TexasCHLforum.com

Like duck hunting, I don't want to do it but I think it should be legal.

As long as a bill to allow open carry doesn't preclude my being allowed to conceal, I'm fine with it. Like others have mentioned, if I need my gun, I'd prefer that the fact I carry one be a surprise.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

DEB wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:I am FOR OC.
I would not OC myself. But OC would make it easier to carry concealed OWB without worry about unintentionally unconcealing.

This is exactly the reason I am for OC. Before anyone states that it isn't a problem, tell that to that young soldier arrested in Metroplex in Killeen, where L.E. first stated that the reason he was arrested was due to the bulge he saw.

It's not a problem! You point to an arrest that was allegedly made for something that was not illegal. If a LEO is going to do that, then they will arrest someone for open-carrying when that's not illegal either. Don't say that won't happen; just read OpenCarry.org (if you can stomach it) and you'll see countless examples. All an officer would have to do is claim the person "display[ed] a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm" in violation of TPC §42.01(a)(8). Simply putting one's hand on their openly-carried pistol would support such an arrest.

Open-carry does not solve any problems. OC supporters do not help their cause by trying to create a problem to solve. TPC §46.035(a) could not be more clear, one must "intentionally" fail to conceal their handgun before they have created a violation. Arguing otherwise will put people in the position of having to testify in public hearings that this is not a problem under current law and this hurts the open-carry cause.

Sell open-carry for what it is, an option that does not negatively impact public safety.

Chas.

Grant, I don't spend a lot of time on this forum but has there ever been an OC bill you supported?
Have you ever written, helped write, consulted or advised on a OC bill?

johnferg69 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

DEB wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:I am FOR OC.
I would not OC myself. But OC would make it easier to carry concealed OWB without worry about unintentionally unconcealing.

This is exactly the reason I am for OC. Before anyone states that it isn't a problem, tell that to that young soldier arrested in Metroplex in Killeen, where L.E. first stated that the reason he was arrested was due to the bulge he saw.

It's not a problem! You point to an arrest that was allegedly made for something that was not illegal. If a LEO is going to do that, then they will arrest someone for open-carrying when that's not illegal either. Don't say that won't happen; just read OpenCarry.org (if you can stomach it) and you'll see countless examples. All an officer would have to do is claim the person "display[ed] a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm" in violation of TPC §42.01(a)(8). Simply putting one's hand on their openly-carried pistol would support such an arrest.

Open-carry does not solve any problems. OC supporters do not help their cause by trying to create a problem to solve. TPC §46.035(a) could not be more clear, one must "intentionally" fail to conceal their handgun before they have created a violation. Arguing otherwise will put people in the position of having to testify in public hearings that this is not a problem under current law and this hurts the open-carry cause.

Sell open-carry for what it is, an option that does not negatively impact public safety.

Chas.

Grant, I don't spend a lot of time on this forum but has there ever been an OC bill you supported?
Have you ever written, helped write, consulted or advised on a OC bill?

Only one open-carry bill has been introduced in the Texas Legislature and that was in the 2011 session. I didn't write that thing and I did not consult on it. I work on NRA and TSRA bills, as well as bills I am asked to write for Representatives and Senators. None of those persons or entities have put open-carry on their legislative agenda.

I have publicly stated/posted that open-carry should be approached with a two-prong, two-session strategy by simply repealing TPC §46.035(a) in one session, then filing an appropriately captioned "clean-up bill" the following session to remove the word "concealed" except in TPC §30.06. Yes, this takes two sessions, but it greatly reduces the chance of anti-gun amendments being added to a bill like the one filed last session. (Last session's open-carry bill opened virtually every important section of the Government Code and Penal Code to anti-gun amendment.) I've been even more vocal and published more about the need to maintain TPC §30.06 as it appears now and not amend it to cover both open-carry and concealed-carry as was done in last session's bill.

My suggestions have been ignored by the folks who claim to be spearheading the open-carry movement in Texas. In fact, the President of LoneStarCDL has expressly stated "they" will never accept leaving TPC §30.06 to cover only concealed-carry. In his words, it must be amended to cover both open-carry and concealed-carry to prevent a so-called "double standard." If an open-carry bill amends TPC §30.06, it will again fail.

Chas.

I'm ambivalent regarding open carry. I'm content with my CHL and wouldn't open carry publicly if I legally could, but that's me. If it does become legal and you want to - have at it.

I wonder though, what percentage (I assume a small one) simply want an ego boost were open carry allowed...?

Perhaps, even ride a white horse like Hopalong Cassidy, wear a western costume, and oh yeah, a fine two gun set of big ole revolvers complete with fine leather tooled holsters and a cartridge belt filled to capacity with gleaming rounds.

Then, if you can carry a tune, wherever you roam in Texas you could sing, "I've got spurs that jingle, jangle, jingle...

Am I mocking? Yes, a little.

Many OC fans seem wound a bit tight - so a bit of levity.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

johnferg69 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

DEB wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:I am FOR OC.
I would not OC myself. But OC would make it easier to carry concealed OWB without worry about unintentionally unconcealing.

This is exactly the reason I am for OC. Before anyone states that it isn't a problem, tell that to that young soldier arrested in Metroplex in Killeen, where L.E. first stated that the reason he was arrested was due to the bulge he saw.

It's not a problem! You point to an arrest that was allegedly made for something that was not illegal. If a LEO is going to do that, then they will arrest someone for open-carrying when that's not illegal either. Don't say that won't happen; just read OpenCarry.org (if you can stomach it) and you'll see countless examples. All an officer would have to do is claim the person "display[ed] a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm" in violation of TPC §42.01(a)(8). Simply putting one's hand on their openly-carried pistol would support such an arrest.

Open-carry does not solve any problems. OC supporters do not help their cause by trying to create a problem to solve. TPC §46.035(a) could not be more clear, one must "intentionally" fail to conceal their handgun before they have created a violation. Arguing otherwise will put people in the position of having to testify in public hearings that this is not a problem under current law and this hurts the open-carry cause.

Sell open-carry for what it is, an option that does not negatively impact public safety.

Chas.

Grant, I don't spend a lot of time on this forum but has there ever been an OC bill you supported?
Have you ever written, helped write, consulted or advised on a OC bill?

Only one open-carry bill has been introduced in the Texas Legislature and that was in the 2011 session. I didn't write that thing and I did not consult on it. I work on NRA and TSRA bills, as well as bills I am asked to write for Representatives and Senators. None of those persons or entities have put open-carry on their legislative agenda.

I have publicly stated/posted that open-carry should be approached with a two-prong, two-session strategy by simply repealing TPC §46.035(a) in one session, then filing an appropriately captioned "clean-up bill" the following session to remove the word "concealed" except in TPC §30.06. Yes, this takes two sessions, but it greatly reduces the chance of anti-gun amendments being added to a bill like the one filed last session. (Last session's open-carry bill opened virtually every important section of the Government Code and Penal Code to anti-gun amendment.) I've been even more vocal and published more about the need to maintain TPC §30.06 as it appears now and not amend it to cover both open-carry and concealed-carry as was done in last session's bill.

My suggestions have been ignored by the folks who claim to be spearheading the open-carry movement in Texas. In fact, the President of LoneStarCDL has expressly stated "they" will never accept leaving TPC §30.06 to cover only concealed-carry. In his words, it must be amended to cover both open-carry and concealed-carry to prevent a so-called "double standard." If an open-carry bill amends TPC §30.06, it will again fail.

Chas.

So where do we stand on the first step and why MUST TPC 46.035 be repelled first?

johnferg69 wrote:So where do we stand on the first step and why MUST TPC 46.035 be repelled first?

Repealing TPC 46.035 would effectively created licensed open carry. You wouldn't be able to violate any of the laws that specifically specify exceptions for "concealed" handguns though. The clean-up he's proposing would fix this. That's my interpretation at least.

It'd also remove the annoying restrictions about 51% locations and sporting events.

KingofChaos wrote:

johnferg69 wrote:So where do we stand on the first step and why MUST TPC 46.035 be repelled first?

Repealing TPC 46.035 would effectively created licensed open carry. You wouldn't be able to violate any of the laws the specifically specify exceptions for "concealed" handguns though. The clean-up he's proposes would fix this. That's my interpretation at least.

I thought TPC 46.035 stated places that were off limit to CHL holders like bars, amusement parks, correctional facilities, etc. That's why I don't understand the need to repeal it first before open carry. I can tell you right now, TDCJ will NEVER allow open carry on their property.

johnferg69 wrote: I thought TPC 46.035 stated places that were off limit to CHL holders like bars, amusement parks, correctional facilities, etc. That's why I don't understand the need to repeal it first before open carry. I can tell you right now, TDCJ will NEVER allow open carry on their property.

§ 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

johnferg69 wrote:So where do we stand on the first step[.]

You'll have to ask the people who are promoting open-carry.

johnferg69 wrote: . . . why MUST TPC 46.035 be repelled first?

I explained that in my answer.

Chas.

johnferg69 wrote:

Keith B wrote:I just believe that the legialature would feel the sign needed to be more visible than a gun buster sign and would say 'We already have a sign, so just modify it to prevent any carry.' Then those businesses who today don't really know people are carrying would then post signs to prevent open carry and the single sign would prevent concealed carry too. It's the old adage, out of sight, out of mind. When people started open carrying I can garuntee you would see a new crop of signs go up.

Well the newest state to go open carry is Oklahoma. We'll see how much pandemonium ensues.

They're different in that that don't have the luxury of signage like 30.06 we have. So legislation in Texas has to be right so we don't blow all the years of work that went in to getting the protection we enjoy. I want the choice, but I don't want any added risk.

I can say, some places instantly put signs up in Oklahoma, even in small towns yet none of the family members have seen even 1 person carrying, and that covers to cities and 1 small town and everywhere they are in between. They always had more risk, but the open carry option has now increased that risk somewhat, at least until they figure out what some are already figuring out, there won't be any shootouts in the streets. I had a conversation last week about that, up there, and they were lifetime Oklahoma peeps and expected the wild wild west to emerge.

Abraham wrote:I'm ambivalent regarding open carry. I'm content with my CHL and wouldn't open carry publicly if I legally could, but that's me. If it does become legal and you want to - have at it.

I wonder though, what percentage (I assume a small one) simply want an ego boost were open carry allowed...?

Perhaps, even ride a white horse like Hopalong Cassidy, wear a western costume, and oh yeah, a fine two gun set of big ole revolvers complete with fine leather tooled holsters and a cartridge belt filled to capacity with gleaming rounds.

Then, if you can carry a tune, wherever you roam in Texas you could sing, "I've got spurs that jingle, jangle, jingle...

Am I mocking? Yes, a little.

Many OC fans seem wound a bit tight - so a bit of levity.

I know that your post was tounge in cheek, but one of the reasons that I would use open carry (a selfish reason, but a reason nontheless) is the fact that one of my hobbies is trailriding.

Under current laws, I either have to go with IWB, which is pretty uncomfortable in a saddle for hours at a time, or I have to wear extra layers (vest) which is pretty unbearable in the summer. Even using the vest option, I ride an 18hh Percheron and I am short and fat, so more often than not my clothes are not in the same place after I have climbed up the side of my horse while mounting as they were when I was on the ground. On more than a few occasions, my carry weapon has been exposed during this particular circus act. Since the exposure was not intentional, it was not illegal. However, I am concerned that eventually an uninformed bystander will call in a MWAG or an uninformed LEO will take some sort of action. If that ever happens, I will probably beat the rap, but won't beat the ride.

Why do I, a law abiding citizen, have to jump through these flaming hoops just to make sure that a peice of cloth remains over a legally posessed tool? Is this a magical peice of cloth that somehow keeps everyone safe from my gun? Is it the peice of cloth that keeps the gun from jumping out of the holster all by itself and slaughtering every inoccent bystander within 100 yards? I support open carry because, frankly, the requirement to remain concealed is just stupid. "you can have it as long as we can't tell that you have it" makes no sense whatsoever. It makes about as much sense as don't ask don't tell did in the military, you can be gay in the military as long as we don't know your gay.

The simple repeal of 46.035 sounds like a great idea...........but why have none of the LEGITIMATE gun advocate groups (NRA, TSRA) done anything to attempt repeal of 46.035? I would much rather have these experienced lobby groups pushing for it than amatures like we see from LonestarCDL and the OCDO crowd.

CHLers find carrying (within varying degrees) a bit uncomfortable and are always concerned with accidental un-concealment. With that goes the anguish of someone potentially calling in an MWAG if we fail to remain concealed. In other words, remaining concealed is work...work I'm willing to put up with as I still get to carry and for me, that ain't bad...

Women have to worry about modesty wearing dresses and skirts, so too we as CHLers have to (ok, I'm stretching the analogy a bit, but not that much...) concern ourselves with our own gun modesty...yet I don't find it THAT difficult, horseback, motorcycle, bicycle or fill in the blank.

If the basic argument for open carry is: It's "uncomfortable"....sorry, but I find that complaint a little short of my sympathy...

Charles L. Cotton wrote:the President of LoneStarCDL

Who?

I really try to do a good job proof reading before I post, but I blew it this time. (and not for the first time, sigh...)

What I should have posted: If the basic argument for open carry is: Concealed Carry is "uncomfortable"....sorry, but I find that complaint a little short of my sympathy...