TexasCHLforum.com

Here's the other version of the poll.

Chas.

Voted "I don't know"...because I truly don't. Or at least can't prove it one way or the other.

My gut feeling is that some reaction will take place if the public is not first informed and "primed" for it.

But I don't think the public in general would be opposed to it (or even notice) for the most part.

flintknapper wrote:Voted "I don't know"...because I truly don't. Or at least can't prove it one way or the other.

My gut feeling is that some reaction will take place if the public is not first informed and "primed" for it.

But I don't think the public in general would be opposed to it (or even notice) for the most part.

My sentiments exactly.

Anygun

I voted probably because there's plenty of bozos in Texas who think guns are animated objects.

-removed by user-

i voted YES! one word......LIABILITY!

-removed by user-

macavity wrote:What do I select if I think it will only lead to a small increase in 30.06 signs?

If that were my opinion, I'd go with probably.

flintknapper wrote:Voted "I don't know"...because I truly don't. Or at least can't prove it one way or the other.

My gut feeling is that some reaction will take place if the public is not first informed and "primed" for it.

But I don't think the public in general would be opposed to it (or even notice) for the most part.

And where is the majority of the public going to get this "primer" from? I don't know, maybe the same media that refers to every .22 as a fully automatic AK-47? I'm sure they won't talk about the possibility of open carry with any kind of hysterical "bubbas gonna get to strap on his guns to go to wal-mart" angle at all, right?

Once it was passed and only a few did it (which once again brings me to why is it such a dang high priority, if a small number of the 2% who have chls have expressed they would open carry) I'm sure it wouldn't be that big of a deal and life would continue without any blood in the streets, just like when the CHL laws passed.

What worries me is the immediate "jolt" the media will be able to get out of the subject by screaming OMG GUNS EVERYWHERE when the law passes/when it goes into effect....and how many businesses will immediately begin searching for a way to ban guns in their stores and figure out they can post 30.06 signs when they hear those repeated reports.....

I voted probably not because I think very, very few people will actually open carry. How many times do you see anyone open carrying a rifle or shotgun today. I can't recall the last time I saw it. And this is perfectly legal today.

My thoughts:

Regardless of how many actually carried unlicensed,

the fact that

Since "Unlicensed" condition exists in this question

and since 30.06 applies ONLY to licensees currently

30.06 and 30.05 would probably be re-written like some other States so that "gunbusters" signs are sufficient notice, since 30.06 applies only to licensees.

I don't think I want that to happen.
That's opening a whole Pandora's box of anti-gun legislating opportunity.
IF not that many people would open carry anyway, why risk that hill we've already taken?

RPB wrote:My thoughts:

Regardless of how many actually carried unlicensed,

the fact that

Since "Unlicensed" condition exists in this question

and since 30.06 applies ONLY to licensees currently

30.06 and 30.05 would probably be re-written like some other States so that "gunbusters" signs are sufficient notice, since 30.06 applies only to licensees.

I don't think I want that to happen.
That's opening a whole Pandora's box of anti-gun legislating opportunity.

IF not that many would open carry anyway, why risk that hill we've already taken?

EXACTLY! Let the sleeping dogs lie, for cryin' out loud.

Liability from what, on whom?

pontius pilate..... washing of the hands....isn't that the main reason why "they" put up 30.06? just ask any insurance agent.

I voted "No", and here's why. I think if OC passed, the number of 30.06 signs would actually decrease. The law is clear that 30.06 only applies to someone carrying under the authority of his CHL. So, if I walk up to a 30.06 sign, all I have to do is uncover and switch to OC - then the sign no longer applies to me, and I can go about my business. In otherwords, the presence of a 30.06 sign would actually encourage CHL'ers to OC while on the premises, and I don't think business want that. So I think they'd be less likely to post new signs and more likely to remove existing signs.

Think that CHL'ers won't OC under those circumstances? Just look at states like VA where CC isn't allowed in bars, but OC is. Lot's of CHL'ers up there switch to OC when they go into a bar (assuming that they aren't drinking). I think we'd see the same thing start to happen in TX.

Probably not.

I think the general public, much like myself, like to bask in ignorance.