Questions for OCT

[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.

Most states that have open carry have never had a ban on it in the first place. Those that have licensed open carry may have once been illegal, but that was usually in cities.

An example of good change is Missouri, who has always had unlicensed open carry, but allowed cities and municipalities to enact ordinances prohibiting the open carry of a weapon. The legislature just passed a bill that now prohibits cities from enacting ordinances on licensed open carry. It is yet to see how that will be received in cities that once disallowed any open carry at all. You can still open carry without a license in rural areas and in cities that don't have ordinances against it.

Of course Keith, I was just hoping Chas could possible give me a history lesson on what has shut down our efforts in the past. I've been more politically active that ever in my life, and I must sadly admit that I never was quite interested in listening to what was going on over in Austin. I avoid that city like a rotting carcass, but now that I have children, I am more concerned about their future, which is why I am getting into all of this.

[canvasbck]

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 can't speak for all of those states, but I have OC'd in PA within the last year.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[paxton25]

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.

Most states that have open carry have never had a ban on it in the first place. Those that have licensed open carry may have once been illegal, but that was usually in cities.

An example of good change is Missouri, who has always had unlicensed open carry, but allowed cities and municipalities to enact ordinances prohibiting the open carry of a weapon. The legislature just passed a bill that now prohibits cities from enacting ordinances on licensed open carry. It is yet to see how that will be received in cities that once disallowed any open carry at all. You can still open carry without a license in rural areas and in cities that don't have ordinances against it.

Of course Keith, I was just hoping Chas could possible give me a history lesson on what has shut down our efforts in the past. I've been more politically active that ever in my life, and I must sadly admit that I never was quite interested in listening to what was going on over in Austin. I avoid that city like a rotting carcass, but now that I have children, I am more concerned about their future, which is why I am getting into all of this.

Simple, not enough citizens clamoring for it before last session. Didn't come up as a question during election season. I think part of the problem is with some (and I stress SOME) members in the "CHL Club" that think they are elite operators and part of an exclusive club because they have their CHL, they don't want the unwashed masses to be able to carry around a gun like they do, it makes them less special. On contracts I do I need to see an ID and a lot of times they whip their CHL out instead of their DL and proudly tell me "here's my CHL" like it was a badge or something. Makes me laugh.

[Cedar Park Dad]

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 can't speak for all of those states, but I have OC'd in PA within the last year.

Did you OC in Pittsburgh? this is not an attack. It is a question as I cannot see someone OCing in Pittsburgh without sucking pavement pretty quickly.

[ralewis]

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.

RE: PA….I spend a lot of time in PA and have a non-resident PA LTC (License to Carry) in addition to my TX CHL. There is no law against Open Carry in PA, but there is a law requiring a LTC to Open Carry in 'cities of the first class' (of which Philadelphia is the only one). Maybe it's this requirement that mitigates a lot of heartburn over firearms in PA. Also, by comparison, PA is actually more accommodating for firearms carry than Texas is -- no bar or sports venue prohibition. My brother a LEO for almost 20 years in a medium sized city says there aren't many firearms discussions/issues/problems he can recall.

http://www.pafoa.org/law/carrying-firearms/open-carry" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

Most states that have open carry have never had a ban on it in the first place. Those that have licensed open carry may have once been illegal, but that was usually in cities.

An example of good change is Missouri, who has always had unlicensed open carry, but allowed cities and municipalities to enact ordinances prohibiting the open carry of a weapon. The legislature just passed a bill that now prohibits cities from enacting ordinances on licensed open carry. It is yet to see how that will be received in cities that once disallowed any open carry at all. You can still open carry without a license in rural areas and in cities that don't have ordinances against it.

Of course Keith, I was just hoping Chas could possible give me a history lesson on what has shut down our efforts in the past. I've been more politically active that ever in my life, and I must sadly admit that I never was quite interested in listening to what was going on over in Austin. I avoid that city like a rotting carcass, but now that I have children, I am more concerned about their future, which is why I am getting into all of this.

Simple, not enough citizens clamoring for it before last session. Didn't come up as a question during election season. I think part of the problem is with some (and I stress SOME) members in the "CHL Club" that think they are elite operators and part of an exclusive club because they have their CHL, they don't want the unwashed masses to be able to carry around a gun like they do, it makes them less special. On contracts I do I need to see an ID and a lot of times they whip their CHL out instead of their DL and proudly tell me "here's my CHL" like it was a badge or something. Makes me laugh.

This is a claim that began with the bomb-throwing types on OpenCarry.org and later adopted by the Lone Star CDL, but it has pretty much died out. It was, and occasionally still is, thrown out by the bomb-throwers as an insult to anyone who opines that there are issues facing gun owners that are far more important than open-carry. I've never seen nor heard a CHL claim they have elite status. I have read a few posts here on the Forum from CHLs who like the fact that people carrying under current Texas law have an excellent track record and are 17 times less likely to commit a crime than the general public. However, the focus is on safety, not elite status.

Even if there were some validity to the "elitist" argument, which there is not, those who feel that way would be so few in number as to have utterly no impact on legislation or the NRA/TSRA legislative agenda. The latest lie is that the NRA and TSRA somehow benefit financially by the Texas "licensing system."

Chas.

[paxton25]

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.

Most states that have open carry have never had a ban on it in the first place. Those that have licensed open carry may have once been illegal, but that was usually in cities.

An example of good change is Missouri, who has always had unlicensed open carry, but allowed cities and municipalities to enact ordinances prohibiting the open carry of a weapon. The legislature just passed a bill that now prohibits cities from enacting ordinances on licensed open carry. It is yet to see how that will be received in cities that once disallowed any open carry at all. You can still open carry without a license in rural areas and in cities that don't have ordinances against it.

Of course Keith, I was just hoping Chas could possible give me a history lesson on what has shut down our efforts in the past. I've been more politically active that ever in my life, and I must sadly admit that I never was quite interested in listening to what was going on over in Austin. I avoid that city like a rotting carcass, but now that I have children, I am more concerned about their future, which is why I am getting into all of this.

Simple, not enough citizens clamoring for it before last session. Didn't come up as a question during election season. I think part of the problem is with some (and I stress SOME) members in the "CHL Club" that think they are elite operators and part of an exclusive club because they have their CHL, they don't want the unwashed masses to be able to carry around a gun like they do, it makes them less special. On contracts I do I need to see an ID and a lot of times they whip their CHL out instead of their DL and proudly tell me "here's my CHL" like it was a badge or something. Makes me laugh.

This is a claim that began with the bomb-throwing types on OpenCarry.org and later adopted by the Lone Star CDL, but it has pretty much died out. It was, and occasionally still is, thrown out by the bomb-throwers as an insult to anyone who opines that there are issues facing gun owners that are far more important than open-carry. I've never seen nor heard a CHL claim they have elite status. I have read a few posts here on the Forum from CHLs who like the fact that people carrying under current Texas law have an excellent track record and are 17 times less likely to commit a crime than the general public. However, the focus is on safety, not elite status.

Even if there were some validity to the "elitist" argument, which there is not, those who feel that way would be so few in number as to have utterly no impact on legislation or the NRA/TSRA legislative agenda. The latest lie is that the NRA and TSRA somehow benefit financially by the Texas "licensing system."

Chas.

No, it is a personal observation by me over the last several years in several conversations in my day to day interactions with people. It is a valid observation although I may agree there isn't enough of that attitude to sway a vote it certainly contributes to some degree when you evaluate the amount of support or lack thereof on an issue. 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. Certainly in the broader terms of constitutional carry where unlicensed concealed carry would be the law. I can specifically recall more than one conversation where a CHL holder has told me they don't support unlicensed concealed carry because it wasn't fair that they had to go through the classes and pay the fees.

[canvasbck]

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 can't speak for all of those states, but I have OC'd in PA within the last year.

Did you OC in Pittsburgh? this is not an attack. It is a question as I cannot see someone OCing in Pittsburgh without sucking pavement pretty quickly.

I was in Scranton and Wilkes-Barre

ETA: I didn't OC extensively while I was there, just stopped into a convenience store and then shopped at Sam's after an IDPA match at WB Gun Club. Since OC was legal, I just kept my competition rig on instead of swapping out to my IWB rig, didn't wear my competition vest because it's pink,.............kind of like what I will do after OC passes in Tx.

[IlliniBill]

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.

[C-dub]

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.

[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.

In my view the constitutional carry bill will better the gun rights of more Texans. Especially compared to a bill that just allows CHL holders to OC. Constitutional Carry is a lot more than just OC. No license required for open or concealed carry, no state registration data base. 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. 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 but so much of the drama and back and forth revolves around what very few gun owners would do. 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.

[C-dub]

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.

In my view the constitutional carry bill will better the gun rights of more Texans. Especially compared to a bill that just allows CHL holders to OC. Constitutional Carry is a lot more than just OC. No license required for open or concealed carry, no state registration data base. 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. 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 but so much of the drama and back and forth revolves around what very few gun owners would do. 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.

If those are the only reasons you want OC, then that is the same as most of us here and probably most all CHLs that care at all about OC in the state. It does have the potential to affect more people than those with CHLs, but in reality, it won't because an extremely small number of people will actually OC on a regular basis once the novelty wears off. That's the case in other states that have always had OC and that will be the case here if it passes.

[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.

In my view the constitutional carry bill will better the gun rights of more Texans. Especially compared to a bill that just allows CHL holders to OC. Constitutional Carry is a lot more than just OC. No license required for open or concealed carry, no state registration data base. 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. 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 but so much of the drama and back and forth revolves around what very few gun owners would do. 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.

If those are the only reasons you want OC, then that is the same as most of us here and probably most all CHLs that care at all about OC in the state. It does have the potential to affect more people than those with CHLs, but in reality, it won't because an extremely small number of people will actually OC on a regular basis once the novelty wears off. That's the case in other states that have always had OC and that will be the case here if it passes.

But if people don't need a license to conceal carry if constitutional carry passes that certainly affects a lot of people. I know several people that object on principle to getting a CHL that would gladly carry with no license requirement. Yes, I agree the % of people that would OC would be so small it would be almost non existent. That's why I don't see why 90% of the talk and debate and going back and forth is about which OC bill to support if any. Instead if everyone got on the same page and pushed for constitutional carry, the OCT guys, NRA, TSRA guys and all of us as individuals we all get what we want.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

Most states that have open carry have never had a ban on it in the first place. Those that have licensed open carry may have once been illegal, but that was usually in cities.

An example of good change is Missouri, who has always had unlicensed open carry, but allowed cities and municipalities to enact ordinances prohibiting the open carry of a weapon. The legislature just passed a bill that now prohibits cities from enacting ordinances on licensed open carry. It is yet to see how that will be received in cities that once disallowed any open carry at all. You can still open carry without a license in rural areas and in cities that don't have ordinances against it.

Of course Keith, I was just hoping Chas could possible give me a history lesson on what has shut down our efforts in the past. I've been more politically active that ever in my life, and I must sadly admit that I never was quite interested in listening to what was going on over in Austin. I avoid that city like a rotting carcass, but now that I have children, I am more concerned about their future, which is why I am getting into all of this.

Simple, not enough citizens clamoring for it before last session. Didn't come up as a question during election season. I think part of the problem is with some (and I stress SOME) members in the "CHL Club" that think they are elite operators and part of an exclusive club because they have their CHL, they don't want the unwashed masses to be able to carry around a gun like they do, it makes them less special. On contracts I do I need to see an ID and a lot of times they whip their CHL out instead of their DL and proudly tell me "here's my CHL" like it was a badge or something. Makes me laugh.

This is a claim that began with the bomb-throwing types on OpenCarry.org and later adopted by the Lone Star CDL, but it has pretty much died out. It was, and occasionally still is, thrown out by the bomb-throwers as an insult to anyone who opines that there are issues facing gun owners that are far more important than open-carry. I've never seen nor heard a CHL claim they have elite status. I have read a few posts here on the Forum from CHLs who like the fact that people carrying under current Texas law have an excellent track record and are 17 times less likely to commit a crime than the general public. However, the focus is on safety, not elite status.

Even if there were some validity to the "elitist" argument, which there is not, those who feel that way would be so few in number as to have utterly no impact on legislation or the NRA/TSRA legislative agenda. The latest lie is that the NRA and TSRA somehow benefit financially by the Texas "licensing system."

Chas.

No, it is a personal observation by me over the last several years in several conversations in my day to day interactions with people.

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.