TexasCHLforum.com

OK Legislature passes open carry. Assuming it becomes law, TX will be one of the very few that continues to prohibit it.
http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=12424101" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Charles,

Re: TSRA's legislative agenda for the Texas 2011 session.

I know this session will be tough because of how the prior one ended. Voter ID will probably be an even bigger issue than it was last time due to the new AZ law (which will probably still be in the news in Jan to its effective date and legal challenges). Speaking of voting, the granddaddy of partisan topics will be on the table -- redistricting. Clearly the stakes are high and there is no telling what the D's might do. Nevertheless, I'd like to know what TSRA has planned for the 2011?

I think it is pretty safe to say that last session left all of us frustrated. The Democrats chubbing killed most of our bills. You would know better than most, but my feeling is that parking lot carry and campus carry enjoyed enough support to pass and would have been signed into law by Governor Perry.

It won't come as a surprise, but I respectfully request that we talk about adding open carry to the agenda. Open carry is on a roll. From court cases to Starbucks corporate policy to protests at presidential appearances, the topic has never gotten so much press. Perhaps surprisingly, that press hasn't had a bad effect. If anything, it seems to dovetail with the prevailing mood of the electorate which is for more freedom and less government (IA passing shall-issue CC, states passing laws against ObamaCare, states passing "made-here" gun laws, Congress forcing national park carry through and blocking the D.C. represenation bill with a pro-gun amendment).

With apologies for the long introduction to the question, what are TSRA's priorities and where does open carry fit?

Thanks,

SA-TX

TSRA Life Member

The only things certain to be on the 2011 Texas Legislative Session are:

• Employer parking lots;
  Campus security/campus-carry;
  Range protection.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The only things certain to be on the 2011 Texas Legislative Session are:

• Employer parking lots;
  Campus security/campus-carry;
  Range protection.

Chas.

Range protection?

SA-TX wrote:OK Legislature passes open carry. Assuming it becomes law, TX will be one of the very few that continues to prohibit it.
http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=12424101" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry, but I have to question your premise above. Direction quote from the article you linked:

Ten other states allow residents with handgun permits to openly carry firearms, according to the National Conference on State Legislatures. In Montana, citizens can openly carry a handgun without a permit.

So according to the article, Texas is one of 38 other states that DO NOT allow open carry. Don't see how that equals "one of the very few that continues to prohibit it".

Am I missing something?

austinrealtor wrote:

SA-TX wrote:OK Legislature passes open carry. Assuming it becomes law, TX will be one of the very few that continues to prohibit it.
http://www.news9.com/global/story.asp?s=12424101" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry, but I have to question your premise above. Direction quote from the article you linked:

Ten other states allow residents with handgun permits to openly carry firearms, according to the National Conference on State Legislatures. In Montana, citizens can openly carry a handgun without a permit.

So according to the article, Texas is one of 38 other states that DO NOT allow open carry. Don't see how that equals "one of the very few that continues to prohibit it".

Am I missing something?

Simple: the article is wrong. Would you expect anything else when it comes to journalism about guns and gun laws?

There are currently only seven states with no legal means of open carry: Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Illinois, Florida, South Carolina, and New York. There are 14 states where OC is legal with a license, although the likelihood of getting a license varies from Utah (must-issue) to Hawaii (no way). California has legal open carry in rural areas, and legal "unloaded open carry" everywhere else except for school zones. That leaves 28 other states where OC in unquestionably legal, although there might be some hassle associated with the practice.

chabouk wrote: That leaves 28 other states where OC in unquestionably legal, although there might be some hassle associated with the practice.

While this it true, it doesn't bring out the fact that in many of these states a city or county government can ban open carry per state statutes. That makes it really tough to know where you can and can't open carry. As has been stated on here before, if for some reason Texas did pass open carry I can almost bet there would have to be 'reasonable restrictions' included to get it to pass. Those resonable restrictions would more than likely be to allow local governments to ban OC, as well as banning it by sign, and that already existing sign is a 30.06. That would mean the word would get out to store owners and such that this is the way to prevent it from happening and there would be a giant surge in new locations posting valid 30.06 signs. The downside of that is it would also then ban concealed carry.

However, after the tactics that some of the open carry proponents used lat time to try to strong arm legislators into introducing a bill, I doubt very seriously that any will be willing to touch it with a 10 ft pole this next session. And without a sponsor, it will never get introduced.

chabouk wrote:California has legal open carry in rural areas, and legal "unloaded open carry" everywhere else except for school zones. That leaves 28 other states where OC in unquestionably legal, although there might be some hassle associated with the practice.

Just a note that next Wednesday, the 12th, the California Appropriations Committee will consider Assembly Bill 1934; two other committees have voted "yes." The Legislative Counsel's Digest for this bill reades, in part:

AB 1934, as amended, Saldana. Firearms.

Existing law, subject to exceptions, makes it an offense to carry
a concealed handgun on the person or in a vehicle, as specified.
Existing law provides that firearms carried openly in belt holsters
are not concealed within the meaning of those provisions.

This bill would delete the exception pertaining to firearms
carried openly in belt holsters. The bill would also establish an
exemption to the offense for transportation of a firearm by members
of specified organizations going directly to or from official parade
duty or ceremonial occasions, as specified.

By expanding the scope of an existing offense, this bill would
impose a state-mandated local program.

Just one small way of pointing out that the OC landscape isn't as rosey as it sometimes seems when you read certain of the gun boards.

That bill also says:

The bill would, subject to exceptions, make it a misdemeanor,
punishable as specified, to openly carry an unloaded handgun on the
person in specified public areas.

Further down, it says (apparently with the Taurus Judge specifically in mind):

Nothing shall prevent a device defined as a "handgun,"
"pistol," "revolver," or "firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person" from also being found to be a short-barreled shotgun or a
short-barreled rifle, as defined in Section 12020

And again - for any forum member considering moving to California (there is at least one):

(n) As used in this chapter, a "personal handgun importer" means
an individual who meets all of the following criteria:
(1) He or she is not a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071.
(2) He or she is not a licensed manufacturer of firearms pursuant
to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United
States Code.
(3) He or she is not a licensed importer of firearms pursuant to
Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United
States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(4) He or she is the owner of a handgun.
(5) He or she acquired that handgun outside of California.
(6) He or she moves into this state on or after January 1, 1998,
as a resident of this state.
(7) He or she intends to possess that handgun within this state on
or after January 1, 1998.

You see that? California, if it adopts this bill, will suddenly criminalize every single person who moved there in possession of a handgun for the previous 12-13 years for not having "registered" their gun. That is how California rolls.

So much for California being an example for OC advocates. I hate that state.

And mind you, I'm not against OC, per se. I just see a lot of unwisdom on the part of some activists in pursuit of OC as a primary goal. That unwisdom can do more to hurt the cause of RKBA than help it.

And beyond that, it does more to hurt the cause of more pressing matters here in Texas. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We lost the free exercise of our rights incrementally. That's why the opposition was so effective! They were incrementalists by stacking on "reasonable" gun laws, one at a time. The most effective way to regain the free exercise thereof is to beat the opposition at their own game: incrementally unstacking the laws. Right now, parking lot carry, and campus carry — in that order — are more pressing issues here in Texas. CHL law has, by virtue of disproving the notion that the streets would run red if blood if implemented, bolstered the case for those two bills. It is called a buildup of political capital. The most unwise of OC advocates would have us deplete that political capital on a quixotic effort which has already offended the very people whose support they need to get it passed (if it can ever be passed at all). That would be a net loss to the RKBA, whereas a successful campaign to permit parking lot and campus carry would be a net gain.

There just isn't any other way to proceed that makes any kind of political sense, and this is ALL about politics, the Constitution not withstanding.

MedicMan218 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The only things certain to be on the 2011 Texas Legislative Session are:

• Employer parking lots;
  Campus security/campus-carry;
  Range protection.

Chas.

Range protection?

Legislation that would prohibit municipalities from placing unreasonable restrictions on gun ranges which force them out of business. This happens when a range that was previously outside the city limits has the land incorporated into the cities that have extended their boundaries. Would also provide protection for those existing ranges that have had new subdivisions built up around them and the homeowners start fussing about the noise and alleged safety issues.

Keith B wrote:

chabouk wrote: That leaves 28 other states where OC in unquestionably legal, although there might be some hassle associated with the practice.

While this it true, it doesn't bring out the fact that in many of these states a city or county government can ban open carry per state statutes. That makes it really tough to know where you can and can't open carry. As has been stated on here before, if for some reason Texas did pass open carry I can almost bet there would have to be 'reasonable restrictions' included to get it to pass. Those resonable restrictions would more than likely be to allow local governments to ban OC, as well as banning it by sign, and that already existing sign is a 30.06. That would mean the word would get out to store owners and such that this is the way to prevent it from happening and there would be a giant surge in new locations posting valid 30.06 signs. The downside of that is it would also then ban concealed carry.

However, after the tactics that some of the open carry proponents used lat time to try to strong arm legislators into introducing a bill, I doubt very seriously that any will be willing to touch it with a 10 ft pole this next session. And without a sponsor, it will never get introduced.

Some states allow local jurisdictions to pass restrictions (Nebraska and Kansas come to mind) but most appear to have pre-emption, like Texas does. Recently Lincoln, NE debated banning gun carriers at local government meetings and decided against it. As for banning OC by sign, is that really necessary? Unlike a concealed firearm, the owner/manager clearly knows that you are carrying. If they don't want you to carry in their business, they ask you to leave. You must do so or you are tresspassing. It seems to me that signs are only to enforce an owner's wishes when he cannot know whether his wishes are being honored or not. I continue to disagree that open carry, should it become widely practiced in Texas, would lead to more 30.06 postings. I beleive that most businesses that are that opposed to gun carry are already posted. Heck, we've heard about businesses that were formerly posted that have had signs removed far more than additional signs going up.

As for tactics, I didn't agree with them last time -- particularly the disrespect for TSRA and the threats to good, pro-gun lawmakers -- and I said so here and on other forums. It was counter productive. However I hope we'll get beyond the past. Isn't the question whether or not Texans deserve a choice? Don't we want more 2A freedom and fewer rules?

When it comes to finding a sponsor, we certainly need help. During last session -- when no bill was introduced -- and up to now, OK has passed OC, Arkansas had a committee vote, and bills have been introduced in FL and SC. That means that all shall-issue states that currently ban OC have, to some degree, at least considered repealing it. Except Texas. No bill. No hearing. No vote. No debate. Shouldn't that change?

In these discussions I recall seeing "No state has really passed open carry; It has simply never been illegal in many". Now that has changed. Will be see problems in OK? Will businesses be more hostile to concealed carriers (who, by the way, are the same people since OK passed licensed open carry)? Will there be other negative consequences? We'll see. I'll place a small wager on "no".

Skiprr wrote:

chabouk wrote:California has legal open carry in rural areas, and legal "unloaded open carry" everywhere else except for school zones. That leaves 28 other states where OC in unquestionably legal, although there might be some hassle associated with the practice.

Just a note that next Wednesday, the 12th, the California Appropriations Committee will consider Assembly Bill 1934; two other committees have voted "yes." The Legislative Counsel's Digest for this bill reades, in part:

AB 1934, as amended, Saldana. Firearms.

Existing law, subject to exceptions, makes it an offense to carry
a concealed handgun on the person or in a vehicle, as specified.
Existing law provides that firearms carried openly in belt holsters
are not concealed within the meaning of those provisions.

This bill would delete the exception pertaining to firearms
carried openly in belt holsters. The bill would also establish an
exemption to the offense for transportation of a firearm by members
of specified organizations going directly to or from official parade
duty or ceremonial occasions, as specified.

By expanding the scope of an existing offense, this bill would
impose a state-mandated local program.

Just one small way of pointing out that the OC landscape isn't as rosey as it sometimes seems when you read certain of the gun boards.

True. CA is an unusual case. I read a piece in the Sac Bee a while back (can't find it now for citation, however) that said that even in CA gun control measures are relatively tough to pass. We'll see. I think it is fair to say that the news is by far more good than bad on this front The real question is how much freedom versus regulation do we want in Texas? Do we want to choose our mode of carry or do we want that choice made for us in Austin?

Incidentally, what will happen if the Supreme Court rules in McDonald that the 2nd Amendment applies to the States via the 14th Amendment? If the 2nd grants a right to "keep and bear", and Heller said that it does (see the oral arguments for McDonald where counsel against specifically mentions a fear of open carry), what is the minimum base of the right that cannot be restricted? The Heller court presumed without deciding that laws requiring licensing for concealed carry were reasonable. What's left?

Honestly, I think we are being too timid and tactical with the Legislature. Open carry is the carry that the Constitution talked about. The fact that Texas, of all places, has such a hash of general prohibitions and a thousand exceptions is sad. Look at Arizona: they just passed "constitutional carry" -- it is your right to carry openly or concealed, no license needed. They join Vermont and Alaska. That's freedom.

SA-TX

SA-TX wrote:Honestly, I think we are being too timid and tactical with the Legislature. Open carry is the carry that the Constitution talked about. The fact that Texas, of all places, has such a hash of general prohibitions and a thousand exceptions is sad. Look at Arizona: they just passed "constitutional carry" -- it is your right to carry openly or concealed, no license needed. They join Vermont and Alaska. That's freedom.

SA-TX

Even if we don't get open carry during the next session, I think it's worthwhile pushing for it.

1. It's the right thing to do. We should be able to openly wear a pistol or a crucifix or a Ron Paul t-shirt.

2. If TSRA doesn't push for open carry, someone else will, and that group will have no reason to listen to TSRA.

3. It's good to ask for more and settle for less than ask for less and settle for much less.

SA-TX wrote:Open carry is the carry that the Constitution talked about.

Open-carry supporters claim this and I don't see any support in the Constitution. The Heller decision discusses it in dicta but Heller was a "keeping" (a/k/a possession) case, not a "bearing" a/k/a "carrying" case. Plus, OC supporters claimed this before Heller. I find it interesting that OC supporters are willing to throw concealed-carry under the bus to further their goal of OC.

Chas.

tacticool wrote:

SA-TX wrote:Honestly, I think we are being too timid and tactical with the Legislature. Open carry is the carry that the Constitution talked about. The fact that Texas, of all places, has such a hash of general prohibitions and a thousand exceptions is sad. Look at Arizona: they just passed "constitutional carry" -- it is your right to carry openly or concealed, no license needed. They join Vermont and Alaska. That's freedom.

SA-TX

Even if we don't get open carry during the next session, I think it's worthwhile pushing for it.

1. It's the right thing to do. We should be able to openly wear a pistol or a crucifix or a Ron Paul t-shirt.

2. If TSRA doesn't push for open carry, someone else will, and that group will have no reason to listen to TSRA.

3. It's good to ask for more and settle for less than ask for less and settle for much less.

If the TSRA doesn't push for it it isn't gonna happen. No pro gun law will pass in Texas without TSRA support and working hard to push for it. So far I've seen no indication that the TSRA has any interest in supporting this cause.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I find it interesting that OC supporters are willing to throw concealed-carry under the bus to further their goal of OC.

No more than CC supporters have been willing to throw open-carry under the bus to further their goal of CC.

Better we should all work together but if "A" is willing to abrogate the rights of "B"
then "A" doesn't have a leg to stand on when "B" returns the favor.