TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote:I took the poll to mean "in general".

I voted No. I wouldn't support it, nor would I oppose it.

I am not opposed to it, and from a philosophical point of view, I am in favor, since the RKBA shall not be infringed. In practice, I have little interest in promoting this. I would not personally OC due to a few concerns:
1. Higher chance of having my weapon taken by a potential BG.
2. Don't like to make others uncomfortable needlessly.
3. Don't like to make myself "designated primary target" of the BG
4. Feel it is more socially responsible to make the BG guess who is and who is not carrying, thereby CC in general providing an increased security even to those who chose not to.

From a non-personal standpoint, I would be concerned about the possibility of public backlash, but moreso the spreading of our RKBA efforts to areas that are less beneficial than some others.

So, I will not oppose OC in anyway, but I also don't actively support it. I think there are higher priorities (parking lots, campuses for CC) than OC.

My $.02.

dac1842 wrote:First let me say I am a strong believer in our right to carry. Everyone should have at least one. However, I did vote no to open carry and here is why. Right now there are a lot of places that allow concealed carry primarlily because it is out of sight and out of mind. if no one knows you carry, no one cares. With open carry I see lots of places that are currently silent on it barring everything. The oppressed will protest loudly and the establishment will ban all weapons instead of just open carry.

If we can get all restrictions lifted on concealed carry, except for carrying in a bar, then I don't care what the open carry does. I just don't want those that want the open carry to affect the rights of those that carry concealed. I see that happening. I personally don't see open carry passing, but if it does, then it needs to be licensed, and the 30.06 signs need to be modified to give property owners the right to ban open carry but allow concealed.

I hadn't thought of this angle before but I think your right. Places with 30:06 signs are going to triple over night. The average citizen out there is not going to differentiate between open carry and concealed...and I don't believe it is anything but delusional to think we are going to educate them all. Heck...they don't want to be educated. They want to feel safe...even if it is a false sense of security. This move could actually back fire big time.

03Lightningrocks wrote:Places with 30:06 signs are going to triple over night.

I don't understand this fear. 30.06 signs are exclusively for licensed concealed carry. If someone wanted to stop unlicensed open carry in their building, then a 30.06 would be completely ineffective as it doesn't address unlicensed individuals. So it would make no sense for them to post it. Someone would be able to open carry right past a 30.06 sign!

A gunbuster sign would be used instead, and us CHLs would walk right past it.

TheArmedFarmer wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:

dac1842 wrote:First let me say I am a strong believer in our right to carry. Everyone should have at least one. However, I did vote no to open carry and here is why. Right now there are a lot of places that allow concealed carry primarlily because it is out of sight and out of mind. if no one knows you carry, no one cares. With open carry I see lots of places that are currently silent on it barring everything. The oppressed will protest loudly and the establishment will ban all weapons instead of just open carry.

If we can get all restrictions lifted on concealed carry, except for carrying in a bar, then I don't care what the open carry does. I just don't want those that want the open carry to affect the rights of those that carry concealed. I see that happening. I personally don't see open carry passing, but if it does, then it needs to be licensed, and the 30.06 signs need to be modified to give property owners the right to ban open carry but allow concealed.

I hadn't thought of this angle before but I think your right. Places with 30:06 signs are going to triple over night. The average citizen out there is not going to differentiate between open carry and concealed...and I don't believe it is anything but delusional to think we are going to educate them all. Heck...they don't want to be educated. They want to feel safe...even if it is a false sense of security. This move could actually back fire big time.

I don't understand this fear. 30.06 signs are exclusively for licensed concealed carry. If someone wanted to stop unlicensed open carry in their building, then a 30.06 would be completely ineffective as it doesn't address unlicensed individuals. So it would make no sense for them to post it. Someone would be able to open carry right past a 30.06 sign!

A gunbuster sign would be used instead, and us CHLs would walk right past it.

I took the liberty of putting my comment back into the context it was made. Now it should all make sense again once I elaborate for you.

First, I should have said postings in general...both gun busters and 30:06.

Many times, an issue is not an issue until you point it out. Kind of like when we don't notice that our kids are doing something right in front of us that we normally would not be comfortable with them doing, but as soon as someone points it out...we jump on them about it. Once a few folks are seen strutting around with their six guns at their sides, it very likely could cause an over reaction from the masses. That over reaction can cause some to think of the issue when they would not have considered it before. Once they think of the issue, they then begin to make the moves that emotionally will give them a warm fuzzy. We often forget in our little circle that not everybody is as comfortable with firearms as we are.

Like I said before...the possibility is there. If we think about it rationally, from the perspective of the citizen with no real feelings about it either way. They are not likely going to think that open carry is a bad thing but concealed carry is good. Most don't think about it at all, but that is because they don't know we are walking around with a loaded(cocked and locked) pistol on us. If confronted with it on a daily bases...they may have fears of it. This could cause an over reaction that will spill over into concealed carry as well as open carry. "In your face" tactics can be like poking a stick at the Tiger.

I thought about the 30.06 argument and it makes sense. For that reason we shouldn't push for campus carry and parking lot carry because that will only make people more aware of concealed carry and result in more 30.06 signs.

If open carry is made as a licensed privilege and if 30.06 is amended to remove the word "concealed", then I see a huge risk of an increase in 30.06 signs. Because of that risk, I would argue vehemently against licensed open carry legislation.

But, I'm advocating unlicensed open carry. A business who then wants to get rid of guns will simply post a gunbuster sign, and that would be that. Complaints from his customers would stop since they wouldn't be seeing any evil 6 shooters any more. It wouldn't make sense for the owner to post 30.06, as that would do nothing to stop open carrying. I would also submit that in his quest to learn how to stop open carrying in his business, a 30.06 wouldn't even cross his mind.

This is why unlicensed open carry is the only reasonable approach, as far as I can see.

If anything, CHLs would be granted a whole new level of respect. After all, these are licensed people who (from the public's perspective) can be "trusted" to carry, and the weapon is concealed as well, so the customers don't even know about it.

The terrified masses don't want to disarm the cops or known-good guys ("CHLs"), they just don't want joe six pack walking around with a six shooter. I do believe (but can't prove) that the vast majority would get used to it in a real fast hurry, especially once the benefits (crime reduction) of a visibly armed populace become apparent.

AWB09 wrote:I thought about the 30.06 argument and it makes sense. For that reason we shouldn't push for campus carry and parking lot carry because that will only make people more aware of concealed carry and result in more 30.06 signs.

OOOOOOPS!

I think that everyone that voted on this issue, all have valid reasons to support their choice of preference. No matter how each one of us chooses to vote, our choice of support, will not be agreed by everyone. I think we all agree that more Government control, on what we can or can't do, is not what we want. However in all societies there must be a common Foundation that can serve as a guide for all citizens to abide by.We have the Constitution and Bill of Rights that are intended to guide and protect EVERY citizen's rights and that includes even Bad Guys. Since bad guys are determined to to act against society, we allow laws to be created to separate the bad guys from responsible citizens. We assume that laws, policies, and rules are created to protect responsible citizens, and they should.The right to drive a vehicle requires knowledge of rules and regulations(written test) plus proving we know how to drive in order to avoid harm to the innocent. For that, we are issued a Driver's License as proof we understand the responsibilities of right to drive. School students must show a Diploma as proof of high school education to continue University Ed.and thus be able to become Teachers to educate future generations. This requirements were intended to better our Society,and before we know it, they become laws.Some agree it's necessary, some don't. Their purpose were intended for the good of responsible citizens.Now CHLs holders must prove knowledge of Gun Laws, responsibilities and ability to handle and shoot a firearm via test, and as proof, we are issued a CHL.We must try to understand the pros n cons and consequences of laws, policies, restrictions and requirements that govern our society hopefully for the best outcome and safety of all good citizens. In conclusion, is open-carry, licensed or unlicensed best for our society? Should we not require restrictions? Should the right to carry in whatever form be also the same right for Bad Guys? Shouldn't there be a distinction between who can and can't carry without a violation to the 2A? As much as I dislike government infringing on my rights, I have to admit that when it comes to the safety of citizens, I will accept, in lieu of bad guys lawless acts.(I apologize for abuse of space and all offended for excessive wording and to those who may think I made no sense)

AWB09 wrote:I thought about the 30.06 argument and it makes sense. For that reason we shouldn't push for campus carry and parking lot carry because that will only make people more aware of concealed carry and result in more 30.06 signs.

That really isn't the same thing. The difference being that with Concealed campus carry...it is concealed...not in your face like open carry is. You can make a silly analogy out of anything you want I suppose. Do you really not see the difference???? I can go on but I think most folks see the very real difference here.

Just for the record...I said it is POSSIBLE that this could backfire. Who knows...it may not. Quite frankly...I doubt many folks will carry open anyway. Furthermore...I doubt it will even be passed. Speaking of college campus carry, I really wish the energy being put toward open carry would be redirected to campus concealed carry.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

AWB09 wrote:I thought about the 30.06 argument and it makes sense. For that reason we shouldn't push for campus carry and parking lot carry because that will only make people more aware of concealed carry and result in more 30.06 signs.

That really isn't the same thing. The difference being that with Concealed campus carry...it is concealed...not in your face like open carry is. You can make a silly analogy out of anything you want I suppose. Do you really not see the difference???? I can go on but I think most folks see the very real difference here.

Just for the record...I said it is POSSIBLE that this could backfire. Who knows...it may not. Quite frankly...I doubt many folks will carry open anyway. Furthermore...I doubt it will even be passed. Speaking of college campus carry, I really wish the energy being put toward open carry would be redirected to campus concealed carry.

LOL...well except for Flintknapper...

TheArmedFarmer wrote:If open carry is made as a licensed privilege and if 30.06 is amended to remove the word "concealed", then I see a huge risk of an increase in 30.06 signs. Because of that risk, I would argue vehemently against licensed open carry legislation.

But, I'm advocating unlicensed open carry. A business who then wants to get rid of guns will simply post a gunbuster sign, and that would be that. Complaints from his customers would stop since they wouldn't be seeing any evil 6 shooters any more. It wouldn't make sense for the owner to post 30.06, as that would do nothing to stop open carrying. I would also submit that in his quest to learn how to stop open carrying in his business, a 30.06 wouldn't even cross his mind.

This is why unlicensed open carry is the only reasonable approach, as far as I can see.

If anything, CHLs would be granted a whole new level of respect. After all, these are licensed people who (from the public's perspective) can be "trusted" to carry, and the weapon is concealed as well, so the customers don't even know about it.

The terrified masses don't want to disarm the cops or known-good guys ("CHLs"), they just don't want joe six pack walking around with a six shooter. I do believe (but can't prove) that the vast majority would get used to it in a real fast hurry, especially once the benefits (crime reduction) of a visibly armed populace become apparent.

I can definitely see reason in this line of thinking, but I also believe that ignorance is bliss to many people. We shall see. Ya know, the more I think about it the more I wonder if it is such a great idea. Maybe it won't be much of an issue in the less populated areas but holy smoley...Houston and Dallas are just chalked full of jerks just looking for trouble. I hate to think of how they will act if they can just start strapping on a gun without so much as a by your leave.

03Lightningrocks wrote:Quite frankly...I doubt many folks will carry open anyway.

I disagree. My perception is that in most of the states where it is technically legal, it was simply never prohibited. IOW, business as usual. The few there that are motivated enough to open carry will never be concentrated either in time or location.

In Texas, where it has been prohibited since 1871, the passage of open carry is anxiously awaited by many tens of thousands who are chompin' at the bit to be able to open carry. My guess is that effective Sept 1st of whatever year it passes will see all of these and more exercising their newfound freedom. Most will abandon it after the new wears off but this initial exhibition could well trigger the foretold backlash.

IMO, the only valid comparison between open carry here and elsewhere would be another state that had the right restored after more than a century.

I am for open carry, but with the permit. But the permit not carry a fee. I had a concealed license, but let it expire. The reason I let it expire is because of the fee to have it. As far as taking a course to get a permit, is non sense. I took mine in a vfw hall. We did not shoot any guns and was not required. If you take a class and are required to fire a weapon, that score does not go to the state. It is just to satisfy the instructor. The state of Texas does not care if you even know how to hold a gun. As long as you send them the money, they are happy. So this is why I like the idea of finger printing and issue of a free permit. Also, this stops people who should not be permitted to carry, from carrying. You should be required to carry that permit with you just as you do your drivers lisense.

Oldgringo wrote:

nitogen wrote:

Personally, I think I agree with Oldgringo, I do NOT want any loony to be able to own a gun, just like I personally find some speech offensive and disgusting.

Absolutely! There are time honored restrictions on who can own a firearm as there are on what constitutes freedom of speech, right of assembly, etc. Felons, juveniles, chemically dependent folk, dopers, etc. are not allowed to own (carry) guns. Likewise, one's freedom of speech does not allow slander, violating 10 year old daughter rule, defamation of character, making gun/bomb jokes at the airport, etc. Oops! Did I mention airports? I'm sorry, the founding fathers didn't have to deal with airports.

Open carry is fine and I have no problem with it for me...and maybe you. However, it's just not for everybody.

Your listing of specific individuals who you think should not carry is certainly more specific than "bunch of loons". I do, however, think that your original post meant that your definition painted a much more broad picture of who you would not like to see armed.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves even those who the government decides are ineligible. We give the government its power and authority. The government does not give us rights.

Anygunanywhere

Mike1951 wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Quite frankly...I doubt many folks will carry open anyway.

I disagree. My perception is that in most of the states where it is technically legal, it was simply never prohibited. IOW, business as usual. The few there that are motivated enough to open carry will never be concentrated either in time or location.

In Texas, where it has been prohibited since 1871, the passage of open carry is anxiously awaited by many tens of thousands who are chompin' at the bit to be able to open carry. My guess is that effective Sept 1st of whatever year it passes will see all of these and more exercising their newfound freedom. Most will abandon it after the new wears off but this initial exhibition could well trigger the foretold backlash.

IMO, the only valid comparison between open carry here and elsewhere would be another state that had the right restored after more than a century.

Makes sense....