TexasCHLforum.com

jester wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:I agree 100% with your (snipped) assessment and conclusion. But I haven't heard very many, or any for that matter, people getting conked on the head for their gun where open carry is prevelant.

It happens 3-4 times a day to APD.

how about a comparison to people whose job isn't to put themselves in dangerous situations?

I saw it once... in the movies.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Fangs wrote:The whole fear of 30.06 signs could easily be avoided by not having any sign that applies to open carry, only oral notice.

That would never pass.

Chas.

I can dream.

So why not have a sign the same size and letter height/width requirement as a 30.06 sign specifically for open carry? That way if it passes and there's a media frenzy about it, all the reports can talk about the new sign in a different part of the penal code and hopefully no one will be the wiser on concealed carry restrictions. Requiring two huge ugly signs to completely keep out legal gun owners might also work in out favor. Requiring this picture on the signs would be good too:

http://www.eatliver.com/img/2010/5506.jpg

It just seems like those who have a problem with OC do so because they fear it will ruin their ability to CC (with businesses posting signs and stuff). If we could find an effective way to keep them separate, almost everyone in the carry community would be happy.

drjoker wrote:Well, Douva,

If the law says "intentionally" fail to conceal the handgun is illegal, then overzealous cops would arrest you and state that they don't know what your intentions are since they're not mind readers. So, you'd have to pay bail, pay for a lawyer, and waste valuable time. $5000-10,000 of lawyer fees later, you'd be found innocent in a court of law due to the grand jury not indicting you, but you're going to be $10,000 poorer and you'd also have wasted up to 74 hours (72 hrs for the weekend in jail because you don't have a bail bondsman phone number in your wallet + 2 hours of time with your lawyer). Oh, and if you're a doctor or other professional, then your lost time from work at $50-200 per hour would result in lost wages of up to $14,400 in lost wages. Basically, you're out $24,400 for doing something that is NOT illegal.

That's why I signed the petition for open carry even though I will NEVER open carry. Why NEVER? Open carry means you're going to have a "free gun" sign in neon shining on top of your head. Unless you have eyes in the back of your head, open carry means that someone will whack you in the back of your head with a 2x4 for your gun. Not good.

Anyways, unless you wanna be out $14,400 every time your T-shirt faces a breeze, I suggest that you sign the doggone open carry petition. Go to http://opencarry.org for further details.

Stay safe,

You didn't answer my question. I didn't ask why you think open carry would provide added protection to concealed carriers; I asked why you think the only (or easiest) way to create added protection for concealed carriers is to push for open carry.

With that said, I think your numbers are a bit ridiculous. I've heard some estimates on what a licensee will pay in legal fees if he or she is involved in a justified shooting, and most of those don't approach your estimate for what you think a person is likely to pay if he or she is arrested for failure to conceal. I had a friend who was arrested in 2005 for carrying in his car, before unlicensed car carry was passed. He got pulled over traveling through Austin late at night, on his way back to San Marcos, after going shooting with some friends in Wichita Falls, and the officer--clearly unclear on the law--arrested him for having a handgun in the car. I also have a friend who was arrested for shooting his neighbor's dog after it got into his yard and went after his dog. Both of these men were undoubtedly inconvenienced, but neither went before a grand jury, neither was indicted, and neither spent anywhere near as much money as you've suggested. In fact, despite the scary claims of open carry advocates, no concealed handgun license holder in Texas has ever suffered the dire circumstances you describe.

Therefore, I won't be signing the open carry petition until and unless somebody can show me conclusive evidence that the passage of (or fight for) open carry will not lead to further restrictions on concealed carry rights (by leading to more 30.06 postings, etc).

Fangs wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Fangs wrote:The whole fear of 30.06 signs could easily be avoided by not having any sign that applies to open carry, only oral notice.

That would never pass.

Chas.

I can dream.

So why not have a sign the same size and letter height/width requirement as a 30.06 sign specifically for open carry? That way if it passes and there's a media frenzy about it, all the reports can talk about the new sign in a different part of the penal code and hopefully no one will be the wiser on concealed carry restrictions. Requiring two huge ugly signs to completely keep out legal gun owners might also work in out favor. Requiring this picture on the signs would be good too:

http://www.eatliver.com/img/2010/5506.jpg

It just seems like those who have a problem with OC do so because they fear it will ruin their ability to CC (with businesses posting signs and stuff). If we could find an effective way to keep them separate, almost everyone in the carry community would be happy.

Charles Cotton has already explained why that's never going to happen. The Texas Legislature isn't going to create two separate signage requirements that must be adhered to by businesses wishing to remain "gun free." The best we could hope for is wording in the bill that would allow open carry to be prohibited by ANY no-gun sign, including but not limited to 30.06 signs. That way, some business owners might be content to post "gunbuster" signs.

But that type of wording is only likely if the legislature passes unlicensed open carry. And the word through the grapevine is that we're much more likely to see a bill tying open carry to CHLs, in which case, 30.06 would likely be the law of the land for prohibiting both concealed and open carry.

Fangs wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Fangs wrote:The whole fear of 30.06 signs could easily be avoided by not having any sign that applies to open carry, only oral notice.

That would never pass.

Chas.

I can dream.

So why not have a sign the same size and letter height/width requirement as a 30.06 sign specifically for open carry? That way if it passes and there's a media frenzy about it, all the reports can talk about the new sign in a different part of the penal code and hopefully no one will be the wiser on concealed carry restrictions. Requiring two huge ugly signs to completely keep out legal gun owners might also work in out favor.

I'm not saying what you suggest would be undesirable from a CHL holder's standpoint. What I'm saying is the legislature will never pass something like that. The legislature would never make it more difficult for private property owners to keep armed people off of their property, whether they are carrying concealed or openly.

Believe me, we pulled a rabbit out of our hats when we passed HB2909 in 1997 and got the "big ugly sign" requirement. There's no way in the world the legislature will require a property owner to post two signs, even if only one was "big and ugly." Remember, unlicensed O-C has absolutely no chance of passage in Texas in the foreseeable future. This means if open carry does pass, it will apply only to people with CHL's. Most likely, the only thing that would be done is repeal of the concealment requirement and renaming of CHL to something like "Handgun Carry License." This means no change would be required to TPC §30.06, other than perhaps deletion of the word "concealed," and the current 30.06 sign would apply to any carrying of handguns.

If any other changes are made to TPC §30.06, gun owners will not be better off. No one truly appreciated how big the "big ugly sign" would be and none of us want a return to much smaller, less intrusive perhaps even generic signs. People who were here in 1995 and who were interested in CHL will remember the flood of small, generic no-gun decals popping up on doors all over the State. If we open up TPC §30.06 to amendment, gun owners aren't going to like the change.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: If any other changes are made to TPC §30.06, gun owners will not be better off. No one truly appreciated how big the "big ugly sign" would be and none of us want a return to much smaller, less intrusive perhaps even generic signs. People who were here in 1995 and who were interested in CHL will remember the flood of small, generic no-gun decals popping up on doors all over the State. If we open up TPC §30.06 to amendment, gun owners aren't going to like the change.

Chas.

This is the single most important paragraph regarding open carry legislation I've read so far.

We're very fortunate 30.06 is large and very specific. You know those "gun buster" signs we all laugh at? Pay attention to those next time you're out and about and decide if you're willing to trade not carrying into any place with a gun busters sign to get open carry passed. I'm afraid that might be the compromise we're forced to make if we decide open carry is so important this year.

It sounds like Douva should have a conversation with handog about the requirement to conceal.

Now excuse me while I go make some popcorn.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The legislature would never make it more difficult for private property owners to keep armed people off of their property, whether they are carrying concealed or openly.

That sounds like a good reason we shouldn't waste political capital on a parking lot bill.

74novaman wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: If any other changes are made to TPC §30.06, gun owners will not be better off. No one truly appreciated how big the "big ugly sign" would be and none of us want a return to much smaller, less intrusive perhaps even generic signs. People who were here in 1995 and who were interested in CHL will remember the flood of small, generic no-gun decals popping up on doors all over the State. If we open up TPC §30.06 to amendment, gun owners aren't going to like the change.

Chas.

This is the single most important paragraph regarding open carry legislation I've read so far.

We're very fortunate 30.06 is large and very specific. You know those "gun buster" signs we all laugh at? Pay attention to those next time you're out and about and decide if you're willing to trade not carrying into any place with a gun busters sign to get open carry passed. I'm afraid that might be the compromise we're forced to make if we decide open carry is so important this year.

Absolutely correct!

This is a sleeping dog that should be left to lie. We in Texas are fortunate that we have the PROTECTION of our 30.06 sign. In other states, any old sign banning guns is all it takes to be legal notice.

bizarrenormality wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The legislature would never make it more difficult for private property owners to keep armed people off of their property, whether they are carrying concealed or openly.

That sounds like a good reason we shouldn't waste political capital on a parking lot bill.

Completely different from requiring two different signs for trespassing.

Chas.

jordanmills wrote:

jester wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:I agree 100% with your (snipped) assessment and conclusion. But I haven't heard very many, or any for that matter, people getting conked on the head for their gun where open carry is prevelant.

It happens 3-4 times a day to APD.

how about a comparison to people whose job isn't to put themselves in dangerous situations?

Probably a lot less often.

I am new to this forum. So hello all from Cow Town...

I have to say I am very anti-open carry, and I believe most states that offer a CHL (including Texas) have laughable requirements for who can get one. The background/criminal seems to be OK, but the actual training with a firearm is a joke.

When it comes to open carry, I'm sure this topic has been beat to death over the years, and I have yet to see a good argument for the idea of open carry. The ones I have run into seem to be a few yahoos on You Tube that do more to hurt the cause with their "I want to carry a cannon on my hip just because thats the way Jesus would have wanted it" type arguments.

Could someone direct me to a "pro" open carry site/thread/article that outlines the arguments -for- open carry?

Many thanks,

The best argument is it is your RIGHT to carry. If you choose to be licensed by the Government to do what you have the right to do I don't have a problem with it either.

I do however have a problem with me having to go through the rings at the circus to be able to get the right that was already given.

Me to +1

bizarrenormality wrote:It sounds like Douva should have a conversation with handog about the requirement to conceal.

Now excuse me while I go make some popcorn.

I just looked up Handdog's thread. It sounds like a very unpleasant, very unfortunate incident, but I must have missed the part where he lost $25,000 over the ordeal.

As I've said before, it's possible to push for a clarification or expansion of the definition of "intentional" without pushing for open carry and risking all of the unintended consequences that may accompany a protracted battle over open carry. Why not draft a bill for which the primary intent (rather than simply a side benefit) is the protection of concealed carriers from false arrest?