TexasCHLforum.com

OK, keep it civil here or the topic will be locked.

WhiteFeather wrote:All the hyperbole will kill open carry ......

No, what will kill OC legislation is a bill that tramples on previously gained rights. Some OC proponents (even here on the forum) are claiming concealed carry people are willing to throw them under the bus instead of trying to work with them, but it seems to me many OC people are willing to try and get OC at the risk of stomping on concealed carry by messing with 30.06. What will end up happing is what happened two sessions ago when OC advocates tried to strong arm legislators into getting OC passed and made enemies in Austin. The best chance OC advocates have of getting legislation introduced and passed is to work with all gun owners and listen to the TSRA and other individuals who have been getting gun bills passed in Austin for years. Proper partnering will get OC a lot of ground gained.

WhiteFeather wrote:Study's have shown in those states that made the decisions to OC after a year or two the signs come down or change ?

What organizations or individuals conducted these studies? What methodology was used? How was the posting of signage monitored, quantified, and categorized?

In the eighteen years since Texas passed its concealed carry law, how many states have lifted longstanding bans on open carry? Oklahoma is the only one I know of, and that happened less than six months ago. Are your "studies" based on a four-month-old law in one state in which "no guns" signs do not have force of law?

I love how some people throw around the phrase "studies have shown" as if it's synonymous with "I was told by someone on a message board."

WhiteFeather wrote:For give me ..... I've kinda been poring over this legalese for weeks. What are the realistic outcomes of the OC bills in plain speak. What's the hubbub about the 30.06 signs as being game changers if they have 'em up and I don't agree I'll just go somewhere else .... easy.

We all know that your experience is the only one that matters, right. It couldn't possibly be that the experience of others is worth a hoot. So if it's easy for you, it's easy for everybody else, right?

There's over 500,000 CHL holders in Texas. They all don't think like you or have the same options you have. Stop assuming they do.

Texas is the only state in the union, AFAIK, that has a 30.06 type requirement for signs. It was done deliberately to make the sign less palatable to store owners and "encourage" them not to use it. It is completely naive to think that, if open carry is passed and 30.06 applies to it as well, not one single business owner will put up a 30.06 sign after seeing an open carrier walk in to their store. It's also naive to think that store owners should only care about your rights and not be concerned about other customers who think differently than you do.

Whether you like it or not, a lot of Americans don't agree that you should be allowed to openly carry weapons wherever you like. That's reality. So, when you open carry into a store, someone will complain. When they do, if that store then takes away CHL holder's rights to carry as well by putting up a 30.06 sign, some of those CHL holders will be very unhappy with open carry activists. Maybe even unhappy enough to lobby to ban open carry.

You eat an elephant one bite at a time. Open carry advocates seem to think you can swallow the dern thing whole. What they don't seem to think about is the major indigestion that may result from that overeating.

WhiteFeather wrote:

RX8er wrote:

WhiteFeather wrote:

RX8er wrote: What studies are you referring to? I'd be interested in reading them.

http://www.*************************" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lots of info state by state

Really, are you spamming me with this? This is the page to the store. I took the liberty of staring it out and hope the MODS will delete it in your thread as well.

Asking again....

Changing link I'm not spamming any one, are you rude all the time, simple question Are you link_able impaired

If I came across rude, that was not my intention. Look at it from my shoes. A new poster joins the forum and within the first 5 posts, picks one of the most contentious thread to ask questions. Then, when asked a valid question to provide links for the studies you cite, I get a link back to another forum and not only that, to a place so I can order stuff for the OC agenda? Guess it was just my luck that it ended up on an order page. I go back to my original question. Do you have links to the studies for the original authors / publishers of the studies? I would love to read them so I can formulate my own opinion.

SF18C wrote:If ‘we’ feel that, due to the overt nature of open carry, more companies will throw up a 30.06 well then that just show how that organization feels about the 2ndA.

And then I can choose NOT to spend my money on those that DON’T support legal gun ownership.

That's a great strategy if your intent in carrying a gun is to make a statement, but for those of us whose intent is to have the ability to protect ourselves and our loved ones, this 'let's rub it in opponents' faces and dare them to ban us' attitude is counterproductive. If my wife and I have to drive across town to a "gun friendly" establishment in order to buy groceries, eat dinner, or go to the movies, that hurts us. If I'm forced to either stop doing business with certain clients or spend my days disarmed because my clients' office buildings suddenly bear 30.06 signs, that hurts us even more. Maybe your personal circumstances are such that you'd never face these types of dilemmas, but that doesn't mean that these don't have the potential to be real problems for the rest of us.

Believe it or not, most CHL holders are more interested in WHERE they can carry than in HOW they can carry. If that means living with a tentative truce between CHL holders and business owners whose only reason for not banning guns is not wanting to post the "big ugly signs," so be it.

SF18C wrote:This is all sounds very hypocritical to me, if a business or company doesn’t want the patronage of a 2nd Amendment supporting individual and would put up a sign to restrict the legal carry of a firearm, they can put one up now. It is their right!

If ‘we’ feel that, due to the overt nature of open carry, more companies will throw up a 30.06 well then that just show how that organization feels about the 2ndA.

And then I can choose NOT to spend my money on those that DON’T support legal gun ownership.

Seems like ‘we’ want to be able to go to, have access to AND financially support places that might not be in support of ‘us’!

Like my Daddy use to say, Let’s call a spade a spade and not a trowel, hoe, or a shovel!

Our mantra of "concealed means concealed" works as well for most businesses as it does for us. The current law says that in order to prohibit Concealed Carry, you have to put up a big ugly sign. A lot of businesses don't want that hassle; and as long as our concealed weapons remain that way, they won't have a need or desire to. It's an 'outta sight, outta mind' (or don't ask, don't tell) kind of thing. Open carry would change that dynamic. Texas has a total population of just over 25million. Only 500,000 are licenced to carry concealed. So we're in a VERY distinct minority (only about 2% of the total population). If a business owner/manager is pushed into siding on an issue with a 98% vs 2% split, it's not difficult to predict which side they'll try to cater to.

Lots of work went into the current 30.06 provision & it works really well. Passing an OC bill that would allow 30.06 to be applied to all forms of weapons carry would practically erase all of that hard work.

I will allow some mid ground in my thinking...yes some establishments may need to put up a 30.06 in order to maintain their marke-ablity but are not against the 2A as a whole.

While I am not convinced that OC is any type of requirement for my family and me; I guess I look at the whole debate from more of a “follow the money” angle.
I 100% agree with the 51% signs but I am bit taken aback by a 30.06 at a shoe store. Yes, it is that storeowners RIGHT to put up a 30.06 but we clearly know where that owner stands on the the 2A. And we can choose to not support their establishment. But you also have the right to enter a 30.06 establishment, you can make the choice to disarm yourself to probably support those that may want to disarm you permanently.

Now for those establishments that don’t put the sign up because of its “ugly nature” ; well we could be forking over good money to those that use their profits to support gun banning organizations and regulations. Putting a big ol’ sign on the front of your store that says “your gun money is no good here” is fine by me. I don’t want to restrict access for anyone to defend themselves, but if I clearly know who is anti-2A then I can make informed decisions on how to spend my money. Granted only 500,000 out of 26 million (~2%) have a Texas CHL so it may not be a big market to cater to but we are growing and even my kid knows what a 30.06 looks like!

I guess this is the same reasoning that I do not go to the movies and support the ultra left lib actors by paying $10 to see a movie and another $15 for popcorn and Coke, just to have the same liberal actors tell me how bad guns are!

I'll muddy the waters just a bit.

If we could remove a business' ability to restrict CC at all (as I always say, concealed is concealed, so my firearm is like the color of my underwear - none of their business. . . I know many disagree, but I feel this falls outside the realm of "private property rights"). . . then the OC guys can have 30.06. (I do advocate for OC, but not at the expense of CC.)

So, there's the goal.
- No sign / posting restrictions on CC.
- The law can still designate non-CC zones e.g. courts, jails, professional sporting events, etc.
- OC is only restricted by proper 30.06.

Now, why can't the OC guys work with us? If they'll help remove the ability to restrict CC, we'd work with them to have OC only restricted by 30.06.

Write the bill. Drum up the support. Git 'er done!

Let me know when it's time to call my representatives.

fickman wrote:If we could remove a business' ability to restrict CC at all

That's a big "if", isn't it?

fickman wrote:I'll muddy the waters just a bit.

If we could remove a business' ability to restrict CC at all (as I always say, concealed is concealed, so my firearm is like the color of my underwear - none of their business. . . I know many disagree, but I feel this falls outside the realm of "private property rights"). . . then the OC guys can have 30.06. (I do advocate for OC, but not at the expense of CC.)

So, there's the goal.
- No sign / posting restrictions on CC.
- The law can still designate non-CC zones e.g. courts, jails, professional sporting events, etc.
- OC is only restricted by proper 30.06.

Now, why can't the OC guys work with us? If they'll help remove the ability to restrict CC, we'd work with them to have OC only restricted by 30.06.

Write the bill. Drum up the support. Git 'er done!

Let me know when it's time to call my representatives.

The legislature would never go for a provision (handgun or otherwise) that disallows property rights. Removing 30.06 is a complete non-starter.

TexasCajun wrote:The legislature would never go for a provision (handgun or otherwise) that disallows property rights. Removing 30.06 is a complete non-starter.

A few quick replies:
1) I disagree that restricting concealed carry has anything to do with property rights. Having a policy is one thing, allowing the government to enforce it is another. If somebody can prove I'm carrying (thus, I'm no longer concealed) and asks me to leave, that is a property right issue. I have to leave. If they can't detect it, there should be no enforcement of their policy. Again, I go to the color of my underwear argument. They can say, "no green boxer briefs allowed", but they have no teeth to enforce it. If they suspect I'm wearing green boxer briefs, or I fail to conceal my green boxer briefs, they can ask me to leave. Outside of that, it's none of their business.

2) I agree that I'm in the minority in Texas on #1. Most people disagree with me.

3) I agree, based on #2, that such a bill is a non-starter at this time in this state.

4) I was really just setting out my counter argument to the OC argument that the CC crowd should be working just as hard for their cause, even at the expense of the CC cause. I essentially gave him our pie-in-the-sky price to support OC being regulated by 30.06. We've said, "We'd NEVER support it", but "never" is an absolute, so I creatively thought of a situation where I could support it.

I didn't say I was going to work for this end. But I do like this end. So if the OC crowd wants our full support, they should do the heavy lifting on a bill that improves the relative standing of both OC and CC.

I know I set the bar pretty high. . . but we have to start somewhere! I'm just helping the OCers out.

With regard to item #1, let's say Michael Moore wants to come to your house and hold an anti-gun, liberal-to-the-teeth press conference for about 8-10 hours in your living room. Your property rights allow you to prevent that from happening. Why? Afterall, Michael Moore has his 1st Amendment rights.

To bring it a little closer to your actual anolgy: why should a business owner have to confront armed individuals about the presence of weapons in their place of business? 30.06 provides a way to limit what they feel is objectionable without having to potentially get into a confrontation about it. As such, it will never go away. The real question now in this topic is whether or not 30.06 would only apply to CHLs or if it would be expanded to apply to OC.

TexasCajun wrote:With regard to item #1, let's say Michael Moore wants to come to your house and hold an anti-gun, liberal-to-the-teeth press conference for about 8-10 hours in your living room. Your property rights allow you to prevent that from happening. Why? Afterall, Michael Moore has his 1st Amendment rights.

To make this apples to apples, I have no obligation to allow him in my home. Just like a business has no obligation to serve me or allow me access. They can keep me out just because they think I'm ugly. If I do let him in, and he's wearing a hidden microphone (not for a movie or commercial undertaking, but for his own enjoyment or a true journalistic motive - the latter of which I don't think he's capable of), I can't do anything about that unless I detect it. Concealed is concealed.

TexasCajun wrote: To bring it a little closer to your actual anolgy: why should a business owner have to confront armed individuals about the presence of weapons in their place of business?

Because concealed is concealed, and what I'm doing privately is none of their concern. If they don't know about it, they don't need to worry about it. If they want to keep me out, they need to detect it. They can either hire security and use metal detectors, or forget about it until/unless I'm careless and let them know that it's there. If they can't detect it, then the law shouldn't help them enforce anything until they can.

TexasCajun wrote: 30.06 provides a way to limit what they feel is objectionable without having to potentially get into a confrontation about it. As such, it will never go away.

Sadly, I agree that it is unlikely to go away anytime soon. I've never stated anything to the contrary.

TexasCajun wrote: The real question now in this topic is whether or not 30.06 would only apply to CHLs or if it would be expanded to apply to OC.

I chimed in on this in my post. I would not accept OC falling under 30.06 and causing collateral damage to CC.

Then, in my post, I pondered out loud, "Could I EVER support OC falling under 30.06?" This was more philosophical than practical. I came up with one theoretical scenario: if CC could not be restricted by individual property owners, then the OC crowd can knock themselves out with 30.06.

To clarify: I didn't say it's likely to happen. I didn't say they can get there. I didn't say it'd be easy. I didn't even say it'd be worth their time to try. I simply gave them a nearly impossible goal to communicate, "Let me demonstrate how far you need to go for us to support OC falling under 30.06. Newsflash: it's a LONG way. You probably won't go that far. If you want to try, knock yourself out because we'll all be better if you pull off a miracle and get it done."

SF18C wrote:I will allow some mid ground in my thinking...yes some establishments may need to put up a 30.06 in order to maintain their marke-ablity but are not against the 2A as a whole.

While I am not convinced that OC is any type of requirement for my family and me; I guess I look at the whole debate from more of a “follow the money” angle.
I 100% agree with the 51% signs but I am bit taken aback by a 30.06 at a shoe store. Yes, it is that storeowners RIGHT to put up a 30.06 but we clearly know where that owner stands on the the 2A. And we can choose to not support their establishment. But you also have the right to enter a 30.06 establishment, you can make the choice to disarm yourself to probably support those that may want to disarm you permanently.

Now for those establishments that don’t put the sign up because of its “ugly nature” ; well we could be forking over good money to those that use their profits to support gun banning organizations and regulations. Putting a big ol’ sign on the front of your store that says “your gun money is no good here” is fine by me. I don’t want to restrict access for anyone to defend themselves, but if I clearly know who is anti-2A then I can make informed decisions on how to spend my money. Granted only 500,000 out of 26 million (~2%) have a Texas CHL so it may not be a big market to cater to but we are growing and even my kid knows what a 30.06 looks like!

I guess this is the same reasoning that I do not go to the movies and support the ultra left lib actors by paying $10 to see a movie and another $15 for popcorn and Coke, just to have the same liberal actors tell me how bad guns are!

Thank You For a Good Post