TexasCHLforum.com

SB11 now

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Ruark wrote:

mojo84 wrote: I like OC for the occasional time that I need or want to remove my cover garment or not have to worry about tucking my shirt over my gun. In other words, convenience and comfort, is why I like it.

Same here. I'm not an OC fanatic, but I do want the freedom to OC when I need or want to. As the guy said back during the early hearings, "sometimes I want to tuck in my shirt, or give my jacket to my wife because it's cold." Maybe I'm working on our place out here, driving the tractor or whatever, in the regulation jeans and t-shirt, and I want to take a break and run to the cafe for lunch, without having to go inside and put on a tropical shirt to cover up my firearm, or run down to the HEB to pick up something. Lots of reasons. I just don't want to have to constantly think about it.

These are excellent examples how open-carry can be convenient in limited circumstances. This approach along with pointing out that there's no reason to prohibit open-carry are how to pass this type of legislation. You will note that neither the NRA nor TSRA have made false claims of reducing crime, greater personal safety, etc. and that is why both organizations have credibility with Senators and Representatives.

Chas.

The reason no one can say for sure that OC reduces crime, etc. etc. because a non-event doesn't get reported the way that a criminal event gets reported. If a criminal is deterred because of OC and goes on to the next victim, who's to know except the criminal.

Conversely, the incidents of an OC getting attacked or their gun grabbed or becoming a target of because of OC, gets reported as a crime.

So you have the positive incidents (which I am sure they happen and outweigh the negative) which can not be confirmed contrasting with the negative incidents (I am sure they happen, while I can't recite stats, but I would imagine them to be statistically insignificant) which can be confirmed.

0 stats for positive OC deterent vs X stats for negative OC Incident. Very skewed faulty argument IMHO.

Eerily similar to the Anti 2A gun control crowd who cite stats on guns used in crime vs while pro 2A argues that guns in general used to stop crime/self defense/reduce crime etc etc. but the stats available to support this are from estimates based on surveys not actual stats. Deterance cant be substantiated.

The anti 2A argument is skewed and faulty once you analyze the stats and the pro 2A arguments cant be substantiated specifically by each incident. The only thing you can look at is overall crime stats and draw your own conclusion.

Guns reduce crime and gun free zones promote crime. But you can only point to anecdotal evidence by correlating the crime rate vs gun laws in an area. Not specific stats on deterance case by case incident. They don't exist.

In any case, we need to continue to fight for the removal of all infringements.

RHenriksen wrote:

Tracker wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: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.

I'm sure you'd be in favor of reducing the charge for display from a Class A to a Class C but I don't understand why that has never been brought to the legislature. That Class A would still apply at universities if campus carry passes.

Political capital is finite, you have to budget it each session on what your priorities are. If you spread it too thinly across too many different goals, you get... nothing (or a lot less than you could have if you'd prioritized).

^^^^ This. gljjt's rule number 17. "An all or nothing approach almost always results in nothing."

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

And if a business has the "old" 30.06 sign, but no 30.07 sign, I suspect a person carrying concealed would be able to choose to disarm, or un-conceal and be within the law.

v7a wrote: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.

I'm with you on this, 100%. I have no (current) intention to open carry, with the possible exception of an easy access mount on my bike. But, I'm totally against making something illegal just because someone doesn't want it to be legal. Without good reason otherwise, OC should be legal.

I hadn't really thought of the "PR value", but I see your point.

C-dub wrote:

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.

I keep reading this stuff about speed, but I guess I'm behind the curve of some of you folks. I can't "speed draw" worth spit. I've tried it at the private lane at the range, and I come closer to Barny Fife than I do Clint Eastwood. I can't envision many circumstances where I'd try to quickly draw and shoot.

RPBrown wrote: .... I will most likely not OC in most cases but I do ride a motorcycle and from time to time, my shirt comes up and exposes my weapon. This would eliminate any chance of prosecution, even if I failed to cover it back up. Also would allow me the option to OC while hunting in the case I needed to run to the store and forget to cover.

Again, just my .02

This part right here! My bike is probably the only place I really desire to open carry. I typically CC on my bike, but it's with the realization that it's really not going to do me much good on the bike (in spite of how easy Jax makes it look on SoA, shooting left handed while operating the throttle is not particularly accurate, and unless you ride with a group like his, not really very necessary). I carry it with me because I want it on me when I get where I'm going.

That said, I've seen a lot of car operators do a lot of stupid things to MC riders over the years. I suspect a gun strapped to the riders side will make them a lot more visible to some...

txglock21 wrote:This question has nothing to do with your post. I quoted it just because it made me think of something I want to ask. My bank has a "gun buster" sign on the door, no 30.06. I have always just walked past it and smiled because of C/C. I'm just wondering if/when open carry passes and they just leave this one silly sign up, would somebody still open carry pass this sign? I know I would still C/C just not to be hassled or told to leave because of it. I'm not an in your face kind of guy. I very rarely go inside anyway, but....
Curious on y'alls thoughts.

I believe the gun buster sign would have no more legal impact for oc than it does for cc. You have not been "legally" given notice if you oc. However, there is some effect. If I cc in such a situation, no one knows I'm doing so, so no one thinks poorly of me, and no one tells me to leave. If I oc in such a situation, those around me can see that I'm ignoring the sign. Some may point it out to me, which is embarrassing (sort of like walking past a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign). If one of those that points it out to me happens to be an employee, and tells me I need to leave, then I must or I'm violating the law. With cc, I don't have that issue.

ScooterSissy wrote:

C-dub wrote:

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.

I keep reading this stuff about speed, but I guess I'm behind the curve of some of you folks. I can't "speed draw" worth spit. I've tried it at the private lane at the range, and I come closer to Barny Fife than I do Clint Eastwood. I can't envision many circumstances where I'd try to quickly draw and shoot.

It's all relative my friend. I've been carrying for about 12 years or so and have practiced quite a bit drawing from various carry methods and dry firing. And I still carry OWB. I also do IDPA with the holster I carry with. For many, the difference in draw time from CC to OC will only be the difference in sweeping your cover garment out of the way. Other than that, slow and smooth is the name of the game. Slow is smooth and smooth is fast. Or something like that.

Right2Carry wrote:

C-dub wrote:

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.

actually I think that half a second is in bigger play when you are in a life threatening situation. What if your handgun gets caught up in your cover garment or it interferes with your grasp? We can do this all day long. Crime goes down when people carry openly or concealed. Please show me the statistics where individuals have been shot first or killed in a robbery because they were openly carrying in states that permit it.

I would like anyone to provide data on how many individuals have been killed while openly carrying.

We can play what-if games all day and into the night. I hope you realize that I did not say or imply that an OCer would be the first person shot in a robbery because they were OCing. All that is also theoretical conjecture.

I also agree that crime goes down when CC is passed and when more gun rights laws are passed. What I'm not convinced of yet is whether the same phenomenon has or will occur when OC is implemented. Oklahoma would be an excellent example, but I have no idea if their crimes rates declined after their OC was implemented.

superchief wrote:the extra training that will be required for holsters and defending your gun will be stupid. i hope that gets eliminated in conference.

And in your opinion, why is that so?

superchief wrote:the extra training that will be required for holsters and defending your gun will be stupid. i hope that gets eliminated in conference.

I don't see how it would be viewed as "extra" training. The rules on the number of hours a CHL class requires did not change. All that happens is that instead of having something like 20 minutes on places prohibited, 20 minutes on alternate dispute resolution, 40 minutes on PC Sec. 9, and so on... it will now be 15, 15, 35, and then 15 minutes on types of OC retention holsters, situational awareness, and a description of techniques on how to retain your pistol. That's all.

Not bad info to know, no "extra" time required.

Beiruty wrote:

superchief wrote:the extra training that will be required for holsters and defending your gun will be stupid. i hope that gets eliminated in conference.

And in your opinion, why is that so?

I wouldn't call it stupid, but I do view it as an infringement. Anyone who OC's should educate themselves on retention and proper carry, but it shouldn't be mandatory.

But again... baby steps.

MadMonkey wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

superchief wrote:the extra training that will be required for holsters and defending your gun will be stupid. i hope that gets eliminated in conference.

And in your opinion, why is that so?

I wouldn't call it stupid, but I do view it as an infringement. Anyone who OC's should educate themselves on retention and proper carry, but it shouldn't be mandatory. ...