open carry

[03Lightningrocks]

(2) Check your manner of concealment, and it shouldn't be an issue
Simple as that! :)

I could not agree more.

[mamabearCali]

I hope yall get open carry in a manner that is productive. I happily live in VA where we have open carry for any one allowed to own a gun. If you can own it you can carry it--there are some restrictions on the places you can carry of course (federal law mostly). Are there tons of people that open carry? Nope, but you see them and it makes me more comfortable. Most of the time people just assume you are law enforcement of some type. If I am wearing a OWB holster in the house and I want to walk across the street to pick up my kid from my neighbors house I can--no wardrobe readjustment needed. If my gun shows I don't have to be as concerned that I will be arrested because showing or not I was within the law. Open carry is great--if yall can get it in a productive manner that would be fabulous. The only thing better is constitutional carry.

[jordanmills]

Haven't you yourself said that the only way to get such a bill passed would be to make that amendment?

No, that's not what I said, so quit twisting my words to support this very poor bill. In response to concerns about an epidemic of 30.06 signs being posted if open-carry passed; open-carry supporters naively suggested that the legislature could create two different signs, one for open-carry and TPC §30.06 for concealed-carry. (Apparently, open-carry supporters didn't want to be subject to pre-30.06 "ghost buster" signs.) I said the legislature wouldn't create a two-sign requirement (ex. TPC §§30.06 & 30.07), but that doesn't mean you become your own enemy, or throw CHL's under the buss, by creating a worst case scenario. Had HB2756 left TPC §30.06 alone, then someone would have to offer an amendment that would apply TPC §30.06 to both open and concealed carry. If the bill drafters' homework had been done, this amendment could be countered, but if the amendment carried, then you need a bill author who has the courage to kill his own bill. Who knows, we may have gotten lucky and the bill could get passed without anyone thinking about trespass signs at all. Not now; the only way to get rid of the amendment to TPC §30.06 is to offer a committee substitute, committee amendment, or floor amendment and that will call everyone's attention to trespass signs.

Well I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I was putting words in your mouth. I tried to be clear with the "unintentionally".

[rbrecount]

In rural areas i many, well, some states open carry happens casually and few are aware or pay any attention. It's the urban areas and those who never see a gun that get all shook up about it. I really look forward to open carry. I don't want to be the first tho.

[billv]

First I'm for open carry and for this bill (or any other bill that provides OC). I think society is best served by a combination of people that carry both openly and concealed. Keeps the BG's guessing. For me I will likely carry partially concealed in a retention holster.

As for LEO's and OC in Texas, they already know the laws (or should) on concealed carry and this law doesn't change anything but allow one to open carry. The LEO, seeing someone with a firearm, can assume that the person is licensed. The requirement to show DL and CHL when asked is not removed. If a BG tried to get away with OC and a LEO approached, he'll either run or is going to have some other issue with the LEO due to not having a CHL. Net result is that BG's are not likely to open carry.

As for Man with a Gun, that can be handled with adequate training of the 911 operators. This happens all the time in the other 43 states that have OC and this isn't a problem. If the operators asks what this MWG is doing, and they say walking down side walk, not looking suspicious, then the 911 operator simple defuses the situation and explain he's doing nothing illegal. Otherwise if he's looking suspicious, nervous, then send an officer. See above paragraph.

As for more 30.06 signs - yes there will likely be a flurry of them put up. That can be dealt with. Most large business follow the state laws on firearms - that likely won't change. If these larger multi-state business already have a policy against firearms, they likely already have a 30.06 sign up. It'll be the small stores that panic. I've been following the progress for OC in NC for the last year. They have OC as it's not against the law to OC. They also have a CHL too. There is a flyer that was many NC OC'ers carry with them to inform curious public and businesses of the laws - here's a link - https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0Bx ... y=CIP3pbgE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. A similar one for Texas would likely help. Some OC'ers also have a discussion with the management about why they are foolish to ban people carrying firearms (mainly that it creates a gun free zone the BG doesn't care about and that the person carrying is likely to be one of the most law abiding person in his store). In NC, stores that ban firearms are announced in forums, their management is contacted by many people, telling them that they won't shop there any longer and their foolishness and unrealistic paranoia. Many pull down the signs soon after. Some don't. Some pull them down when they realize that they are losing business. Moreover, OC'ers tend to frequent stores that are firearm friendly so their business increases.

I should point out that TX has an advantage with the 30.06 signs - in NC any sign is legally enforceable which leads to all sorts of confusion. Texas is ahead of NC in our ability to carry into restaurants that serve alcohol (non 51% places) - in NC it's illegal if any alcohol is served - they are trying to change that this year.

Finally I've seen mention in this thread that the open carry issue could have been fixed with a simple two page bill. If it was so easy, they why wasn't that done? There is no reason to bring personality differences into this issue. Can we please all just get along or should we meet in the middle of the street at high noon and settle the issue (and make the antis dream come true)? The goal here is our 2A rights. Let's not fight between those who wish to OC and those who don't. With this current bill you can do both. It's a first step in the right direction, just like getting the ability to conceal carry was a step.

Thanks,

[G.A. Heath]

As for more 30.06 signs - yes there will likely be a flurry of them put up.

While we can work on getting rid of new 30.06 signs, we would rather they not be posted in the first place. A better bill would have avoided this, after all we want to expand all gun rights instead of restrict some and expand others.

Finally I've seen mention in this thread that the open carry issue could have been fixed with a simple two page bill. If it was so easy, they why wasn't that done? There is no reason to bring personality differences into this issue. Can we please all just get along or should we meet in the middle of the street at high noon and settle the issue (and make the antis dream come true)? The goal here is our 2A rights. Let's not fight between those who wish to OC and those who don't. With this current bill you can do both. It's a first step in the right direction, just like getting the ability to conceal carry was a step.

The people who know how to write a simple two page bill are busy using their political capital on other second amendment issues. If by can we all get along you are asking "Can we all agree to support a flawed bill?" Then the answer is no we won't all get along, but we can disagree in a civil fashion and avoid name calling, character assassination, threats, and other antics that were pulled by OCDO folks in the last session. A step in the right direction is often a good idea, unless its a step off a cliff. When that is the case we need to step in a direction that doesn't hurt us, or take us backwards.

[Charles L. Cotton]

As for LEO's and OC in Texas, they already know the laws (or should) on concealed carry and this law doesn't change anything but allow one to open carry. The LEO, seeing someone with a firearm, can assume that the person is licensed.

Any LEO seeing someone openly carrying a gun will be justified to stop them and ask of they have a CHL. You can bet this will happen a great deal, especially in urban areas.

As for more 30.06 signs - yes there will likely be a flurry of them put up. That can be dealt with.

How? Sorry, we won't be able to deal with it and a huge, in my view unforgivable, mistake was made when HB2756 intentionally amended TPC §30.06 to make it apply to both open and concealed carry. This clearly threw CHL's under the buss for absolutely no reason. This is an event that supporters should have been prepared to oppose, even to the point of pulling down (killing) their own Bill; not a situation they intentionally created. This is the single issue most often cited by CHL's as a concern about open-carry and those concerns where not merely ignored, they were made a reality by those who want open-carry at any cost.

Most large business follow the state laws on firearms - that likely won't change. If these larger multi-state business already have a policy against firearms, they likely already have a 30.06 sign up.

This is not the case now. There are very very few valid 30.06 signs anywhere in Texas. Let someone walk through Home Depot or HEB with a 1911 showing and this will change. It did in 1995 through 8/31/97 when we changed the law and there's no reason to think it won't happen again.

In NC, stores that ban firearms are announced in forums, their management is contacted by many people, telling them that they won't shop there any longer and their foolishness and unrealistic paranoia. Many pull down the signs soon after. Some don't. Some pull them down when they realize that they are losing business. Moreover, OC'ers tend to frequent stores that are firearm friendly so their business increases.

No stores pulled down generic "no guns" signs in Texas from 1995 to Sept. 1, 1997 when the TPC §30.06 "Big Ugly Sign" became a requirement. And we were dealing with guns the general public couldn't see. We see this "we'll educate them" response often, but the idea that less than 3% of the Texas population is going to teach of 97% is groundless. If a business owner has to choose between alienating 3% of the population or 97%, we'll lose.

Finally I've seen mention in this thread that the open carry issue could have been fixed with a simple two page bill. If it was so easy, they why wasn't that done?

Because the guy who claims to have written it didn't know what he was doing is my guess. I can think of no justifiable reason to open numerous sections of the Government Code and Penal Code up to anti-gun amendments. For example, here are some of the subjects we have improved over the last 15 years that HB2756 opens up to amendment:

• Eligibility/requirements for getting a CHL
  "Shall issue" requirment (rather than "may issue")
  Application processing
  Reciprocity
  Renewal procedures
  CHL classes/training requirements
  Background checks
  Fees
  Revocation of a CHL
  Employer rights
  Carry on or at:
  • LCRA property
    Government meetings
  All "not applicable" provisions in TCP Chp. 46

Every single one of these areas are subject to amendment, including anti-gun amendments. HB2756 took the same approach as did the horrendous open-carry bill promoted by OpenCarry.org during the 2009 Texas Legislative Session. I cautioned then that it was too broad and noted how easily open-carry could be achieved. Texas has a very stringent germane rule that protects us from tampering during the amendment process. But this bill throws that protection down the toilet.

Let's not fight between those who wish to OC and those who don't. With this current bill you can do both. It's a first step in the right direction, just like getting the ability to conceal carry was a step.

Sorry, but I disagree. If HB2756 gets a committee hearing, the amendment to TPC §30.06 has to be brought up and it must be amended (i.e. removed) from the Bill. We cannot stand by while someone intentionally creates a one-size-fits-all sign and let 461,000 CHL's be harmed. If anti-gun amendments are promoted, then the danger increases and this would most likely come as Floor Amendments during debate. If any stick, then the Bill must be "fixed" in the Senate, by any means necessary.

I absolutely agree with you about not letting personalities be a part of the discussion. However, if you look at OpenCarry.org I believe the comments you see there will show the animosity comes from the open-carry camp. Their approach is the "if you aren't with us, you're against us." Any legitimate concerns about a huge increase in 30.06 signs are met with claims that those holding those views are "CHL elitist" who somehow feel special and want to keep it that way. We are labeled as people who don't respect the Second Amendment and numerous other slurs. A small number of posters on OpenCarry.org were banned here on TexasCHLforum for numerous rule violations, so they respond with attacks against the Forum and its Members. One openly brags of re-registering here using a spoofed IP address and different user name and email address, as if sneaking in like a thief at night is somehow noble. The key to bringing civility back into the discussion of the best way to promote open-carry lies in expelling the radical extremist element in the open-carry movement and becoming statesmen. I think you have a better chance of brokering a peace treaty between Israel and Hezbollah!

Chas.

[Shoot Straight]

As for LEO's and OC in Texas, they already know the laws (or should) on concealed carry and this law doesn't change anything but allow one to open carry. The LEO, seeing someone with a firearm, can assume that the person is licensed.

Any LEO seeing someone openly carrying a gun will be justified to stop them and ask of they have a CHL. You can bet this will happen a great deal, especially in urban areas.

Like they're justified stopping anyone driving a car to check if they have a driver license and insurance.

[Keith B]

What most people are missing here is the fact that the minute you walk into a store that doesn't want open carry, any associate that sees you can ask you to leave, sign or not, and you must comply. If they get enough people trying to open carry and have to start telling them to leave they WILL search out methods to stop it. That will mean a valid 30.06 sign.

So, think about places where you walk in the door and are greeted by associates: Wal-Mart, Home Depot (returns desk), many restaurants with hosts/hostesses, etc. And all they have to do is say 'I'm sorry sir, we don't allow guns in here.' Now, you are not only prohibited from open carry, but you have been given verbal notice that you can't carry in their business PERIOD, even with a CHL and you are now persona non grata.

[VMI77]

Most large business follow the state laws on firearms - that likely won't change. If these larger multi-state business already have a policy against firearms, they likely already have a 30.06 sign up.

This is not the case now. There are very very few valid 30.06 signs anywhere in Texas. Let someone walk through Home Depot or HEB with a 1911 showing and this will change. It did in 1995 through 8/31/97 when we changed the law and there's no reason to think it won't happen again.

In NC, stores that ban firearms are announced in forums, their management is contacted by many people, telling them that they won't shop there any longer and their foolishness and unrealistic paranoia. Many pull down the signs soon after. Some don't. Some pull them down when they realize that they are losing business. Moreover, OC'ers tend to frequent stores that are firearm friendly so their business increases.

No stores pulled down generic "no guns" signs in Texas from 1995 to Sept. 1, 1997 when the TPC §30.06 "Big Ugly Sign" became a requirement. And we were dealing with guns the general public couldn't see. We see this "we'll educate them" response often, but the idea that less than 3% of the Texas population is going to teach of 97% is groundless. If a business owner has to choose between alienating 3% of the population or 97%, we'll lose.

To me, the logic of these remarks, particularly the last one, is inescapable. I'd rather not have to actually endure these consequences in order to convince those who believe otherwise.

[steveincowtown]

What most people are missing here is the fact that the minute you walk into a store that doesn't want open carry, any associate that sees you can ask you to leave, sign or not, and you must comply. If they get enough people trying to open carry and have to start telling them to leave they WILL search out methods to stop it. That will mean a valid 30.06 sign.

I get the point, but this hasn't been the case elsewhere. The one point I can see is many of those places (like VA) have had OC so long that no one notices anymore. On the other hand when AZ passed CC, there was not flurry of signs posted. We just have not seen great efforts to stop OC on by store owners, shopkeeps, etc. anywhere else in the US (can't count CA), so what makes everyone think that it will happen in Texas?

[pcgizzmo]

So for the record what is the solution? Constitutional carry? How should it be brought forward? I've read in other open carry states that very few actually open carry. Why do we think Texas will be any different? I'm for doing it the best way possible to maintain all of our current rights by the way.

[Shoot Straight]

To me, the logic of these remarks, particularly the last one, is inescapable. I'd rather not have to actually endure these consequences in order to convince those who believe otherwise.

Would you support a law making illegal to open carry rifles and shotguns in Texas? I guarantee people will notice those easier than a 1911.

[Beiruty]

Giving a great deal of thought and energy to the OC debate is needed and very useful.
As Charles noted, if posting a 30.06 is all what is needed to ban Open carrying on the premises, then concealed carry would be affected. If on the other hand a new (smaller) sign that is notify that no visible firearms are allowed. CC could be still allowed and the business may not have an issue with CC.

Charles, however, said 2 signs would not fly. I kindly ask why this compromise is not possible?

[Shoot Straight]

Charles, however, said 2 signs would not fly. I kindly ask why this compromise is not possible?

Good question. An AR-15 is not a handgun so a 30.06 sign does not apply to that either right now.