How to "desensitize" a town for Open Carry?

[EEllis]

I think the idea of trying to "desensitize" is a bad one. Heck that is what OCT thinks they are doing. If you want to make a political statement then it isn't necessary and if you're not you should cover up if you are that concerned. Lets face it CHL's are a minority, a fringe group if you will, and making a big deal about this and putting extra effort into OC makes you a minority of a fringe group. You will come off as nutty to anyone not into guns. Even trying to show people how "normal" you are just emphasizes that you are not normal. Personally just doing your thing and treating it as a non issue is the best way to make it a non issue.

[oljames3]

I think the idea of trying to "desensitize" is a bad one. Heck that is what OCT thinks they are doing. If you want to make a political statement then it isn't necessary and if you're not you should cover up if you are that concerned. Lets face it CHL's are a minority, a fringe group if you will, and making a big deal about this and putting extra effort into OC makes you a minority of a fringe group. You will come off as nutty to anyone not into guns. Even trying to show people how "normal" you are just emphasizes that you are not normal. Personally just doing your thing and treating it as a non issue is the best way to make it a non issue.

[Oldgringo]

I think the idea of trying to "desensitize" is a bad one. Heck that is what OCT thinks they are doing. If you want to make a political statement then it isn't necessary and if you're not you should cover up if you are that concerned. Lets face it CHL's are a minority, a fringe group if you will, and making a big deal about this and putting extra effort into OC makes you a minority of a fringe group. You will come off as nutty to anyone not into guns. Even trying to show people how "normal" you are just emphasizes that you are not normal. Personally just doing your thing and treating it as a non issue is the best way to make it a non issue.

Well said,

[Ruark]

By "desensitizing," you could be talking about the local LEOs, or the local citizenry.

In any case, actually, in much of rural Texas, firearms are much more accepted that in some big city yuppie suburb. Out here where I live, if you shot a bad guy, the local sheriff would probably slap you on the back and say "good shot!" The little small town cafe where I eat breakfast sometimes has one of those "We don't call 911" signs over the cash register. Anybody who tried something in there would probably get blown full of more holes than a slice of bread.

[srothstein]

I have been thinking about this and think desensitizing is a good idea. BUT, I don't support the OCT method of desensitizing. I mean that I think we might consider proactive outreach to media and law enforcement to work with them on getting the message to the public that it is legal and not a cause for alarm. I don't know quite how to get the media to cooperate and run positive stories, but I think it might be a good idea overall to be proactive on this and ask them to remind people it is about to become legal and not to be alarmed. Maybe include how rare we think it will be. That might be a double edged sword because it could hurt us if we over publicize how rare even CHLs are in Texas, let alone what we expect of open carry.

[Oldgringo]

I have been thinking about this and think desensitizing is a good idea. BUT, I don't support the OCT method of desensitizing. I mean that I think we might consider proactive outreach to media and law enforcement to work with them on getting the message to the public that it is legal and not a cause for alarm. I don't know quite how to get the media to cooperate and run positive stories, but I think it might be a good idea overall to be proactive on this and ask them to remind people it is about to become legal and not to be alarmed. Maybe include how rare we think it will be. That might be a double edged sword because it could hurt us if we over publicize how rare even CHLs are in Texas, let alone what we expect of open carry.

It is a 'sticky wicket' indeed. I suspect the vast majority of Texas citizens have no idea what OC is or that it becomes law on 1 January. For example, I have no idea what other items were discussed and resolved in the past legislative session because I don't care and/or had no dogs in those hunts.

Is OC a sleeping dog best let lie? A few will practice it until the novelty of OC wears off OR they are otherwise convinced it ain't all that cool. The rest of us will go on about our business as usual.

[K.Mooneyham]

SNIP

Lets face it CHL's are a minority, a fringe group if you will, and making a big deal about this and putting extra effort into OC makes you a minority of a fringe group.

So, CHLers are a "fringe group"? How many CHLers are there in Texas, about 1 million now? If I divide 1 by 28, which is the state population in millions, that gives me a bit over .035. That means that CHLers are about 3.5 percent of the population. The Supreme Court just changed how marriage is defined for about that percentage of the population. Again, "fringe group"? Maybe in the minds of "Moms Demand Disarmed Citizens" and "Bloomberg Gun Grabbers, Inc.".

[oljames3]

Is OC a sleeping dog best let lie? A few will practice it until the novelty of OC wears off OR they are otherwise convinced it ain't all that cool. The rest of us will go on about our business as usual.

For me, business as usual is doing the best I can, within the law, to protect myself and mine. As I go about my business as usual, I will carry openly whenever and wherever I can.

Later this month, my 18 year-old son and I will go to Tucson, AZ, to attend the National Association of Rocketry's Annual Meet (http://NARAM57.org). When we cross the NM border, I'll untuck my shirt. When we cross the AZ border, we'll stop so my son can strap on his OWB holster. I've carried openly in OK, CO, and NM without incident. I expect AZ will be the same. I am certain that Texans are at least as adaptable as the citizens of other OC states. We'll adjust.

So, pick the legal carry method that meets your needs and carry on.

[AggieDad15]

Some awesome posts and rebuttals on this thread.

Personally, I'm going to use open carry as an adjunct to Concealed Carry, i.e. leaving my shirt open in these hot summer months over a shoulder holster or belt holster and not having to worrying if the gun peaks out. I like the OC law for that alone. No one would see my gun unless they were really looking for it, but I do see the OPs point.

But until we reverse to the 70s and 80s when LEOs were mostly good people (I was one), I think it's best not to tempt fate. Too many idiot people out there just looking for a gun so they can falsely say "he threatened me!!" and lots of muscle head LEOs out there who believe "we're the po-leece and you're not so you can't have a gun" regardless of the law would be more than willing to lock you up and let the judge sort it out just to get a mark for the month.

Let me put it this way. I am a former LEO and even *I* don't trust most of the muscle heads out there now. Sad state of affairs really.

[Vol Texan]

Jan 1 2016 Texans will be able to openly carry sidearms.
However in some towns local LE will have a problem with this as change never comes easy.

Wearing a firearm can get you arrested for other charges (or have in some towns)

So I'm thinking of ways to "desensitize" the local community establishments so that a MWAG call isn't made every time a legal CHL holder follows the law.

Any thoughts?

This message thread started with a simple question, and it has devolved into comparing folks who want to carry OC with the OCT idiots. I hope we can all take a step back and realize that this is not a binary issue. It's not "OC is idiot, and CC is the only right thing". There has to be a shade of grey in there that slowly, gently, helps John Q. Public understand that the mere presence of a gun is not reason to panic.

To chastise folks for even considering the idea of OC, or to belittle them for asking each other on a (supposedly friendly) gun forum for ideas on how to best do that is destructive, at best, and subversive, at worst.

Remember what TAM wrote in the following posting. He clearly explained that there are different ways to drive behavioral change in society. Hopefully, those of us who choose to OC will endeavor to be the better of the examples below (MLK instead of Malcom X / James Obergfell instead of pride marchers / Heller & McDonald instead of Watkins & Grisham). The OP was just asking for ways to make this simpler. He's just asking how we think is the best way to do what TAM suggests below (which I've highlighted in red).

Why beat him up over it?:

(snip)

I'm going to point out some things from current and past national events which parallel this situation.......

• Civil Rights - Racial Equality: who was more effective, Martin Luther King, or Malcolm X? MLK never threatened violence, he never was disrespectful to white people (even to his persecutors), he appealed to reason and justice, he advocated calm non-violent protest, and he publicly beseeched Almighty God to pour out His blessings upon this endeavor and upon this nation. When he wrote his letter from the Birmingham jail, and gave his "promised land" speech, and spoke of the importance of content of character over color of skin, MLK appealed to ALL Americans, because those were words we could ALL believe in. With that kind of appeal to reason and decency, he could not fail even if someone killed him.
  
  Malcolm X, on the other hand, did threaten violence, he was disrespectful to the white people he interacted with, he did appealed to violence of action if his demands were not met, and he called on Allah to curse the society to which he was opposed. He never spoke of a greater dream, of a greater vision, one which could be shared by all people of all colors. Eventually, MX came to realize that his way was the path to defeat, and he began to adopt MLK's kind of advocacy......and he was killed for it by his former supporters.
• Civil Rights - Marriage Equality: Whatever anyone thinks about the recent SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage, there is a distinct difference between the way James Obergfell, the gay plaintiff in this case, presents himself to the public, and the way men walking in gay pride parades present themselves. The former challenges society at large to explain why gays should be barred from marriage law, while the latter makes most of us glad that these folks aren't breeders.
• Civil Rights - 2nd Amendment protections: Compare Dick Heller (an active duty capitol policeman), the plaintiff in Heller v. DC, or Otis McDonald (a dignified elderly black retiree), the plaintiff in McDonald v. City of Chicago, to either Kory Watkins or CJ Grisham. Heller and McDonald should be considered as heroes of the gun rights movement. Conversely, Watkins and Grisham have done damage to the movement, and not just here in Texas. Because their stories have been picked up nationally, they have become the faces of pro-gun advocacy for a large part of the mainstream media. Why? Because A) those two fit the media's own prejudices and memes, and B) their self-aggrandizement knows no end. Neither Heller nor McDonald, on the other hand, craved the limelight the way these two self-promoting charlatans do, and so the gun-rights movement's face has defaulted to a couple of yahoos. (And sadly, McDonald passed from this world not too long after the decision named after him.)

My point is that the face we put forward in defense of the 2A matters at least as much as the correctness of our argument. Watkins and Grisham are enjoying being at the center of their little personality cults because it keeps their narcissistic egos stroked. Outrage on the cheap is their stock in trade. If we want to sway the undecided, we need to present the face of a rational group of people, interested in the preservation of our individual liberties, of which the 2A is only one, and we need to do it by cajoling the undecided to want to be part of the age of enlightenment........ and not in scaring the crap out of them by strutting around with our "gender-enhancements" on display. And no, I am NOT saying don't OC. What I AM saying, is don't turn OC into a political demonstration that scares the bejabbers out of decent people.

[biomass1]

I like open carry simply because it does away with the problem of inadvertent display of a firearm. There are practical and tactical advantages to carrying concealed and I plan to stay that way.

[anygunanywhere]

I like open carry simply because it does away with the problem of inadvertent display of a firearm. There are practical and tactical advantages to carrying concealed and I plan to stay that way.

There has not been a problem with inadvertent or accidental display since the legislature fixed the law. You have to now intentionally display to violate the law.

[Oldgringo]

TAM wrote:
My point is that the face we put forward in defense of the 2A matters at least as much as the correctness of our argument. Watkins and Grisham are enjoying being at the center of their little personality cults because it keeps their narcissistic egos stroked. Outrage on the cheap is their stock in trade. If we want to sway the undecided, we need to present the face of a rational group of people, interested in the preservation of our individual liberties, of which the 2A is only one, and we need to do it by cajoling the undecided to want to be part of the age of enlightenment........ and not in scaring the crap out of them by strutting around with our "gender-enhancements" on display. And no, I am NOT saying don't OC. What I AM saying, is don't turn OC into a political demonstration that scares the bejabbers out of decent people.

...and I agree totally.

[steveincowtown]

One thing the left does REALLY well is stays on message and on point. Even at if sometimes it sounds like the sames words being regurgitated over and over, and least it is the same message.

I for one would like to see the TSRA and/or the NRA come up with a pamphlet and a form letter.

The pamphlet is for John Q citizen that has questions for you about OCing. It could include information about the safety record of CHLers, what the current laws are, how to obtain a CHL, etc.

The form letter should be available to any Texan who encounters an LEO who has a less than stellar attitude about OCing. After being 100% polite and compliant during the encounter this letter would be a great tool to communicate to superiors at their department that OC is now legal, etc.

[K.Mooneyham]

I like open carry simply because it does away with the problem of inadvertent display of a firearm. There are practical and tactical advantages to carrying concealed and I plan to stay that way.

There has not been a problem with inadvertent or accidental display since the legislature fixed the law. You have to now intentionally display to violate the law.

I'm certain that is entirely factual. However, what is always said on this forum? "Don't be the test case". Accordingly, with the passage of licensed OC and once it goes into effect, I am moving from IWB to OWB, and I'm not going to have to try shirts on and figure out whether an inch of the bottom of the holster sticks out or not. It'll still be more or less covered, but I really won't be risking anything if someone might see a bit of it. Right now, I will not chance that.