TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote:Is it really that much trouble to strap on a gun at the competition?

With stiff gun belt, setting up your rig (holster and 2 mag carrier) is not horribly bad but it is not like you are pulling up your pants either. What I do, is get set up at home and throw on a wind breaker or light fleece jacket. You need that in pistol matches because you need to unconceal and draw while shooting unless it is too hot in the summer where we get a waiver. Also, usually I take one pistol to the match. I carry it concealed till I am at range.

Beiruty wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Is it really that much trouble to strap on a gun at the competition?

With stiff gun belt, setting up your rig (holster and 2 mag carrier) is not horribly bad but it is not like you are pulling up your pants either. What I do, is get set up at home and throw on a wind breaker or light fleece jacket. You need that in pistol matches because you need to unconceal and draw while shooting unless it is too hot in the summer where we get a waiver. Also, usually I take one pistol to the match. I carry it concealed till I am at range.

I have never done the competition thing. I kind of pictured using my range bag, like when I go to the range.

03Lightningrocks wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

03Lightningrocks wrote:Is it really that much trouble to strap on a gun at the competition?

With stiff gun belt, setting up your rig (holster and 2 mag carrier) is not horribly bad but it is not like you are pulling up your pants either. What I do, is get set up at home and throw on a wind breaker or light fleece jacket. You need that in pistol matches because you need to unconceal and draw while shooting unless it is too hot in the summer where we get a waiver. Also, usually I take one pistol to the match. I carry it concealed till I am at range.

I have never done the competition thing. I kind of pictured using my range bag, like when I go to the range.

Give it a try, join us at Dallas Pistol Club, it is tons of fun ;)

Well since my last post was locked, I will post it here Texas NEEDS open carry. I can't wait till the day that there is constitutional carry in every state. Any politician that is even 1% against the 2nd amendment will NOT get a vote from me or any of you hopefully. If they are against the 2nd then they are prolly against the rest of them as well.

Protect Our Rights wrote:Well since my last post was locked, I will post it here Texas NEEDS open carry. I can't wait till the day that there is constitutional carry in every state. Any politician that is even 1% against the 2nd amendment will NOT get a vote from me or any of you hopefully. If they are against the 2nd then they are prolly against the rest of them as well.

I understand, and I long for Constitutional Carry also, but I don't think you're being realistic about the political issues. Here's why I say that.

Lots of politicians serve districts were the balance of voters on the left and on the right are nearly evenly balanced. A representative from such a district, who barely got elected by a majority, has to include among those voters who voted for him or her some who are more conservative than others. Those voters who are only slightly right of center, and those who are registered independents who voted for this person might be perfectly OK when it comes to CHL, but they might definitely not be OK when it comes to OC. But you have to remember that his constituency is the entire voter base in his district, not just the ones who elected him. If he makes his constituency is angered by something he does, those slightly right of center voters, PLUS all of the independents, PLUS all of the left of center voters might constitute a large enough majority to throw this representative out of office the next time around and elect someone who is more to the left on issues. The problem is that this new politician won't be just more to the left on gun rights. He or she will also be more to the left on everything else that you might care about. So, if you as a strong supporter of all 100% of the 2nd Amendment are unfortunate enough to live in this district where your views can easily become unrepresented overnight, and you vote against the reelection of this legislator who is "only 98%" in favor of the 2nd Amendment, as you put it, you will shoot yourself in the foot.

Now, at this moment in time, we have a huge republican majority in the legislature, and this legislature's meeting and perhaps the next are times to strike while the iron is hot. But that majority can vanish in one election cycle if republicans mismanage the state, and it seems that making incremental advances toward the ultimate goal of constitutional carry is the best way to go, and it makes it easier and easier to make arguments against the opposition when you can establish a history of incremental advances of the RKBA which did not result in blood running in the streets.

We lost those rights incrementally, and it nearly stuck. The way to get them back and make it stick is also incrementally.

Protect Our Rights wrote:Well since my last post was locked, I will post it here Texas NEEDS open carry. I can't wait till the day that there is constitutional carry in every state. Any politician that is even 1% against the 2nd amendment will NOT get a vote from me or any of you hopefully. If they are against the 2nd then they are prolly against the rest of them as well.

This "Your with us or against us" attitude will do us more harm than any thing else. I personally feel that every politician should pass what I call the "Uncle Ted" Test in order to be eligible for office. The Uncle Ted test is essentially requiring them to be at least as friendly to gun rights as Ted Nugent, more so if possible. However if given a choice between a member of the Brady Campaign or someone who is good on the second amendment but won't support OC I will vote for the latter to prevent the former from winning.

And yes, a candidates position on the Second amendment is my first factor for determining how I vote but given equally good candidates on that I will decide using other factors. I personally feel that the only gun laws on the books should be there to keep violent felons from having guns, but we may differ even on that.

Protect Our Rights wrote:Well since my last post was locked, I will post it here Texas NEEDS open carry. I can't wait till the day that there is constitutional carry in every state. Any politician that is even 1% against the 2nd amendment will NOT get a vote from me or any of you hopefully. If they are against the 2nd then they are prolly against the rest of them as well.

Your last post, which was actually your first post, was blocked because there was another seven (7) page long thread on "Open Carry" currently running. Had you sorta' read through this thread, you would have agreed with LT as he opined that, 'OC is a pretty volatile subject on the Texas Concealed Handgun Forum'.

BTW, does the name Dale Carnegie ring any bells with you? if not, why don't you take a deep breath and check him out?

If someone thinks the Brady Bill and AWB are "incremental" then so is allowing unlicensed open carry.

It's too late in the session, and I don't like the current OC bill, so I wouldn't push for it this year, but the baby steps attitude causes us to lose ground over time. The antis are not afraid to take big steps. Why are we so afraid, when we have the moral high ground?

morigan wrote:If someone thinks the Brady Bill and AWB are "incremental" then so is allowing unlicensed open carry.

It's too late in the session, and I don't like the current OC bill, so I wouldn't push for it this year, but the baby steps attitude causes us to lose ground over time. The antis are not afraid to take big steps. Why are we so afraid, when we have the moral high ground?

What "baby steps" do you feel have been taken in Texas in the last 20 years? What ground have we lost in Texas in the last 20 years? What ground have we lost on the federal level since 2000? I agree that the antis are not afraid to attempt big steps, but they lose.

I will also state that if open-carry were to pass in Texas, it would not be a major step toward regaining full Second Amendment rights. In fact, it would pale in comparison to the major victory we achieved in 1995 with passage of the CHL bill. For the first time in over 120 years, people we able to carry a handgun every day of their lives virtually everywhere in Texas. Open-carry would be far less significant than the Motorist Protection Act that allows unlicensed persons to carry handguns in their cars.

These two changes in the law reversed 120+ years of self-defense history providing Texans the ability, not merely the right, to save one's own life. Open-carry will merely make a change in how handguns can be carried. In the grand scheme of things, that's pretty minor -- a true baby step.

Chas.

Well, seeings how I sit in a very friendly OC state, I have no obligation to Texans or their rights. As a friend of mine put it (on a site that is hated by moderators here (OCDO)) The best way to protect rights is to protect the rights of others. I never siad the politician had to be OC friendly, just 2nd amendment friendly. Legal battles are being fought all over the country right now that are in favor of gun owners. Now is the time to press on our legislators and let them know that what they have been doing is great but it is not enough. We can't afford to wait until Obama and his czars mess with the system. OC time and time again has proven to be a deter to criminal activity. Look at statistics on how percentage wise how many how many CCers have to pull and fire on a criminal compared to OCers. It's just sad today that people go around preaching that they are pro-2nd amendment but then in the same sentence say that OC is wrong. That I find very amusing and heretical.

Protect Our Rights wrote:Well, seeings how I sit in a very friendly OC state, I have no obligation to Texans or their rights. As a friend of mine put it (on a site that is hated by moderators here (OCDO)) The best way to protect rights is to protect the rights of others. I never siad the politician had to be OC friendly, just 2nd amendment friendly. Legal battles are being fought all over the country right now that are in favor of gun owners. Now is the time to press on our legislators and let them know that what they have been doing is great but it is not enough. We can't afford to wait until Obama and his czars mess with the system. OC time and time again has proven to be a deter to criminal activity. Look at statistics on how percentage wise how many how many CCers have to pull and fire on a criminal compared to OCers. It's just sad today that people go around preaching that they are pro-2nd amendment but then in the same sentence say that OC is wrong. That I find very amusing and heretical.

Thanks for your help. Your profile doesn't give us much information, which "very friendly OC state" do you sit in?

I am for open carry, however, where practiced and in large urban areas, like DFW Metro and Houston what are the ramifications?

morigan wrote:If someone thinks the Brady Bill and AWB are "incremental" then so is allowing unlicensed open carry.

It's too late in the session, and I don't like the current OC bill, so I wouldn't push for it this year, but the baby steps attitude causes us to lose ground over time. The antis are not afraid to take big steps. Why are we so afraid, when we have the moral high ground?

I am not afraid to take big steps, but I am tactically aware enough to know what will work and what will really irritate the vast majority, who are neutral on this issue. We need the neutrals to support us and see us as reasonable people. If they see us as reasonable, they may not support us, but they will not oppose us. This is critical to getting what we want. But, when the neutrals see us as unreasonable, they will not support us and will actively fight against us.

From what I have seen, my opinion is that the national media is not neutral on this issue, and has repeatedly tried to make us look unreasonable and dangerous. This is why we cannot push for repeal of chapter 42, much as I would like to. That would not appear reasonable to the neutrals.

The other point I feel important to clarify is whether or not we have the moral high ground. I certainly feel that we do, but I also do not feel that this is nearly as clear as you make it sound. The other side is not evil incarnate, but also thinks they have the moral high ground. Most of them are good people trying to do what they think is right and best for society. I may disagree with them, but that does not make them immoral. Of course, I will grant there are some who want us disarmed for reasons I would see as immoral - a desire for pure power and control over us. But that is a very small minority, just as there is a very, very small minority on our side who want access to better arms for evil reasons. I caution against anyone making this into a moral issue. We stand a much better chance of succeeding when we recognize the other side are also basically good people.

I guess I wonder how many will OC if it does become lawful. I spent a week in Tucson, and didn't see a single person oc-ing. I was among the public, restaurants all week and didn't notice a thing. Prior to that, I was in Mesa for a week, and other than a bunch of us shooting up in the Mts, I didn't see any.

wgoforth wrote:I guess I wonder how many will OC if it does become lawful. I spent a week in Tucson, and didn't see a single person oc-ing. I was among the public, restaurants all week and didn't notice a thing. Prior to that, I was in Mesa for a week, and other than a bunch of us shooting up in the Mts, I didn't see any.

Since the proposed is CHLer that can OC, not many would OC if they are used to CC. Most likely, OC would happen on Weekends, off working hours and not when you are going to work or coming back from work.