TexasCHLforum.com

frankie_the_yankee wrote:

kauboy wrote:Yeah, frankie has a tendency to read things that aren't always there.

Thanks for the kind words.

Any evidence?

Um... did you not read my post???
I'm sure you did. You quoted it.
I posed a scenario about OC, and then you started talking about declaring CHL...

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Sure. Until that person fails to signal when changing lanes, runs 8 mph over the limit, litters, etc. the cop has no business asking him for the time of day.
But if they do any of those things, they become fair game.

Uh yeah, that's what I said.
But it still won't stop him from carrying, just as current laws don't stop him.
He's a "criminal", remember.
If he is found OCing illegally after committing another infraction, then he will be dealt with in the same manner that he would be dealt with now for carrying concealed.
For some reason you believe unlicensed OC is worse than criminals who currently carry concealed.
That just doesn't make sense.
You think they will "blend in", when the truth is, they already do.

Yeah, frankie has a tendency to read things that aren't always there.
When I posed my scenario, nobody was committing an obvious crime. Two men walking down the street carrying openly. An officer sees them and MUST assume they are doing so legally(if OC were legal, licensed or unlicensed).
Then frankie jumps off on some tangent about declaring.
Hey frankie, I only have to declare once an officer asks for ID, and he CAN'T do that unless investigating a crime.
So, if no crime, then no inquiry for ID.
Hence the BG has just avoided the need for a license to OC. Only when he does something stupid will he be questioned about it.
Now, if he happens to jump in a car, then his tags are public information, and the cop can run it. Then the BG can just deal with it.
The point is, whether a license is required or not, the officer must assume that he is carrying legally if OC were legal.

Please stop telling everyone else their arguments have holes when yours can't even be held together with Gorilla Glue.

EDIT: Dangit Liko, you stole ma thunder!!! Maybe next time I'll read the whole thing before hitting "reply":mrgreen:


Honestly frankie, how do you find time to do anything else in life when you're constantly defending yourself here??

Anyways, to refute your "the bad guys will blend in" idea, consider this:
Person A is an upstanding citizen. He pays his taxes, follows the rules, and is a genuine, all around, good guy.
Person B is a thug. Has been in jail before and not afraid to go back. Doesn't care about society in general so long as he gets his.
Assuming licensed open carry were implemented:
Person A carries a gun on his hip, exposed for the world to see.
Person B carries a gun on his hip, exposed for the world to see.

You, a police officer, see A and B walking down the same street.
Do you stop them both and ask for their license to carry?
Do you stop only one of them?
Do you have the authority to stop either of them?
No, you don't. You have no reason to do so. Just as you can't pull over a car, at random, to check for a DL, you can't stop a random person, legally carrying a gun, and ask for proof that they aren't a felon.
Unless an officer is investigating a crime, they have no reason, nor authority, to ask for ID.
Person B has effectively "blended in", right?

Ok, now. Throw a jacket on both persons. The firearms are now concealed. Person A has a CHL. Person B obviously does not.
Same street, same officer, same questions as above.
SAME ANSWERS AS ABOVE!

The BG will blend in REGARDLESS of the environment.
So, you are not keeping a criminal from doing anything when you say you would only want "licensed" open carry.
An officer can't ask to see such license without cause.
Remember, criminals don't care about the law. That's why we call them law-breakers.

In effect, you have only limited the law-abiding citizen. In the same manor that CHL currently limits those with class B and A misd. for 5 years. What if they need to protect themselves from the mugger they will meet tomorrow? Tough cookies, huh?
And you think that's ok?

I think I'm in line with shootthesheet and Stevie on this one.
As someone who sees what used to be everyday liberties, slowly dwindling away, anything that limits the government, and not the citizenry, I fully support.

For those who like the "surprise attack" idea, think about this.
Criminals work on the "risk vs. reward" method of victim selection.
If you seem like a good target, unarmed, head down, not paying attention, you are more likely to be picked by the lion than other sheep.
Regardless of whether you have "hidden" claws or none at all, they can still pick you.

Now, lets say you have a 9mm on your side. The criminal immediately recognizes that his risk vs. reward outcome is no longer in his favor. Very few have the guts to take on an armed victim. That's why you don't see officers getting taken out left and right when they're picking up something from the store on their way home. They aren't being targeted first, or at all. And as frankie pointed out, the few smart ones know better, and since they have been around the block, so to say, they will know to move on and finde an easier target. Provoking a known armed victim is something even the dumbest of critters wouldn't do. The risk doesn't make sense.

I support carry of any kind, by almost anyone.
And yes, even felons in some cases.
I've got a friend who was in the wrong place when the Sherriff pulled up and arrested everyone because they were around a stolen vehicle. He didn't know it was stolen, but got a prison sentence anyways.
Now, what right does the gubmint have to say he can't protect his life? He isn't dangerous, and there are many others like him.

Licenses restrict, and I will never agree with the menality that says we need more limits. Personal responsibility is a far better problem solver than blanket restrictions.