open carry

Gun, shooting and equipment discussions unrelated to CHL issues

Moderator: carlson1

User avatar

canvasbck
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1101
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:45 pm
Location: Alvin

Re: open carry

#151

Post by canvasbck »

03Lightningrocks wrote: Saying you want OC to protect you in case you accidentally display your firearm is like a person saying public intoxication should be legal in case they accidentally get drunk. Actually, it is even sillier than that, since accidental display is not illegal. One person out of several hundred thousand does not a precedent make. Your odds of dying in a traffic accident are far higher.
Your strawman arguement about "accidentally" getting drunk makes absolutely no sense. After reading about one of our members being arrested and the ensuing legal troubles, are you telling me that it wouldn't make you uneasy to mount a horse 200 yards from a state park guard post and then realize that your CCW is now OUTSIDE of your cover garment? This has happened to me, so I can say with certainty that it makes me nervous.

I'll say it again........I don't think the time is now, we have more important bills right now. But 2013, I will have a very different opinion. I'm sick of people on both sides of this debate forming a circular firing squad over it.
"All bleeding eventually stops.......quit whining!"
User avatar

03Lightningrocks
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 23
Posts: 11454
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Plano

Re: open carry

#152

Post by 03Lightningrocks »

zero4o3 wrote:
03Lightningrocks wrote:
74novaman wrote:
redlin67 wrote:It seems that a lot have the fear of "signs" that may appear because of open carry. When will you not be afraid? 2 years, 4 years, ever? :rules:
If gunbusters applied to OC and 30.06 to concealed carry only, then I would stop worrying about signs at all.
EXACTLY..... as would most of us. The voices of reason are repeatedly saying, NO connections between OC and CC. But that is not good enough for them. Maybe others are right and it was done from ignorance but I believe the connection is deliberate.
I feel like my points were ignored because they couldn't be overcome

Edit to ad I was not referring to you more so agreeing with you and pointing it out again ;-)
pcgizzmo wrote:
zero4o3 wrote:
pcgizzmo wrote:I have yet to see anyone post what an open carry bill would look like that would make everyone happy.

I see it as a no win situation in that CHL's are going to continue to be concerned about postings that keep them out with Open Carry.

I don't want my current rights to change but I do want open carry. I can't think of a way to get that w/out possibly taking a chance on a few things changing. I haven't seen anyone post a good solution on how to change w/out causing some issues. So, I'm curious if those CHL'ers that say they are for Open Carry really are for it or are they just saying that because there for 2nd Amendment rights but would prefer not to rock the boat because we have it pretty good right now as is.
I think a good solution would be to make OC not require a licenses and let any form of gunbuster sign give notice not to carry. ;-)
That's what I'm saying. There is no good way to have OC and not at least have some possibility of changing the current CHL laws or at least the possibility that there would be less access to places CHL's can go now. So, my best guess is that some who say they are for full 2nd amendment rights even though deep down that may be half true secretly they don't want to change anything because that would mean changing our current CHL access and possibly more 30.06 signs going up and or having to do away with them all together and allowing any "not allowed sign" to take it's place.

I'm not sure you can make the OC omelet w/out breaking some eggs.
my suggestion is a perfectly good way, and if its not point out the flaws.
If the State required continuing education and a $70 fee in order to vote, or to be a journalist, or to argue your legal case before a jury, you'd be screaming to anyone who'll listen about infringement of rights. Yet because it's guns, you say pay the money, hide your gun and be thankful. In Texas, no less; stereotypically regarded as the most gun-friendly state in the Union. The state that, historically, is REALLY the most unrestrictive is up in New England; Vermont, which is and always has been so unrestrictive about modes of carry that it doesn't even offer a concealed carry license for reciprocity with other states.
And thank you sir, for making my point with this part of your post, your upset that we CHL holders don't fully support this CURRENT OC legislation, and in your argument you point out costs, but YOU who want to OC would pay that same 140 / 70 dollar fee to OC if it got passed would you not?

This is not to say that I don't want some form of OC, just that I don't want the current legislation.

Zero... I realized that. One of the drawbacks to the interweb is misunderstandings in written responses. we can't observe facial expressions or body movements which help us as humans to communicate. It is real easy to misread a response and react in the wrong way. I am an extreme type A personality with strong emotions. this creates a problem at times. my apologies if I acted offensive. I am also for OC... I just want it done in a way that does not create a problem for me to conceal carry in places that currently have no idea I am packing heat. I am one of the folks who looks at OC as a tactical advantage. When the bad guy walks up and blows off the head of the OC guy, I can skip all the formalities of trying to figure out if I should kill him. I will immediately know the BG's intentions.

I must admit, I am somewhat amused by the great concern shown by some of the carpet baggers, wanting to tell us how to do things in Texas.
Last edited by 03Lightningrocks on Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

03Lightningrocks
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 23
Posts: 11454
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Plano

Re: open carry

#153

Post by 03Lightningrocks »

canvasbck wrote:
03Lightningrocks wrote: Saying you want OC to protect you in case you accidentally display your firearm is like a person saying public intoxication should be legal in case they accidentally get drunk. Actually, it is even sillier than that, since accidental display is not illegal. One person out of several hundred thousand does not a precedent make. Your odds of dying in a traffic accident are far higher.
Your straw man argument about "accidentally" getting drunk makes absolutely no sense. After reading about one of our members being arrested and the ensuing legal troubles, are you telling me that it wouldn't make you uneasy to mount a horse 200 yards from a state park guard post and then realize that your CCW is now OUTSIDE of your cover garment? This has happened to me, so I can say with certainty that it makes me nervous.

I'll say it again........I don't think the time is now, we have more important bills right now. But 2013, I will have a very different opinion. I'm sick of people on both sides of this debate forming a circular firing squad over it.

My best advise would be.... "learn to conceal for the occasion". Truth is, the "straw man" argument is the one concerning accidental failure to conceal. Accidental failure to conceal is not illegal. One person of one forum out of 400 plus thousand CHL holders??? Are you folks kidding me... one person does something stupid and the rest of us are at risk of accidental exposure and arrest? This is not going to happen. Pounding this hammer won't make paranoia a reality. ONE PERSON!!!! ONE!!! OUT OF MORE THAN 400 THOUSAND!!! I wish I had those odds of driving to work without an accident. Face it, the "straw man" argument is the one using accidental failure to conceal as justification for OC. BTW.... Technically, neither is an actual "straw man" argument by the actual definition of straw man argument. OC, as prevention of arrest, for accidental failure to conceal is an argument based on false premises.

cbr600

Re: open carry

#154

Post by cbr600 »

It seems like we could avoid most of the concern over signs by keeping 30.05 and 30.06 exactly the same.

The way they're written now, a property owner can currently post generic signs (no special language or size required by law) to ban cameras, cell phones, rifles, laptops, pocket knives, etc. on their property.

They can also post a generic sign prohibiting handguns but that would currently only apply to (unlicensed) travelers, armed security guards (e.g. on lunch break) and other special cases. Why? Because 30.05 has clauses that say if the basis for trespassing is handguns are prohibited, it "does not apply" to peace officers and "It is a defense to prosecution" if "the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license issued under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, to carry a concealed handgun of the same category the person was carrying."

I see no 30.05 exemption for open carry (except for peace officers) and if the 30.05/30.06 laws don't change, that will remain the same. A gunbuster or generic "weapons prohibited" sign will be sufficient to prohibit open carry by non-cops, while having no effect on legal concealed carry. Same as now.
User avatar

03Lightningrocks
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 23
Posts: 11454
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Plano

Re: open carry

#155

Post by 03Lightningrocks »

cbr600 wrote:A gunbuster or generic "weapons prohibited" sign will be sufficient to prohibit open carry by non-cops, while having no effect on legal concealed carry. Same as now.

That is pretty much what everyone keeps telling them. It seems the anti-concealed carry group will be happy with nothing short of eliminating concealed carry anywhere they cannot open carry. :shock:
User avatar

Oldgringo
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 14
Posts: 11203
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:15 pm
Location: Pineywoods of east Texas

Re: open carry

#156

Post by Oldgringo »

03Lightningrocks wrote:
cbr600 wrote:A gunbuster or generic "weapons prohibited" sign will be sufficient to prohibit open carry by non-cops, while having no effect on legal concealed carry. Same as now.

That is pretty much what everyone keeps telling them. It seems the anti-concealed carry group will be happy with nothing short of eliminating concealed carry anywhere they cannot open carry. :shock:
I sometimes get that impression also. It's kinda' like, "...we play by MY rules or I take MY ball and go home...". :totap:

zero4o3
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 9:14 pm

Re: open carry

#157

Post by zero4o3 »

03Lightningrocks wrote: Zero... I realized that. One of the drawbacks to the interweb is misunderstandings in written responses. we can't observe facial expressions or body movements which help us as humans to communicate. It is real easy to misread a response and react in the wrong way. I am an extreme type A personality with strong emotions. this creates a problem at times. my apologies if I acted offensive. I am also for OC... I just want it done in a way that does not create a problem for me to conceal carry in places that currently have no idea I am packing heat. I am one of the folks who looks at OC as a tactical advantage. When the bad guy walks up and blows off the head of the OC guy, I can skip all the formalities of trying to figure out if I should kill him. I will immediately know the BG's intentions.

I must admit, I am somewhat amused by the great concern shown by some of the carpet baggers, wanting to tell us how to do things in Texas.
No Sir it was fine, I was just board at work and putting a few responses together, I basicly agree with what you where saying and was trying to point out to the other gentelmen that there are other ways to introduce OC besides piggy backing on the CHL :tiphat: It just seems that I got distracted and left out what I was going to say to your post ;-)

I sometimes get that impression also. It's kinda' like, "...we play by MY rules or I take MY ball and go home...". :totap:[/
This

alpmc
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 6:48 pm
Location: Lubbock

Re: open carry

#158

Post by alpmc »

Liko81 wrote:* OC is, unequivocally, faster to draw from than CC. Period. CCers can argue all they want how pretty darn close they can get, but an unobstructed pistol at 3:00 OWB is always the benchmark. If it were faster to draw from concealment, you'd never see a gun because police officers would conceal all the time for performance reasons.
Absolutely false. Period.
Liko81 wrote:* OC is a visual deterrent. In addition to it being faster, police officers carry at 3:00 because that gun is, at all times, a signal that the officer can handle any situation.
OC is not a visual deterrent in most if not all situations. OC by the general public is still meant for personal protection. A criminal intent on committing a crime will do so whether an OC'er is present or not.....the OC'er will just become the first target/victim or he will wait till your gone.
Liko81 wrote:To those who state that OC would just get you shot first, I have two rebuttals: first, how was your daydream?
I'm one who claims that OC is the act of painting a target on your back and may cause you to become the recipient of unwarranted criminal attention that you would not get with a CC. Daydream? That's a bit harsh.
Liko81 wrote:When carrying, openly OR concealed, you should be in Col. Cooper's Condition Yellow at all times.
I agree.
Liko81 wrote:A person who was shot before they had a chance to draw got blindsided.
I agree. Which leads me to my next two points.
Liko81 wrote:Second, you can only get shot when the bad guy has a gun. An assailant with a baseball bat or a knife is going to take one look at you and find someone else to work over.
Not true! The gun your carrying is probably more valuable than anything a bad guy can get off someone else, not to mention that you may carry more cash because you believe you can defend it. The bad guy just presents himself in a non-threatening manner and approaches you without raising your heightened sense of awareness, then he bops you, stabs you, or just sucker punches you to La-La land and then he's the new proud owner of your OC'd weapon and other valuables.
Liko81 wrote:Guns are force equalizers; if you as a bad guy know I have a gun, even if you have a gun, you're going to want to point it at someone else.
Not true.....the bad guy knows you have a gun.....you don't know that he has a gun. Along with the above mentioned scenario, he has the absolute element of surprise. You lose the fight before it ever starts.

Salty1
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 924
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:44 pm

Re: open carry

#159

Post by Salty1 »

"It seems the anti-concealed carry group will be happy with nothing short of eliminating concealed carry anywhere they cannot open carry."


+1, which is why I have not weighed in on this discussion
Salty1
User avatar

03Lightningrocks
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 23
Posts: 11454
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Plano

Re: open carry

#160

Post by 03Lightningrocks »

I spent a few minutes looking at the forum where some of these posters are coming from. I am not sure how serious to take any of them at this point. They are not absorbing anything anyone here tries to tell them. They know it all and they seem to think CHL holders are against O.C. No matter how many times we say to them on this thread we are for OC if we can get a bill that does not jeopardize a CHL holders ability to carry, they run right back over to the hole they came from and announce we are all elitist snobs, trying to deny them their rights...LOL.

I have read a few of the posts over there. They are misguided at best. Guys from states that gave us such great leadership as Obama, telling Texas we need to be like them...LOL. The favored insult on that forum is to call anyone who is not paranoid a sheeple. I go through life prepared but not afraid a BG is lurking behind every shadow. This makes me a sheeple.

They sure hate them some CHL holders and Mr. Cotton! That is real obvious. It is like watching a bunch of Chihuahua's yapping and running around in circles, sniffing each others behinds. No kidding...nothing good is coming from that bunch. Not unless someone potty trains them. :biggrinjester:

The guy Keith made look foolish earlier in this thread was only posting here to start trouble. He was trying to get banned so he could look cool. He actually posted what he said over there as if he had done something slick. He forgot to post Keith's slap down. Some of his fellow Chihuahuas turned on him for being misguided in his efforts. It was refreshing to read until I realized the main guy smacking him around began to brag about how many times he had been banned here. Must be some kind of cool thing? :???:

All I can say at this point is... WOW FELLERS! REALLY???? How am I suppose to take anything coming from that direction as serious?

billv
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: Katy, TX

Re: open carry

#161

Post by billv »

alpmc wrote:
Liko81 wrote:* OC is, unequivocally, faster to draw from than CC. Period. CCers can argue all they want how pretty darn close they can get, but an unobstructed pistol at 3:00 OWB is always the benchmark. If it were faster to draw from concealment, you'd never see a gun because police officers would conceal all the time for performance reasons.
Absolutely false. Period.
Nope - it depends on who's drawing and the experience level of each participant. Someone who practices drawing from CC will likely win against someone who doesn't practice drawing from OC. And vice versa. Police carry their firearms on their side for a number of reasons - their uniform and as a symbol of authority are just two.
Liko81 wrote:* OC is a visual deterrent. In addition to it being faster, police officers carry at 3:00 because that gun is, at all times, a signal that the officer can handle any situation.
OC is not a visual deterrent in most if not all situations. OC by the general public is still meant for personal protection. A criminal intent on committing a crime will do so whether an OC'er is present or not.....the OC'er will just become the first target/victim or he will wait till your gone.
First OC is a deterrent. Criminals in prison when asked said they'd move to an unarmed person first. A criminal that is committing a crime is not thinking on all cylinders. He is likely running on adrenalin and/or drugs. His focus is to get the money and get out of there as fast as possible. He's not going to scan the store and take out OC first. As for proof - look at the other 43 states where OC is legal and point to situations where that's happened - it's very rare. How many bank robberies in the other OC states have you heard about where the OC'ers have been taken out?
Liko81 wrote:To those who state that OC would just get you shot first, I have two rebuttals: first, how was your daydream?
I'm one who claims that OC is the act of painting a target on your back and may cause you to become the recipient of unwarranted criminal attention that you would not get with a CC. Daydream? That's a bit harsh.
Liko81 wrote:When carrying, openly OR concealed, you should be in Col. Cooper's Condition Yellow at all times.
I agree.
Liko81 wrote:A person who was shot before they had a chance to draw got blindsided.
I agree. Which leads me to my next two points.
Liko81 wrote:Second, you can only get shot when the bad guy has a gun. An assailant with a baseball bat or a knife is going to take one look at you and find someone else to work over.
Not true! The gun your carrying is probably more valuable than anything a bad guy can get off someone else, not to mention that you may carry more cash because you believe you can defend it. The bad guy just presents himself in a non-threatening manner and approaches you without raising your heightened sense of awareness, then he bops you, stabs you, or just sucker punches you to La-La land and then he's the new proud owner of your OC'd weapon and other valuables.
While this can happen, if you are truly in Condition yellow, you should be headed to red when an unknown person approaches you. This is not going to happen on a busy street but more likely in an area with few people. In red, you won't let the person get within 5 feet of you and your hand should be close to your firearm. This is situationally dependent.
Liko81 wrote:Guns are force equalizers; if you as a bad guy know I have a gun, even if you have a gun, you're going to want to point it at someone else.
Not true.....the bad guy knows you have a gun.....you don't know that he has a gun. Along with the above mentioned scenario, he has the absolute element of surprise. You lose the fight before it ever starts.
For me, we need a combination of both OC and CC. I believe OC does have a deterrent effect and their 6's is backed up by the CC'ers. How you choose to carry should be your choice. And you should train for how you carry too. If you have a firearm on you, you have a responsibility to yourself and those around you to know what your doing and train for your self defense - after all that's why you're carrying right?
User avatar

VMI77
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: open carry

#162

Post by VMI77 »

alpmc wrote:
Liko81 wrote:* OC is, unequivocally, faster to draw from than CC. Period. CCers can argue all they want how pretty darn close they can get, but an unobstructed pistol at 3:00 OWB is always the benchmark. If it were faster to draw from concealment, you'd never see a gun because police officers would conceal all the time for performance reasons.
Absolutely false. Period.
Liko81 wrote:* OC is a visual deterrent. In addition to it being faster, police officers carry at 3:00 because that gun is, at all times, a signal that the officer can handle any situation.
OC is not a visual deterrent in most if not all situations. OC by the general public is still meant for personal protection. A criminal intent on committing a crime will do so whether an OC'er is present or not.....the OC'er will just become the first target/victim or he will wait till your gone.
Liko81 wrote:To those who state that OC would just get you shot first, I have two rebuttals: first, how was your daydream?
I'm one who claims that OC is the act of painting a target on your back and may cause you to become the recipient of unwarranted criminal attention that you would not get with a CC. Daydream? That's a bit harsh.
Liko81 wrote:When carrying, openly OR concealed, you should be in Col. Cooper's Condition Yellow at all times.
I agree.
Liko81 wrote:A person who was shot before they had a chance to draw got blindsided.
I agree. Which leads me to my next two points.
Liko81 wrote:Second, you can only get shot when the bad guy has a gun. An assailant with a baseball bat or a knife is going to take one look at you and find someone else to work over.
Not true! The gun your carrying is probably more valuable than anything a bad guy can get off someone else, not to mention that you may carry more cash because you believe you can defend it. The bad guy just presents himself in a non-threatening manner and approaches you without raising your heightened sense of awareness, then he bops you, stabs you, or just sucker punches you to La-La land and then he's the new proud owner of your OC'd weapon and other valuables.
Liko81 wrote:Guns are force equalizers; if you as a bad guy know I have a gun, even if you have a gun, you're going to want to point it at someone else.
Not true.....the bad guy knows you have a gun.....you don't know that he has a gun. Along with the above mentioned scenario, he has the absolute element of surprise. You lose the fight before it ever starts.

Your responses are basically the responses I was going to make. I'll add a few things to what you said already.

BGs almost always have the tactical advantage because: as you indicated, they're likely to launch a surprise attack, and also, because ambiguity and uncertainty work in their favor, they're not worried about where their rounds go, and they're not concerned with the legal consequences of their actions.

OC makes you more susceptible to false accusations from BG's, and from a host of other people, such as anti-gunners, who may claim you threatened them, for any number of reasons, from ideology to spite. BG's may be more likely to muddle a self-defense situation by claiming you threatened them first.

Your comments primarily address one-on-one scenarios, but an openly visible weapon may cause all sorts of problems in group scenarios, or situations that include multiple BGs. Obviously a visible weapon is going to make you a target, limit your response options, and at best, probably result in the theft of your gun. If you're among a group of people you may be given away by some foolish soul saying something like: "you've got a gun, do something."

You never know how other people are going to react to the knowledge that you're carrying a gun. They may make joking or inappropriate comments, such as "you better watch out or Bill might shoot you" (I've seen this happen when someone just knows that a person has a CHL). They may escalate or draw you into an altercation by reference to you being armed, such as telling someone they feel is threatening them, "you'd better be careful because my friend Bill over there has a gun."

When people on this forum ask "what would you do" or "what if" questions, or describe encounters they've had, you don't hear them saying that being able to draw their gun two seconds faster is the difference between a good and a bad outcome. In most encounters draw time is likely to be overshadowed by ambiguity and uncertainty, along with a host of other factors. And when you can't draw at a particular moment you may be able to choose a different moment when your gun is hidden --not so likely when it's visible.

Finally, I'm of average build and I have no problem concealing a full size semi-auto, like a Beretta, year round (with a snubbie BUG at times as well). Like most here I'm not against OC for others, though I'm not likely to practice it myself. I'm against having my CC restricted for OC because I see near zero benefit to OC.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com
User avatar

VMI77
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: open carry

#163

Post by VMI77 »

billv wrote:How many bank robberies in the other OC states have you heard about where the OC'ers have been taken out?
This kind of reasoning is the product of a logic fallacy referred to as an "Appeal to Ignorance" or "Argument from Ignorance"

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

Quoting from the link above:

"An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence."

Because you or I haven't "heard" of something is not evidence for or against it. To make a valid argument one way or the other we'd have to know a variety of information, such as the laws for OC in each of these states and the rates of OC, and in the particular circumstances you cite, at a minimum, the number of times banks have been robbed, the number of times someone OCing was present during a robbery (and visible to the robbers), the circumstances of the robbery (e.g. multiple robbers? how armed?), and the outcome of each robbery (e.g. guns discharged? people killed or wounded?).

I suspect we haven't heard about it because there simply hasn't been a case where a bank was robbed by one or more gunmen while someone inside was visibly OCing. However, if you have legitimate statistics on this subject I'd love to see the references: rates of OC (pretty rare in most places is my guess); rates of OC versus CC, incidence of crimes committed in the presence of OC and CC, etc. I suspect there is little to no evidence for rates of carry, since about all we can really know without some kind of comprehensive statistical survey is how many people are licensed to carry. Knowing that there are 400,000 people with licenses tells us virtually nothing about how many people are walking around armed at any given moment.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com
User avatar

redlin67
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:10 pm
Location: Houston

Re: open carry

#164

Post by redlin67 »

These are just my opinions:
I am for open carry and hope this bill passes. I would more than likely never carry in the open, but I feel that this possibility of even if is only licensed open carry, it is a step in the right direction. As with others, I don't want it to overshadow the campus carry and parking lot bills (neither of which would affect me one way or the other). Except for work, where I can't carry anyway, it is rare that I would wear a shirt tucked in. I wear both of my handguns OWB, but the way the holsters hold them high and tight ,and the position that I carry it would be difficult for anyone to see even a slight printing. I also would not want to see more signs go up because of open carry, but sometimes you have to make concessions in the beginning to get what you eventually want.
Taurus PT111
Ruger LCP

5/26/10 Plastic

To see what is right and not to do it is want of courage.
Confucius
User avatar

74novaman
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 3798
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:36 am
Location: CenTex

Re: open carry

#165

Post by 74novaman »

billv wrote:How many bank robberies in the other OC states have you heard about where the OC'ers have been taken out?
Not a bank robbery, but how about a guy that got his gun stolen as he was OCing?

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/95999354.html

And as a caveat, I will grant you that this is a rare occasion, most people OCing don't get robbed, the guy should have had much better situational awareness (whether carrying concealed or openly), etc etc....

But you can't say that no one has ever been targeted for a crime because they were OCing. At least one guy would disagree with ya. :tiphat:

In the end, I think some of this hypothetical back in forth is indeed as bad as the "blood in the streets" predictions.

However, please don't tell me that the Texas experience with gun busters signs after '95 and CHL have no relevance. That is not a hypothetical situation, that is a historical fact. Don't tell me how great your OC experiences were in Virginia or the great gun state of Illinois, because this is Texas. If people were willing to use gunbusters to ban CC in '95, I have no idea how or why you can assume they won't be willing to post 30.06 signs to ban OC. The ONLY reason more places do not have 30.06 posted is they have no idea people are carrying in their stores. (Hint: because its concealed).

I fully support Open Carry....if a simple gun busters sign is legal notice not to, and 30.06 and CHL laws are left out of the equation. Period.
TANSTAAFL
Post Reply

Return to “General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion”