TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote:

redlin67 wrote:Eventually the right to open carry has to be honored. Why not now? Just get er done!

Fixed it for you.

Rights are not granted.



Anygunanywhere

Gracias

Waco Kid wrote:

flintknapper wrote:What percent of the population do suppose would have this kind of reaction?

I think you sell the public short, most folks will not even notice...let alone have a fit over it.

All it takes is one person to squeak properly and the grease will be applied. I've never ever met a gay person that wanted to marry their partner. Yet that doesn't stop it from becoming a huge, hot topic in this country.

I respectfully disagree. If this was true, then every 30.06 sign would be removed as soon as "one person squeaked properly".

Katygunnut wrote: I respectfully disagree. If this was true, then every 30.06 sign would be removed as soon as "one person squeaked properly".

Wrong. Removing a 30.06 sign relies on objective rationality from the owner (plus the actual effort to remove the sign to "let guns in" *GASP*.

Going through the effort to put up a sign just requires a squeaky wheel (for example, someone OCing) and an uneducated, irrational person who "wants to do something about people carrying guns into the store!!!".

Which do you think is more likely? I'm betting its the one that requires less thought and more gut reaction.

I think I may have posted something similar to this before, but even if I did, I think it might add something to THIS discussion. I am currently attending an "institution of higher learning", as they say (in a technical program). The Campus Carry thing came up (I did NOT mention that I have a license). Some people were concerned that a HUGE amount of people would then be "packing" on college campuses with resultant bloodshed, the way the media has trained them to think. When I told the group of folks how few people in in the ENTIRE State of Texas have CHLs (I said less than 500,000), they were SHOCKED. They felt it had to be a bigger number, but I assured them I was correct and they could look it up. Lots of folks in this state (Texans born and bred, and those more recent to the state) just assume that a large percentage of the population is carrying firearms where it is legal to do so. I think that the MAJORITY of folks are not our "adversaries" on any of this; nope, just a very small, vocal hoplophobic minority (some with serious political reasons for being so), and a somewhat larger, but still small, group of misinformed folks. This IS Texas, when you say the word, folks think of oil wells, cowboys, wide-open spaces and GUNS. What we really need is an effective public education campaign, with the REAL numbers to back us up. Explain the background checks, the classes, the LAWS, but in an abbreviated manner. Let the general populace know how few CHLers have ever had their permits revoked FOR ANY REASON or that have committed crimes, of ANY sort. Once you can get the opposition down to the true Brady Campaigners, anything might be possible. At least, I would certainly hope so...considering what so many folks already think anyway. All that said, I would NOT want to jeopardize concealed carry for anything gimmicky. We need to move forward in the reclamation of our RIGHTS, not backward just to be like some other states.

My understanding was that only "intentional" flashing of my CCW was illegal and a wind blown shirt flashing the weapon was not brandishing. Am I wrong?

Maxwell wrote:My understanding was that only "intentional" flashing of my CCW was illegal and a wind blown shirt flashing the weapon was not brandishing. Am I wrong?

You are correct. Welcome to the TexasCHLforum.

Chas.

jordanmills wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

redlin67 wrote:Here it is: HB 2756 http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82 ... 02756I.htm

Good luck! I would love to have an option to open carry while travelling, hiking, hunting, etc....

Well you already can while traveling and hiking.

At present you can't without a lot more hassle that it is worth and in many cases a trip to jail.

I would like to see it pass if for no other reason than it would no longer be a problem if you were accidentally Uncovered or Printed.

So, if I am riding my motorcycle down the road and the wind blows my shirt up over my carry, it is not illegal? Because the wind even blows my shirt up over my carry under my jacket. I know this, so when we stop, I just unfasten my jacket, and lower my shirt before I proceed into the store.

gwtrikenut wrote:So, if I am riding my motorcycle down the road and the wind blows my shirt up over my carry, it is not illegal? Because the wind even blows my shirt up over my carry under my jacket. I know this, so when we stop, I just unfasten my jacket, and lower my shirt before I proceed into the store.

It's only illegal if you intentionally do it. Now, one could argue if your driving down the road and it's blowing that you would have to know it's showing and then you might get into some trouble but you have to knowingly show it. This won't stop a LEO from having a talk with you though.

I originally wasn't a huge fan of OC, still not a huge fan but I can defiantly see the useful applications. This is Texas after all, and it tends to get a little hot in the summer so OC'ing may be a better option for the hotter than Hyades months.

Why is everyone caught up in logistics? I'm really not trying to rock the boat but it seems like there is much concern where the CHL's (those who can afford to pay for their rights) will be able to carry and not much concern with the RIGHTS of ALL citizens. 2A is now incorporated folks. Texas law prohibiting open carry is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Doesn't that mean anything??

I have a CHL and I love that I'm able to carry almost anywhere but I can deal with a few more 30.06 signs popping up (supposedly) if it means bringing TX into compliance with the COTUS. I can always go to another grocery store or gas station.

jecsd1

Very Well Said!!!

jecsd1 wrote:2A is now incorporated folks. Texas law prohibiting open carry is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Doesn't that mean anything??

Heller has been incorporated and it says nothing about carrying; it's a "keeping" case, not a "bearing" case. We still have to get a carrying case to the Supreme Court. People have been reading too much into Heller since the day the opinion was handed down.

There is very good dicta in Heller, including the first ever Supreme Court recognition of a constitutional right to self-defense. This is as important as the Second Amendment part of the case because it makes it much easier and more likely to win a "carrying" case. But Heller did not establish "constitutional carry" as so many of our friends now claim.

Chas.

So when those in Illinois or any other states where right to carry is denied would file for 2nA case? Let us call it Heller-II

jecsd1 wrote: 2A is now incorporated folks.

I agree with Charles on this, yes Heller was an important step, but here are 2 important things to remember about the Heller case.

1) Dealt with whether or not you could keep a weapon in the home, not carry it in the street. Even allows for "reasonable restrictions".

2) was a 5-4 decision. There is no guarantee that the current court would find in favor of your right to "bear" arms regarding concealed carry.

We should be very careful wishing for a court case concerning bearing arms right now. It might not go the way we'd like.