TexasCHLforum.com

Just curious how this breaks down

Well, I'm not voting because it is not a black and white thing of for or against. It depends on how the open carry law would be written.

Keith B wrote:Well, I'm not voting because it is not a black and white thing of for or against. It depends on how the open carry law would be written.

Ok, let's say that the law was written that open carry was an option for CHL holders only. And that there were two seperate laws for signage, 30.06 stayed in place for cc only and the gun-buster ONLY applied for open carry!

Now what would the problem be?

johnferg69 wrote:

Keith B wrote:Well, I'm not voting because it is not a black and white thing of for or against. It depends on how the open carry law would be written.

Ok, let's say that the law was written that open carry was an option for CHL holders only. And that there were two seperate laws for signage, 30.06 stayed in place for cc only and the gun-buster ONLY applied for open carry!

Now what would the problem be?

Licensed open carry and seperate signage. That helps. Don't think the seperate sign thing would happen, but I can cast a vote now.

Keith B wrote:

johnferg69 wrote:

Keith B wrote:Well, I'm not voting because it is not a black and white thing of for or against. It depends on how the open carry law would be written.

Ok, let's say that the law was written that open carry was an option for CHL holders only. And that there were two seperate laws for signage, 30.06 stayed in place for cc only and the gun-buster ONLY applied for open carry!

Now what would the problem be?

Licensed open carry and seperate signage. That helps. Don't think the seperate sign thing would happen, but I can cast a vote now.

I never went to Harvard like most of the folks on here so I gotta ask, why don't you think it would happen? 2 seperate forms of carry, 2 seperate signs. The people are already use to one, just have to get em use to another.

I just believe that the legialature would feel the sign needed to be more visible than a gun buster sign and would say 'We already have a sign, so just modify it to prevent any carry.' Then those businesses who today don't really know people are carrying would then post signs to prevent open carry and the single sign would prevent concealed carry too. It's the old adage, out of sight, out of mind. When people started open carrying I can garuntee you would see a new crop of signs go up.

Keith B wrote:I just believe that the legialature would feel the sign needed to be more visible than a gun buster sign and would say 'We already have a sign, so just modify it to prevent any carry.' Then those businesses who today don't really know people are carrying would then post signs to prevent open carry and the single sign would prevent concealed carry too. It's the old adage, out of sight, out of mind. When people started open carrying I can garuntee you would see a new crop of signs go up.

Well the newest state to go open carry is Oklahoma. We'll see how much pandemonium ensues.

The best solution:
1. Force 30.06 type signage to prevent open carry
2. No recourse to prevent concealed carry (outside of restricted access / metal detectors). Concealed is concealed. If you find out somebody is carrying, it was not concealed, so the first rule applies (you could then enforce the sign or give them verbal notice to leave).

I don't see how that infringes on private property concepts. Concealed is concealed. A private company can advertise a rule about what color my underwear has to be to enter, but there's no enforcement recourse unless I fail to cover up. If I had a trouser failure of some sort, they could ask me to leave and I'd be trespassing if I refused.

Keith B wrote: When people started open carrying I can garuntee you would see a new crop of signs go up.

Anecdotal evidence from OK is that some went up, and then came right back down. I realize Texas is "a whole different country" but I would be interested to see if anyone could provide evidence of any state that has OC or went to OC and then had a rash of signs go up.

I am still of the mindset that to insure the protection of CHL'er, 30.06 needs to be changed before any form of Open Carry can come about. If 30.06= simple Trespass (and you still have to be asked to leave) I think we all win. Those who carry concealed will actually gain places where they can carry, as 30.06 would become a law without teeth. Those who promote open carry would run the risk of more 30.06 signs going up (assuming they applied to OC as well), but would be the only ones affected if more signs did appear.

I'd have no problem open carrying anywhere in Houston tomorrow if it was legal.

(Unless it is a part of Houston that I wouldn't go to under any circumstances anyway.)

How about this...

Four separate signs, each with the same requirements as 30.06 (English/Spanish, same wording, but reference different pc sections, one inch letters, conspicuously displayed, etc.) one for concealed SA, One for concealed NSA, one for open SA, and one for open NSA. With any luck, we could plaster entire storefronts with no-carry signage!!
It'd be the "Big Ugly Sign" on steroids!

I'm curious about what sort of difficulties have been encountered in Arizona since they went to "constitutional carry". Were a lot of places already posted prior, did more post after, more "MWAG" calls after the law went into effect, etc.?

Heartland Patriot wrote:I'm curious about what sort of difficulties have been encountered in Arizona since they went to "constitutional carry". Were a lot of places already posted prior, did more post after, more "MWAG" calls after the law went into effect, etc.?

Unlicensed open carry has been legal in Arizona a long time. It wasn't new when I was first there in 1993. Heck, the desk clerk at the Best Western didn't bat an eye at my 1911 when I checked in. It's only unlicensed concealed carry that's recent. (2010 IIRC)

I see open carry frequently and just assume they are off duty law enforcement.. If we had a chl open carry rule I would think the common person would still think the guy wearing a gun on his hip is law enforcement..

johnferg69 wrote:

Keith B wrote:I just believe that the legialature would feel the sign needed to be more visible than a gun buster sign and would say 'We already have a sign, so just modify it to prevent any carry.' Then those businesses who today don't really know people are carrying would then post signs to prevent open carry and the single sign would prevent concealed carry too. It's the old adage, out of sight, out of mind. When people started open carrying I can garuntee you would see a new crop of signs go up.

Well the newest state to go open carry is Oklahoma. We'll see how much pandemonium ensues.

"Pandemonium?" You asked Keith about two signs and he explained (quite well) why the Texas Legislature won't require property owners to post two signs. How does his position suggest "pandemonium" in Texas?

Chas.