TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote: Wrong. The 'in your face' tactics being pushed by these OC activists are alienating those that might have been on their side at one time.

The tactics are in your face, but at least they are doing something. They have no leadership or direction from any major gun rights organization. I would take a guess that the breakdown of OC activist like those mentioned above are something like:

10%= "I have a long gun, I can carry it legally, and I want you to be shocked"
20%= " I have a long gun and I can carry it legally."
70%= "Well, no body else has a plan, I might as well tag along with these guys."

Of course, this is all conjecture but there is no denying that without leadership and organization from folks who actually know what they are doing this is what we get.

It like having a birthday party for a bunch of kids, providing no structure for the party, and then getting made when they start throwing dirt.

steveincowtown wrote:

Keith B wrote: Wrong. The 'in your face' tactics being pushed by these OC activists are alienating those that might have been on their side at one time.

The tactics are in your face, but at least they are doing something. They have no leadership or direction from any major gun rights organization. I would take a guess that the breakdown of OC activist like those mentioned above are something like:

10%= "I have a long gun, I can carry it legally, and I want you to be shocked"
20%= " I have a long gun and I can carry it legally."
70%= "Well, no body else has a plan, I might as well tag along with these guys."

Of course, this is all conjecture but there is no denying that without leadership and organization from folks who actually know what they are doing this is what we get.

It like having a birthday party for a bunch of kids, providing no structure for the party, and then getting made when they start throwing dirt.

The problem is they are not reaching out properly. The 10% are the ones causing 100% of the trouble. They want to create a ruckus and think they can bully their way into forcing OC. It is detremental to the cause and alienates the ones that would potentially help them.

nightmare69 wrote:What if open carry Texas was sercretly run by Biden, Bloomberg, and Sen. Feinstein with the main objective to create more gun control laws? Even though I'm joking if that was their objective it's working.

They're not that smart.

According to the video report, the only thing the proposed ordinance will do is make it unlawful to carry a firearm (or replica) to a city counsel meeting. As Keith noted, they have the authority to do this, but they will still have to comply with state law and post a 30.06 sign.

More importantly, it's proof that in-your-face tactics rarely if ever have a positive outcome. In this instance, the ordinance will be meaningless, but in other situations it may create an issue we have to fight in court or in the legislature. Anyone who truly wants to see open-carry pass needs to stop these destructive tactics and let the NRA and TSRA handle this issue. We can pass this legislation by calming fears, not by creating fear.

Some have posted that the NRA/TSRA have been dragged kicking and screaming into this fight. Such comments show an utter lack of understanding of how we work as well as delusions of grandeur on the part of those who believe they can scare people into supporting their position. For at least four years now I have stated that we build and promote our agenda over multiple years, much of it behind the scenes, and that we had commitments that had to be addressed before other high-profile, emotionally-charged issues could be added to our legislative agenda. We have done much ground work since the end of the 2013 Texas Legislative Session to build support for licensed open-carry. Some will complain that we don't publicize our efforts, but we cannot do so without harming our overall effectiveness. To all bomb-throwing types, consider your posts well; we will not tolerate your false allegations and spiteful attacks for even a moment.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:According to the video report, the only thing the proposed ordinance will do is make it unlawful to carry a firearm (or replica) to a city counsel meeting. As Keith noted, they have the authority to do this, but they will still have to comply with state law and post a 30.06 sign.

More importantly, it's proof that in-your-face tactics rarely if ever have a positive outcome. In this instance, the ordinance will be meaningless, but in other situations it may create an issue we have to fight in court or in the legislature. Anyone who truly wants to see open-carry pass needs to stop these destructive tactics and let the NRA and TSRA handle this issue. We can pass this legislation by calming fears, not by creating fear.

Some have posted that the NRA/TSRA have been dragged kicking and screaming into this fight. Such comments show an utter lack of understanding of how we work as well as delusions of grandeur on the part of those who believe they can scare people into supporting their position. For at least four years now I have stated that we build and promote our agenda over multiple years, much of it behind the scenes, and that we had commitments that had to be addressed before other high-profile, emotionally-charged issues could be added to our legislative agenda. We have done much ground work since the end of the 2013 Texas Legislative Session to build support for licensed open-carry. Some will complain that we don't publicize our efforts, but we cannot do so without harming our overall effectiveness. To all bomb-throwing types, consider your posts well; we will not tolerate your false allegations and spiteful attacks for even a moment.

Chas.

I have said all along as have many here that the in your face tactics will cause more harm than good to the cause and thus far, that has held true. In fact, it would not surprise me that it has swayed some of the "on the fence" politicians the other way. Almost always these types of tactics go the opposite direction as intended and it appears this is so in this case, at least so far.

Charles Cotton wrote:More importantly, it's proof that in-your-face tactics rarely if ever have a positive outcome. In this instance, the ordinance will be meaningless, but in other situations it may create an issue we have to fight in court or in the legislature. Anyone who truly wants to see open-carry pass needs to stop these destructive tactics and let the NRA and TSRA handle this issue. We can pass this legislation by calming fears, not by creating fear.

I agree. But my question, especially in light of the comments about their leadership (or more accurately, lack of leadership) is, how do we get the message to them in a way that makes sense to them? How can we help them organize so that they will quit being jerks? I am serious here. We can bang our heads on our desk, roll our eyes and curse them for fools all we want but until we have an alternative, especially in this political environment, they will see no other means by which to spread the appropriate message.

We've already scene how well "demonstrations" work when there are no surprises. Maybe evangelize the OC guys a bit.

Dragonfighter wrote:

Charles Cotton wrote:More importantly, it's proof that in-your-face tactics rarely if ever have a positive outcome. In this instance, the ordinance will be meaningless, but in other situations it may create an issue we have to fight in court or in the legislature. Anyone who truly wants to see open-carry pass needs to stop these destructive tactics and let the NRA and TSRA handle this issue. We can pass this legislation by calming fears, not by creating fear.

I agree. But my question, especially in light of the comments about their leadership (or more accurately, lack of leadership) is, how do we get the message to them in a way that makes sense to them? How can we help them organize so that they will quit being jerks? I am serious here.

I don't know and I'm not sure it's possible. There is a variety of people using similar tactics and I suspect for various reasons. Some people truly believe they are educating the public (I disagree), some think they are desensitizing the public to the carrying firearms openly (I disagree) and some do it simply to "exercise their constitutional right." I don't know of an approach that would reach all of these people. We also have to consider the possibility that there is a faction that does not want the NRA or TSRA to accomplish what they could not, so they keep up their tactics in order to claim they passed open-carry. There is at least some evidence of this in the form of false claims that the NRA and TSRA have been forced to take up the open-carry issue.

As I've noted several times, organized open-carry demonstrations on public property with prior notice to law enforcement are not as harmful as the lone wolfs like the man in Arlington, or even a group that goes onto private property. (Even the organized demonstrations would be better off carrying signs, but no demonstrations are necessary or helpful at this juncture.)

Chas.

Thank you Charles, that makes sense. I just couldn't help but wonder, probably wishful thinking, if there wasn't some way to still the militants. They are divisive and that certainly isn't good for the community as a whole.

I'm one of those open-carry people. I'm tired of people saying we're going to make things worse. Open carry of rifles and black powder is either legal or it isn't. If a mom has a jar of cookies and tells her child "Technically, you can eat theses cookies. But if you decide to eat one, then I'm going to take the cookies away." Its kind of the same with these laws. If we lose a right by exercising that right then all we will have accomplished is to show we never really had the right to begin with, in which case nothing has really changed other than clarification of the law. So in the worst case scenario, nothing changes at all for CHL carriers. In the best case scenario, we win more rights. What is there to lose?

Charles,
I read your messages loud and clear. I understand that you believe the public demonstrations are harmful and that the announced and planned demonstrations are simply slightly less harmful.

I also agree with adric22 above. I can't say that I'm an open carry person, but I can say that if I read the laws as written, I simply can't understand the difference written law and the way that we see people who exercise those rights treated. And I understand in the current social climate why carrying a long gun would alarm people.

It seems to me that if we support the laws as written and believe that those rights need to be exercised (otherwise they are eroded) - then what can we do? You've told us repeatedly what not to do (demonstrate, use in-your-face tactics). Other than support the NRA and TSRA, is there anything that we should be doing?

adric22 wrote:I'm one of those open-carry people. I'm tired of people saying we're going to make things worse. Open carry of rifles and black powder is either legal or it isn't. If a mom has a jar of cookies and tells her child "Technically, you can eat theses cookies. But if you decide to eat one, then I'm going to take the cookies away." Its kind of the same with these laws. If we lose a right by exercising that right then all we will have accomplished is to show we never really had the right to begin with, in which case nothing has really changed other than clarification of the law. So in the worst case scenario, nothing changes at all for CHL carriers. In the best case scenario, we win more rights. What is there to lose?

May lose the right to open carry. Scaring the public is not the way to gain support of lawmakers the ones you need to further the open carry movement. The OC groups who keep using the loophole and open carrying black powder handguns are going to get the law adminded to included all types of firearms reguardless of make, type, or propellant. To get what you want you need the support of the public and lawmakers, the way the OC groups have been going about it is doing nothing but drawing negative attention. Look up the definition of insanity, its time for a different approach.

Even though I have nothing to lose or gain, I would love for open carry to pass and fully support consistutional carry for the public.

adric22 wrote:I'm one of those open-carry people. I'm tired of people saying we're going to make things worse. Open carry of rifles and black powder is either legal or it isn't. If a mom has a jar of cookies and tells her child "Technically, you can eat theses cookies. But if you decide to eat one, then I'm going to take the cookies away." Its kind of the same with these laws. If we lose a right by exercising that right then all we will have accomplished is to show we never really had the right to begin with, in which case nothing has really changed other than clarification of the law. So in the worst case scenario, nothing changes at all for CHL carriers. In the best case scenario, we win more rights. What is there to lose?

Interesting first post.

Welcome to the Forum.

What do you mean by "I'm one of those open-carry people?" There are a lot of open-carry supporters on the Forum, so I'm not sure if you mean you walk into private property with a long gun or black powder handgun.

Open-carry demonstrations are not "going to make things worse," they already have made things worse. NRA and TSRA have been working to build support for open-carry since the end of the 2013 Texas Legislative Session. The most common problem we hear is that constituents who are upset about someone walking into Home Depot with an AR-15 over their shoulder are calling and asking their elected representatives to "do something to stop this."

No offense, but your cookie analogy is terrible. Cookies don't scare anyone, but walking into stores with a rifle or black power handgun does scare a significant percentage of people.

The legislative backlash against open-carry of rifles is not theoretical, it has already happened. The New Black Panthers marched on the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston during the Republican National Convention. The next legislative session saw the very strong Texas preemption law watered down, but thankfully not tremendously so. Cities were given the authority to prohibit the carrying of firearms by everyone other than CHLs at political rallies, parades and city parks. There was a faction that fought hard to make the prohibition on carrying firearms (including long guns) statewide, except for CHLs. We were able to kill that effort.

Anyone who wants to see open-carry pass needs to realize that carrying long guns and black powder handguns into public places is not aiding that effort. This isn't speculation or a personal opinion, it's a fact evidenced by feedback from legislators and staff.

Chas.

adric22 wrote:I'm one of those open-carry people. I'm tired of people saying we're going to make things worse. Open carry of rifles and black powder is either legal or it isn't. If a mom has a jar of cookies and tells her child "Technically, you can eat theses cookies. But if you decide to eat one, then I'm going to take the cookies away." Its kind of the same with these laws. If we lose a right by exercising that right then all we will have accomplished is to show we never really had the right to begin with, in which case nothing has really changed other than clarification of the law. So in the worst case scenario, nothing changes at all for CHL carriers. In the best case scenario, we win more rights. What is there to lose?

Here's a good example of the 'in your face' type of garbage that is happening http://m.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/man- ... gam/nfhJS/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Parents at a Forysth County park abruptly stopped a children's baseball game after growing suspicions of the behavior of a man carrying a gun in a waist holster Tuesday night.

"He's just walking around [saying] 'See my gun? Look, I got a gun and there's nothing you can do about it.' He knew he was frightening people. He knew exactly what he was doing," said parent Karen Rabb.

Rabb told Channel 2’s Tom Regan the parents grew so alarmed that they brought the game to a halt when the man declined a request that he leave a parking lot overlooking the baseball field.

Keith B wrote:Here's a good example of the 'in your face' type of garbage that is happening

Sometimes people are their own worst enemy.