Open Carry Article in Star Telegram

[scud runner]

The best argument is it is your RIGHT to carry. If you choose to be licensed by the Government to do what you have the right to do I don't have a problem with it either.

Excellent point. The constitution doesn't say we have to hide when we bear arms.

[jack010203]

So let me get this straight. One of the arguments against OC is that ant-gun businesses will learn how to legally prohibit open carriers as well as CHLers. That seems like a good thing, now I would no longer have to wonder if my purchases were supporting someone with political views I do not support.
I do understand the reluctance of those that enjoy CHL and are scared they would lose the right to carry in some places due to the OCers. But if OC is ever going to happen in TX this is something we will have to go through, so we might as well get it out of the way, I would rather deal with it now than force future generations of Texans too. The signs will go up and fade away slowly as people see that OC does not cause panic and wild west shoot outs. Now will this happen in 2011, I doubt it, but my reps will hear about it from me anyway.

[Charles L. Cotton]

So let me get this straight. One of the arguments against OC is that ant-gun businesses will learn how to legally prohibit open carriers as well as CHLers. That seems like a good thing, now I would no longer have to wonder if my purchases were supporting someone with political views I do not support.

The problem with this argument is that you are willing to sacrifice my ability to carry and protect myself and family in stores I choose to trade with, or am forced to trade with, simply to enlighten you on the store owners' political positions. I'm not willing to let you make that decision for me and my family.

Chas.

[SA-TX]

So let me get this straight. One of the arguments against OC is that ant-gun businesses will learn how to legally prohibit open carriers as well as CHLers. That seems like a good thing, now I would no longer have to wonder if my purchases were supporting someone with political views I do not support.

The problem with this argument is that you are willing to sacrifice my ability to carry and protect myself and family in stores I choose to trade with, or am forced to trade with, simply to enlighten you on the store owners' political positions. I'm not willing to let you make that decision for me and my family.

Chas.

This is not ipso facto: legalized OC does not necessarily have to lead to more 30.06 postings. I know the history in Texas from 1995 to 1997. I was here. CHL was new, it was a media sensation, and some businesses put up signs blocking CHL carry. TSRA did a great thing by passing 30.06. Even then, some 30.06 signs were posted. Since then, may have come down. People adjust. Blood didn't run in the streets.

I continue to maintain that Texas would not see a rash of new 30.06 postings if OC were legal because very few Texas gun carriers will OC. Thus, no visibility; no problem. This forum is full of TX CHL-holding gun carriers. Perhaps there is better collection somewhere else but I'm not aware of it. Thus, I think this group would be fairly representative of CHLers as a whole. My reading of the posts here is that perhaps 5% responded that they might or would OC sometimes, usually depending on the circumstances. I can't recall anyone including the most ardent proponants of OC saying that they would OC most or all of the time. If they did actually OC even 10% of the times that they carry, which I doubt, wouldn't this be 1/2 of 1% of all gun carry would be OC (5% of CHLers might OC and if each did so 10% of the time thats .005%).

I think gun carry in Texas happens just about the same way it does elsewhere. Have there been controversies when other state's laws changed from no issue to shall-issue? Yes. Iowa is going through it now. Certainly the OK bill going from shall-issue CC to shall-issue CC/OC got much press. The same is true in Tennessee where restaurant carry is tied up in courts and the media went crazy with "guns in bars". Same with New Mexico. Notice how silly all that coverage looks since we in Texas know that carrying in a restaurant that happens to serve alcohol is a big non-issue. No problem. No worry. No second thoughts. Press coverage is fleeting and so is the trouble that it stirs up.

CHLers acted just like gun carrier in other states: law-abiding. Cops weren't put in danger or killed, traffic altercations didn't turn into shoot outs, etc. Therefore I beleive that OC would happen in Texas just like it does elsewhere. It would be legal but rare. Most merchants will never know that it IS legal because they will never see an OCer. In fact, the reason why OC controversies do make the news elsewhere is because of the rarity.

Can we try this out small-scale and determine once and for all? Start with rural OC. Counties of less than pick-a-number? 200,000? That would open up much of Texas yet exempt the urban areas that folks are worried about. Start there and see what happens. Any takers?

SA-TX

[Douva]

So let me get this straight. One of the arguments against OC is that ant-gun businesses will learn how to legally prohibit open carriers as well as CHLers. That seems like a good thing, now I would no longer have to wonder if my purchases were supporting someone with political views I do not support.

The problem with this argument is that you are willing to sacrifice my ability to carry and protect myself and family in stores I choose to trade with, or am forced to trade with, simply to enlighten you on the store owners' political positions. I'm not willing to let you make that decision for me and my family.

Chas.

If I start only patronizing businesses owned by people who agree with me 100% on every political issue, I'll die hungry and naked.

[Mandingo]

The open carry idea is very odd to me. I am pro-gun- ownership, licensed concealed carry, purchase, carry in your car...thats all fine. However, I am a small buisness owner and I dont want some yahoo in my office with a gun on his hip. I have no idea if this guys knows what he is doing with that gun. I suppose if there was a 40 hour training course and some type of ID the guy had on his holster, then fine. But just any person over the age of 18 with a generous interpritation of the 2nd amendment carrying an exposed cannon into my office would get introduced to the door very quickly.

[Douva]

So let me get this straight. One of the arguments against OC is that ant-gun businesses will learn how to legally prohibit open carriers as well as CHLers. That seems like a good thing, now I would no longer have to wonder if my purchases were supporting someone with political views I do not support.

The problem with this argument is that you are willing to sacrifice my ability to carry and protect myself and family in stores I choose to trade with, or am forced to trade with, simply to enlighten you on the store owners' political positions. I'm not willing to let you make that decision for me and my family.

Chas.

This is not ipso facto: legalized OC does not necessarily have to lead to more 30.06 postings. I know the history in Texas from 1995 to 1997. I was here. CHL was new, it was a media sensation, and some businesses put up signs blocking CHL carry. TSRA did a great thing by passing 30.06. Even then, some 30.06 signs were posted. Since then, may have come down. People adjust. Blood didn't run in the streets.

I continue to maintain that Texas would not see a rash of new 30.06 postings if OC were legal because very few Texas gun carriers will OC. Thus, no visibility; no problem. This forum is full of TX CHL-holding gun carriers. Perhaps there is better collection somewhere else but I'm not aware of it. Thus, I think this group would be fairly representative of CHLers as a whole. My reading of the posts here is that perhaps 5% responded that they might or would OC sometimes, usually depending on the circumstances. I can't recall anyone including the most ardent proponants of OC saying that they would OC most or all of the time. If they did actually OC even 10% of the times that they carry, which I doubt, wouldn't this be 1/2 of 1% of all gun carry would be OC (5% of CHLers might OC and if each did so 10% of the time thats .005%).

I think gun carry in Texas happens just about the same way it does elsewhere. Have there been controversies when other state's laws changed from no issue to shall-issue? Yes. Iowa is going through it now. Certainly the OK bill going from shall-issue CC to shall-issue CC/OC got much press. The same is true in Tennessee where restaurant carry is tied up in courts and the media went crazy with "guns in bars". Same with New Mexico. Notice how silly all that coverage looks since we in Texas know that carrying in a restaurant that happens to serve alcohol is a big non-issue. No problem. No worry. No second thoughts. Press coverage is fleeting and so is the trouble that it stirs up.

CHLers acted just like gun carrier in other states: law-abiding. Cops weren't put in danger or killed, traffic altercations didn't turn into shoot outs, etc. Therefore I beleive that OC would happen in Texas just like it does elsewhere. It would be legal but rare. Most merchants will never know that it IS legal because they will never see an OCer. In fact, the reason why OC controversies do make the news elsewhere is because of the rarity.

Can we try this out small-scale and determine once and for all? Start with rural OC. Counties of less than pick-a-number? 200,000? That would open up much of Texas yet exempt the urban areas that folks are worried about. Start there and see what happens. Any takers?

SA-TX

I have a big problem with the idea that we're going to risk a significant portion of our right to carry in Texas to fight for a right that only 5% of gun carriers might utilize. As I've said before, it doesn't matter if nobody chooses to carry openly--it's the inevitable media sensation that is likely to inspire most of the 30.06 postings. And in many stores, it will only require ONE open carrier to provoke the owners to post 30.06. And just one incident of the police being called to a store where someone is open carrying could do as much to limit the places where we're allowed to carry as would a CHL holder shooting somebody in anger.

[jester]

The open carry idea is very odd to me. I am pro-gun- ownership, licensed concealed carry, purchase, carry in your car...thats all fine. However, I am a small buisness owner and I dont want some yahoo in my office with a gun on his hip.

It sounds like you should support open carry unless you have X-ray vision.

[stevie_d_64]

So let me get this straight. One of the arguments against OC is that ant-gun businesses will learn how to legally prohibit open carriers as well as CHLers. That seems like a good thing, now I would no longer have to wonder if my purchases were supporting someone with political views I do not support.

The problem with this argument is that you are willing to sacrifice my ability to carry and protect myself and family in stores I choose to trade with, or am forced to trade with, simply to enlighten you on the store owners' political positions. I'm not willing to let you make that decision for me and my family.

Chas.

If I start only patronizing businesses owned by people who agree with me 100% on every political issue, I'll die hungry and naked.

I agree as well...You're being skinny and un-shod is a terrible life to live...

BTW, my argument to the whole state capitol metal detector issue, and "special CHL line" still bothers me...Even though I agree that we should not push the edges of this envelope just to make a political statement of carrying either concealed or openly, at the cost of those that want to protect what we have already, I still believe we are being forced to make a decision, by others, who want to discourage the carrying of firearms for lawful self defensive purposes in certain places which should by law not be off limits to us carrying within those facilities...

"ELB" and I have been discussing this, and he has made some fabulous points, but I respectfully dissagree with some of them...I will soon find out myself when we start getting cranked up for the next legislative session I suppose...

This begs the question that if we are going to be subjected to an illegal screening, just to gain access to a facility that is not off-limits to us in the first place...Then I would support Open Carry, just so that we can remove all doubt about who we are and what we are about...

Then it would be up to me, to choose to carry in whatever manner I choose to do so at that time...

Just thought I would throw this monkey in the wrench to give some a headache...

[Mandingo]

The open carry idea is very odd to me. I am pro-gun- ownership, licensed concealed carry, purchase, carry in your car...thats all fine. However, I am a small buisness owner and I dont want some yahoo in my office with a gun on his hip.

It sounds like you should support open carry unless you have X-ray vision.

Well, licensed is the word there. Even though I think the class is a bit silly, at least someone has ~~300 bucks, some time invested, and a background check. That tells me the person is willing to jump through a hoop or two to legally carry a gun. If I understand it correctly, the open carry idea would allow anyone over a certain age to carry a gun exposed. To me at least, there is a big difference.

With the gun exposed your dragging the elephant into the room with you. In the world of concealed carry no one can see it.

-Manny

[Liberty]

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

Those who believe that restrictions on our right to carry are an inherently good thing are not champions of our constitution and hurt our cause.

There is validity on proceeding cautiously, and risks of losing some of the privileges we have. I understand that. Charging blindly into the the State house demanding our Open Carry isn't going to win constitutional patriots any political stroke. But there seems to be a Brady influence that believes The right to carry needs to be restricted because ordinary citizens can't be trusted with the cannons on our hips.

I sometimes wonder what part of "The right own and bear arms shall not be infringed." is not understood.

This whole open carry argument isn't gonna have any positive results for any of us.


edit bare to bear .. should know better by now ;)

[Douva]

I sometimes wonder what part of "The right own and bare arms shall not be infringed."

When my sister and I toured Rome, she was quite annoyed to find out that visitors to the Vatican are denied the right to bare arms (actually, the issue was bare shoulders). I had to buy her a T-shirt at the gift shop so that we'd be allowed to enter.

But seriously, folks, I think I have the perfect compromise: We should legalize open carry AT THE CAPITOL ONLY! You walk up, flash your CHL, point to your gun, and walk on through, no questions asked. What better venue for wearing your best barbecue rig? Pretty much everyone at the Capitol is packing anyway, so let's make it a fashion statement. Heck, if we could get enough people carrying, the spectacle would probably attract tourists and tourism dollars and indirectly increase statewide interest in the legislative process. If we can pull that off, I'll invest in a a hand-tooled leather holster and a nice-looking wheel gun with custom grips.

As an alternative to flashing our CHLs when we walk in, maybe DPS could start issuing metal badges to license holders--something stylish to go with our barbecue rigs, maybe fancy engraving that says "Lawfully Armed Texas Citizen" or something like that.

[Bart]

As an alternative to flashing our CHLs when we walk in, maybe DPS could start issuing metal badges to license holders--something stylish to go with our barbecue rigs, maybe fancy engraving that says "Lawfully Armed Texas Citizen" or something like that.

That sounds like a great requirement for Kindergarten Carry.

[jack010203]

So let me get this straight. One of the arguments against OC is that ant-gun businesses will learn how to legally prohibit open carriers as well as CHLers. That seems like a good thing, now I would no longer have to wonder if my purchases were supporting someone with political views I do not support.

The problem with this argument is that you are willing to sacrifice my ability to carry and protect myself and family in stores I choose to trade with, or am forced to trade with, simply to enlighten you on the store owners' political positions. I'm not willing to let you make that decision for me and my family.

Chas.

I am not making any decision for you or anyone else, you make your own decisions, which are apparently influenced by the store owner when he prohibited carry of any kind. I am also not prohibiting anyone from carrying, again it seems the owner has with the prohibition of carry.

[Charles L. Cotton]

So let me get this straight. One of the arguments against OC is that ant-gun businesses will learn how to legally prohibit open carriers as well as CHLers. That seems like a good thing, now I would no longer have to wonder if my purchases were supporting someone with political views I do not support.

The problem with this argument is that you are willing to sacrifice my ability to carry and protect myself and family in stores I choose to trade with, or am forced to trade with, simply to enlighten you on the store owners' political positions. I'm not willing to let you make that decision for me and my family.

Chas.

I am not making any decision for you or anyone else, you make your own decisions, which are apparently influenced by the store owner when he prohibited carry of any kind. I am also not prohibiting anyone from carrying, again it seems the owner has with the prohibition of carry.

Based on the express wording of your post, you are willing to have a store owner post against carrying simply so you will "no longer have to wonder if [your] purchases were supporting someone with political views [you] do not support." You don't seem to care that it may be more valuable for me and others to be able to carry in those stores than for you to identify stores "with political views [you] don't support."

Remember, my post was in response to yours that argues that there is a good side to stores posting against open and concealed carry. There's not one good thing about any establishment posting against citizens carrying handguns.

Chas.