TexasCHLforum.com

so, if, hypothetically, you could get an "off-limits repeal" bill passed, would that also take care of the "church security team" also? or is that a totally different problem?

SewTexas wrote:so, if, hypothetically, you could get an "off-limits repeal" bill passed, would that also take care of the "church security team" also? or is that a totally different problem?

Two different issues. We can carry in churches not, unless we have notice pursuant to 30.06. The volunteer security teams issue relates to Chp. 1701 of the Occupations Code.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

SewTexas wrote:so, if, hypothetically, you could get an "off-limits repeal" bill passed, would that also take care of the "church security team" also? or is that a totally different problem?

Two different issues. We can carry in churches not, unless we have notice pursuant to 30.06. The volunteer security teams issue relates to Chp. 1701 of the Occupations Code.

Chas.

I figured they were separate issues, since it's different laws, I was just double checking.

The Annoyed Man wrote: Stretching truth and telling lies is the libtard way. Let's not go there.

I have carried in a multitude of states. Out of respect for the ladies present I will simply say, "Physician, heal thyself."

Misfit Child wrote:Out of respect for the ladies present I will simply say, "Physician, heal thyself."

This is why we will not have OC in Texas. Save your ammo for the enemy. Hint, TAM is not the enemy.

SewTexas wrote:so, if, hypothetically, you could get an "off-limits repeal" bill passed, would that also take care of the "church security team" also? or is that a totally different problem?

You can legally carry in church as long as it's not posted and you're not acting as security. Same as most places.

Misfit Child wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote: Stretching truth and telling lies is the libtard way. Let's not go there.

I have carried in a multitude of states. Out of respect for the ladies present I will simply say, "Physician, heal thyself."

You plainly skipped to the bottom of my post. Let me backtrack for you:

The Annoyed Man wrote:........I want Constitutional carry. I want it just as bad as anybody does. But I'm not going to stretch the truth to try and win arguments. I'm not calling you guys liars. Really, I'm not.....

Now, I've never said you haven't open carried in a bunch of states. On the other hand, I do absolutely dare you to OC in Henderson County Nevada, an open carry state with state preemption in firearms laws, or Aurora Colorado, in another open carry state with state preemption in firearms laws.

Go ahead. Then, once you've gotten out of jail and surrendered your CHL on account of that shiny new felony conviction of yours, please come back here and tell us how it went for you. Do you see the point I'm making? The one thing that OC advocates always fail to mention.....and in my experience, they get their feathers up whenever it gets brought up.....is that "the majority of states have OC" is not 100% true for those states which, at least on the books, have open carry. My point is that it doesn't matter if they have OC, you and I cannot count on even enforcement of the law in those states. I've just listed two of them. Twice. I'll bet you that if I were to take the time, I could show more. If I can name TWO without even trying, I've already made my case. That line IS oversold. In actual application, it isn't reliably true. I was careful to state that we need to not speak as true, those things which we know not to be reliably true. Absent reliability, you're just playing a game of chance. You shouldn't preach chance as reliable truth. It's not right.

Let's unpack your claim: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry ... ted_States. According to that link, 20 states have unlicensed OC. Last I checked, 20 is less than half of 50, so that's not a "majority". In one of those states, Arkansas, the meaning of the law is still up for grabs.... and it is NOT a certain thing. If you tell people that it IS a certain thing, you're practicing informational malpractice. Their legal fees will be on your conscience....if you have a conscience. In two of those states which I've already mentioned, there are counties which flout the state's preemption, and you will be arrested for open carrying in a state with open carry. In the state of Delaware, you can't OC in the state capitol. So there's another state where OC has geographical exceptions.....not just private property exceptions. Michigan, which is listed as a permissive state, still requires a license. And by the way, in many of these states there are large tribal reservations where tribal law preempts state law. So you can't just OC willy nilly on reservations.... which occupy thousands of square miles of land. And speaking of states with Indian reservations, New Mexico permits open carry, but YouTube is overflowing with chuckleheads who have run-ins with NM cops, particularly in Albuquerque and Santa Fe, over the fact that they are open carrying. Connecticut has licensed open carry. Do you think, post Sandy Hook, that they are issuing a lot of licenses lately?

That's a lot of words, so I'll start a new paragraph.... Oregon has OC, but it is illegal in a lot of Oregon's cities. In Pennsylvania, you need a license to OC in any city over 100,000 people, but not anywhere else....... except in your car. You always need a license to OC in your car in PA. California is an OC state! Really? No, not really. :( Quoting OCDO, "Open carry is generally prohibited except in unincorporated areas where the county has not made open carry illegal, or, pursuant to a CA open carry permit issued and valid only in a county with a population of less than 200,000 persons." Maryland has licensed OC, but rarely ever issues licenses.....so.... no, Maryland doesn't really have OC. Ohio has OC. Yes it does. But, you can't OC in your vehicle in Ohio unless you also have an Ohio concealed carry license. Rhode Island has licensed OC, but licenses are rarely issued.... so... like Maryland, Rhode Island doesn't really have OC. Did you remember to omit Maryland and Rhode Island from your "majority" of states with OC?

14 states have licensed open carry. In other words, they are no different than Texas....except the gun is exposed..... in which case there is little practical difference from a rights perspective. You still need a license (license = permission) from the state to exercise your right.

I could go on, but I've already spent more time on this than it is worth to me. I just hoped that by doing so, you'd begin to understand why I made my comments in my previous post. A much more accurate statement is "most states have some kind of provision for OC, but in a number of those states, those provisions are for all intents and purposes, worthless".

You say you've OC'd in a multitude of states. Good for you. You've been lucky. I hope your luck holds. I really do. I still don't think you should encourage people to believe the canard.......unless you can prove that it is 100% reliably true. You can't, so you shouldn't. That's my 2¢.

And I'll repeat.... in My world, Constitutional Carry would be the ultimate goal. It's what I want. I'm just not going to exaggerate certain information to try and convince people.....who might in turn go to jail because of something I told them.

I don't need healing, thank you very much. Like jrma said, I'm not your enemy. I just think it is important for us to have complete moral clarity in managing the issue.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: In spite of what ardent open-carry supporters say, only a very small percentage of Texas gun owners care one whit about open-carry. That's why nothing has been done to promote it; at least nothing by the only two organizations that could get it passed. We had far more important things to pass. In my view, we still do, but the decision was made to put open-carry on the legislative agenda so I'll work to pass it. I can't think of anything that we could pass that will have so little impact on Texas gun owners. Even open-carry supporters admit that very few people will carry openly.

Chas.

I agree with all of the above.

The primary reason I want OC to be legal is philosophical more than practical: I simply believe the Legislature shouldn't be restricting our rights. I don't parade around with an AR or an AK either but I don't want it to be illegal. I can think of any number of things that, were bans proposed, Texans would be righteously outraged. For example, how would this community react if told that there was a proposal to ban full auto weapons or .50 cals? In pure numbers, either would probably only affect a small percentage of gun owners. I suspect many would react like me saying, although I don't own either currently, I would be vehemently opposed just on principle. This I think reveals the true split in the pro-2A community between the more libertarian "constitutional carry" position vs. the practical / pragmatic camp. I view my positions as splitting the difference: I'm not satisfied just to have a good CC system and ideally want full liberty restored, however I realize it will not be quick, easy, or perhaps even possible. There are, after all, very few states that have no license/permit requirement for carry openly or concealed.

SA-TX

So, let us see when all our CC rights are given to us, what do we fight for? OC? if so, we are just delaying the issue. I say let us have OC for CHLers and it is win-win for all. to OC you go through the same screening and training like a CHLer. OC would be choice to have.

Beiruty wrote:So, let us see when all our CC rights are given to us, what do we fight for? OC? if so, we are just delaying the issue. I say let us have OC for CHLers and it is win-win for all. to OC you go through the same screening and training like a CHLer. OC would be choice to have.

You are absolutely right, but it's always necessary to delay seeking legislation any any given issue. We can't do everything in one or two sessions. I have wanted to push "reduced off-limits areas for CHL's" for 10 very looooooong years! I was voted down because it's a major step that will require a lot of political capital and we had other things to do. Obviously, I didn't agree and didn't think anything was more important that off-limits areas issue, but I don't get to dictate a legislative agenda for NRA or TSRA. I have input, but not control. Last session, Rep. Springer filed my bill but it wasn't on the NRA or TSRA legislative agenda.

However, we're not talking about delaying open-carry; we talking about those who want it more than any other Texans destroying the opportunity to pass open-carry. Although I'm now somewhat pessimistic about open-carry passing 2015, I'm not giving up or backing away from the issue. That may change if elected officials make it clear that continuing to put them in an untenable position will result in diminished opportunities to pass other pro-gun legislation.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
That may change if elected officials make it clear that continuing to put them in an untenable position will result in diminished opportunities to pass other pro-gun legislation.

Chas.

This is my fear. I have written off OC for this session, but I hope recent antics haven't/don't negatively affect other pro gun legislation that has a real shot at passing. Reducing restricted areas for CC is huge, as evidenced by the survey.

Beiruty wrote:So, let us see when all our CC rights are given to us, what do we fight for?

We will never be done fighting until Chapter 46 is repealed, chapter 49 doesn't make carrying and scaring people a crime, and local CLEOs must sign ALL requests for federal class III paperwork that meets the requirements.

And then we continue the fight for federal changes, until GCA of 68 and NFA Act of 34 are both repealed.

And then we continue the fight for public opinion. Then, maybe, we can relax a little bit.

Seriously, those are my goals. I just see us taking it in baby steps a little at a time and making constant steady progress. So, the question of what to fight for each session and the order to fight in is more of a tactical question to keep making the improvement than a question of where we stop.

I'm realizing just how challenging it is for churches and other similar member organizations to keep their people and premises safe with the current occupation code that protects security company's revenues.

mojo84 wrote:I'm realizing just how challenging it is for churches and other similar member organizations to keep their people and premises safe with the current occupation code that protects security company's revenues.

yep.

Repeal off limit areas for CHL and create a stiff civil penalty for government buildings who post unenforable 30.06 are the top of my list.

Who would be responsible for enforcing and writing citations to government agencies who post 30.06 if it does pass?