TexasCHLforum.com

Strat9mm wrote:

Bladed wrote:

Strat9mm wrote:With the minimal class time required now, I really don't see the point.

30 days should be more than enough.

Slow-tracking those who are already licensed is just that, slow-tracking those who are already licensed.

And on thinking about this even more, I don't think there should be any delay at all if the bill is passed.

Instructors and DPS can deal with the curriculum changes on their own time, not 'ours'.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this is your first time supporting a controversial bill in the Texas Legislature.

After the first couple of times you see your pet bill go down in flames (with 18-month interims between sessions), your perspective on time will change quite a bit. The people who know what it's like to spend years fighting for a single bill understand that a four-month delay is nothing in the long run.

The first time campus carry passed out of the Texas Senate (2009), the effective date was pushed back a full year, from September 1, 2009, to September 1, 2010. Considering that September 1, 2010, was four years, six months, and sixteen days ago and that we're still fighting to pass campus carry, that one-year delay doesn't seem so long anymore.

Honestly, I'd prefer to see it passed, asap, and put into effect for licensed carriers immediately.

But if not, meh.

You see, I don't have a very positive outlook for the future. As far as I'm concerned, WW-III (three) already started with Gulf War II, and it won't end until.. well, the battle of (or more accurately, at) Armageddon (a real location). That's just a personal view.

And if my view is accurate, in a very short time, very few people will care whether it's legal to carry, open or concealed. They will just carry, because law-enforcement will be paralyzed by riots and other unnatural disasters and it will be every man, and woman, and family, for themselves.

But perhaps if we stop dilly-dallying, perhaps just a few more lives can be saved, or at least prolonged just a bit.. until all heck breaks loose.

Either way, our future is pretty much set, in my considered opinion.

So why don't we just get on with it.

I'm all for preparedness, but maybe you should keep that theory to yourself when pushing for less-restrictive gun laws.

By the way, you guessed wrong.

Bad guy with knife would have either left, picked another store, or not killed anyone on that particular day, or got shot for his troubles.

Your logic assumes bad guy with knife, in full view of an armed police officer, would still maim, injure and kill.

Your logic, is more of a lack thereof.

Whether it's a law-enforcement officer, or someone licensed and OC'ing, the effect is the same.

And even if the bad guy goes ahead with his plan, the OC law didn't hurt anyone, and logically, would have probably helped.

If arguments aren't logical, they are useless.

I agree with Charles that many of the arguments presented in favor of Open Carry are pure conjecture. Ultimately, what it boils down to for me is that unless there's a good reason to prohibit something it should not be prohibited. And there's no good reason why Open Carry should be prohibited.

In fact, I think the primary value of legalizing Open Carry is in its symbolic/PR value. It will be demoralizing to the anti-gun forces. And in a few years when the Wild West has not returned (yet again), they'll have even less credibility than they do now.

Bladed wrote:

Strat9mm wrote:

Bladed wrote:

Strat9mm wrote:With the minimal class time required now, I really don't see the point.

30 days should be more than enough.

Slow-tracking those who are already licensed is just that, slow-tracking those who are already licensed.

And on thinking about this even more, I don't think there should be any delay at all if the bill is passed.

Instructors and DPS can deal with the curriculum changes on their own time, not 'ours'.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this is your first time supporting a controversial bill in the Texas Legislature.

After the first couple of times you see your pet bill go down in flames (with 18-month interims between sessions), your perspective on time will change quite a bit. The people who know what it's like to spend years fighting for a single bill understand that a four-month delay is nothing in the long run.

The first time campus carry passed out of the Texas Senate (2009), the effective date was pushed back a full year, from September 1, 2009, to September 1, 2010. Considering that September 1, 2010, was four years, six months, and sixteen days ago and that we're still fighting to pass campus carry, that one-year delay doesn't seem so long anymore.

Honestly, I'd prefer to see it passed, asap, and put into effect for licensed carriers immediately.

But if not, meh.

You see, I don't have a very positive outlook for the future. As far as I'm concerned, WW-III (three) already started with Gulf War II, and it won't end until.. well, the battle of (or more accurately, at) Armageddon (a real location). That's just a personal view.

And if my view is accurate, in a very short time, very few people will care whether it's legal to carry, open or concealed. They will just carry, because law-enforcement will be paralyzed by riots and other unnatural disasters and it will be every man, and woman, and family, for themselves.

But perhaps if we stop dilly-dallying, perhaps just a few more lives can be saved, or at least prolonged just a bit.. until all heck breaks loose.

Either way, our future is pretty much set, in my considered opinion.

So why don't we just get on with it.

I'm all for preparedness, but maybe you should keep that theory to yourself when pushing for less-restrictive gun laws.

It's a forum for open discussion.

I felt like sharing.

This general conversation is almost like trying to argue that armed police don't prevent crimes, when in actuality they do... and they don't.

And with this salient point, I end my time in the weeds.

Roger Howard wrote:

casp625 wrote:So when the new 30.06 & 30.07 laws take effect, will all the old signs be invalid? What if businesses don't post new signs?

30.06 will not change. 30.07 will cover open carry. If the law passes as written at this point, it would become effective January 1, 2016

You are right, the "rules" of 30.06 will not change, but if you read the current language of SB17, the required wording on the sign / document does change. This makes every single current 30.06 sign non-compliant and unenforceable on 1/1/16. The property owner who wishes to exclude the most law abiding adult group in Texas will have to rub two brain cells together, and get a compliant sign installed for both CC and OC. This will take up lots of space. Most will only pick one sign. My bet is that it will be 30.07. Or, I am wrong and they will post 30.06 and will verbally notify OCers.

By the way, I have run in to a few of the old signs that reference the old section before it was 30.06... maybe section 29ee? I love seeing those old, unenforceable, signs as I walk right past them.

AJSully421 wrote:

Roger Howard wrote:

casp625 wrote:So when the new 30.06 & 30.07 laws take effect, will all the old signs be invalid? What if businesses don't post new signs?

30.06 will not change. 30.07 will cover open carry. If the law passes as written at this point, it would become effective January 1, 2016

You are right, the "rules" of 30.06 will not change, but if you read the current language of SB17, the required wording on the sign / document does change. This makes every single current 30.06 sign non-compliant and unenforceable on 1/1/16. The property owner who wishes to exclude the most law abiding adult group in Texas will have to rub two brain cells together, and get a compliant sign installed for both CC and OC. This will take up lots of space. Most will only pick one sign. My bet is that it will be 30.07. Or, I am wrong and they will post 30.06 and will verbally notify OCers.

By the way, I have run in to a few of the old signs that reference the old section before it was 30.06... maybe section 29ee? I love seeing those old, unenforceable, signs as I walk right past them.

I would not want to try and convince a jury that 3 or 4 word changes on a sign meant that I had not received notice.

So, if I'm CCing and a store has posted 30.06 but not 30.07 can I simply tuck in my shirt so that my gun is exposed and walk right in?
Not that I would do that, just curious

So, for those who followed all the testimonies (if that word fits), the big question is did the more extreme ones "scare" the legislators? I sure hope that those types aren't taken as typical of the majority of people holding CHLs.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Strat9mm wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Pb_shutr wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I hope that a lot of OCT/OCTC/CATI folks are watching this debate. If anyone watching thinks that unlicensed open-carry had any chance of passage, then they are unwilling to to fact political reality.

Chas.

Mr. Cotton,
Can you enlighten me what the useful purpose of "licensed" open carry is supposed to achieve? It is my concern that each and every LEO will feel obligated to enforce "licensed" open carry by approaching every open carry individual to check that person's compliance with said law and asking for proof of approval to open carry. Why would I subject myself to this forced interaction by each LEO, maybe even several times just on one particular outing. In addition, I think these LEO's are going to on very heightened alert. At this time I can carry concealed standing shoulder to should with an LEO and he/she never knows I'm carrying and has no concern with me. Now, I do understand if I encounter a bad guy and need my firearm, I do have to draw from concealment.
Thanks,
Mike

I see absolutely no utility to open-carry whatsoever. Some people want it for various reasons, none of which I've heard have anything to do with utility. The testimony today that open-carry reduces crime is utterly without any support or evidence. The testimony that someone carrying concealed would not have time to respond to a deadly attach whereas one carrying openly would be able to respond was laughable! My cover garment adds less than 1/2 second to my draw, if that.

I'm supporting it because I'm a good soldier and the decision was made to promote open-carry.
Chas.

Open carry is easier and you just admitted it's faster, and it is.

I don't care if I have an INFIDEL cap on, and a shoot me first shirt on as well. If I decide to open carry because though it SHOULD be constitutionally allowed, but because it's finally at least legally allowed, I should be able to do it, and not have to wait around if I'm not required to take more training, just because others WILL be required to take modified training to become licensed and that training has not been prepared yet. Frankly, that's not my problem.

You need to read my response again; I did not say open-carry was faster. I said the testimony was laughable. I heard that bogus claim for the first time today during the hearing.

Chas.

With all due respect you stated your cover garment added about a half a second. I would say that implies open carry is faster.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Pb_shutr wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I hope that a lot of OCT/OCTC/CATI folks are watching this debate. If anyone watching thinks that unlicensed open-carry had any chance of passage, then they are unwilling to to fact political reality.

Chas.

Mr. Cotton,
Can you enlighten me what the useful purpose of "licensed" open carry is supposed to achieve? It is my concern that each and every LEO will feel obligated to enforce "licensed" open carry by approaching every open carry individual to check that person's compliance with said law and asking for proof of approval to open carry. Why would I subject myself to this forced interaction by each LEO, maybe even several times just on one particular outing. In addition, I think these LEO's are going to on very heightened alert. At this time I can carry concealed standing shoulder to should with an LEO and he/she never knows I'm carrying and has no concern with me. Now, I do understand if I encounter a bad guy and need my firearm, I do have to draw from concealment.
Thanks,
Mike

I see absolutely no utility to open-carry whatsoever. Some people want it for various reasons, none of which I've heard have anything to do with utility. The testimony today that open-carry reduces crime is utterly without any support or evidence. The testimony that someone carrying concealed would not have time to respond to a deadly attach whereas one carrying openly would be able to respond was laughable! My cover garment adds less than 1/2 second to my draw, if that.

I'm supporting it because I'm a good soldier and the decision was made to promote open-carry.
Chas.

A half a second can be the difference between living and dying.

I don't see trading strategic advantage for tactical speed to be and even trade tho...

The biggest argument for open carry, for me, anyway, is it simplifies the law. I have a Crossbreed "tuck" holster that's pretty unobtrusive. But it's got those clips, it changes the topology of my belt, and in ways it telegraphs to the very attentive there's a chance a firearm reposes under my shirt.

I figure that's good enough. Nobody seems to notice, but I feel vulnerable to the argument it's not concealed. I know printing isn't a crime, but what if I get drenched in a rain shower? You don't want to see me in a wet tee shirt contest (ouch!), but maybe my gun would show plainly.

It would be nicer to allow a license holder to carry, period.

The limitation to holster types is silly, too. On the other hand, there is no place in civilized society for the fashion nightmare of Hawaiian shirt, Bermuda shorts, socks, garters, and ankle holster. Thank goodness decency will be preserved from such excess!

Thinking further, the second biggest argument is simplifying the law. The biggest argument is the Second.

I favor the right to open carry. I'm not likely to practice it.

treadlightly wrote:I favor the right to open carry. I'm not likely to practice it.

I'm in the same boat, as I would assume a lot of other people are too.

Being in Austin, I'd probably not open carry inside the city unless maybe I was hiking at the green belt. I'd be much more likely to open carry when camping, away from the general population.

I agree that it's a right that people should have, so even though I would seldom OC, I support the cause. It furthers our 2nd Amendment rights, so it's a win, even for those gun owners who oppose it.

Right2Carry wrote:A half a second can be the difference between living and dying.

It can be faster for most people. but that 0.5 second difference is negligible to meaningless for most people. I suspect the number of folks that are of Jerry Miculek competency with a handgun is extremely small so that 0.5 seconds would make a difference. Most all the theories about OC preventing a crime are just that. Theories without any stats to support them. Same as all the blood in the streets theories from the left when any pro-gun rights laws are passed.

My two cents. Saving lives? A guy is OC in the bank line and is a threat to the robber, so the robber waits until the room clears or he goes across the street to another bank to rob, or being high on drugs he freaks and shoots the OC. No life saved. Perhaps worse. Faster draw? In my view you are going to spend more time contemplating what you are going to do than actually doing it. A second isn't going to save your life unless you draw before the threat presents itself. The benefit for me is that I can wear an OWB holster under my oversized and long shirt. I might be able to do it right now, but with OC there is just no issue of printing at all or fear of open exposure. I doubt, and I hope, that few people in congested cities choose to habitually OC. Snake hunting in Big Spring, sure. Shopping for longerie at Neiman's, well, not so much.