TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

frazzled wrote:

With all the great ground work laid for these two bills over the last few years hopefully we will have smooth sailing this next session.

Hardly. Private business associations are generally against the parking lot bill. It will be rough sledding indeed to get this passed in the next five years, much less the next session.

But are you saying we shouldn't pursue it with a high priority because of that?

No to be clear, I am saying to get this passed, its going to require greater effort to succeed and we need to focus on that.

frazzled wrote:

Conagher wrote: “idiot OC supporters” from last session:

I would like to try to close this and move forward. I hereby publically and humbly apologize to any and all that were offended, angered, slighted or otherwise disturbed by any and all OC supporters from last session. In all sincerity I ask that you accept this apology and allow this issue to be put to bed. I have spoken with my senator and representative, neither of which feel in the lease bit put-off on the Texas OC effort. If you have a legislator that feels otherwise, please send me a PM and I will personally contact them and apologize. Thank you.

People don't forget. The politicians you burned won't forget it and they have other issues to deal with that are much more pressing.

Can you elaborate? What politicians got burned? And by whom? And what evidence do you have that anyone is holding a grudge against the entire notion of OC?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

chabouk wrote:In every other state (with the exception of the California "UOC" movement), OC just doesn't cause a problem for gun owners in general, or CC in particular. The Virginia OC folks actually fought for improved conditions for CCers, but trying to legalize CC in restaurants that serve alcohol (unlicensed OC is legal there, but licensed CC isn't).

If OC was not a problem in states where it is technically legal, then there wouldn't be an OpenCarry.org. Read their website and see the complaints about how OC'ers are being treated.

As I said (emphasis added): "OC just doesn't cause a problem for gun owners in general, or CC in particular."

OpenCarry.org was hardly carrying the ball to get restaurant carry reformed.

I didn't say they were. I said "Viginia OC folks". That said, I disagree that "OpenCarry.org was hardly carrying the ball". If you look at the Virginia sub-forum, you can see how much political activism takes place there.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

chabouk wrote:In every other state (with the exception of the California "UOC" movement), OC just doesn't cause a problem for gun owners in general, or CC in particular. The Virginia OC folks actually fought for improved conditions for CCers, but trying to legalize CC in restaurants that serve alcohol (unlicensed OC is legal there, but licensed CC isn't).

If OC was not a problem in states where it is technically legal, then there wouldn't be an OpenCarry.org. Read their website and see the complaints about how OC'ers are being treated.

OpenCarry.org was hardly carrying the ball to get restaurant carry reformed.

Chas.

Charles is right that many folks don't realize OC is legal and call the police. When police respond THEY sometimes don't know that it is legal or even if they do they impermissibly detain the person. In NM a city/officers just lost a federal civil rights lawsuit where a guy was pulled out of a theater while watching a movie, detained, disarmed, serial number ran, questioned and eventually let go. The court said OC is legal and thus there was no PC for the police to contact him at all. This has been the result in a suit in LA that I know of and I'm pretty sure in some in PA and VA, as well.

Those incidents are definitely the bad that comes with the good. Fortunately, many states are educating their police forces and citizenry. A couple of years ago there were several incidents in NH. Now there haven't been any reported in long time. The same is true in Virginia. VCDL has done a great job of working with police agencies to ensure that everyone follows the law. Same in CT with guidelines recently being issued to CT state troopers. Same in CA about how to deal with UOC. Same in WA. There are still occasional problems in PA (particularly eastern PA where Philly and its surrounding communities seem to think they are immune to PA state law) and NV (Las Vegas is the Philadelphia of Nevada) but things are getting better.

I support police officers. They have a very, very difficult job. They deal with not-so-nice members of our society day in, day out. That's why I especially appreciate folks like SRothstien who seem to keep in all in perspective. He's a great example that officers don't have to acceed to the cynical -- but natural, given their exposure -- view that everyone they encounter is a criminal and should be treated as such. Notice that he never disarms CHLs for "officer safety". He understands the intent of the law and gives respect to follow citizens until he has reason not to. We had our share of officers (and DAs ) who didn't want to adjust to CHL, but they did and they would to OC as well.

That said, if we truly have the rule of law and not of men, then police officers have to follow it too. Where the law or facts are unclear, they get the benefit of the doubt (limited immunity). 4th Amendment guidelines have long been laid out and they must be followed. OC, where legal, simply isn't a reason for law enforcment to contact someone because it is no different than wearing a pink shirt with purple pokadots -- it might draw attention; people might find it rude; it might strike some as unnecessarily provocative but it isn't illegal. I don't personally like biker chains or mowhawks or wife beater shirts or multiple piercings but they aren't illegal either and the agents of our government must clearly understand the line between enforcing the law and acting on preferences. They certainly have plenty of actual crime to deal with.

Freedom isn't easy but it is worth fighting for. I'd rather have CHL and the occasional officer who automatically disarms every CHLer he comes across as SOP rather than "the hassle". He can be educated. The same is true with OC. There will be occasional incidents but they should reduce in number as everyone adjusts to the situation. Liberty can be messy sometimes. We have to be tolerant of other doing things that we wouldn't do.

Restaurant carry in VA? VCDL and OpenCarry.org have a significant overlap and, IIRC, both were very active in getting restaurant CC. Whatever the sins of the past for OpenCarry.org, I hope that we can all work together for a very productive pro-2A session in 2011!

SA-TX

frazzled wrote:

With all the great ground work laid for these two bills over the last few years hopefully we will have smooth sailing this next session.

Hardly. Private business associations are generally against the parking lot bill. It will be rough sledding indeed to get this passed in the next five years, much less the next session.

OC has absolutely no chance on its own. This is not Arizona, Louisiana, or any of those states. You have large metropolitan areas-larger than the total populations of the states mentioned. There is very little history of non-long gun OC in this state in urban areas. Absent long term preparation, baby steps to improve the environment, any thought of OC is fantasy in this state.

That's because it has been illegal for 120+ years.

What makes TX so different from NM, OK, LA and its near neighbor AZ? If population is the issue, what about Seattle? What about Philadelphia? What about Pittsburgh? What about Phoenix? What about Cleveland or Cincy? The VA suburbs of D.C.? Vegas, baby? What specifically about the large populations in Texas cities is a problem for open carrying that these cites aren't experiencing?

Assume that you convinced me that it is somehow just too dangerous to allow legal OC in cities. Would you support OC except in counties of say 500,000 population or greater? The legislature passes laws like this all the time. Aside from DFW, metro Houston, Austin, and SA, you'd probably be good to go everywhere else in the state.

I'll say it again: I never said OC should be our top legislative priority. I think parking lot carry should be. I agree that college carry is a worth issue. I certainly want range protection. I just want OC in the mix. I want a bill. I want some discussion. I want some debate. I want some hearings. Yes, it might take a session or two but if we don't start it will never happen. Baby step one is to discuss an OC proposal while we are advancing the other worthy bills.

Maybe it is just because I work with computers all day but I expect parallel rather than sequential processing. Is that too much to ask?

SA-TX

SA-TX wrote: Maybe it is just because I work with computers all day but I expect parallel rather than sequential processing. Is that too much to ask?

SA-TX

Yes.

I will probably get flamed on this one, but every time I read the OC crowd posts, I am reminded of the old Willie/Merle line on the outlaw Pancho that goes "he wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to feel".

Honestly, I do not get it. In my opinion OC intimidates ordinary people (OK read sheeple) and screams "shoot me first" to the bad guys.

I am glad to see the TSRA priorities list for the upcoming session. Especially the parking lot bill at the top.

My renewal check is in the mail today. Thanks Charles.

Rick

The Annoyed Man wrote:Actually, SA-TX and Cohagher have so eloquently stated their position, that I am more favorably disposed to their cause than I was. Even so, I still think things like the parking lot bill should have some primacy of position before the legislature because that legislation will more directly affect those very CHL holders whom both of you admit will mostly not OC. In other words, it is a more immediately pressing issue for a majority of those who carry guns legally; and therefore, it should be addressed first.

100%

SA-TX, you've stated your position eloquently and I would support getting OC passed. But considering some of the other potential crazy things that will come up next session (Voter ID again, Raising the limit on number of students in the classroom, budget issues) we will be lucky imho to get one or two "gun bills" passed...considering that, I would far prefer we focus on parking lots and campus carry. Simply put they affect more people, and are far more likely to save a life than having the ability to open carry.

If we get those issues taken care of in 2011 I would WHOLE HEARTEDLY support open carry in 2013. It's just not as important to me as other issues and I HIGHLY doubt we have enough clout to get them all pushed through.

Conagher wrote:I really appreciate your explanation of the “big, ugly sign”. So in summary; a risk materialized, resolutions were planned and implemented, and the risk was mitigated. Great Job! I have not doubt and complete confidence that this activity could be repeated and effective risk mitigating action(s) could again be implemented.

Thanks & Have a Nice Day!

Remember, the "fix" had two elements: 1) "big, ugly sign," and 2) out-of-sight-out-of-mind. With OC, the second element is missing and the result will likely be different.

Chas.

Unless I completely misread your post, your statement about Texas gun laws was much broader than just our CHL-related statutes. If I am correct, I would point out that your response addresses nothing but CHL-related laws and even those are either incorrect or very minor in nature. Texas is extremely gun-friendly.

SA-TX wrote: I'm going to point out where I think Texas is worse and also differences (where I'm not necessary saying we are worse, but that we should consider what others are doing).

1) Cost. Texas has one of the most expensive licenses in the country between DPS fees and the mandated training. Some states are as cheap as $20. Worse.

I haven't done a study nationwide so I can't comment on the maximum fee. However, there are 50% discounts offered to many people such as people over 60 years of age and anyone ever in the military (not just those who retired). Active military get it free. The renewal is only 50% of the original fee. A CHL paying the full rate will have an average cost of $21/year for the first 10 years,decreasing there after. This is probably higher than some states, but hardly cost prohibitive.

SA-TX wrote:2) Requirements.

SSN. A federal court in PA threw out their SSN requirement as a violation of federal law which only grants the use of SSN for limited purposes. In TX, this is used to check for child support or student loan delinquencies. People shouldn't dodge either obligation but should those be disqualifiers for a CHL? Gun carry licenses, unlike hunting or fishing licenses, also aren't on the list of "recreational or professional" licenses for which federal law insists that child support records be checked and this is how other states avoid it. Remember that even when buying a gun your SSN is OPTIONAL on the federal forms. Worse.

You are really stretching in your attempt to show Texas law is worse than other states.

SA-TX wrote:Must have a Texas ID or DL. This keep the number of out-of-state licenses issues to far less than FL or UT. Worse.

It is no longer necessary to get a Texas ID; in fact DPS does not issue Texas ID's to non-residents.

SA-TX wrote:Picture. Believe it or not, many states don't have pictures on their carry licenses. They find it unnecessary and it drives up cost. PA and IA don't, to name 2 that I know of. Might also speed up processing times. No opinion.

To my knowledge, all but a very few states require a photo. Photos are not oppressive nor do they run up the cost of a CHL more than a very few dollars. Plus, as of May 1st, renewals don't require a new photo and soon Texas residents won't have to submit photos even with an initial application.

SA-TX wrote:Fingerprints. Many states require them, but not all. Presumably this aids in the background check. Might speed up processing times. No opinion.

There is no reason for Texas to require fingerprints, but as of May 1st it is not necessary to submit new fingerprints. If a state does not have access to the NICS database (Texas does) then "no fingerprints" means "no reciprocity" with many states.

SA-TX wrote:3) Education. Texas has one of the longest classes and it doesn't change quickly for renewals (on the 3rd renewal???). I'm not opposed to education on the law and safe gun handling but other states don't think it is necessary (IN, VA, WA, as examples) or at least not as much. Worse.

I agree that the mandatory 10 hr. class for initial licenses is too long. The material can be taught in fewer hours. I don't know the length of required courses in other states, but those who have no class requirement cannot get reciprocity with many states.

SA-TX wrote:3) Off-limits places. Professional/college/high school sporting events, bars, non-public police area (and that one was just added). Then there are those that technically aren't CHL-specific but are still unnecessary: polling place on election day, buildings in which there is a court or court office, race track, site of an execution, etc.

I'm not in favor of drinking and carrying but many states don't exclude bars (PA and IN are examples). Do they have drunken shoot-em ups? Not very often. Obviously there are other crimes when they do. Rather than off-limits places, why don't we criminalize behavior? If you use your gun in a bad way, no matter where you are, you face charges. The only truly off-limits places I think are reasonable are IN a courtroom, correctional facility, and the secured area of an airport. We could strip away all the other restrictions and we wouldn't have wild mayhem ensue. Worse.

The vast majority of states prohibit carrying in everyone of the locations you listed. In fact, the vast majority of states prohibit carrying in any establishment that serves alcohol and some prohibit carrying in any locations that sell alcohol even if it is not for on-premises consumption. Texas prohibits only carry in bars (51% locations).

"Law Enforcement facilities" are very narrowly defined and even when a facility qualifies, it is not off-limits. CHL's can be disarmed and their handguns secured in mandatory lock-boxes, but they cannot be required to return to their cars to lock up their guns. Name the states that allow carrying in police stations? I suspect they are very few.

SA-TX wrote:4) License categories. I know that nearly everyone gets SA so as a practical matter its irrevelant, but no other state that I know of licenses by action. Worse.

I agree. Again, this is very minor.

SA-TX wrote:5) Officer ability to disarm. They are supposed to have a reasonable sense you are danger to yourself or someone else. In practice, "officer safety" seems to be good enough. Worse.

Every officer in Texas has the authority to disarm anyone they stop "for the officer's safety." Including this in the Texas CHL statute added nothing and did not create authority where none previously existed. It was a political move to garner necessary votes to pass the bill.

SA-TX wrote:6) Reciprocity. Many states simply recognize ALL valid permits/licenses by other states. The new IA law does this. Very easy. We have agreements, governor makes proclimations, etc. Where's our recognition of MN for instance? They recognize TX but we don't them and I don't know why. Where's the report that the AG's office is suppose to provide to the legislative leaders every year on other states? Worse.

List the states that recognize every other states licenses. I suspect you will find that the majority of states don't recognize every state's license, especially since just under half of the states that have CHL statutes are "shall issue" states.

SA-TX wrote:7) Texas laws are way too confusing. Take the classic "church" example. Carrying here used to be off-limits and still appears to be but actually isn't because of (i). We seem to take the approach of sweeping prohibitions, outlawing the carrying of a handgun, then create many exemptions. Wouldn't we be better off if the law was cleaned up?

You claim our laws are way too confusing, but only list one example -- churches. You can add hospitals, nursing homes and meetings of governmental entities to the list, since the 30.06 sign required by TPC §46.035(i) applies to those locations as well. There is nothing confusing at all. In fact it's very clear; no sign - not off-limits.

SA-TX wrote:These are the ones that come to mind. I do appreciate you asking and I hope we'll work on these.

These are the ones that come to mind? I'm still waiting for something outside the CHL arena, as well as some within the CHL arena of substance. These are nothing more than nitpicking in an attempt to paint Texas as something other than a very gun-friendly state. This is yet another tactic commonly used by OC supporters; if a state doesn't allow OC, then it's not "gun-friendly."

Texas gun laws are very liberal, not perfect, there's certainly room for improvement, but the idea that many or most other states are more gun-friendly is erroneous.

Chas.

Please, just pass campus carry, not only do I go to class as a full time student, I also work 20 hours a week there, and am about to move on campus maybe. I'd hate to have to leave my weapon in my car every day, or worse at home.

I currently don't think there is enough representation to allow open carry to pass in texas but in my opinion I think obama is our best chance in a long time to get open carry he may push texas far enough to the right to get enough support to pass open carry but time will tell.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:In fact, the vast majority of states prohibit carrying in any establishment that serves alcohol and some prohibit carrying in any locations that sell alcohol even if it is not for on-premises consumption. Texas prohibits only carry in bars (51% locations).

Cite, please?

I'm using a reference map, and it's from opencarry.org (and I realize you have a personal beef with the owners, or at least it seems like you do), but when it comes to "restaurant carry" (places that serve alcohol, but aren't 51%-style "bars"), the map is pretty interesting:

One state (Arizona) requires concealed carry, but carry is legal
Two states (Montana and Virginia) require open carry, but carry is legal.
Eight states (New Mexico, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Louisiana (debatable, because of conflicting laws)) ban carry anywhere alcohol is served for on-premises consumption.

Now, not every state is a "carry state", but eight is a long way from being a "vast majority" no matter what their licensing restrictions are.

You might be able to dig out more info from handgunlaw.us, but their site is impossible to search because they use .pdf documents for every page.

In the interest of fair discussion, I tried to determine, from sources not related to opencarry.org, exactly which states ban carry anywhere alcohol is served (as opposed to "sold").

The first thing I ran into was an impressive wall of disinformation about the recent Tennessee bill to allow restaurant carry, and the Virginia bills (a couple in recent years) to allow concealed carry in restaurants. (It's currently illegal to carry concealed in a Virginia restaurant that serves alcohol, but perfectly legal to carry openly).

Multiple news articles and editorials in both states conflated (deliberately, I must believe) bans on "bar carry" with "restaurant carry". They also conflate (again, I must assume it's intentional) "sold" with "served for on-premises consumption").

In Virginia, for instance, there is no such thing as a "51% bar"; to serve alcohol, every establishment must be a restaurant with a kitchen and derive half their income from food. Only concealed carry is prohibited in such restaurants, thus the "Virginia tuck", where concealed carriers transition to open carry when they enter restaurants.

Still, the detractors called it the "guns in bars bill", One Tennessee law firm editorialized (yes, a law firm wrote an editorial column that was widely quoted as "news"), that the Tennessee bill would be the first time any state had legalized guns where alcohol was served.

Again, this was flagrantly false. Years ago, Arkansas changed their law. Before the change, guns were prohibited anywhere alcohol was served. After the change, Arkansas became functionally like Texas and the "51%" law.

There is a lot of deliberate disinformation on this issue. I fear too many of our pro-gun friends have swallowed the Brady/CPHGV line, because they're worried about political fallout.

chabouk wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:In fact, the vast majority of states prohibit carrying in any establishment that serves alcohol and some prohibit carrying in any locations that sell alcohol even if it is not for on-premises consumption. Texas prohibits only carry in bars (51% locations).

Cite, please?

I'm using a reference map, and it's from opencarry.org (and I realize you have a personal beef with the owners, or at least it seems like you do), but when it comes to "restaurant carry" (places that serve alcohol, but aren't 51%-style "bars"), the map is pretty interesting:

One state (Arizona) requires concealed carry, but carry is legal
Two states (Montana and Virginia) require open carry, but carry is legal.
Eight states (New Mexico, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Louisiana (debatable, because of conflicting laws)) ban carry anywhere alcohol is served for on-premises consumption.



Now, not every state is a "carry state", but eight is a long way from being a "vast majority" no matter what their licensing restrictions are.

You might be able to dig out more info from handgunlaw.us, but their site is impossible to search because they use .pdf documents for every page.

I didn't go too far into the research, but can tell you the map is incorrect. It shows Tennessee as green and they do NOT have restaurant carry. Who knows how many other states have errors on them.