Unlicensed open-carry poll: 30.06

[74novaman]

I voted "No", and here's why. I think if OC passed, the number of 30.06 signs would actually decrease. The law is clear that 30.06 only applies to someone carrying under the authority of his CHL. So, if I walk up to a 30.06 sign, all I have to do is uncover and switch to OC - then the sign no longer applies to me, and I can go about my business. In otherwords, the presence of a 30.06 sign would actually encourage CHL'ers to OC while on the premises, and I don't think business want that. So I think they'd be less likely to post new signs and more likely to remove existing signs.

Think that CHL'ers won't OC under those circumstances? Just look at states like VA where CC isn't allowed in bars, but OC is. Lot's of CHL'ers up there switch to OC when they go into a bar (assuming that they aren't drinking). I think we'd see the same thing start to happen in TX.

I think you'd be very mistaken in assuming that the legislature wouldn't go ahead and modify 30.06 to include OC if OC itself was passed.

[TrueFlog]

I voted "No", and here's why. I think if OC passed, the number of 30.06 signs would actually decrease. The law is clear that 30.06 only applies to someone carrying under the authority of his CHL. So, if I walk up to a 30.06 sign, all I have to do is uncover and switch to OC - then the sign no longer applies to me, and I can go about my business. In otherwords, the presence of a 30.06 sign would actually encourage CHL'ers to OC while on the premises, and I don't think business want that. So I think they'd be less likely to post new signs and more likely to remove existing signs.

Think that CHL'ers won't OC under those circumstances? Just look at states like VA where CC isn't allowed in bars, but OC is. Lot's of CHL'ers up there switch to OC when they go into a bar (assuming that they aren't drinking). I think we'd see the same thing start to happen in TX.

I think you'd be very mistaken in assuming that the legislature wouldn't go ahead and modify 30.06 to include OC if OC itself was passed.

Obviously, we haven't seen any firm bills at this point, so it's hard to speculate. Personally, I would hope that the legislature would create a new sign that would be specific to OC. If they did expand 30.06, they'd have to change the wording since the sign specifically says "with a concealed handgun". That means that all current 30.06 signs would be invalid, and everybody would have to get new signs - even Six Flags with their nice chiseled plaque.

Even with that issue aside, I don't think many new places would post signs. I think OC will be so rare that it won't be an issue. (Have you ever seen a store with a sign that prohibits the carrying of long arms?) Plus, businesses know they would risk losing our patronage. Sure, we're a small minority, but we still matter - don't forget about Taco Cabana.

[Douva]

As I said in the other thread, it doesn't matter if anyone actually chooses to carry openly or not. The media hype alone will most likely be enough to bring on the 30.06 signs. And the handful who did carry openly would NOT go unnoticed.

To the poster who suggested that businesses would actually take down their 30.06 signs because they'd prefer that customers engage in concealed carry, rather than open carry, I'd like to introduce you to my friend Reality. The Texas Legislature will NEVER (and I say this as someone fond of saying, "never say never") pass an open carry bill that doesn't provide private property owners a lawful means of prohibiting open carry on their property. And as Charles has repeatedly stated, they're not likely to create two different signage requirements (one for concealed carry and one for open carry). So in the real world in which we live, there is no plausible way that the legalization of open carry would lead to a decrease in 30.06 postings.

[MeMelYup]

The legislature already has the sign preventing carry. It's the blue sign that states "The unlicensed carry of handguns is prohibited". Places like Wal-Mart Supercenters and H.E.B. are required to display them because they sell alcohol for off premises consumption.

[Keith B]

The legislature already has the sign preventing carry. It's the blue sign that states "The unlicensed carry of handguns is prohibited". Places like Wal-Mart Supercenters and H.E.B. are required to display them because they sell alcohol for off premises consumption.

The only thing that sign does is ups the penalty for carrying a handgun into the establishment that sells alcohol for off-premise consumption, without having a CHL. It would still only apply if they legalized licensed open carry, and then it would still be only for establishments that sold alcohol for off-premise consumption.

[KC5AV]

I voted "No", and here's why. I think if OC passed, the number of 30.06 signs would actually decrease. The law is clear that 30.06 only applies to someone carrying under the authority of his CHL. So, if I walk up to a 30.06 sign, all I have to do is uncover and switch to OC - then the sign no longer applies to me, and I can go about my business. In otherwords, the presence of a 30.06 sign would actually encourage CHL'ers to OC while on the premises, and I don't think business want that. So I think they'd be less likely to post new signs and more likely to remove existing signs.

Think that CHL'ers won't OC under those circumstances? Just look at states like VA where CC isn't allowed in bars, but OC is. Lot's of CHL'ers up there switch to OC when they go into a bar (assuming that they aren't drinking). I think we'd see the same thing start to happen in TX.

Except that the statute would most likely be changed to cover OC as well.

[Hoi Polloi]

The legislature already has the sign preventing carry. It's the blue sign that states "The unlicensed carry of handguns is prohibited". Places like Wal-Mart Supercenters and H.E.B. are required to display them because they sell alcohol for off premises consumption.

I think this is a very interesting angle. Everyone is saying that open carry would be put under the CHL portion of the law and that would make 30.06 signs cover both open and concealed carry.

If open carry was not licensed, the section that creates the blue signs could be where open carry is put under the law. The downside would be that all places selling alcohol (red or blue signs) would be off limits which includes most local grocery stores, but you could get a CHL and carry into the places with blue signs concealed if you wanted to.

It's an interesting idea to explore! It seems to cover many concerns on both sides (minus the extremes whose positions I don't necessarily discount but who by their nature can not be covered with any compromises) without creating too much in the way of new law. Good thinking, Mel! Mel gets the Out of the Box Thinker crown today!

[Lonest4r]

My thoughts:

Regardless of how many actually carried unlicensed,

the fact that

Since "Unlicensed" condition exists in this question

and since 30.06 applies ONLY to licensees currently

30.06 and 30.05 would probably be re-written like some other States so that "gunbusters" signs are sufficient notice, since 30.06 applies only to licensees.

I don't think I want that to happen.
That's opening a whole Pandora's box of anti-gun legislating opportunity.
IF not that many people would open carry anyway, why risk that hill we've already taken?

Exactly, but no one can say for sure what the future holds...

[Katygunnut]

I can currently open carry a rifle into an unmarked business. I don't think that a hand gun will incite more fear than an AK-47.

[Ameer]

Obviously, we haven't seen any firm bills at this point, so it's hard to speculate. Personally, I would hope that the legislature would create a new sign that would be specific to OC.

They could be smart and treat OC handguns the same as OC rifles are treated now.

[Jumping Frog]

I voted no, because I just moved here from Ohio, where unlicensed open carry is part of the Ohio Constitution. I've both concealed carried and open carried in the Columbus area for years. I see very few posted businesses, except for liquor-related establishments (which is on the Ohio legislative agenda). I've open carried in grocery stores, Walmart, banks, just about anywhere you can think of. It makes you realize that 99% of people walk though life in CONDITION WHITE and utterly clueless.

i voted YES! one word......LIABILITY!

The legislation can fix that problem. Here is the language in Ohio law that allows grants immunity to private businesses regarding licensees. It would be easy to create a similar exemption that states a business is not liable for the actions of people lawfully carrying firearms.

Ohio R.C. 2923.126(C)(2)(a) A private employer shall be immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to a licensee bringing a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer, including motor vehicles owned by the private employer, unless the private employer acted with malicious purpose. A private employer is immune from liability in a civil action for any injury, death, or loss to person or property that allegedly was caused by or related to the private employer’s decision to permit a licensee to bring, or prohibit a licensee from bringing, a handgun onto the premises or property of the private employer. As used in this division, “private employer” includes a private college, university, or other institution of higher education.

[Douva]

I can currently open carry a rifle into an unmarked business. I don't think that a hand gun will incite more fear than an AK-47.

Why don't you mosey on into Whole Foods with your AK-47 slung over your shoulder, and let the rest of us know how that works out for you?

[tfrazier]

Do we fear fighting for our constitutional rights based on the risk that state controlled privileges will be restricted?

CHL laws are the State's method for controlling who can and who can't LEGALLY carry a concealed handgun in public. Therefore, the entire CHL system is simply masking the fact that our right to keep and BEAR arms is, has been, and continues to be infringed. CHL does not grant you any rights...the State can revoke it as a result of any legislative session, and for many other reasons outside that.

CHL does, however, let the State track exactly how many law abiding citizens are carrying guns in public. That's one of those facts that incoming totalitarian governments love to know.

We take what we can get, and if CHL is the best we can do, then I have no choice but to live with it, but I'll be a monkey's uncle if I'm going to stop fighting for my real rights just because the State grants me a privilege to legally utilize a small portion of those rights.

[RPB]

I can currently open carry a rifle into an unmarked business. I don't think that a hand gun will incite more fear than an AK-47.

Why don't you mosey on into Whole Foods with your AK-47 slung over your shoulder, and let the rest of us know how that works out for you?

Assuming it's 30.06, Precisely why if I had to shop there, I'd look into giving the Feds more personal info about myself, and paying a $5.00 tax to carry a concealed AOW in instead.... but that's just me, I don't shop there nor have any 30.06 signs in my entire city currently.

It seems I'd be allowed in places "firearms" aren't prohibited, unlicensed, to carry open or concealed, regardless of 30.06 signs.
But you have to fork over $5.00 and give your info to the Feds.
I'm actually quite surprised this method isn't more popular; no class required, ignore 30.06 signs etc. But, a few spots; gun-free school zones don't afford an exemption, since not carrying under a CHL... so having both could be a benefit.

serbu SUPER-SHORTY
http://www.serbu.com/top/superShorty.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
and
Safety Harbor KEG 12
http://www.knesekguns.com/commercial/Sh ... _info.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mgood]

Do we fear fighting for our constitutional rights based on the risk that state controlled privileges will be restricted?

CHL laws are the State's method for controlling who can and who can't LEGALLY carry a concealed handgun in public. Therefore, the entire CHL system is simply masking the fact that our right to keep and BEAR arms is, has been, and continues to be infringed. CHL does not grant you any rights...the State can revoke it as a result of any legislative session, and for many other reasons outside that.

CHL does, however, let the State track exactly how many law abiding citizens are carrying guns in public. That's one of those facts that incoming totalitarian governments love to know.

We take what we can get, and if CHL is the best we can do, then I have no choice but to live with it, but I'll be a monkey's uncle if I'm going to stop fighting for my real rights just because the State grants me a privilege to legally utilize a small portion of those rights.

I don't think you'll find many here who will disagree with you on general principle.
Where we often disagree is on how to wage the war. We've been winning battles, some small and some large, making progress for some time. Some people think it's time to fight the big battle over letting us carry anything anywhere we want. Others think that the risk of losing that battle is high and that losing there would jeopardize some of the gains we've already made as well as make it more difficult to win other, smaller battles.
I'm all for open carry. I've worked and carried in a state where OC was legal. I think it's great. But we're doing very well with baby steps. We are making progress.

We all know that many of the antis would love to ban civilian ownership of firearms. They don't have the power to do that and they know it. They may or may not realize that they would start a civil war if they somehow succeeded in passing such a law. But they do understand baby steps, divide and conquer, boil the frog slowly. They make more and more restrictions a little at a time until one day the semi-conscious population looks around and realizes no one can own guns.
We fight them at every turn and are called "radicals" for objecting to "common sense" gun laws because we know that every time we give them an inch, they try to take a mile. (Can I come up with any more cliche's to throw in that paragraph? )

We've been doing the same thing in the fight for our freedoms. Taking back, a little at a time, the rights which have been stolen from us. We are winning. Some people are afraid that a big push for something that may not be all that popular could turn public opinion against us and we'd be back to playing defense rather than pushing our offense forward.

Don't stop fighting, but pick your battles, and ally yourself with others for an organized push rather than a bunch of individual battles because there's strenght in numbers. We may not always agree with the battle plan, but sticking with the group and following the plan is working pretty good right now.

I do not mean to preach at tfrazier, let me make that clear. His post just gave me some ideas about what I wanted to say.