TexasCHLforum.com

Ruark wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote: If the law required metal detectors for just the 30.06 sign, I would bet that within a week of the law passing, you wouldn’t be able to find a 30.06 sign.

Or if liability insurance companies figured out that a big lawsuit was more likely to happen with disarmed customers and increased their liability insurance premiums, those 06 signs would disappear instantly.

This is IMHO a terrible idea and example. This "theory" assumes, there is a law abiding CHL holder in every store at every point in time which is not the case. Promoting that allowing a CHL in does not increase security 100% of the time, simply because there will never a CHL in every store all the time, and furthermore it is up to each individual CHL to act upon a given situation. We are not a security team sent in to protect stores. I'll agree the signs need to come down, so I can protect myself when I go in, and if it happens, others as well, but simply implying to put up metal detectors, instead of allowing a CHL holder in makes no sense. The whole concept of this argument would have to assume there is a CHL holder in every store all the time which isn't the case. If this law hypothetically were true and a store opted to take down their 30.06 sign instead of a metal detector, what happens when the robber goes in and their isn't anyone with a CHL holder in the store? The end result is the same irregardless, but this isn't an argument we will win in legislation.

Haha. SPOILER ALERT

OOOH. My apologies. Read your post wrong. Sorry.I now agree with you.

Who is "you people"? I am not a member of OCT, I just try to keep an open mind. In these scenario's, I typically say a mom because MDA is one of the biggest anti-gun groups out there. I am not a sexist if that's what you are implying. I have a wife and daughter and they both shoot so thanks.

Ok so I have a hypothetical question to anyone who thinks OCT is the cause for all the anti-gun sentiment. Lets say you go to starbucks and lets say open carry of handguns and long rifles is legal. There was never an OCT group, or any other pro gun group running around with AR's. You go into the store with your holstered pistol and inside is a mom that despises guns and their owners, and refers to them as ammo sexuals. Do you think that mom's response to you is going to be different if your inside with a pistol versus if you went in with an AR on your back?

Continuing on from there, if there was no OCT, and no one carried around rifles. Jan 1st came and you and six of your buddies decided to hit the range on saturday, and then go get lunch at chipotle. Those same anti-gun mom's and whoever else would still be there to complain, call the police, etc, because you have a gun.

One point at a time. All the links you posted in the top of thread were from 2014. That in no way shows they had anything to do with the 2015 session.

As to folks on this forum not supporting OC and you wanting 1 specific example? There are at least 10 on page 1 of this forum. Heres one. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=81386]

As to grisham being arrested for "LEGALLY" open carrying an AR. Yes he was. He was doing what he legally could on a back roads area ( there is a youtube video of this ). That did in fact start the OCT movement. Would you have done any different? You get illegally arrrested for exercising your freedoms and don't try and do anything about it? That was the whole point for him starting the group in the first place.

Furthermore, I may be new to this forum but that does not make me any less relevant. I am pro gun. I have always been. I served 6 years in the army and have 3 tours to Iraq so do NOT treat me like I am insignificant because I don't have thousands of post like you do.

Lastly, as I said before, and your post clearly indicates it is all speculation that OCT caused anything. You posted links to news stories from 2014 that "proved" because of their antics weapons won't be allowed in their stores. Fair point, but that is not the case everywhere. Those same exact stores could have come to the same conclusion once open carry of handguns passed. You fail to realize the difference between a handgun and rifle. Outside of the caliber and the weight and length, they can still take your life. That's all the Anti's care about. This same exact thing would have happened regardless of OCT. Some mom in Chipotle would of got offended because the law abiding LTC holder is sporting a Springfield XDS. They only brought the attention earlier than when the law was passed. Quit being so naive. This same discussion would have happened irregardless of if OCT had never existed. If this law was passed on the backburner and no one was the wizer, don't you think the anti gun folks would notice citizens with hosltered handguns instead of AR-15's on their back. Do you thinks MDA cares if you have an open carried handgun vs a rifle? Nope. A gun is a gun. This arguement was unavoidable.

Edit: If you want more examples for anti-oc on this board. Look at the title of this very thread. Also see here. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=81545 or here viewtopic.php?f=7&t=81114
I am not gonna link every post disproving your opinion. Browse through this forum and you will see there is quite a few folks against OC

Edit 2: Back to grisham and his initial arrest, he was doing nothing wrong. How did you expect him to react. Put yourself in his shoes and come up with a different scenario for how you would of reacted. Personally if I get arrested for something I'm 100% legally doing I am gonna make the worlds biggest fit about it too. I am assuming you are incorrectly looking at these issues after the fact when everything has been established and not putting yourself in that persons position. It's easy to criticize an officer invovled shooting after the video goes viral on youtube, but for that officer in that moment it is not so easy. It is their life or the suspects, and then they are judged by a jury of their peers based on that action.

I think this varies by town. Where I live the only places that have new signs is 1 bank that was already posted 06, as well as HEB now posting 07. The old historic courthouse is 06 now which they legally can't be but I'm working on that. Not sure if it was posted before as the last time I was in there I wasn't a CHL holder. It is unfortunate about some employers now posting 06 that weren't before which is unfortunate. My hope is that open carry continues to be a non event despite the doom and gloom the anti's projected, and maybe the situation will even itself back out. I know everyone is always quick to blame OCT for everything but as of yet I haven't seen conclusive proof that their actions had any statistical impact on where we are now. (if I'm wrong please post a link) From what I have seen it has all been taken as speculation that OCT makes the news so that has to be the reason when in fact that may not be the case. In any case, everything they did is and was legal (to my knowledge) so they were just doing what they legally could. You may think it was in bad taste, or I may think it was in bad taste, but none the less, that is not for us to decide as it is and was a freedom they could use. We can not be hypocritical of someone using their freedoms (in our opinion in bad taste or not), and then expect us to get our freedoms without prejudice. Just as we can preach about our gun right's, the crazy anti's can do the same even though we know for sure 99% of what they say is garbage. I have seen this quite a bit on this forum. A lot of folks on here are completely against OC, yet they expect anti-gun folks to be open minded about CC. As I've said in other threads Im not part of OCT, and as of yet I haven't OC'd anywhere. Just my unbiased opinion. I try and stay on the fence, because once you go completely to 1 side and won't accept anyone else's thought's on the subject, your can't logically expect anyone else that is on the other side to take your opinions seriously either.