you can expect the occasional funny looks and even questions. "Is that legal?", "are you a police officer?" and "Why do you carry" are three of the more common questions you will encounter.

16) Will I get harassed by the general public for open carry?
Reports from open carriers across the state indicate that harassment by the general public is a rare occurrence.

17) What do I say if someone asks me "why" I am open carrying?
This is a personal issue. My advice is to simply answer truthfully and politely. Example: "I carry a handgun for self defense and defense of my family. Thanks for asking." You may be surprised that the person asking does not have a problem with your open carry but may be genuinely curious. They may be another gun owner or even concealed carrier that has not open carried.

18) I want to open carry but am nervous. Can I open carry with you sometime to help me over my anxiety?
Seems like an odd question but I have been asked this personally. If you would like to try OC but do not feel comfortable doing it on your own check out PAFOA.org discussion forums ("concealed and open carry" section) and opencarry.org discussion forums for upcoming "open carry dinners" and "OC meet and greets". These are held periodically around the state as a way for open carriers to socialize as well as be a conduit for folks new to OC to open carry with a group of mentors.

19) Why would anyone open carry when it will likely scare people? Are you just showing off?
Many people have the perception that open carry will be viewed with fear by the non gun owning community. Luckily, from my and other open carriers' personal experiences, society is typically not bothered by open carry. Most people don't even notice. The ones that do simply don't seem to care.
As for "showing off". While people will surely "show off" for any sort of reason, that type of attitude is not common in the open carry community. Many of us do it more than we would have for just reasons of "comfort", as an example, for the purposes of helping improve the image of gun owners/carriers in general. In other words, to help put the image of normal everyday folk carrying guns back into society.

20) What do I do if someone calls the police on me for open carrying?
As a general rule I would recommend handling a police encounter the same as you would for any other police encounter. Be polite, articulate and do not touch your sidearm or make suspicious movement. If you are inclined to refuse "consent" to show ID (when not legally required) or refuse an unlawful request such as to "conceal" your firearm when not required to, always remember that you can refuse "consent" but you should never refuse to "comply". Refusal to comply with an unlawful command (on the LEO's part) can make a bad situation much, much worse in a big hurry. Politely refuse consent but never refuse to comply. Most law enforcement officers in PA are aware of the legality of open carry but may not understand the technicalities of permits, etc.

[LarryH]

By the way, the 1870's were NOT about 200 years ago. Make it about 130 years ago.

But then, it's still almost true that three out of every two people have trouble with math.

[KBCraig]

My point is, that in all my time in VA I've seen... wait for it... NO ONE open carrying. Not one single person other than uniformed LEOs. Yes I've heard all the blather (web postings) about OC get togethers at restaurant xyz. BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT EVEN ONCE.

That mirrors my experience in eight years of going to Virginia at least 6 to 8 times a year. I go to Arlington and Fairfax primarily, but have been to other cities/towns on rare occasions. In fact, this mirrors my experience in traveling all over the country for over 30 years.

Then doesn't your own experience, and that of gmckinl, negate your oft-stated worry that open carry in Texas would scare the sheeple into posting 30.06 everywhere?

Your argument against OC that it's not such a big deal, is actually an argument in favor.

[AWB09]

It's refreshing to hear common sense instead of godwin law hysteria.

The Iratollah is right. Nobody needs to open carry a handgun in Texas. You can carry your hunting rifle or shotgun openly and the long gun will certainly offer you the same or better protection than a handgun. Because the long gun is better protection, I think the concealed gun law should be repealed in 2009. If someone wants to carry a gun for self defense they should carry a long gun openly instead of hiding a pistol in their pants like a criminal.

Like I said in another thread, OC proponents should start carrying their long guns around to condition the general public to be comfortable when law abiding citizens go about their daily business openly carrying weapons. Perhaps you can be one of the first to walk into Walmart with a shotgun slung over your shoulder. I'm not aware of any laws that will violate and you can be the one to take the Wally Walk to the next level. Wearing a pistol will be very unintimidating to John Q. Public once they are used to seeing riot guns and EBRs openly carried, and the latter are legal to open carry today.

[HGWC]

My only observation here is that the playing field keeps shifting as I read arguments for the "cause," and at some point someone needs to decide if what is being so passionately sought is a change to the Texas Penal Code so that open carry is permitted, or if the demand is the "restoration" and securing of "fundamental rights."

I support the 2nd amendment, and I believe that both open carry and the other infringements anywhere else in the penal code should be repealed. I'll support any legislation that attempts to do any part that.

If the belief is that it is the latter that is required, you don't need to worry about a bill changing the Penal Code; you need to be working toward an amendment to the Texas Constitution. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Texas Constitution expressly says that the state may regulate the wearing of arms. Article 1., Section 23. was written into the Texas Constitution on February 15, 1876, and has not been amended in the intervening 202 years.

I've come to the same conclusion. The constitution should be changed back to keep and bear shall not be infringed just like it was before 1868. The laws will still have to be changed as well.

Section 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

The legislature can, in any session, pass laws that regulate the wearing of arms. If unlicensed open carry is a fundamental right, it can be secured with practical permanence only by an amendment that modifies the wording of Section 23 of the Texas Bill of Rights.[/quote]

The original wording only lasted what 37 years from 1831 to 1868 if I got my years right. There's nothing permanent about our state constitution, but it would definitely be better than being subject to the whim of every legislative session.

[HGWC]

You're suggesting that the issues are even near the same caliber and require such drastic measures. Equating action required to ensure the rights of millions of people of color to have a chance to vote and enjoy all the other freedoms and protections of the law... to a fight for open carry of handguns.

Others have said that even introducing an open carry bill is a nuclear option. Charles was saying there would be a huge backlash. I'm suggesting that even if the backlash is huge and the measures are nuclear that doesn't mean we should necessarily avoid those in order to prevent damage to our cause. I've given a perfectly legitimate example of that. I never suggested that open carry in our modern society is the same caliber of suffering and civil rights impact to society as what Rosa Parks faced in the fifties. That is a strawman argument you're re-iterating. Maybe you need to get your irrational house in order before you continue to complain about mine.

Secondly, this is not a "hotly contested issue". Maybe it is for you, but the vast majority of the state doesn't care at this point. We don't have threats of lynching, burning churches, assassinations and the like over Open Carry. And I sincerely doubt you'd get more than a handful of folks willing to blatantly violate the law by openly carrying handguns in a march to the Capitol, let alone 30.000. And then you'd all go to jail for either UCW or IFC. You seem to be living in a fantasy here.

Charles and others are saying open carry will be a hotly contested issue. That's what we're discussing. If the majority of the state doesn't care, good. There shouldn't be any problem with the open carry bill. Only, we know that won't be the case. Hence the discussion. I also said "for example," on the 30,000 OC march. It's not a fantasy I have. That's just more of your strawman/ad hom habit. It's an example of how not worrying about the backlash could be a more effective means for change than piecemeal and quiet legislation at a snail's pace.

Your comparison of the fight for OC to the fight for Civil Rights isn't equally ridiculous.

It's your strawman. Continue to beat the snot out of it all you want.

Just because an action works on a bigger issue, doesn't mean it is appropriate for a more minor one.

That's just the point. The bus issue was a minor issue in the scheme of things in 1955.

[HGWC]

I think it probably is the other way around. In fact the discussion about OC of handguns and the relationship to the civil rights movement may have a lot more in common than we are letting on. We fail to recall history if we believe that the prohibition on carrying handguns openly in TX was intended to apply equally to whites as blacks in the 1870s. I would like to see a reasoned, accurate accounting of this gun law history in Texas. Remember this was well over 200 years ago!

Of course it does relate to the civil rights movement. It's the one fundamental right that wasn't restored during the 60s.

Here's a very interesting article by Stephen Halbrook on the history of these Texas laws http://www.guncite.com/journals/haltex.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. In 1868, the constitution said "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the state, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe." That last clause is where we lost our rights, and immediately after:

The elections of 1869 were characterized by massive fraud and force. Gen. Reynolds relinquished military authority to the new governor, E.J. Davis, who assumed extraordinary powers to make arrests, suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and declare martial law. Legislators who opposed his policies were arrested so that Radicals could obtain majorities to pass their bills.[141] A state police force was organized which promoted "official murder and legalized oppression."[142]

"An Act Regulating the Right to Keep and Bear Arms," approved on August 13, 1870, made it illegal for one to "have about his person a bowie-knife, dirk or butcher-knife, or fire-arms, whether known as a six-shooter, gun or pistol of any kind" at any church or religious assembly, school, ball room "or other social gathering composed of ladies and gentlemen," or election precinct.[143] The act was fairly limited, although its effect on cooks with butcher knives at social gatherings is unclear.

The far more draconian statute was passed on April 12, 1871, entitled "An Act to regulate the keeping and bearing of deadly weapons."[144] For the first time, Texas prohibited the bearing of all arms (p.658)other than rifles and shotguns at any place off of one's premises. Today's statute derives from the 1871 act passed by the Reconstruction legislature.

Section 1 of the act provided in part:

Any person carrying on or about his person, saddle, or in his saddle-bags, any pistol, dirk, dagger, sling-shot, sword-cane, spear, brass knuckles, bowie knife, or any other kind of knife, manufactured or sold, for the purpose of offense or defense, unless he has reasonable grounds for fearing an unlawful attack on his person, and that such ground of attack shall be immediate and pressing; or unless having or carrying the same on or about his person for the lawful defense of the State, as a militiaman in actual service, or as a peace officer or policeman, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor .... Provided, That this section shall not be so construed as to prohibit any person from keeping or having arms on his or her own premises, or at his or her own place of business, nor to prohibit sheriffs or revenue officers, and other civil officers, from keeping or having arms, while engaged in the discharge of their official duties, nor to prohibit persons traveling in the State from keeping or carrying arms with their baggage....[145]"

Punishment for a first offense was a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $100 and forfeiture of the weapon. A subsequent offense was punishable by a maximum of sixty days in jail.

The act was one of a series of controversial measures passed by the Reconstruction legislature in 1871, a year in which Republicans were consolidating their political power over disenfranchised ex-Confederates. A taxpayers' convention in Austin undertook to investigate general grievances of the people. The Report of the Subcommittee on Violations of [the] Constitution and Laws, chaired by W.M. Walton, was submitted on September 25, 1871 to Senator A.J. Hamilton, Chairman of the General Committee. It complained that the arms act and other acts rendered the majority helpless in the grasp of a military dictatorship:(p.659)

17. The people have been disarmed throughout the State, notwithstanding their constitutional right "to keep and bear arms." (Constitution, section 13, article 1. Laws 1871, p. 75.)

The police and State guards are armed, and lord it over the land, while the citizen dare not, under heavy pain and penalties, bear arms to defend himself, unless he has reasonable grounds for fearing an unlawful attack on his person, and that such grounds of attack shall be immediate and pressing. The citizen is at the mercy of the policeman and the men of the State Guard, and that too, when these bodies of men embrace in them some of the most lawless and abandoned men in the State, many of whom are adventurers--strangers to the soil--discharged or pardoned criminals ....

18. The election order ... forbids the assembling of the people on the days of election; it prohibits free speech; it is the unlawful will of the executive, enforced by him through the power of an armed police upon an unarmed people; it is the will of a despot and the act of tyrant overriding the supreme law of the land....

19. By orders executed through his armed bodies of police, the executive has taken control of peaceable assemblies of the people ... and there suppressed free speech under threats of arrest and subjection to punishment as criminals.[146]"

The grievances were reprinted in the minority report of the U.S. Congress' Joint Select Committee on the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States. The report noted that Governor E.J. Davis placed armed police at all voting places for the Congressional election in October 1871, and observed, "[t]he effect of putting such a military force in possession of the ballot box, with the citizens disarmed, is easily seen...."[147]

In 1873, the Democrats defeated Govenor Davis, but armed citizens had to take over the capital to remove him from office. It's just a minor little issue right? Nothing like real civil rights issues huh? How petty of us to want to correct this slight little Texas problem! They then repealed many of the "obnoxious acts," but not the gun law.

In 1875, we had another constitutional convention to address the problems since 1870. They re-wrote the constitutional right:
"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."

Under the 1876 guarantee, the legislature (but not a locality) could regulate how arms were to be worn, i.e., openly or concealed, but could not bar the wearing of weapons per se. It was intended to repeal the broad legislative power in the 1869 Constitution and in particular the unpopular 1871 act which prohibited the bearing of arms anywhere but on one's premises.[192] The 1871 act was used to disarm and oppress the people and to set up a police state.[193]

The address of the convention to the people promised that the language of the new Bill of Rights protected the citizens' liberties "by every safeguard known to constitutional law."[194] The constitution was submitted to a popular vote and ratified in early 1876.[195] Those who thought that the new guarantee would restore the right to bear arms in Texas were in for a rude awakening.

Then he goes on to talk about the court cases that nailed us in our coffin up until now.

BTW, check out Stephen Halbrook's web page at http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. He's also got some interesting articles on the Nazis and gun control.

But whomever made the suggestion that it is the TX Constitution that needs changing and not the Penal Code is spot on.

Read the entire article. It's fascinating.