TexasCHLforum.com

steveincowtown wrote:

flintknapper wrote: snip.....
I do not believe the public will have fainting spells over OC should ever become law.

Nor do I...

#1> Will Open Carry cause the demise of CHL's everywhere and make signs appear everywhere. Nope. We have already established that OC'ing is so rare, and most people just think they are LEO, etc. Who is going to panic when so few will do it, and of those who do it, so few with be noticed?

#2> Is the proposed Law the way it should be done? I don't think so. It is sloppy and leaves to many open ends. I think we have learned from CHL statute that all bases need to be covered...twice.

#3> (The following is not meant disrepectfull, but...)There are a lot of CHL instructors on this board. Having a discussion with someone who earns income off the current law about pushing forward with full Constitutional Carry is somewhat like your boss calling you into a meeting to get your input on how to eliminate your position.

The Annoyed Man wrote: That is just one of the reasons why Charles Cotton is so right when he insists that it is incumbent on OC activists to craft legislation that will not adversely affect the carry rights of people like me.

The Annoyed Man wrote:But I do have to take exception with you on #1. I can assure you - and forum members who have met me will agree - I don't look like any kind of cop, and if I'm open carrying, nobody is going to mistake me for one. And yet, I will face having been given effective and binding notice to leave because I will look like a non-LEO with a gun,

Beiruty wrote:Giving a great deal of thought and energy to the OC debate is needed and very useful.
As Charles noted, if posting a 30.06 is all what is needed to ban Open carrying on the premises, then concealed carry would be affected. If on the other hand a new (smaller) sign that is notify that no visible firearms are allowed. CC could be still allowed and the business may not have an issue with CC.

Charles, however, said 2 signs would not fly. I kindly ask why this compromise is not possible?

Keith B wrote:I heard the way to end up with a small fortune teaching CHL classes is to start out with a large fortune.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

billv wrote:As for LEO's and OC in Texas, they already know the laws (or should) on concealed carry and this law doesn't change anything but allow one to open carry. The LEO, seeing someone with a firearm, can assume that the person is licensed.

Any LEO seeing someone openly carrying a gun will be justified to stop them and ask of they have a CHL. You can bet this will happen a great deal, especially in urban areas.

Yes they will, and that will decrease as they realize they keep talking to law abiding CHL holders 99% of the time.

billv wrote:As for more 30.06 signs - yes there will likely be a flurry of them put up. That can be dealt with.

How? Sorry, we won't be able to deal with it and a huge, in my view unforgivable, mistake was made when HB2756 intentionally amended TPC §30.06 to make it apply to both open and concealed carry. This clearly threw CHL's under the buss for absolutely no reason. This is an event that supporters should have been prepared to oppose, even to the point of pulling down (killing) their own Bill; not a situation they intentionally created. This is the single issue most often cited by CHL's as a concern about open-carry and those concerns where not merely ignored, they were made a reality by those who want open-carry at any cost.

How? In other states, OC'ers contact store manager that post sign, avoid the store and inform others to now do business at the store. It works about 1/2 the time.

billv wrote:Most large business follow the state laws on firearms - that likely won't change. If these larger multi-state business already have a policy against firearms, they likely already have a 30.06 sign up.

This is not the case now. There are very very few valid 30.06 signs anywhere in Texas. Let someone walk through Home Depot or HEB with a 1911 showing and this will change. It did in 1995 through 8/31/97 when we changed the law and there's no reason to think it won't happen again.

The large box stores that have multi-state operations have already dealt with the firearm issue simply because there are 43 other states that allow open carry.

Here are some responses From Lowes, Home Depot and Walmart. All three follow state laws. So if open carry is legal, they allow open carry. Some local store managers sometimes try to ban firearms and are set straight by corporate. As I said it'll be the local stores that are the issue - like HEB. They will lose some business to firearms friendly stores.

Home Depot
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... ost1492944" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

lowes

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... ost1494126" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

walmart

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... ost1375352" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

billv wrote:In NC, stores that ban firearms are announced in forums, their management is contacted by many people, telling them that they won't shop there any longer and their foolishness and unrealistic paranoia. Many pull down the signs soon after. Some don't. Some pull them down when they realize that they are losing business. Moreover, OC'ers tend to frequent stores that are firearm friendly so their business increases.

No stores pulled down generic "no guns" signs in Texas from 1995 to Sept. 1, 1997 when the TPC §30.06 "Big Ugly Sign" became a requirement. And we were dealing with guns the general public couldn't see. We see this "we'll educate them" response often, but the idea that less than 3% of the Texas population is going to teach of 97% is groundless. If a business owner has to choose between alienating 3% of the population or 97%, we'll lose.

This is a bit disingenuous. 97%? You make the assumption that these 97% are all going to be anti-firearm. IMO It'll be much less. You could be right, but I think things have progressed some and I think this will be a minor issue, certainly not the magnitude you are implying.

billv wrote:Finally I've seen mention in this thread that the open carry issue could have been fixed with a simple two page bill. If it was so easy, they why wasn't that done?

Because the guy who claims to have written it didn't know what he was doing is my guess. I can think of no justifiable reason to open numerous sections of the Government Code and Penal Code up to anti-gun amendments. For example, here are some of the subjects we have improved over the last 15 years that HB2756 opens up to amendment:

Good point. I hope that it doesn't come to that.

• Eligibility/requirements for getting a CHL
  "Shall issue" requirment (rather than "may issue")
  Application processing
  Reciprocity
  Renewal procedures
  CHL classes/training requirements
  Background checks
  Fees
  Revocation of a CHL
  Employer rights
  Carry on or at:
  • LCRA property
    Government meetings
  All "not applicable" provisions in TCP Chp. 46

Every single one of these areas are subject to amendment, including anti-gun amendments. HB2756 took the same approach as did the horrendous open-carry bill promoted by OpenCarry.org during the 2009 Texas Legislative Session. I cautioned then that it was too broad and noted how easily open-carry could be achieved. Texas has a very stringent germane rule that protects us from tampering during the amendment process. But this bill throws that protection down the toilet.

billv wrote:Let's not fight between those who wish to OC and those who don't. With this current bill you can do both. It's a first step in the right direction, just like getting the ability to conceal carry was a step.

Sorry, but I disagree. If HB2756 gets a committee hearing, the amendment to TPC §30.06 has to be brought up and it must be amended (i.e. removed) from the Bill. We cannot stand by while someone intentionally creates a one-size-fits-all sign and let 461,000 CHL's be harmed. If anti-gun amendments are promoted, then the danger increases and this would most likely come as Floor Amendments during debate. If any stick, then the Bill must be "fixed" in the Senate, by any means necessary.

I absolutely agree with you about not letting personalities be a part of the discussion. However, if you look at OpenCarry.org I believe the comments you see there will show the animosity comes from the open-carry camp. Their approach is the "if you aren't with us, you're against us." Any legitimate concerns about a huge increase in 30.06 signs are met with claims that those holding those views are "CHL elitist" who somehow feel special and want to keep it that way. We are labeled as people who don't respect the Second Amendment and numerous other slurs. A small number of posters on OpenCarry.org were banned here on TexasCHLforum for numerous rule violations, so they respond with attacks against the Forum and its Members. One openly brags of re-registering here using a spoofed IP address and different user name and email address, as if sneaking in like a thief at night is somehow noble. The key to bringing civility back into the discussion of the best way to promote open-carry lies in expelling the radical extremist element in the open-carry movement and becoming statesmen. I think you have a better chance of brokering a peace treaty between Israel and Hezbollah!

Chas.

cbr600 wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

cbr600 wrote:Interesting on the signage. Is there a similar risk with private colleges in the campus carry bill?

Members of the public can and do walk around college campuses, sightseeing and whatnot. It's legal for a CHL to stroll around the grounds until he feels at home, as long as he's outside. I think it's even legal for a non-CHL to leave their gun in their car on campus under MPA. Students can be expelled and professors can be fired, but school policy doesn't apply to the rest of us.

Let's suppose HB 750 becomes law and Rice University opts out by posting 30.06 signs at each entrance to campus. Then a CHL holder can't carry on the grounds and, arguably, can't even leave it in their car in an on campus parking lot.

One more time: Should campus carry pass for Texas CH licensees, people will have to make the same decisions where they want to send their tuition as we do now with 30.06 signs and which businesses we frequent and where we spend those dollars.

I like pepperoni pizza as much as the next guy, but the question was about people who are part of the larger community, not students. There's also the question about MPA in college parking lots if the administration posts 30.06 signs at each entrance to campus. Does the campus carry bill do anything to mitigate that risk to the wider community of gun owners?

billv wrote:This is a bit disingenuous. 97%? You make the assumption that these 97% are all going to be anti-firearm. IMO It'll be much less. You could be right, but I think things have progressed some and I think this will be a minor issue, certainly not the magnitude you are implying.

tacticool wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:But I do have to take exception with you on #1. I can assure you - and forum members who have met me will agree - I don't look like any kind of cop, and if I'm open carrying, nobody is going to mistake me for one. And yet, I will face having been given effective and binding notice to leave because I will look like a non-LEO with a gun,

Can someone show me where the bill would force us to open carry?

Otherwise the argument is a red herring, because we would still have the option, the CHOICE, to conceal if we want. Let me repeat that. People who are concerned they "face having been given effective and binding notice to leave because [they] will look like a non-LEO with a gun," will still have the CHOICE to conceal. Same as the change in 46.035 gave churches the CHOICE to allow guns or prohibit guns, instead of the government denying them the CHOICE.

tacticool wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:But I do have to take exception with you on #1. I can assure you - and forum members who have met me will agree - I don't look like any kind of cop, and if I'm open carrying, nobody is going to mistake me for one. And yet, I will face having been given effective and binding notice to leave because I will look like a non-LEO with a gun,

Can someone show me where the bill would force us to open carry?

Otherwise the argument is a red herring, because we would still have the option, the CHOICE, to conceal if we want. Let me repeat that. People who are concerned they "face having been given effective and binding notice to leave because [they] will look like a non-LEO with a gun," will still have the CHOICE to conceal. Same as the change in 46.035 gave churches the CHOICE to allow guns or prohibit guns, instead of the government denying them the CHOICE.