Open-Carry - A Post-Mortem

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'm going to make my last comments on open-carry (the issue) and OpenCarry.org, at least until after the 2009 Texas Legislative Session is over. In all candor, I would like to stay out of it for good; I'm sick of it!

A divisive issue or merely divisive people?
The open-carry issue has pitted gun owners against one another like no other issue. Even the so-called "assault weapons" ban didn't generate so much hostility between friends. However, it appears that those who would burn down the house to kill the termites are few in number, though very vocal. Where the majority of Texas gun owners and Second Amendment supporters fall on the open-carry issue is unknown, perhaps even unknowable. What is known is that 60,000 people allegedly signed an Internet petition supporting open-carry, but that is a very small percentage of Texas gun owners. Neither Texas CHLs, NRA members or TSRA members in general have indicated open-carry is an issue of importance. (Yes, there have been some relatively few calls, but most of those were from non-members claiming they would join, but only if TSRA endorsed OpenCarry.org's open-carry bill.)

I find it encouraging that although 60,000 people "signed" the Internet petition, only a very small number of open-carry supporters on OpenCarry.org have called for action that would damage our ability to promote the interest of gun owners in the future. I suspect that the vast majority of people who support open-carry want the issue approached responsibly and in a manner that will not jeopardize past accomplishments and future gains. These folks need to make their voices heard within the open-carry movement. If the methods used, and the attitudes exhibited, in 2011 mirror those of this session, then open-carry is doomed.

TexasCHLforum members probably represent a segment of Texas gun owners who are more informed on political issues simply because they care enough to get involved and stay informed. Yet even among us there is disagreement not only on open-carry, but on other issues related to guns, self-defense and the law. This may come as a surprise to some, but there are varying opinions expressed by members of every NRA/TSRA/NRACRDF committee of which I'm a member. We use those differing opinions to develop both a consensus and a plan to achieve our goals. Equally important, we develop issue priority and a timetable the same way. This is how you succeed; this is how you best protect the interest of all gun owners. If I took a kiss my foot I'm leaving attitude every time I didn't get my way on an issue or timing, then I wouldn't have lasted two sessions -- and rightfully so. No one person's opinion and no one issue is worth damaging much less destroying the most successful Second Amendment/civil rights organizations Texas and the U.S. have ever known.

Open-Carry.org
It's no secret that I don't like the methods used by OpenCarry.org. However, I stayed out of their business until its leader advocated a course of action that would jeopardize TSRA/NRA bills. I'm specifically referring to the article on the Texas open-carry movement in which Mr. Stollenwerk's was quoted as saying they would amend their language another gun bill, if they couldn't get anyone to file an open-carry bill. Even then, I merely warned against that option as it would force us to oppose them to protect our bills. This apparently didn't set well with OpenCarry.org folks and they took offense that we would protect our bills.

After this, I again stayed out of OpenCarry.org's business, until it appeared that they were going to seriously promote a very poorly crafted bill that would be fertile ground for anti-gun, anti-carry amendments. I gave hints how the bill could be drafted to avoid this, but those were ignored and OpenCarry.org had every right to reject "outside" ideas.

It became obvious that OpenCarry.org was worried about not getting anyone to file their bill. People started questioning why the TSRA and NRA were not endorsing OpenCarry.org's efforts. When the reason was explained, it fell on deaf ears. Perennial NRA/TSRA bashers went to work, both here and on OpenCarry.org. Although most of the unfounded criticism of TSRA and NRA came from members of OpenCarry.org, Mr. Stollenwerk started making not-so-veiled negative comments as well. It was at this point that I decided not to let our members (TSRA and NRA) be mislead by false or intentionally misleading posts and comments on OpenCarry.org.

TSRA/NRA Position on Open-Carry
I have repeatedly stated that neither NRA or TSRA has taken a position on open-carry in Texas. Some people want to equate my personal concerns about potential backlash to open-carry with a position of TSRA. At least one person believes that because I am a lawyer, that I am "choosing my words carefully" when I say that neither organization has taken an "official" position, implying that we have discussed the issue. This is false and it ignores the reality of how both organizations operate. We have procedures that must be followed in order to take a position on any issue. This has never been done concerning open-carry. As I've stated numerous times before, if the majority of our membership want us to push for open-carry, then I am confident we will and we will use the methods that have proven successful for years. I will put aside my concerns and develop some ideas I have to minimize a negative response.

Do TSRA directors have personal opinions about open-carry in Texas? I have no idea, I haven't spoken to a single one of them about this issue. But personal opinions don't matter when we deal with issues presented to or developed by TSRA/NRA, including mine. This is purely a guess, but I suspect there are both pro and con opinions among the directors, just as there are among gun owners in general. But we respond to the wishes of our members, so none of that matters.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; neither TSRA, NRA, nor I have done anything openly or covertly to thwart the open-carry movement in Texas. I made this a promise, subject only to OpenCarry.org not trying to amend one of our bills with its language, and I have kept that promise. Rather than accept that statement at face value, some would rather attribute OpenCarry.org's failure on some conspiracy theory by the TSRA or NRA. Alice Tripp said it very well, "we are not lukewarm about any Second Amendment issue." We approach them in the manner that has proven successful and we don't merely jump on board with an 11th hour endorsement. To do otherwise would be irresponsible and would shirk the responsibility we have to our members. Some have opined that the lack of open support by TSRA/NRA hurt OpenCarry.org's efforts. I don't know if this is true, but if so, neither TSRA nor NRA can be blamed if a Virginia-based organization took on a project that they could not accomplish alone.

Open-carry is dead for this session; support remaining bills
Open-carry is dead for the 2009 Texas Legislative Session, but there is much work to be done on bills already filed. The two flagship bills, employer parking lots and campus security a/k/a campus-carry, need all of us to get behind them and respond to calls for action quickly and decisively. These two pieces of legislation will have a direct impact on the ability of many tens of thousands of Texans to protect themselves during their daily routines. There are other bills filed that need our support.

Let's not waste time continuing to argue about open-carry, why it will work, why it won't work, or why it didn't get anywhere this session. Open-carry is ancient history on the political calendar, it became that on March 14th. There will be plenty of time to get back into this issue after the session is over.

I have far too much to do for the remainder of this session to keep checking on what OpenCarry.org is saying about TSRA, NRA, or our friends in Austin. I have pointed out the false and deceptive posts and threads related to TSRA and NRA, so I ask only that you keep their track record in mind the next time you see us blamed for their failure to get anything done in Austin this session.

Now let's work to make 2009 another successful session for Texas gun owners.

Chas.

[tfrazier]

...and lessons have been learned, hopefully.

[BigBlueDodge]

well said Charles, and I agree 100%. I fully support that we should focus on fixing/strengtheing current concealed carry laws FIRST, rather than trying to add more laws in the mix. The focus should be on quality, not quantity. Better to focus on a few well written bullet proof laws, than it is to push out many, sloppily written laws that would easily be skirted around.

[shootthesheet]

I hope this is just the beginning. The more I see people standing up for their rights the better I like it. The people are finally waking up and demanding we stop letting people with bad intentions destroy our country and our rights with it. I am sure those in politics get a headache over it and I am sorry. To me this is all the way it should be. Truth verses the lie, out in the open. Rights verses privileges so everyone can see the contrast.

The only difference between now and the "good old days" is that conservatives aren't letting someone else tell them what to think. In my world that is a very good thing.

That said I am not associated with any group or organization supporting open carry. It is just me and my opinions.

Thank you for your post and your hard work Mr. Cotton.

[bradfromearth]

First off - Thank you Charles for your continued work on behalf of all Americans in protecting the integrity of our constitution and our rights.

In light of the difficulties in getting Open Carry passed I have wondered about the option of what I have come to call "Conspicuous Carry" Conspicuous -yet legal.

I have been carrying for a short while now and I have to say the worst part about it all is, well, carrying a gun. It really is ridiculous in a warm climate. I am for open carry simply for the reason that it would be SO MUCH EASIER to just stick the thing on my belt and go about my business.

This brings me to a question to which I am not sure of the laws or the interpretation of them, but in my laymen mind it seems very plausible. Why cant I just get a nice paddle holster and put something around the gun to encase it without showing its outline. A big Cordura square with a Velcro flap. You can see these occasionally on the market for small autos, and there is the idea of the "fanny pack" but the bottom line is the easiest place for most to carry is strong side on the hip. So I would like to just forget about the big sloppy un-tucked shirt or the extra hot and non stylish semi tactical vest, or whatever. I just want to stick the paddle on my hip and go.

Now I know that this would look weird or conspicuous but I wonder if I really care any more. Most people with half a brain would be able to "know" that it was a gun but you would not be able to "see" that it was a gun and you would not be breaking the concealed laws. If someone is stupid enough to ask me what it is I could just tell them it is a big day planner and I feel -safe- when it is right there on my hip.

As a last bit I do have one of the older "desantis" (I think) paddle holsters/Packs that fits this description with the exception that it is really small. I am looking to carry a Glock 19 sized auto which would be a lot more conspicuous.

Any input on how this might fly under the Texas statutes would be greatly appreciated.
Brad

Again - Thank you Charles for your contribution to the cause.

[KFP]

First off - Thank you Charles for your continued work on behalf of all Americans in protecting the integrity of our constitution and our rights.

In light of the difficulties in getting Open Carry passed I have wondered about the option of what I have come to call "Conspicuous Carry" Conspicuous -yet legal.

As a last bit I do have one of the older "desantis" (I think) paddle holsters/Packs that fits this description with the exception that it is really small. I am looking to carry a Glock 19 sized auto which would be a lot more conspicuous.

Any input on how this might fly under the Texas statutes would be greatly appreciated.
Brad

Again - Thank you Charles for your contribution to the cause.

Sec. 411.171. (3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

Concealment holsters like you've described are readily available:

Desantis
Wilderness Tactical

[CainA]

Sec. 411.171. (3) "Concealed handgun" means a handgun, the presence of which is not openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person.

Ya gotta love the cut and dry definitions:

*not openly discernible
*ordinary observation
*reasonable person

-Cain

[Purplehood]

Would a valid defense be that you were observed by an Unreasonable person?

[Mike1951]

Also, all three models of the Tommy's gun pack can now be ordered with 2" velcro belt loops to wear on your belt.

https://www.tommysgunpack.com/SearchResults.asp?Cat=22" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you're interested, don't pay listed price. They run frequent sales with large discounts. Back in February, they ran two separate 60% off sales.

[bdickens]

I carry a Glock 19 everywhere except to and from work. (:grumble that's another subject right there that will hopefully be taken care of this legislative session. ) I have no problems keeping it under wraps, even with a t-shirt.

[DoubleActionCHL]

I'll admit that I didn't really get on board with the open carry movement. It's not that I don't believe in it. I do. I just had problems with the way it was promoted. I consider myself an unapologetic gun owner, but the open carry movement seemed to attract the wrong kind of attention. As much as I hate to say it, PR is really critical right now. Responsible gun owners are trying really hard to be portrayed as such, but the media has no trouble spinning the open carry idea and making us look like a bunch of trigger-happy nuts. I'm afraid that, with other key bills on the table, the open carry issue could damage our chances of expanding our rights under current CHL legislation. It's like having the inside track on a horse that will pay off 2:1, but betting it all on a 50:1 long shot just for the heck of it.

Please pardon my ignorant ramblings. This is one issue on which I was truly torn.

[bryang]

Thank you, Charles, for your tireless work on behalf of Texas gun owners and the issues that affect us. I agree with you concerning the OC debate. I, too, think that there are far more important issues that need to be address at this time.

-geo

[Mike from Texas]

Bummer. I really wanted to see OC pass but I'm not going to fret over it. There is always next year.

[Skiprr]

Now let's work to make 2009 another successful session for Texas gun owners.

I second that call to action.

And I trust that the strange dynamic and divisiveness we've seen these past months over open carry won't prevent people from actively supporting the important bills that are now on the floor. At least, I hope not.

Thank you, Charles, for all you do.

[waffenmacht]

Sad news about open-carry. And I just bought Remington 1858 to begin using. Not wanting to dissapoint those that are convinced open-carry will take us back to the "Days of the Old-West".