TexasCHLforum.com

74novaman wrote:

Ziran wrote:This whole "the world will end if people start open carrying in Texas" reminds me far too much of "the streets will run with blood" when Florida CC was debated.

The world will not end.

Getting regular people used to the idea that regular people carry guns is pivotal in keeping the 2nd Amendment alive. Staying out of sight and out of mind will not accomplish this.

When the only people that have guns are criminals and government, pretty soon the government starts to act like criminals and criminals start to act like government.

The idea that more guns=less crime has been repeatedly proven.

That being said, Mr. Cotton has talked before about the advent of "no gun" signs after the CHL law was passed, and until 30.06 was passed in 97, those had meaning. Lots of stores put up "no guns" signs with no knowledge of the statistics, but the MSM message of "guns are bad, mmmkkkay" seems to get through to a lot of people.

The idea of "out of sight, out of mind" is a powerful one. There are plenty of people in Texas who aren't conservative, or moved here from places like California. Many of them may not even know about CHL laws. However, if they see someone open carrying, they'll begin to make a fuss. If it makes an impact on businesses, they'll begin to look for ways to legally prohibit carry. That will be mean MORE 30.06 signs.

So in that way, there is not only reason to believe OC might cause places to post 30.06, there is historical proof that businesses will post IF THE ISSUE COMES UP. This is the beauty of our CHL laws...it never comes up because no one ever sees it to complain.

I'd support OC, if there were 2 separate sign laws. Since those in the know have said we'd be stuck with one notification for both, I have no interest in my right to carry concealed being prohibited at places because someone else wanted to carry openly.

If a gunbusters sign could prohibit OC, but we still required 30.06 to prohibit CHL holders, I'd be okay with it. If its going to limit the freedoms I currently enjoy under CHL laws, then I'm not even interested. Period.

Well Put. I grew up, and live in, the DFW metroplex. I strongly agree that many people here would object to seeing openly carried firearms in their immediate vicinity. Out in the more rural areas, I don't think it would be a problem, but here in the big city, too many are just not going to be happy to see guns next to them at Walmart, the grocery store, the theater, etc. Right now, it is rare for me to have to disarm due to a 30.06 sign. I think that would change dramatically if open carry was passed. I can agree with the principle of it, but the reality is I think we would lose more than we would gain.

Instead of being obsessed with open carry everywhere, I think if we were to pass it as an option outdoors, not inside buildings, then perhaps that would not be as intimidating to the non-gunners and it would remove the need for business owners to suddenly feel they had to put up 30.06 signs in order to make their more timid customers happy.
With it limited to the outdoors, you could OC while walking the dog, jogging, etc. As the non-gunners became more used to seeing people do this without incident, then perhaps later we could include buildings without an avalanche of 30.06 signs going up. We have to live in the real world.

As I have said in the past I believe that a 2 sign system would be best, any sign works to prevent unlicensed carry while a 30.06 prevents licensed carry. And Mr. Cotton has said in the past the Legislature will not let such a system stand, considering his experience with Texas Politics I will accept his statement as the truth. I doubt the legislature would allow outdoor only OC to stand as well, however if they did it would most likely not survive a court challenge.

The bank I do business with posts gun busters to keep folks from carrying long guns in, but they are aware of 30.06 and that it is required to prohibit concealed carry so they have refused to post it. So if OC were legalized with 30.06 prohibiting all forms of carry and nothing else being valid I would loose my bank, but if the legislature respects my banks property rights and allows them to ban Open/Unlicensed carry while letting them allow legal concealed/licensed carry I would not see any kind of change. As it stands now we actually have a two sign requirement in reality. Any sign (except 30.06) prohibits the carry of long guns, while the 30.06 only prohibits concealed handguns. Many places already post two signs when they post 30.06, look at the pictures posted on here. You typically see a "Gun Busters" sign above each of the English and Spanish portions of the 30.06 language. This is already done to prohibit all forms of legal carry. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Mr. Cotton is wrong, I'm just pointing out that we might be able to educate the legislature that a two sign system is best solution if we want to respect the rights of people who carry and the rights of property owners.

safety1 wrote:I agree why is everybody tip toeing around this issue. Why must we just feel like taken baby steps and just getting parking lots and campus carry passed is enough. With 66% of the lawmakers in our favor ????? why are we not pushing harder. We want to build on what we have I agree, and yes I undstand the political process. We need to move forward with this as many PRO gun states have done years ago.

The reason we or anyone else must be careful when "pushing" for OC is that resistance is a natural reaction to being pushed. People don't like being pushed and lawmakers are no exception. If someone is pushed too much they will eventually push back.

Really, the fundamental error in so many poster's logic is that being republican equals full support for any gun-related bill that will be presented. That simply is not true, any more than assuming that being a democrat equals no support for gun rights. In Texas and other places there are many democrats who support 2A rights.

The legislative process is complex and requires a lot more than just drafting a bill, tossing it out for a vote, and expecting a straight party line result. Like it or not, there is a lot of back-room schmoozing and horse-trading that is required to garner support for an issue (as in, I'll support this for you if you support this for me). Our representatives' support is a form of legislative capital, and legislators are keen to spend that capital on the issues that matter most to their constituents. Sometimes, other projects are higher on their list of priorities. I've been through this process with other issues, and the incrimental approach is the only way to get to some goals.

RiverCity.45 wrote:Really, the fundamental error in so many poster's logic is that being republican equals full support for any gun-related bill that will be presented. That simply is not true, any more than assuming that being a democrat equals no support for gun rights. In Texas and other places there are many democrats who support 2A rights.

Thats exactly what I said on page 2 regarding the 66% thing. One of those elected was Republican Steve Ogden, who voted against concealed carry last time around.

Some of those pushing OC so hard confuse me. Yes, I get that we should have the right to do it. But is it really super important to get it passed right now just because "Texans can't, so that must mean we aren't mature enough"? Lets be honest, most places who have open carry have simply never passed a law against it, they didn't have to campaign to get open carry passed. Just because a reconstruction era bad law is in place doesn't mean we don't have more important things to do.

I'm reminded of the analogy: How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. OC supports seem determed to eat the whole elephant at once, or barring that, make OC the first bite. I'd love to get them all passed, but campus carry and parking lot bills being passed are so far above OC in importance. Just my .02c

jecsd1 wrote:so are folks hostile towards opencarry.org or are they hostile towards the idea of open carry?

Baby, bath water, all the same.

The 66% issue was stated by "the annoyed man" and I went with it for use in the post. I do realize that 66% does not equal out to 66% being pro gun. But we do have numbers! Correctly stated....if you push enough the natural reactions is to push back. All of these statements are true. I’m not on the OC.org bandwagon. I’m not so sure I would open carry even if it ever gets passed. I would like the right to do so if I wish, which I believe is a given right via our 2A rights. I do not want to see our current rights suffer for the sake of OC. I just hate the way it is approached, “we need to take baby steps”. I think we need to work hard, press harder, they can press back harder and at the end of the day I think we can prevail. I do understand this is not how things work in the political arena. Having served 2 terms as an elected official in city government….I understand. This does not mean that I have to like a less then “let’s go get’em boys” approach to getting things done. With this being said I understand the process…JUST HURRY UP!! LOL

A 30.06 sign prohibits concealed handguns. Do you guys realize it's legal to carry a shotgun in Texas? Open carry or concealed carry. No license.

Tamie wrote:A 30.06 sign prohibits concealed handguns. Do you guys realize it's legal to carry a shotgun in Texas? Open carry or concealed carry. No license.

I do but I also realize what would happen if I chose to walk through downtown Fort Worth doing it.

74novaman wrote:Thats exactly what I said on page 2 regarding the 66% thing. One of those elected was Republican Steve Ogden, who voted against concealed carry last time around.

OK. So are you saying you don't think that we should push for more carry rights because of him or that we should push for more carry rights despite him?

I think a lot of candidates endorsed by gun rights groups won in Texas. I think that means the next session is a good time to push for less restrictions on our rights.

I also think people trying to turn campus carry against open carry, and vice versa, are probably not supporters of the Second Amendment which protects both of those rights. Occams razor says they're more likely antis like Brady trying a divide and conquer strategy.

Tamie...well said, I'm with you!!!

Tamie wrote:

74novaman wrote:Thats exactly what I said on page 2 regarding the 66% thing. One of those elected was Republican Steve Ogden, who voted against concealed carry last time around.

OK. So are you saying you don't think that we should push for more carry rights because of him or that we should push for more carry rights despite him?

I'm saying we should be aware of the political realities and that we may have limited political capital to get things done. I'm not AGAINST OC. But considering how we have a short session every two years with lots of other issues besides gun rights, wouldn't you agree we have limited time, if nothing else?

So if we only have the time and capital to get a few things done, I'm sorry, I just don't see OC as a vital, pressing issue. Should we able to? Yes. Will open carry potentially save lives by allowing people to carry more places like the campus carry or parking lot bills would? Absofreakinglutely, unequivocally, not.

To me, it really is that simple. I'll wholeheartedly support an OC push. After we get campus carry and parking lot bills done. Until then, I view it as a distraction to more important bills.

I'm not a student and I don't work for an antigun company, so by that logic I should focus on open carry.

Tamie wrote: I also think people trying to turn campus carry against open carry, and vice versa, are probably not supporters of the Second Amendment which protects both of those rights. Occams razor says they're more likely antis like Brady trying a divide and conquer strategy.

And yes, you caught me. I'm a brady plant, who's obviously a rabid anti gun nut because I favor getting campus carry passed over OC.

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem.