A practical approach to OC

[MikeHoncho]

I haven't been registered for long but have been reading the forum for quite a while. I have been specifically interested in OC. These are the few things I've gathered so far. Please tell me if I'm wrong.

1. Most CHL holders don't oppose the idea of OC, it's just not number one on their agendas

2. Organizations like TSRA that have done much to advance CC don't want to see OC done in a way that would adversely affect CC, but don't oppose the idea of OC either.

3. The legislature won't go for imposing further restrictions on property owners' rights by making them post two huge ugly signs just to keep people with gun out.

4. CHLers really don't want 30.06 messed with.

It seems to me that the way through the confusion is to keep OC and CC completely seperate issues. Granted, I'm not an expert but what do you think about this? Please, give me all opioions.

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the authority of a person to openly carry a handgun.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1.

Sections 46.035(a) and (h), Penal Code, are
repealed.

SECTION 2. Section 46.02 (a), Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a concealed handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:
(1) on the person's own premises or premises under the person's control; or
(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control.
(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person's control at any time in which:
(1) the handgun is in plain view; or
(2) the person is:
(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic or boating;
(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or
(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.
(a-2) For purposes of this section, "premises" includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. In this subsection, "recreational vehicle" means a motor vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters.
(a-3) For purposes of this section, "watercraft" means any boat, motorboat, vessel, or personal watercraft, other than a seaplane on water, used or capable of being used for transportation on water.

SECTION 3. Section 42.01 (a), Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;
(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;
(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and unreasonable odor in a public place;
(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in an obviously offensive manner;
(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no right to occupy;
(6) fights with another in a public place;
(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local Government Code;
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;
(10) exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and is reckless about whether another may be present who will be offended or alarmed by his act; or
(11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose:
(A) enters on the property of another and looks into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening in the dwelling;
(B) while on the premises of a hotel or comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's own through a window or other opening in the room; or
(C) while on the premises of a public place, looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using the area.
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4) that the actor had significant provocation for his abusive or threatening conduct.
(c) For purposes of this section:
(1) an act is deemed to occur in a public place or near a private residence if it produces its offensive or proscribed consequences in the public place or near a private residence; and
(2) a noise is presumed to be unreasonable if the noise exceeds a decibel level of 85 after the person making the noise receives notice from a magistrate or peace officer that the noise is a public nuisance.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event it is a Class B misdemeanor.
(e) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under Subsection (a)(7) or (9) that the person who discharged the firearm had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the person or to another by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and Safety Code.
(f) Subsections (a)(1), (2), (3), (5), and (6) do not apply to a person who, at the time the person engaged in conduct prohibited under the applicable subdivision, was a student in the sixth grade or a lower grade level, and the prohibited conduct occurred at a public school campus during regular school hours.
(g) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(8) that the actors conduct in question was the lawful carrying of a firearm. The lawful carrying of a firearm does not, in and of itself, qualify as an offense.

This would eliminate failure to conceal (which everyone should like), remove the offense for OC on public property (which OCers should love) and provide some assurance that OCers , and gun owners in general, won't be harrassed simply for excersising a right. It also stays totally away from 30.06, essentially making OC permitless but easily restricted on private property by a gunbusters sign and leaves CC as permitted.

Sorry for the long post but I think working together is the way forward.

[74novaman]

I have some gardening to do this morning, but yes, I think you've captured the general spirit of the attitude on OC.

I'll read over your idea this afternoon, but wanted to at least say welcome to the forum.

[WildBill]

Welcome MikeHoncho.

If you do a little searching you will find thousands of posts about OC. Many of them have the same views and expressed in your post.

viewtopic.php?f=94&t=53451&p=653510&hil ... y+#p653510" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

viewtopic.php?f=110&t=44594&p=643600&hi ... y+#p643600" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=51866&p=630932&hili ... y+#p630932" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[MikeHoncho]

Thanks for the welcome. I've read over a lot of the posts already. They are where I got most of my ideas.

[Jumping Frog]

What about the statutory places that CHL's cannot carry (schools, courts, etc.). Does the statute need to be amended appropriately?

The question of private property signage also needs to be dealt with. Personally, I think an ordinary "No guns" sign, as simple as a pistol silhouette with a red circle and slash (or verbal notice) could suffice for unlicensed open carry while still continuing to require 30.06 for licensees. I definitely want different standards to apply between unlicensed open carry versus licensed concealed carry.

[Lambda Force]

It would be easier to just remove the penalty in 46.035 for failure to conceal, or if that's too much liberty, make it an offense on the same level as a municipal noise ordinance or not wearing a seatbelt. In the compromise plan, open carry would still be illegal to appease the mushy middle, but the penalty would be reduced enough that if someone gets busted, they can pay the fine and get on with their life.

[Jumping Frog]

It would be easier to just remove the penalty in 46.035 for failure to conceal, or if that's too much liberty, make it an offense on the same level as a municipal noise ordinance or not wearing a seatbelt. In the compromise plan, open carry would still be illegal to appease the mushy middle, but the penalty would be reduced enough that if someone gets busted, they can pay the fine and get on with their life.

What is the point of trying to pass open carry if the end result is the action of open carrying is still illegal?

[Lambda Force]

Baby steps. Sometimes they're necessary because not all gun owners fully support the "shall not be infringed" principle.

[Bart]

The OP's suggestion looks very complicated. Why not remove the penalty, like we did for failure to display the license? It should be easier to get passed too, like the law that make tire spikes have the same penalty as full-auto AKs smuggled in from Mexico. That law sneaked in without a peep in the news until after it passed.

[Charles L. Cotton]

There is a very simple way to implement licensed open-carry and having TPC §30.06 apply only to concealed-carry. It would be refined in subsequent sessions. This approach is necessary to avoid opening up dangerous sections of the Penal Code to anti-gun amendments.

However, Lone Star CDL President Shane McCrary has been adamant that TPC §30.06 must be modified to apply to both open can concealed carry. He argues that to do otherwise will make open-carry a "second class citizen." He also wrote a bill that opens up massive sections of the Penal Code to anti-gun amendments. If he persists in this approach, then open-carry is doomed again.

Unlicensed open-carry will not pass in the foreseeable future.

Chas.

[RPB]

One can already open carry a shotgun more places (no need to conceal long guns AND 30.06 doesn't apply) AND with fewer restrictions than a concealed carry licensee has with a handgun.
I see getting more places we can carry as more of a a priority than the ability to show off a fancy gold engraved Barbeque gun, thereby ... showing my hole card, or at least part of my hand.

If I want to show off, I'll get my shotgun engraved gold plated, and a sterling silver sling and bandoleer ... my 16 year old niece wants a bandoleer with shells anyway, just to wear sometimes, to show off n stuff.

If I see someone else's Barbeque gun, I'll probably compliment it, and wonder who outside the door is planning to steal it from the guy, and wait a while til after he leaves before I exit the building.. I don't wear all the jewelry I own anymore either.I used to be real proud to own it and show it all ... some "disappeared" ...often, showing less is better.

If someone else wants to open carry, I'm not against them being able to, but I think they'd be smarter not to, but it would be their choice, I probably would avoid that person, I don't like standing close to targets.

[Originalist]

Charles,

How would you suggest that? Perhaps while one bill is being lambasted in the media as the root of all evil what you suggest could then slide in under the RADAR with OC gaining a little and CHL statutes maintaining the status quo... I am for baby steps and considering spikes were added without anyone else knowing it doesn't seem to far fetched to be able to slide a licensed OC teeny weeny bill in under all the hoopla over unlicenses OC. Thoughts?

[Heartland Patriot]

One can already open carry a shotgun more places (no need to conceal long guns AND 30.06 doesn't apply) AND with fewer restrictions than a concealed carry licensee has with a handgun.
I see getting more places we can carry as more of a a priority than the ability to show off a fancy gold engraved Barbeque gun, thereby ... showing my hole card, or at least part of my hand.

If I want to show off, I'll get my shotgun engraved gold plated, and a sterling silver sling and bandoleer ... my 16 year old niece wants a bandoleer with shells anyway, just to wear sometimes, to show off n stuff.

If I see someone else's Barbeque gun, I'll probably compliment it, and wonder who outside the door is planning to steal it from the guy, and wait a while til after he leaves before I exit the building.. I don't wear all the jewelry I own anymore either.I used to be real proud to own it and show it all ... some "disappeared" ...often, showing less is better.

If someone else wants to open carry, I'm not against them being able to, but I think they'd be smarter not to, but it would be their choice, I probably would avoid that person, I don't like standing close to targets.

While I agree with Mr. Cotton and many others that trying to pass any sort of OC legislation without doing it just the right way is a foolhardy endeavor, I also don't think the actual practice of OCing is as fraught with danger as you make it seem. If it were, we would be barraged non-stop by the media with stories about this from states that have OC, such as Arizona or Wyoming or Virginia. I'm not even saying that I would OC on any sort of regular basis because of where I live...but it seems to work in many other states and I don't see why we can't make it work here, if it is done right in the legislation and not to the detriment of the CHL program.

[cbunt1]

There is a very simple way to implement licensed open-carry and having TPC §30.06 apply only to concealed-carry. It would be refined in subsequent sessions. This approach is necessary to avoid opening up dangerous sections of the Penal Code to anti-gun amendments.

However, Lone Star CDL President Shane McCrary has been adamant that TPC §30.06 must be modified to apply to both open can concealed carry. He argues that to do otherwise will make open-carry a "second class citizen." He also wrote a bill that opens up massive sections of the Penal Code to anti-gun amendments. If he persists in this approach, then open-carry is doomed again.

Unlicensed open-carry will not pass in the foreseeable future.

Chas.

I hate when the "perfect" becomes the enemy of the good. Open carry as a perceived "second class citizen" is still progress considering there is NO open carry today. As you say, take a small bite, and refine in later sessions. We didn't lose all of these rights overnight, and we're not going to regian them overnight. If the activists can't see this, they will never get anywyere.

It could all be so simple...<SMH>

[RPB]

As I said, Texas already has open carry and no license or fees or shootin' test or written test are even required. Just open carry a longer gun, rifle or shotgun.
I know ... size matters to some people. But still, on a balancing scale ... more places we can be armed, or rather reducing the number of places we are forced to be totally defenseless, is more of a priority in my mind than the size of a gun we open carry so everyone can see it, and if the only benefit of open carry is to be sure everyone sees it, then bigger is better anyway, and we already have that.. no license/tests/fees required and a 30.06 sign doesn't even keep out the people who can open carry a rifle/shotgun now, because it doesn't even apply.