OK passes open carry & TSRA planning for Texas '11 session

[SA-TX]

More importantly, why did we have to add that in TX? Were the police having problems with CHLers inappropriately using their handguns while in the police station?

The reason given was because LEO's couldn't disarm a CHL even in areas where their own officers were required to disarm due to the risk of prisoners "snatching" a handgun.

Chas.

Hmmm. You would have thought that a) existing disarming authority would been sufficient and b) that they would never let someone into an area where their own officers disarm because of prisoner proximity without screening.

Where we really need the lockbox is at courthouses. PA has this requirement. That would make reporting for jury duty much easier. In Dallas if you want to take DART into downtown, you can carry on the train but once you get to the courthouse you are stuck.

SA-TX

You asked why the provision was added; that's why. Procedures vary greatly depending on the size of the department, number of personnel, building layout, etc.

Chas.

Thank you for answering and I do appreciate the insight. I was just musing aloud about their given reasons. They seem very weak to me because I have a high bar for how severe a problem has to be before we resort to passing a law restricting heretofor legal behavior.

Charles what do you think about PA's (and there may be another state or two that requires this) lockbox requirement? Because courthouses are off limits, they MUST provide gun carriers the ability to check their sidearms.

This is particularly important since we still have the "court or court office" situation where you don't even think you are going to a "courthouse" but rather a "records building" or a "city office" only to find the entire building has been declared to be off-limits. I say if the place is a) a public (i.e. -- government) building, and b) carry is banned for whatever reason, c) the facility must provide for the checking and secure storage of legally carried arms, and d) it isn't a violation to unconceal your firearm while checking/retrieving it at such a facility.

SA-TX

[Right2Carry]

They may have jumped the gun on the map, but a bill was recently sent to the TN governor that would allow restaurant carry with a prohibition against any consumption while carrying. I haven't heard whether the bill has been, or is likely to be signed.

Bills are still going through the house and senate, so still off-limits. Even their Tennessee page outlining the gun laws says they are 'researching' off-limits locations. I am not sure how up-to-date their data even is across the board; apparently not very.

It was legal to carry in a Tennesse restaraunt until some judge made a ill informed decision. The bills currently in work are to fix what the judge ruled was unconstitutional.

Judge shoots down Tennessee's guns-in-bars law as unconstitutional
After ruling, lawyers disagree whether it's effective immediately

NASHVILLE -- A Nashville judge ruled Friday that Tennessee's new law allowing handgun-carry permit holders to go armed into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol was unconstitutionally vague.

But because Chancellor Claudia Bonnyman likely won't file her written order until at least Monday, lawyers disagreed on whether the 257,000 Tennessee gun-permit holders -- and those from other states whose permits are legally recognized in Tennessee -- are violating the law if they carry guns this weekend into places serving alcohol that have not opted to ban guns.

State Atty. Gen. Robert Cooper's office, which defended the statute in court, declined to provide firm guidance to permit holders or restaurants on when the ruling is effective -- but indicated through spokeswoman Sharon Curtis-Flair that it would not be enforced at least until the written order is filed.

But Nashville lawyer David Randolph Smith, who represented Nashville restaurant owners and citizens opposed to the law, said he believes the judge's verbal ruling was effective immediately.

"She ruled from the bench that it was unconstitutional and she didn't stay it. It is no longer a law. If somebody out there tonight walks into a bar with a handgun, they would be violating the law because the law has been ruled unconstitutional. As a practical matter though, I don't think anyone will enforce it until she issues the written order," Smith said.

The "guns in bars" issue was one of the hardest-fought battles in the legislature this year, after years of failure by gun advocates.

Tennessee previously banned guns in all places where alcohol is sold, but the bill attempted to carve out an exception for gun-carry permit holders as long as they are not consuming alcohol. It also allowed restaurant owners to maintain gun bans in their businesses by posting signs at the entrance.

Gov. Phil Bredesen vetoed the bill, but lawmakers overrode the veto.

The bill's tortured wording, which attempts to differentiate between "bars" and restaurants even though Tennessee law does not recognize bars, left it open to the challenge by opponents that it is too vague to clearly put permit holders on notice about which establishments are legal or not.

Smith's co-counsel, David Raybin, argued in a one-hour hearing Friday that it would be difficult for patrons to know which restaurants met the definition.

But State Asst. Atty. Gen. Lyndsay Fuller Sanders said customers with permits "can just ask."

The ruling, assuming it stands, sets up another extended battle in the next legislature, which convenes in January.

State Rep. Curry Todd, R-Collierville, vowed Friday to sponsor the bill again and Bredesen said he could veto it again if a new bill doesn't address his concerns about safety.

"I thought the statute was very clear. I just think the judge was looking for something to make it unconstitutional," Todd said. "We patterned it after other states' laws and I think she's done a disservice to gun-permit holders of Tennessee. I do hope the state attorney general, who I will talk with next week, will appeal this ruling.

"And if in fact it still remains unconstitutionally vague as she ruled, then I will come back with tenacity next session to pass the bill again. I hope that the folks who have handgun permits rise up and get on the bandwagon again if this thing has to go back before the legislature."

Todd did say, however, that permit holders should obey the judge's ruling.

Senate Democratic Minority Leader Jim Kyle of Memphis predicted another fight in the legislature.

"I'm happy that common sense as well as the rule of law has won the day. I have always believed in the Second Amendment and will continue to fight to protect it, but I fought against guns in bars because alcohol and firearms do not mix," Kyle said.

Greater Memphis reacts

Mike Miller, president of the Memphis Restaurant Association, said he and others have tried to clarify the "guns in bars" bill since it became law July 14.

"It was poorly written," said Miller, owner of Patrick's Steaks and Spirits. "If it's going to be the law, it needs to be concise about how we're to apply the law."

Larkin Grisanti, who operates Frank Grisanti's Restaurant in East Memphis, said he didn't like having to worry about the safety of customers and employees.

"We know that there are people who have the right to carry and have the proper training. But we're in an environment where we serve alcohol," he said. "It could be a big liability."

Danny Sumrall, owner of The Half Shell, said the chancellor's decision even though it could be appealed or the law rewritten was a victory for restaurant owners.

"At least it makes a statement," he added. "To me, guns and restaurants have never mixed. A restaurant is just not a good environment for guns."

-- Ryan Poe

Contact Nashville Bureau chief Richard Locker at (615) 255-4923.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/20 ... itutional/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Right2Carry]

I don't understand how Oklahoma was able to get the parking lot bill passed and yet Texas has failed repeatedly to get this done. Now Oklahoma is going to have OC and Texas will still be trying to get Campus Carry and the Employee parking lot bills passed.

I am a native Texan but if this keeps up I just might have to consider moving to Oklahoma so I can exercise my God given 2nd ammendment rights to the fullest extent possible.

Texas should be leading the way, instead of trying to follow in the footsteps of Oklahoma.

[SA-TX]

Really, you think emails mean something. Ok.
You think after you burned the poiticans anyone's going to carry your water?

I'll be the first to say that some on OpenCarry.org were less diplomatic and thoughful than they should have been. 2A freedom matters and is worth getting excided about (thus the heated rhetoric) but principles don't implement themselves. Tactics matter. Working with those who are key to your success is critical. Everyone should take into account the consequences of their actions. I and others said so at the time.

I hope we won't paint with too broad of a brush. Did Frazzled make outrageous statements and fire off heated emails to legislators calling for their heads? I know I didn't. Incidentally, do emails matter or do they not? They can't not matter if that was the primary way politicians were "burned". My point is: not everyone who supports open carry or is a member of OpenCarry.org had it in for good pro-gun members simply because open carry didn't get any attention last session. I'd wager that most Texas member of OCDO did NOT.

That said, aside from some venting of frustration, was there really any "burning" of politicians? Most politicians I've had any contact with seem to have pretty tough skins because criticism comes with the job. They also get email and letters from groups/people of all stripes and, as you mentioned, widely ignore them. If you aren't from their district, your opinion doesn't mean very much. Heck, when you ARE from their district you sometimes don't get a response. The last 2 times I've written to my Texas rep and senator through the Texas.gov website, I've gotten NO RESPONSE at all. Not even the pro-forma canned response.

May I gently suggest that we: a) forget the past and b) dedicate ourselves to working together for more 2A freedom in Texas? It seeems everyone is in agreement on parking lot carry, campus carry, and range protection. I'm right there with you and will be doing everything I can do to get them passed. No hesitation. No horse trading. No quid pro quo. I'll be there because it expands 2A freedom. I agree with Charles 100% on not trading one thing for another thing. Even though I personally probably won't benefit from campus carry, I'm 100% for it and will work hard to make it happen.

In addition -- not as opposed to or instead of -- I would like to see TSRA take up the topic of open carry. As a start, let's discuss it internally. Let's think through ramifications. Let's run an article in the newsletter. Let's take a poll or let the wider TSRA audience (who doesn't visit this website) sound off about the matter. Be evenhanded about it. Have a writer chronicle what's happened in other states in the past couple of years, mention OK since that's recent, and call for feedback from the membership.

Why do we think at this early stage -- before the McDonald decision, before the elections in November, before the legislature is even sworn in -- that there won't be an opportunity to deal with 4 gun bills instead of only 3? Aren't we being presumptious? I said before that I don't mind making practical trade offs when necessary. Until then why are we limiting ourselves?

SA-TX

[Keith B]

I don't understand how Oklahoma was able to get the parking lot bill passed and yet Texas has failed repeatedly to get this done. Now Oklahoma is going to have OC and Texas will still be trying to get Campus Carry and the Employee parking lot bills passed.

I am a native Texan but if this keeps up I just might have to consider moving to Oklahoma so I can exercise my God given 2nd ammendment rights to the fullest extent possible.

Texas should be leading the way, instead of trying to follow in the footsteps of Oklahoma.

I believe the parking lot bill would have passed last year had it made it to the floor. Chubbing by the Democrats last year caused a lot of bills to never be read or voted on.

[Right2Carry]

I don't understand how Oklahoma was able to get the parking lot bill passed and yet Texas has failed repeatedly to get this done. Now Oklahoma is going to have OC and Texas will still be trying to get Campus Carry and the Employee parking lot bills passed.

I am a native Texan but if this keeps up I just might have to consider moving to Oklahoma so I can exercise my God given 2nd ammendment rights to the fullest extent possible.

Texas should be leading the way, instead of trying to follow in the footsteps of Oklahoma.

I believe the parking lot bill would have passed last year had it made it to the floor. Chubbing by the Democrats last year caused a lot of bills to never be read or voted on.

And what prevents that same tactic from happening again this year?

[frazzled]

I don't understand how Oklahoma was able to get the parking lot bill passed and yet Texas has failed repeatedly to get this done. Now Oklahoma is going to have OC and Texas will still be trying to get Campus Carry and the Employee parking lot bills passed.

I am a native Texan but if this keeps up I just might have to consider moving to Oklahoma so I can exercise my God given 2nd ammendment rights to the fullest extent possible.

Texas should be leading the way, instead of trying to follow in the footsteps of Oklahoma.

I believe the parking lot bill would have passed last year had it made it to the floor. Chubbing by the Democrats last year caused a lot of bills to never be read or voted on.

And what prevents that same tactic from happening again this year?

Nothing.

[KC5AV]

Hopefully there will be some new faces in Austin this time around.

[Liberty]

And what prevents that same tactic from happening again this year?

There is likely going to be some radical changes this year Perry could be gone, or we could be putting in a lot more conservatives in to the legislator. If Perry survives this would likely be good news.

While we can blame the Democrats and they deserve most of it. The Republicans also aren't blameless in the chubbing. The issue at hand was voter ID. Now most conservatives and Republicans believe that this is an important issue, and I agree. But there really isn't much documented evidence in Texas that it really was a real concern. If the Republicans had agreed to drop the issue and pull the bill (it wasn't gonna pass any way) The Democrats would have had their token victory saved face and we would have some real bills addressed .

Its called statesmanship

[SA-TX]

Contrary to what many have said about me, I do not oppose open-carry; I do have one and only one concern, and that's the expansion of businesses posting 30.06 signs. The fact that I do not support OC does not mean I would oppose it. In fact, I absolutely would not oppose it, unless a horrendous bill like the one proposed last session is offered again. My opposition would be based upon the dangerous construction of the bill, not the concept of OC. I openly offered suggestions for simplifying and improving the bill, but the author had every right to ignore them as he did.

In the end, open-carry deals with how Texans can carry defensive handguns; I'm far more concerned with empowering more people to carry in more places. In my view, that should be our priority.

Chas.

When given an either-or choice, I do not disagree. My request is that we consider whether we can do both rather than only one or the other.

How about this: forget the previous bill author. Will you draft a bill or work with others to draft one that addresses your concerns? I don't want more 30.06 signs. I don't know any CHLer who does including those who would like the option to OC. We don't want this to be 1 step forward, one step back. It is exactly your/TSRA's expertise in understanding how to craft legislation that is needed.

I say let the process work. Draft an OC bill along with campus carry, parking lot carry, range protection, and everything else that we want. Take feedback from all interested parties. Try to address their concerns. Work with our friends in the Legislature. Try and advance as large a pro-2A agenda as possible. If/when the time comes where items have to ranked by priority because we're are told in no uncertain terms that we aren't going to get everything we want, THEN we make some choices. Is this an unreasonable approach?

SA-TX

[gigag04]

Draft an OC bill along with campus carry, parking lot carry, range protection, and everything else that we want.

Not that my opinion carries hardly any weight as the political side of the laws often escape me...however, I think OC should wait till these bills mentioned pass and enjoy some success. Let students carry and not shoot up the campus and the political climate may/probably will be in a better place to take OC at a later date.

I think Charles and TSRA are on the right track and know a great deal more than I do about passing gun friendly legislation. I wouldn't mind Open Carry now (technically I already can...but I'm in CHL thinking mode) - however, I think with the previous attempts at OC legislation it may too much sugar for a nickel.

[G.A. Heath]

My opinion is as follows: OC does need to stay on the political agenda, who knows it may even get passed w/o the support of the TSRA (Snowballs have a better chance in ...). But as long as it stays on the agenda the TSRA can see which politicians support and appose it as well as allowing them to gauge the public support for such legislation. As I said earlier if you want to see the TSRA support OC then join them and make your position known. Additionally, The governor of Oklahoma Vetoed their OC legislation, although an effort to override the veto is under way.

[wheelgun1958]

Vetoed.

link

[nitrogen]

Coming a little late to this, but heck, here goes.

Personally, I doubt i'd open carry.

Open carry IS important. Let me explain why:
Let's look at the issue from the perspective of the 1st amendment instead of the 2nd. I'm going to make a simple argument, full of logical fallacies and holes, but please follow me to the end.

Imagine if it was perfectly legal to be a Christian, you just couldn't wear artifacts of Christianity openly, or speak about it openly. "as we all know, Ideas are dangerous, and we wouldn't want the wrong ones openly discussed where our children could have access to them."

In effect, THIS is why open carry is important. It's the gun owners equivalent of the gays at pride parades saying, "We're here, we're queer, get used to it."

Right now, with the status quo, we can be 2nd amendment supporters, but we have to keep it to ourselves in public. Nobody knows (or should know) that we're carrying, so it gets to be an out of sight, out of mind issue for the public.

For practical reasons, that's great; because it allows the "sheeple" to stay ignorant, but allows us the maximum use of our rights today.

This is where I think a lot of OC advocates and people like Charles diverge, and start talking AT each other instead of to. Charles, and the TSRA is being pragmatic about our rights. They want the maximum use of what we can get with as few restrictions, and as few repercussions as possible from the "sheeple" This isn't a bad thing, in fact, it works up to a point. Like in business, if you never take risks, you never get rewards.

People in the OC movement (at least me) see fighting for OC as our version of "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed" or "We're here, we're queer, get used to it." Bringing the issue out into the open, and forcing more people to talk and discuss it is very risky, but can have great rewards, too.

I think Charles and the TSRA are adverse to this risk. They see what we have now as "good enough" and I think many of the members of the TSRA would agree. I don't know Charles all that well, but from his posts on here, he strikes me as your normal conservative Conservative. This kind of position is a very conservative one, and one I'd expect.

I'm more of a liberal/progressive type. I like pushing the envelope, and I think many of the open carry advocates have some liberal tendencies, even if their beliefs fall into the typically "conservative" range. They want to push the envelope, too. Pushing the envelope causes change and progression. Many conservatives I know are more of a "regressive" (meaning, "things were better back then, we should go back to that") kind of thinking.

I don't see the TSRA's position as "bad" or "wrong" like many OC advocates seem to. I think they are being pragmatic and conservative. I also don't see the OC advocates as wrong, either.
Part of the problem is that political discourse in this country is so poor, that people are quick to demonize and lambaste people they do not agree with. This is a great example of that, I think.

[UpTheIrons]

I'm late, too, but why not jump in? Does anyone else still have the March 2010 issue of your NRA magazine lying around anywhere?

I'm assuming that Wayne LaPierre's "Standing Guard" column is in all issues of the "family" of magazines. He had a bang-on column about the Canadian long gun registry's likely demise. It is somewhat tangential, but relevant to our Open Carry discussion.

He details much of the work done to get the registry repealed, and how the call to repeal began in earnest in 2006, with the election of Stephen Harper, who came into office promising to dump it. It is now 2010, and they still haven't gotten rid of it, yet they are on the verge. 4 years of educating the Canadian public to get to where they are, and the work still isn't done.

I must state that I am in favor of passing some form of OC, even though I'd likely not spend too much time doing so. I think, however, that the fervent supporters of OC have to take into account that just because it was brought up in '09, and some of our surrounding states now have it, that it will not be a slam dunk.

I may be misreading some of you, and I know that many of you have posted well-reasoned (and very much appreciated) arguments in favor of pursuing OC in '11, but I don't know if the public is in the right place yet. I think we have to get them much closer to the point that they say "Hey, this is a good idea - why don't we have OC in Texas?"

I have supported some of the work of opencarry.org in the past, and think that they can do some good here in Texas, but this has to be a unified front, with the support of NRA, TSRA, opencarry.org, and the many schools/clubs/groups that promote the shooting sports within Texas. Because of that, I don't think 2011 is the time to "push it". It may well be the time to say "we're looking for this in the future, and we are unified in pursuing this, but we've got to lay the groundwork first, and we will."

I plan on polling some of my fellow licenseholders and gunners this weekend to feel them out and see what they think. If this group of pro-gun people isn't ready for it, I think OC is going to have a long, hard road before there are any positive results.

Please don't take this as a slam on those seeking OC this coming legislative term, because it isn't. I just think we, as a state, aren't quite 'there' yet.