TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:We asked for OC. We got OC. Now let us demonstrate through SOBER and VIRTUOUS behavior that we actually merited the confidence which the legislature placed in us. And part of that sober virtuosity includes not screwing things up going forwards, not just for ourselves, but for future generations of Texans. And THAT requires that we STOP thinking in terms of selfish instant gratification, and START thinking like statesmen. It might not be fair, but the eyes of Texas are upon us. BE WORTHY of that.

I bow to your superior wisdom, sir. As always you write with clarity and succinctly.

amtank wrote:

nightmare69 wrote:

Beiruty wrote:I am surprised that so many posted 30.06 as well as 30.07.

This.

My fiancé and I went to see Star Wars last night. Much to our surprise the theater who was once open to CC has posted both 30.06 and 30.07. Now both theaters in my town has banned LTC holders from carrying.

What brand theater?

Star Cinema Grill for one.

You know, I've already posted several times on this topic, and I'm sitting here bewildered at the responses.

I can tell you that if we had people like this in Sarajevo in '92, I'd be long dead.

People, look at your Country, take a look around, you are losing it all little by little, sometimes by self sabotaging and other times by whining.

Dang it, I thought this was a forum where grown tough man come to talk about gun related topics, and I've seen more complaining on this OC bill here then I get from my 12 year old daughter...

Act like men and be happy you live in this great State, in this great Country, enjoying freedoms that other folks only dream about. I know, because I was once one of them before I came here.


Get along and stop bickering.

parabelum wrote:You know, I've already posted several times on this topic, and I'm sitting here bewildered at the responses.

I can tell you that if we had people like this in Sarajevo in '92, I'd be long dead.

People, look at your Country, take a look around, you are losing it all little by little, sometimes by self sabotaging and other times by whining.

Dang it, I thought this was a forum where grown tough man come to talk about gun related topics, and I've seen more complaining on this OC bill here then I get from my 12 year old daughter...

Act like men and be happy you live in this great State, in this great Country, enjoying freedoms that other folks only dream about. I know, because I was once one of them before I came here.


Get along and stop bickering.

I come from such a state too, but let me ask you something...... when somebody pees in your cornflakes, are you bickering if you object? Are you the one who doesn't know how to get along if you object?

That is what is happening here. We have a new law. It may or may not have been as important to pass as a couple of other laws, but it is a good law nonetheless. But, a couple of organizations peed in everyone's cornflakes for the two years running up to the passage of the law, causing passage of that law to burn up an enormous amount of political capital........and that causes problems in other areas of legislation, not all of which are gun related. Be that as it may, the tensions that were ratcheted up by the pre-passage behavior of those two organizations was a form of peeing in everyone's cornflakes because it affects ALL of us......not just them. Then, post-passage, a subset of people who carry displayed a certain level of social tone-deafness in their open carry choices, with resultant consequences that (again!) affect ALL of us, which was another example of peeing in everyone's cornflakes.

On the side of reason, the argument was this: "hey, please moderate your behavior, or the consequences are going to affect ALL of us". On the side of unreason, the answer was to pee in everyone's cornflakes.

So I ask you, exactly who is failing to get along with whom, and exactly who is bickering? When someone is rushing headlong toward a cliff and that person is tied to you by a long rope, and you say, "hey, you better put the brakes on or you're going to drag both of us over the cliff", which person is failing to "get along", the guy who is rushing toward the cliff, or the guy who is warning him that both are going to perish if he doesn't stop? Who is bickering, the person who dismisses common sense advice, or the person who offers the common sense advice?

Yes, I am happy to have the ability to carry a firearm in Texas (and a bunch of other states as well) after having lived in California most of my life until 2006. But while I think that OC is an advancement, I also would have been OK if it didn't pass this time and we had passed an expanded list of places where we can carry instead. I'm glad that OC passed. But only a fool would refuse to acknowledge their own part in any social transaction while open carrying. Again, I repeat, the eyes of Texas are upon us. Let us be worthy of that.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

parabelum wrote:You know, I've already posted several times on this topic, and I'm sitting here bewildered at the responses.

I can tell you that if we had people like this in Sarajevo in '92, I'd be long dead.

People, look at your Country, take a look around, you are losing it all little by little, sometimes by self sabotaging and other times by whining.

Dang it, I thought this was a forum where grown tough man come to talk about gun related topics, and I've seen more complaining on this OC bill here then I get from my 12 year old daughter...

Act like men and be happy you live in this great State, in this great Country, enjoying freedoms that other folks only dream about. I know, because I was once one of them before I came here.


Get along and stop bickering.

I come from such a state too, but let me ask you something...... when somebody pees in your cornflakes, are you bickering if you object? Are you the one who doesn't know how to get along if you object?

That is what is happening here. We have a new law. It may or may not have been as important to pass as a couple of other laws, but it is a good law nonetheless. But, a couple of organizations peed in everyone's cornflakes for the two years running up to the passage of the law, causing passage of that law to burn up an enormous amount of political capital........and that causes problems in other areas of legislation, not all of which are gun related. Be that as it may, the tensions that were ratcheted up by the pre-passage behavior of those two organizations was a form of peeing in everyone's cornflakes because it affects ALL of us......not just them. Then, post-passage, a subset of people who carry displayed a certain level of social tone-deafness in their open carry choices, with resultant consequences that (again!) affect ALL of us, which was another example of peeing in everyone's cornflakes.

On the side of reason, the argument was this: "hey, please moderate your behavior, or the consequences are going to affect ALL of us". On the side of unreason, the answer was to pee in everyone's cornflakes.

So I ask you, exactly who is failing to get along with whom, and exactly who is bickering? When someone is rushing headlong toward a cliff and that person is tied to you by a long rope, and you say, "hey, you better put the brakes on or you're going to drag both of us over the cliff", which person is failing to "get along", the guy who is rushing toward the cliff, or the guy who is warning him that both are going to perish if he doesn't stop? Who is bickering, the person who dismisses common sense advice, or the person who offers the common sense advice?

Yes, I am happy to have the ability to carry a firearm in Texas (and a bunch of other states as well) after having lived in California most of my life until 2006. But while I think that OC is an advancement, I also would have been OK if it didn't pass this time and we had passed an expanded list of places where we can carry instead. I'm glad that OC passed. But only a fool would refuse to acknowledge their own part in any social transaction while open carrying. Again, I repeat, the eyes of Texas are upon us. Let us be worthy of that.

I agree with you more then disagree, +/- the pee analogy , I like my cornflakes with milk!!!

Based on my observation and personal opinion, OCT and their ilk are my enemies on this.
We however, the non-OCT's, are indeed bickering sir.

And while we go back and forth with this, the band keeps playing on.

Again, happy that OC passed and thanks to all who have contributed.

As far as fools who get argumentative with private property owners, they can all go where the sun don't shine.

OC= A sheep dog walking around snarling at the sheep, its harmless but still bad form.

suthdj wrote:OC= A sheep dog walking around snarling at the sheep, its harmless but still bad form.

I don't think that's quite right. Think about LEO's, uniformed and plainclothes as an example.

I think it has partial validity, but not to that extreme.

Scumbags come in many varieties. Some attack soft targets, and some could care less if they are charging towards a trooper with a shotgun, or at John Doe standing in convinience store OC or CC...

Think but don't overthink, and get into analysis paralysis mode.


Situational awareness is paramount and only Lord Almighty is above that.

SlowDave wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

LSUTiger wrote:. . . I am sure OC has played a role in speeding up the inevitable. But IMHO, it was only a matter of time before 30.06 was going to inevitably be posted in more and more places as time goes on regardless of OC.

Nope, it wasn't inevitable and in the 18 years since HB2909 passed creating TPC §30.06, there were very few 30.06 signs posted. Some folks are saying there were a lot of 30.06 signs initially, but they came down over the years. This is not the case by any means. The "big ugly signs" were very few and far between.

The OCT antics put the focus on signs and the anti-gunners used it to their advantage. As the OP stated, open-carry supporters are making things worse by complaining about 30.07 signs, or the lack thereof, and we will see more 30.06 and 30.07 signs. They will not come down as time goes by, at least not in significant numbers.

Open-carry supporters who are in the "you're with us or you're against us" camp won't even admit there's a problem now. The few that do claim "this too will pass." No, it won't pass. OC supporters won't let it pass.

Chas.

+1.E6

I respectfully disagree. I have seen the slow steady uptick in postings around Houston and greater metro areas (at least in the places I frequent, not just the retail/restaurant but many Dr./business offices and industrial /commercial/ distribution sites I travel to in my business) since getting TX CHL in 2008. Places that were not posted in 2008 but were posted prior to the passage of OC.

To be a little clearer, perhaps the OCT types of OC supporters won't let it pass. I would think the majority of forum members here who support OC don't fall into that category and will politely and respectfully abide by the law without a spectacle.

I'm not mad, upset or regretful about OC. (I certainly disagree with the new postings and the anti's logic and pandering to hoplophobes/PC, none if it does anything actually make anyone safer, only the false sense of feeling safer while they are actually less safe)

Yeah, yeah, yeah, property rights, business decisions, blah, blah, blah.....they have the right to post, I have the right to take my business elsewhere. Very simple, no arguments, I'm not sure what the anti-CC/OC crowd doesn't get about that.

Politely and respectfully let a business know they are losing business because of it is customer feedback. Anything more, like protesting in front of the store OCT style or blatantly defying signs, like OCing past a 30.06 sign or an invalid 30.07 sign is something different altogether.

So far the only fighting (and real complaining) I see is amongst ourselves not with sign posters. And what are people fighting about most?, people who say they won't frequent places with 30.07 only!

There are two types of LTC's with injured buttocks of which I am neither, those who didn't want OC and were worried about the signs and those who wanted OC and are complaining about the signs (as in causing real problems, not just simple quick customer feedback and moving on).

Personally, I wanted OC. I supported in when it was offered and I expected signs. I had no illusions. (I wasn't sure exactly what to expect on signage in terms of qty, but I can live with the consequences, it was a chance I was willing to take in the cost/benefit equation, more signs/no OC vs more signs/have OC).

The way I see it is the law affects us all and you can have it both ways so no matter which side you are on, if someone else's opinion differs, then your with us or you're against us. You can't support and not support something no matter what the issue is.

I will continue as I always have, abiding by the law and continuing to fight to have our 2A rights restored to a "shall not be infringed" status as our founding fathers intended. (property rights not withstanding)

I will continue to politely and respectfully champion/advocate the 2A cause to anyone willing to listen, I am not an "in your face" type, but I am not afraid to stand up for what I believe, what is right and exercise my rights. Apparently to some that makes you an "in your face" type.

I think their is much confusion over negative activism vs good cause. Because I support the good cause (OC) does not mean I am a negative activist (OCT). So don't lump all Pro-OCers into the OCT crowd. I don't support it for attention, I support it because I feel I can better protect myself because of it. I'm sure some will disagree.

Furthermore, while I am 100% supportive of OC, why other issues weren't pushed ahead of OC (like LTC no prohibited places) was not my call to make. It's not like any of us where going to be against many of the other good gun bills that didn't advance. There has to be a rhyme or reason why some things moved forward and some didn't. (strategy, lack of support/lots of support, backroom deals/compromise.....????).

I'm down with the little bit at a time baby steps approach to changing things, OC could have come later but it didn't, it came when it did.

Perhaps those a little closer to the legislative process could shed some light on that? (It's a rhetorical question because no one is ever willing to honestly discuss these things at least not publicly) I simply got behind what the powers that be were willing to advance upon.

So should the collective we be remorseful??? Sometimes progress comes with growing pains and sometimes to move forward you need risk taking a step back first. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Or something like that. One thing is sure, if you are sitting still your moving backwards. Regardless of where you settle for less than 100% shall not be infringed, someone is there to try to take what you have away from you. So yeah, it's kind of an all or nothing deal, stop fighting for it all or eventually end up with nothing.

I do agree we need to look forward to the next legislative session, re-group, re-prioritize, to see what improvements we can make which should always be the case.

I have lost my desire to eat cornflakes. Every time I do someone pee's in them.

baldeagle wrote:snip

Thank you for the thought out reply. I definitely understand the logic behind pushing a good bill over letting a terrible bill take hold. Hopefully off-limits locations can be squeaked through even if only for those that carry concealed. I'll try to remain hopeful!

baldeagle wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:We asked for OC. We got OC. Now let us demonstrate through SOBER and VIRTUOUS behavior that we actually merited the confidence which the legislature placed in us. And part of that sober virtuosity includes not screwing things up going forwards, not just for ourselves, but for future generations of Texans. And THAT requires that we STOP thinking in terms of selfish instant gratification, and START thinking like statesmen. It might not be fair, but the eyes of Texas are upon us. BE WORTHY of that.

I bow to your superior wisdom, sir. As always you write with clarity and succinctly.

That TAM, he can turn a phrase.

OK, I'll play devil's advocate -- those SOBER and VIRTUOUS members who pine for a bill that would have expanded CHL holders more places to carry I ask, where are those places? Any business owner can put up a legal sign banning CHL holders before the new law as after. The out of sight, out of mind argument is good, but still doesn't answer the question. Just anecdotally, in my neck of the Texas woods I haven't seen an uptick in signage. My Dr.s office had legal signs up before the new law, and new ones after. The movie theaters we frequent have no signs. The grocery stores the last I checked don't. Admittedly, I'm not the shopper in the family. By the same token I haven't seen one open carrier yet either. DFW is a large area, surely I would have seen one by now right?

baseballguy2001 wrote:OK, I'll play devil's advocate -- those SOBER and VIRTUOUS members who pine for a bill that would have expanded CHL holders more places to carry I ask, where are those places? Any business owner can put up a legal sign banning CHL holders before the new law as after. The out of sight, out of mind argument is good, but still doesn't answer the question. Just anecdotally, in my neck of the Texas woods I haven't seen an uptick in signage. My Dr.s office had legal signs up before the new law, and new ones after. The movie theaters we frequent have no signs. The grocery stores the last I checked don't. Admittedly, I'm not the shopper in the family. By the same token I haven't seen one open carrier yet either. DFW is a large area, surely I would have seen one by now right?

"Those places" would include any place a LEO can carry that we still cannot.

Note.... I never said I would have preferred such a bill had passed instead of OC. What I said was that I would have been ok if the other bill had passed instead of OC, but I am glad that OC passed. EITHER would have been an enhancement under the law for our carry rights. However, I DO believe that OC cost us more political capital than the other would have cost us, and because of the capital spent on it, it may take a few more sessions before we can recoup enough of that capital to get a bill passed which would increase the number of places we can carry. The more that people act up, OCing when it is socially tone-deaf to do so, the longer it will take to recoup that capital.

I am NOT saying you shouldn't OC. I AM saying that you should be sensitive to the social overtones when you do, remembering that you are an ambassador for the second amendment, and that.....as I am fond of repeating lately....the eyes of Texas are upon us. Fair or not, how we carry ourselves in public over the next few months to a year will have a heavier than normal impact on how licensed carry is perceived by the general public going forward.......and the public votes, and not always how we would like them to vote.

baseballguy2001 wrote:OK, I'll play devil's advocate -- those SOBER and VIRTUOUS members who pine for a bill that would have expanded CHL holders more places to carry I ask, where are those places? Any business owner can put up a legal sign banning CHL holders before the new law as after. The out of sight, out of mind argument is good, but still doesn't answer the question. Just anecdotally, in my neck of the Texas woods I haven't seen an uptick in signage. My Dr.s office had legal signs up before the new law, and new ones after. The movie theaters we frequent have no signs. The grocery stores the last I checked don't. Admittedly, I'm not the shopper in the family. By the same token I haven't seen one open carrier yet either. DFW is a large area, surely I would have seen one by now right?

I haven't seen a single sign in my neck of the woods except on businesses that already banned CC. Even that is an overstatement because I've only encountered such a sign in one place that I have to visit for work....in Austin. I've never seen a 30.06 sign at any local business or at any business I've visited in Austin or on my way to and from Austin. I scanned for signs yesterday in Shiner, Gonzales, Luling, and Lockhart...didn't see even one. Stopped at Specs in south Austin and Panda Express....no signs. I knew Cabelas wouldn't have a sign so that doesn't really count...but I also didn't see any open carry anywhere. I'm not going to miss spending money in any of the businesses identified on here as posting 30.06 in conjunction with 30.07. The only one mentioned I've entered or spent money in during the last two years is HPB and I'm not going to miss them either.

I've not seen anyone else OC'ing yet, but I've not been out much.
I open carried last weekend in San Antonio. Nobody gave me any grief, but I'll probably CC most of the time.

My rule is i will NOT go into a business with 30.06 signage - it isn't safe in my mind. I will avoid a business with 30.07 signage but might make an exception out of necessity.

As an example, My $300/wk grocery money that went to HEB the past 15 years just went to Kroger this week.

I would like to see TX legislature restrict the ability of retail businesses to post 30.06 and 30.07 signs. They wouldn't be able to post "No Muslims" or "No Jews" or "No Blacks" at the front door, so the property rights argument is weak. The only reason for posting a 30.07 sign ONLY is that they think other customers might be uncomfortable. If guys with sleeve tats make me uncomfortable, I either get over it or leave.

That said, whether a 30.07 sign meets legal requirements is moot, since they can see you are OC'ing and can just ask you to leave.

Whenever I hear that 30.06/30.07 signs are posted at a business I might want to frequent, I make sure to express my displeasure to their corporate office. Probably not enough of us to make a difference, but one never knows.