open carry

[anygunanywhere]

Edited to eliminate personal attack.

Txi,

Assume that the next presidential executive order or legislation signed into law requires all subjects to turn in their firearms. The UK thing.

One of our highly trained tax agents of the BATFE relinquishes his duties consisting of counting cigarettes, examining vodka for clarity, and focuses on his firearms gig. He sets off in pursuit of his subjects dressed in his Sunday tacticool best.

Mr. batFe encounters his first subject who decides he really believes in his 2A RKBA and proceeds to srrender his firearms bullets first. Said subject is certainly acting illegally but are his actions wrong or immoral?

Mr. batFe shoots and kills the subject. Mr. batFe is certainly acting legally, but are his actions wrong or immoral?

I realize this is not a real law, but we deal with scenarios all of the time.

Anygun

[45 4 life]

It is not that I agree with laws that we currently live with. However staying on the firearm topic. We have come a long way baby.

Compared to what we had before CHL we are headed in the right direction. The new version of traveling with a firearm is a major improvement. I think everyone would agree with those two. No, we are not as for as some would wish, that is why there is now a group that is seaking open carry approval.

With regards to laws pertaining to firearms, I am extremely careful to follow them. Anything we might do that is "unlawful" gets so blown out of poportion by the antis, I refuse to knowingly break any "gun law". There are ways to change laws. I would think ones time would be better spent in the pursuit of change rather than filing serial numbers.

Gun owners that really care about what rights we have should be diligent in protecting them. Do not give the other side fuel for their fire, the sheeple will be gathered into giant herds and we will lose again.

[aardwolf]

Gun owners that really care about what rights we have should be diligent in protecting them.

Use them or lose them.

[Liko81]

I'm not sure if I understand the argument. If it's legal, why would a LEO have to respond?

Suppose you're strolling around Wal-Mart openly carrying a Koran. If someone calls the cops, do they respond?

Suppose you're strolling around Wal-Mart openly wearing a crucifix. If someone calls the cops, do they respond?

Suppose you're strolling around Wal-Mart wearing a blue shirt. If someone calls the cops, do they respond?

Suppose you drive 52 in a 55 zone. If someone calls the cops, do they respond?

If the LEO is "not going to be happy about having to respond" the LEO should be mad at the crank who called it in.

Except that "man with a gun" is a big deal, until they find out it's just someone OCing. "Man with a gun" without any other information, by prudence, requires all emergency personnel to deal with it like an impending mall massacre. 911 dispatchers will have to be trained to answer questions like "ok, has he pulled it out or used it in a threatening manner towards anyone?" "Has he fired shots?". They should be trying to get this kind of information already, but currently a MWAG report means a crime has been committed, either failure to conceal, unlawful carry, or more malicious crimes like brandishing, aggravated assault, or criminal homicide, so their responding will end in some punitive action or other.

This is in contrast to someone reading a book or wearing a religious symbol around their neck. You call 911 for that and the dispatcher is either going to drop you, or they'll get your current location so they can send an officer to issue a summons for a prank emergency call.

Just playing devil's advocate here; by no means am I saying we shouldn't have the option of open carry. However I do not think it will be a viable option unless the state comprehensively re-thinks a lot of aspects of law and law enforcement/first responder policy. Just a few of the things that would have to change:

* Unlawful carry statutes (Section 46) would omit references to "handgun", or change those references to "illegal handgun" and add a definition that made the overwhelming majority of handguns legal (for instance, Virginia actually prohibits open carry of a "firearm", but they changed the definition of "firearm" for that statute to require a carrying capacity over 20 rounds or a length over 20 inches, so virtually all factory handguns and handgun mags are legal).
* All law enforcement personnel including dispatchers would have to be briefed on the change and its implications. There have been cases in Virginia where police arrested and held people who carried openly when no crime had been committed. Likewise, the public must be informed that OCing is lawful, and no permit is required, thus hopefully heading off most MWAG calls.
* The idea behind Section 30.06 would have to be rethought, as there is currently no way, if OC became legal, for businesses to ban it. 30.06 could be changed to apply to OC with or without a license, or a seperate statute could allow a sign prohibiting OC and/or a combination sign.
* TABC regs would have to be considered. "Unlicensed posssession" signs in businesses with a liquor license would leave a LOT of places still off-limits (you couldn't even carry into your grocery store if it has a wine aisle, nor could you carry into any convenience store). There is of course no "license" to carry openly if we're considering "unlicensed open carry" .
* CHL would likewise have to be rethought related to the above. Does a CHL count as a "license" for OC as well, thus allowing CHLs to ignore the same signs when OCing that they can when CCing (if they remain in effect)? If you're going to have the permit, there must be an advantage beyond the additional option of concealing or people will just OC and forego the headache of getting and keeping the CHL. On the minus side, it creates a class system of "haves" and "have nots", and might "encourage" police to stop OCers and ask for permits in areas that are off-limits to non-CHL carriers.
* There will still be places where either CC or OC or both will be illegal. Someone carrying lawfully up to that point will be forced to leave their firearm in their vehicle if they wish to enter that place. That must always be a legal option, regardless of who owns the parking lot and what policies they have concerning firearms. This is a VERY touchy subject; businesses and landowners claim the parking lot as their private property, while gun owners state that banning guns from parking lots is a de facto ban on carrying during any trip that includes that parking lot and thus a sweeping infringement of rights that carries far beyond the boundaries the landowner actually controls. On top of that, most businesses deny responsibility for theft or damage occurring in their parking lots, and gun owners say businesses can't have it both ways; either the business has BOTH control AND responsibility, or it has neither.

[aardwolf]

Except that "man with a gun" is a big deal

I didn't know it was a big deal. I see a few every day in Texas. Maybe I should start calling them in.

[Liko81]

Except that "man with a gun" is a big deal

I didn't know it was a big deal. I see a few every day in Texas. Maybe I should start calling them in.

Clarification: someone calling 911 to report a man with a gun is considered a big deal. It carries the implication of someone holding the firearm in their hand, in public, waving it around and/or shooting it. That's unlawful no matter what carry provisions are in effect, and the last thing any police department wants is a Columbine or Omaha in their precinct, so they're going to take it seriously (they may not send the whole precinct, but they'll definitely spare a couple unis).

Luckily we're in Texas, not California. If that happened, and you were detained, cuffed, and questioned before it was determined you did nothing wrong, you could do precisely nothing about it. You couldn't take any legal action against the store, the person who called 911, or the police. Any party to a 911 call made in good faith is untouchable in civil court in California. Now, in Texas, there is no such immunity; if someone sees you printing and calls 911 to report a suspicious person or MWAG, and you're found to be doing nothing wrong, you can go to town... or try. Texas courts still use "good faith" doctrine; if you as the plaintiff cannot prove the person had intent to harm you by calling 911, a court will likely find for the defendant.

[aardwolf]

Luckily we're in Texas, not California. If that happened, and you were detained, cuffed, and questioned before it was determined you did nothing wrong, you could do precisely nothing about it. You couldn't take any legal action against the store, the person who called 911, or the police. Any party to a 911 call made in good faith is untouchable in civil court in California. Now, in Texas, there is no such immunity; if someone sees you printing and calls 911 to report a suspicious person or MWAG, and you're found to be doing nothing wrong, you can go to town... or try. Texas courts still use "good faith" doctrine; if you as the plaintiff cannot prove the person had intent to harm you by calling 911, a court will likely find for the defendant.

If I ever visit California, I'm going to have fun calling 911 to report cops and security guards.

[Owens]

Just my opinion, and maybe a little ignorance, but it seems to me there is a very simple solution. If you have the CHL, open carry IF YOU CHOOSE to.

Having read posts from other people on other forums, and their comments on OC , it is not a big deal to be doing so. Yes, there is the occasional hissy fit, but on the whole it seems rather normal.
Are there times that I would OC? Maybe. It just gives options. After all, it's not the law-abiding that are the problem.

[WildBill]

Just my opinion, and maybe a little ignorance, but it seems to me there is a very simple solution. If you have the CHL, open carry IF YOU CHOOSE to.

Having read posts from other people on other forums, and their comments on OC , it is not a big deal to be doing so. Yes, there is the occasional hissy fit, but on the whole it seems rather normal.
Are there times that I would OC? Maybe. It just gives options. After all, it's not the law-abiding that are the problem.

Maybe your solution is logical and simple, but open carry is against the law and nobody is going to change the law anytime soon. If you read this and other threads you can see this discussion always ends up in the same place. Welcome to the forum.

[Owens]

WildBill,
I wasn't advocating anything illegal. On the contrary, I was merely suggesting that the law be changed. I know that,s a steep hill to climb. Just seems a shame that a state with the culture history of Texas, open carry shouldn't even be questioned. Lots of history since it was OK to now. I do have a tendency to over-simplify things. Great forum. Lots of good stuff here.

[WildBill]

WildBill,
I wasn't advocating anything illegal. On the contrary, I was merely suggesting that the law be changed. I know that,s a steep hill to climb. Just seems a shame that a state with the culture history of Texas, open carry shouldn't even be questioned. Lots of history since it was OK to now. I do have a tendency to over-simplify things. Great forum. Lots of good stuff here.

I know you weren't advocating anything illegal. Many people over-simplify things - most of the time changing laws isn't that simple. If you read the posts here you will also find many reasons why people don't think open carry is a good idea! You may even change your mind.

[stevie_d_64]

I can't change my mind...That would be un-ethical...

Besides, it seems to be easier for our elected officials to make things illegal, and restrict us, than to honor the intent of what the framers wanted this issue to be about...

I'm all for choice in this discussion...How you conduct yourself after the fact is up to the individual...

[WildBill]

I can't change my mind...That would be un-ethical...

Stevie - I was saying Owens might change his mind. I know that you're a lost cause.

[Owens]

Went back through most of this thread (Zombies, philosophy, etc.. all in good fun.. no gripe here) and it seems to me that the general gist of a large portion of the views are based on anyone OC'ing that wants to including the Doophi. No permits, just strap it on. Thats just a tad bit different than what I am thinking. I know that the 2A gives the right, and all that, and that all are equal under the law, etc. However, if that is the absolute, then why do we have a license? To make sure (supposedly) that it isn't a Doofus that is going to be CC'ing. Keep (for now) the license, but allow those that are licensed the option, if they want.

Before Texas had CC, people knew that CC wasn't done. Now it seems to be ordinary to most, although they don't know who the 'people' are, they know they are there. It is conditioning. People would become accustomed to OC and conditioned in time. Police perspective and 'man with a gun calls'? It should be assumed that someone in OC mode had a permit. Just me talking, but seeing someone with a gun on does not alarm me. I think it to be rather an expected normal. Guess it's just my up-bringing that sets my frame of mind.

I'm not a lawyer nor a legislator, but, it seems terribly simple to me. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they aren't there. I wonder how many CC firearms are present in any given Wal-Mart at any given moment in time?

[WildBill]

Went back through most of this thread (Zombies, philosophy, etc.. all in good fun.. no gripe here) However, if that is the absolute, then why do we have a license?
I'm not a lawyer nor a legislator, but, it seems terribly simple to me.

Some of us talk about Zombies to diffuse some of the heated discussions, such as why we need a license. Generally, I refuse to get involved in these discussions as they end up the same place they started and it's all been said before. Although I have to admit I do like to stir the pot sometimes. I am ambivalent about the whole thing. I just feel fortunate to be able to have a CHL.

http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... ke#p150936