Questions for OCT

[Charles L. Cotton]

As I've said numerous times, I'm far more concerned about who can carry and where we can carry than with how we can carry. If we don't remove off-limits areas, prohibit the posting of unenforceable 30.06 signs on government property, pass campus-carry, exempt church volunteer "security" people from the restriction on being armed, remove successfully completed deferred adjudications and delinquent taxes or child-support from the list of CHL disqualifiers, or limit misdemeanor disqualifiers to only violent crimes, because we spent too much time and political capital on open-carry, I'm going to be a very bitter Second Amendment activist! Those are issues that will have a positive impact on hundreds of thousands if not millions of Texans, while open-carry will be practiced by only a relative handful of people.

Chas.

Agree 100%. I believe these issues are much more important than open carry. I sent my representative a letter yesterday stating that opinion.

And that's the crux of the issue. Any one of those issues outline by Charles will, by far, affect more people than will the passage of any OC bill. If an OC bill does pass there will probably initially be decent numbers of people doing it just because. However, once the novelty settles down and or more places post whatever sign is required to prohibit the activity, it will become a rarity except for those unable to obtain a CHL, if a license to OC is not required. That also seems to be the group with the loudest voices in opposition to any licensed OC bill. Those that are unable for whatever reason to obtain a CHL, IMO.

I honestly don't know why so money people obsess either way about OC, just like the other states with legal OC it will be a relatively rare occurrence.

The only people I see obsessing are the radical open-carry-or-nothing crowd. I don't see any strong opposition to open-carry in the gun community. Yes, we will kill any open-carry bill that makes TPC §30.06 apply to both concealed and open carry, but that's not opposition to open-carry, that's protecting current gun rights.

I would like the option so I don't have to switch to my pocket pistol in the summer time and keep wearing my full frame 9 . . .

I'm 5'9", weigh 175# and I carry a 5" all steel Government Model 1911 in .45ACP year round. I must admit that when I hear the different gun for different seasons argument, it falls on deaf ears. I've counseled open-carry supporters not to over state their case and make unfounded claims of necessity and benefit. Open-carry is a minor convenience to very few people on very few occasions. Open-carry is the type of legislation to sell not be falsely claiming it is needed, but by asking the question, "why not, why do you think Texans are not as responsible as residents of the states that have open-carry?"

. If we all agree that constitutional carry is the way to go, for the OC crowd and for the concealed carry crowd why don't we all coalesce around the bill that is best for everyone, IMO that is HB 195.

HB195 is not the way to go, not by any stretch of the imagination. You try to both emphasize the claimed importance of open-carry, while at the same time minimize it's impact by admitting that very few people will carry openly. You then use this argument to trivialize the horrendous political war that will result if the NRA and TSRA make HB195 their focus. Passage of HB195 is "problematic" and for it to have any chance, the NRA will have to throw it's full political weight and support behind it. Doing so will alienate political allies and friends in Austin, it will leave many feeling abandoned (I won't say more, so don't ask) and it will burn all of our political capital leaving far more important issues to die in committee. All this for a bill that, at the end of the day, will not pass. There is a way to get to unlicensed open or concealed carry, but open-carry zealots wanting instant gratification don't have the patience to accomplish it.

I'll say this much. If OCT carries through with its promise to attack any and all legislators who don't support HB195 even though licensed open-carry is passed, it will guarantee that unlicensed open-carry will not pass for years, if ever.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

CJ Grisham, please answer the three critical questions in the first post in this thread. Texas gun owners want to know

Chas.

[paxton25]

[quote="Charles L. Cotton]
Then my personal observations are markedly different from yours and I' talked to no small number of CHLs.

I don't think you would deny that one hurdle facing passing constitutional carry is a certain amount of comfort with the current licensing system.

I absolutely agree that the current license requirement gives the general public a great deal of comfort, based upon our 18 year track record. I also agree that some percentage of CHLs share that comfort level, but that's a totally different issue from the claim that CHL's take an elitist view to the license requirement.

Chas.[/quote]

Everyone has different personal observations, doesn't make mine any less true. I am going to assume I wasn't clear on the last part, not that you willfully convoluted what I said, so let me be a bit more clear; I wasn't referring to the public's perception or comfort knowing there are armed citizens out there. I was referring to the fact that one hurdle passing any legislation that does away with the licensing requirement Is the resistance by SOME CHL holders that they are content with the current system, that they already have their license so why do they care if unlicensed carry passes or not. Some may even feel, as has been expressed to me by more than one CHL holder over the years that "I had to take a class and pay the fees everyone else should have to" Are you really saying that isn't something to consider when you are garnering support for unlicensed carry? And I don't know who made the claim that CHL's take an elitist view to the license requirement. It sure wasn't me. I clearly indicated that I feel that SOME CHL holders have an elitist view about their CHL and gave examples of such from my experience.

[paxton25]

As I've said numerous times, I'm far more concerned about who can carry and where we can carry than with how we can carry. If we don't remove off-limits areas, prohibit the posting of unenforceable 30.06 signs on government property, pass campus-carry, exempt church volunteer "security" people from the restriction on being armed, remove successfully completed deferred adjudications and delinquent taxes or child-support from the list of CHL disqualifiers, or limit misdemeanor disqualifiers to only violent crimes, because we spent too much time and political capital on open-carry, I'm going to be a very bitter Second Amendment activist! Those are issues that will have a positive impact on hundreds of thousands if not millions of Texans, while open-carry will be practiced by only a relative handful of people.

Chas.

Agree 100%. I believe these issues are much more important than open carry. I sent my representative a letter yesterday stating that opinion.

And that's the crux of the issue. Any one of those issues outline by Charles will, by far, affect more people than will the passage of any OC bill. If an OC bill does pass there will probably initially be decent numbers of people doing it just because. However, once the novelty settles down and or more places post whatever sign is required to prohibit the activity, it will become a rarity except for those unable to obtain a CHL, if a license to OC is not required. That also seems to be the group with the loudest voices in opposition to any licensed OC bill. Those that are unable for whatever reason to obtain a CHL, IMO.

I honestly don't know why so money people obsess either way about OC, just like the other states with legal OC it will be a relatively rare occurrence.

The only people I see obsessing are the radical open-carry-or-nothing crowd. I don't see any strong opposition to open-carry in the gun community. Yes, we will kill any open-carry bill that makes TPC §30.06 apply to both concealed and open carry, but that's not opposition to open-carry, that's protecting current gun rights.

I would like the option so I don't have to switch to my pocket pistol in the summer time and keep wearing my full frame 9 . . .

I'm 5'9", weigh 175# and I carry a 5" all steel Government Model 1911 in .45ACP year round. I must admit that when I hear the different gun for different seasons argument, it falls on deaf ears. I've counseled open-carry supporters not to over state their case and make unfounded claims of necessity and benefit. Open-carry is a minor convenience to very few people on very few occasions. Open-carry is the type of legislation to sell not be falsely claiming it is needed, but by asking the question, "why not, why do you think Texans are not as responsible as residents of the states that have open-carry?"

. If we all agree that constitutional carry is the way to go, for the OC crowd and for the concealed carry crowd why don't we all coalesce around the bill that is best for everyone, IMO that is HB 195.

HB195 is not the way to go, not by any stretch of the imagination. You try to both emphasize the claimed importance of open-carry, while at the same time minimize it's impact by admitting that very few people will carry openly. You then use this argument to trivialize the horrendous political war that will result if the NRA and TSRA make HB195 their focus. Passage of HB195 is "problematic" and for it to have any chance, the NRA will have to throw it's full political weight and support behind it. Doing so will alienate political allies and friends in Austin, it will leave many feeling abandoned (I won't say more, so don't ask) and it will burn all of our political capital leaving far more important issues to die in committee. All this for a bill that, at the end of the day, will not pass. There is a way to get to unlicensed open or concealed carry, but open-carry zealots wanting instant gratification don't have the patience to accomplish it.

I'll say this much. If OCT carries through with its promise to attack any and all legislators who don't support HB195 even though licensed open-carry is passed, it will guarantee that unlicensed open-carry will not pass for years, if ever.

Chas.

And I am 5'10 210 and in the summer I have to wear dockers and a thin polo. No IWB holder I have ever tried fit my FNP9 which is the weapon I am most confident and comfortable with so I switch to my 380 pocket pistol. How is that an unfounded claim or overstating? I do like the argument about why do you think Texans are not responsible enough like citizens in other states. I will be sure to use that. So if HB195 is "problematic" Where is the NRA/TSRA constitutional carry bill that is not problematic that you would throw your full weight behind? Is it already out of the legislative council? Who is the sponsor? Or is there not one in the works? Is constitutional carry the place TSRA and NRA want to end up at for Texas? Or do you all oppose constitutional carry for Texas? Are you saying TSRA/NRA will actively seek to kill HB195?

[Beiruty]

Few "issues" for Constitutional Carry in Texas.
1) Texas is border state and major running corridor for drug trafficking.
2) Too many illegal residents.
3) Too many felons out of jail
4) Too many white, black, and latino gangs.

If you let those carry concealed or unconcealed with no ID or CHL required, you remove a tool from the hands of the LEOs.

[tomdavis]

Few "issues" for Constitutional Carry in Texas.
1) Texas is border state and major running corridor for drug trafficking.
2) Too many illegal residents.
3) Too many felons out of jail
4) Too many white, black, and latino gangs.

If you let those carry concealed or unconcealed with no ID or CHL required, you remove a tool from the hands of the LEOs.

I believe Beiruty points out an important issue that will have significant implications to the good guy's safety.

[anygunanywhere]

Few "issues" for Constitutional Carry in Texas.
1) Texas is border state and major running corridor for drug trafficking.
2) Too many illegal residents.
3) Too many felons out of jail
4) Too many white, black, and latino gangs.

If you let those carry concealed or unconcealed with no ID or CHL required, you remove a tool from the hands of the LEOs.

Arizona is a border state too. No problems there.

[Charlies.Contingency]

I am surprised however Chas, that 44 other states already have Open Carry options, with only 13 of those states requiring Licensed open carry. Why are we stuck with California, Florida, South Carolina, New York, and Illinois? (My numbers may be off, as my last print out of this information is over a year old, but it still represents my argument.)

What is it specifically that has kept our great state of Texas, from achieving this? Aside from a broad answer, I am very curious about this. There are just six states prohibiting Open Carry, and I believe there are more prohibiting concealed carry if I recall correctly. I have been under the impression that there is plenty of movement across the nation to gain reasoning from to push open carry through in the past, and it is still just up in the air now of course. Could you provide some helpful insight into what has been the main barrier in this Chas? I'm just looking to further my own knowledge on this topic.

Thank you.

Mmmm so you're saying we can open carry in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts, and Michigan? Sure you can...You can't even own a gun in New Jersey, much less OC it. Connecticut with some of the most stringent bans in the Union, permits OC? Prove it, and no if the lasw is silent but you can't own the firearms in the first place, its irrelevant.

I'm not going to prove anything Cedar_park_dad, I was just asking a question. The source that I found this information gave me a list of states that had some sort of open carry law, regardless of the other laws. I'm not trying to discuss state gun laws, I am an just inquiring information about here in Texas. I'm not saying WE can carry anywhere in the US, and I'm not trying to discuss that on here. I'm asking about what's been blocking us from OC in the past. Sorry for any confusion.

[Charlies.Contingency]

I am surprised however Chas, that 44 other states already have Open Carry options, with only 13 of those states requiring Licensed open carry. Why are we stuck with California, Florida, South Carolina, New York, and Illinois? (My numbers may be off, as my last print out of this information is over a year old, but it still represents my argument.)

What is it specifically that has kept our great state of Texas, from achieving this? Aside from a broad answer, I am very curious about this. There are just six states prohibiting Open Carry, and I believe there are more prohibiting concealed carry if I recall correctly. I have been under the impression that there is plenty of movement across the nation to gain reasoning from to push open carry through in the past, and it is still just up in the air now of course. Could you provide some helpful insight into what has been the main barrier in this Chas? I'm just looking to further my own knowledge on this topic.

Thank you.

I'm trying not to give arguments for the other side, but when someone wants to compare Texas with California and New York, then I can't let that go.

First, regardless how many states technically allow open-carry, it isn't commonly done except in some rural locations. When open-carry supporters claim that "XX number of states allow open-carry," they are implying that it is not only legal, it is commonplace and widely accepted by the population. That's simply untrue. Throughout my adult life, I've traveled to all but 2 states in the continental U.S., including so-called "gold states" for open-carry. I cannot recall ever seeing anyone openly carrying in an urban environment. Other Forum Members who travel the country report the same experience. Virginia is supposedly the true "gold state" for open-carry and I've gone there 2 to 3 times a year since 2001 on NRA business and I've never seen anyone openly carrying.

Secondly, open-carry hasn't passed prior to now because the NRA and TSRA haven't put it on our legislative agenda. We haven't because there are far more important issues on which to spend political capital. Some open-carry supporters act as if the battle to pass open-carry in Texas has been ongoing for several sessions, but that's simply not true. No organization with any clout has tied to pass open-carry. There have been some bomb-throwing people who made a lot of noise the last two sessions, but they also made a lot of enemies. We (NRA/TSRA) started promoting it at the end of last session, in the same manner we approach all controversial bills. That is the only reason why open-carry has a chance this session.

As I've said numerous times, I'm far more concerned about who can carry and where we can carry than with how we can carry. If we don't remove off-limits areas, prohibit the posting of unenforceable 30.06 signs on government property, pass campus-carry, exempt church volunteer "security" people from the restriction on being armed, remove successfully completed deferred adjudications and delinquent taxes or child-support from the list of CHL disqualifiers, or limit misdemeanor disqualifiers to only violent crimes, because we spent too much time and political capital on open-carry, I'm going to be a very bitter Second Amendment activist! Those are issues that will have a positive impact on hundreds of thousands if not millions of Texans, while open-carry will be practiced by only a relative handful of people.

Chas.

Thank you Chas! I have not been following this stuff for the longest time, and like you said in "blue," this is what I've been seeing a lot. I never thought it was such a big deal, but I am far more accepting to what we have now, probably because of my law enforcement standing. It would appear I started a whole fury of comments with my question, and I apologize for it. It is just so hard to find unbiased information on this topic sometimes.

Again, Thank you Chas.

Sincerely,
Charlie.

[txcharvel]

I support the idea of open carry, but our society has become so "gun averse" that there is no way this is going to happen in a relatively short period of time. The current state of society took decades to develop, only the return of Jesus can make such a dramatic change happen overnight.

Taking all of this into account, along with the antics of OCT visiting Starbucks and Chipotle to get their picture taken...I can't understand how people don't see how this is already limiting our CHL rights with more places being posted 30.06 because of the misguided fear of being the next "target" for OCT. It pains me to say this, but it's like arguing with a liberal democrat over taxes.

I'm thankful there are people genuinely interested in preserving the freedoms that we currently enjoy. It seems that if we left it up to OCT, they would literally throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[paxton25]

I support the idea of open carry, but our society has become so "gun averse" that there is no way this is going to happen in a relatively short period of time. The current state of society took decades to develop, only the return of Jesus can make such a dramatic change happen overnight.

Taking all of this into account, along with the antics of OCT visiting Starbucks and Chipotle to get their picture taken...I can't understand how people don't see how this is already limiting our CHL rights with more places being posted 30.06 because of the misguided fear of being the next "target" for OCT. It pains me to say this, but it's like arguing with a liberal democrat over taxes.

I'm thankful there are people genuinely interested in preserving the freedoms that we currently enjoy. It seems that if we left it up to OCT, they would literally throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Which places have put up 30.06 signs because of OCT? And better yet if a business decides to put up a 30,06 sign why would a gun owner continue to desire to do business with someone that wants them to be disarmed?

[Charlies.Contingency]

I support the idea of open carry, but our society has become so "gun averse" that there is no way this is going to happen in a relatively short period of time. The current state of society took decades to develop, only the return of Jesus can make such a dramatic change happen overnight.

Taking all of this into account, along with the antics of OCT visiting Starbucks and Chipotle to get their picture taken...I can't understand how people don't see how this is already limiting our CHL rights with more places being posted 30.06 because of the misguided fear of being the next "target" for OCT. It pains me to say this, but it's like arguing with a liberal democrat over taxes.

I'm thankful there are people genuinely interested in preserving the freedoms that we currently enjoy. It seems that if we left it up to OCT, they would literally throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Which places have put up 30.06 signs because of OCT? And better yet if a business decides to put up a 30,06 sign why would a gun owner continue to desire to do business with someone that wants them to be disarmed?

A valid point of course. I have difficulty find any 30.06 signs, but I do live and work in a rural area, but if there were effects from it, it would likely be in a city or such, I have seen no evidence myself. But the idea of it still does worry me.

[paxton25]

I support the idea of open carry, but our society has become so "gun averse" that there is no way this is going to happen in a relatively short period of time. The current state of society took decades to develop, only the return of Jesus can make such a dramatic change happen overnight.

Taking all of this into account, along with the antics of OCT visiting Starbucks and Chipotle to get their picture taken...I can't understand how people don't see how this is already limiting our CHL rights with more places being posted 30.06 because of the misguided fear of being the next "target" for OCT. It pains me to say this, but it's like arguing with a liberal democrat over taxes.

I'm thankful there are people genuinely interested in preserving the freedoms that we currently enjoy. It seems that if we left it up to OCT, they would literally throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Which places have put up 30.06 signs because of OCT? And better yet if a business decides to put up a 30,06 sign why would a gun owner continue to desire to do business with someone that wants them to be disarmed?

A valid point of course. I have difficulty find any 30.06 signs, but I do live and work in a rural area, but if there were effects from it, it would likely be in a city or such, I have seen no evidence myself. But the idea of it still does worry me.

I don't know, it's a genuine question, I have seen the claim more than once in this forum that 30.06 signs have been flying up everywhere because of OC'ers but all I know of that is that some businesses said "please don't bring guns in our stores" to get MDA off their back but also said they weren't really going to ban guns. Someone asked earlier of a list of businesses that put up 30.06 signs and the response was there was no way of telling. It's kind of hard to have an honest debate when there are so many myths flying around. Just wondering if this is one of these myths or if there is actually examples those making those claims can point to.

[txcharvel]

I support the idea of open carry, but our society has become so "gun averse" that there is no way this is going to happen in a relatively short period of time. The current state of society took decades to develop, only the return of Jesus can make such a dramatic change happen overnight.

Taking all of this into account, along with the antics of OCT visiting Starbucks and Chipotle to get their picture taken...I can't understand how people don't see how this is already limiting our CHL rights with more places being posted 30.06 because of the misguided fear of being the next "target" for OCT. It pains me to say this, but it's like arguing with a liberal democrat over taxes.

I'm thankful there are people genuinely interested in preserving the freedoms that we currently enjoy. It seems that if we left it up to OCT, they would literally throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Which places have put up 30.06 signs because of OCT? And better yet if a business decides to put up a 30,06 sign why would a gun owner continue to desire to do business with someone that wants them to be disarmed?

A valid point of course. I have difficulty find any 30.06 signs, but I do live and work in a rural area, but if there were effects from it, it would likely be in a city or such, I have seen no evidence myself. But the idea of it still does worry me.

I don't know, it's a genuine question, I have seen the claim more than once in this forum that 30.06 signs have been flying up everywhere because of OC'ers but all I know of that is that some businesses said "please don't bring guns in our stores" to get MDA off their back but also said they weren't really going to ban guns. Someone asked earlier of a list of businesses that put up 30.06 signs and the response was there was no way of telling. It's kind of hard to have an honest debate when there are so many myths flying around. Just wondering if this is one of these myths or if there is actually examples those making those claims can point to.

While difficult to prove, I'm comfortable stating that Whole Foods and Sprouts only posted 30.06 in the last year as a result of OCT being in the news. Starbucks and Target wouldn't have anything to address if OCT hadn't targeted their stores (even though they didn't post 30.06, they were still forced to address the issue). Being in someone's face because it's your right doesn't help open carry anymore than it helps gay marriage, abortion, or "insert liberal cause here". When I see OCT protests, I ask myself the same question I ask when I see liberals protesting their favorite causes...don't these people have jobs?

I'm tired of the same old argument "why would a gun owner want to do business where we are not wanted" This attitude will get us nowhere, literally...does anyone understand that the idea that carrying concealed anywhere we want is a realistic goal. We've already seen areas opened up to us that were off limits in the past (churches, hospitals, amusement parks, city owned property). Campus carry needs to be next. If more and more businesses post 30.06, the only place we'll be allowed to go is the gun range, WalMart, and HEB. I don't want to have to make a judgement call on the size of letters when I enter a Whole Foods. I don't want to be a test case, I just want to go about my business while being able to protect myself. OCT is not helping me in this regard.

[Charles L. Cotton]

[quote="Charles L. Cotton]
Then my personal observations are markedly different from yours and I' talked to no small number of CHLs.

I don't think you would deny that one hurdle facing passing constitutional carry is a certain amount of comfort with the current licensing system.

I absolutely agree that the current license requirement gives the general public a great deal of comfort, based upon our 18 year track record. I also agree that some percentage of CHLs share that comfort level, but that's a totally different issue from the claim that CHL's take an elitist view to the license requirement.

Chas.

Everyone has different personal observations, doesn't make mine any less true. I am going to assume I wasn't clear on the last part, not that you willfully convoluted what I said, so let me be a bit more clear; I wasn't referring to the public's perception or comfort knowing there are armed citizens out there. I was referring to the fact that one hurdle passing any legislation that does away with the licensing requirement Is the resistance by SOME CHL holders that they are content with the current system, that they already have their license so why do they care if unlicensed carry passes or not. Some may even feel, as has been expressed to me by more than one CHL holder over the years that "I had to take a class and pay the fees everyone else should have to" Are you really saying that isn't something to consider when you are garnering support for unlicensed carry? And I don't know who made the claim that CHL's take an elitist view to the license requirement. It sure wasn't me. I clearly indicated that I feel that SOME CHL holders have an elitist view about their CHL and gave examples of such from my experience.

I didn't need you to repeat your statement. I understood it and I disagree with your premise. Even if you have heard CHLs make such statements, something I've never heard in talking to far more CHLs than you in all likelihood, they have no impact on open-carry efforts, either licensed or unlicensed. While Texas has something over 760,000 CHLs, that's not enough to block open-carry legislation even if every single one of them called to oppose open-carry.

I stated that the general public enjoys a significant comfort level that comes with the 18 track record CHLs have earned because they hold the fate of open-carry to a great extent. They are the voting block that will either be quiet about open-carry, or be calling legislators demanding that they oppose open-carry. I'm at a loss as to how you ignore the general public and point to a tiny segment of the Texas population implying that they can or would block open-carry. You like most open-carry zealots want to blame CHLs for the public opposition to open-carry when it was generated almost exclusively by OCT and OCTC's in-your-face tactics.

"willfully convoluted . . ." Tone it down sport; your OCT roots are showing.

Chas.