TexasCHLforum.com

Confusing and conflicting statements and instructions have been issued by OCT leadership. All gun owners, and especially OCT members, need a clear and unequivocal statement from OCT on the following issues.

1. Will OCT support any or all licensed open-carry bills during the 2015 Texas Legislative Session?
2. Will OCT oppose any or all licensed open-carry billls?
3. Will OCT support only HB195 - unlicensed open-carry?

It's time for OCT leadership to stop sending mixed signals and let gun owners know their position on these issues.

Chas.

Charles: I fully agree. From my perspective if a recognized OC spokesperson states a clear platform then I can decide if I support them. If they do nothing to clarify the confusing messages todate then they must have something to hide and that is not the kind of effort/cause I will support. The various folks in that effort should realize they already have an uphill battle, at least with me, as they are part of a group that is providing ammunition to the anti-gunners and thereby jeopardizing my rights to defend my family. I will not respond well to such irresponsible actions and soon will have to take a visible position against them.

CJ, Valente, how about answers to these very important questions? Why would you not want gun owners and OCT members to know the organization's official position?

Chas.

After the election is over, NRA/TSRA has to lay it bare on the ground their strategy for open-carry. There is no point of keeping silent or keeping it a secret.

Beiruty wrote:After the election is over, NRA/TSRA has to lay it bare on the ground their strategy for open-carry. There is no point of keeping silent or keeping it a secret.

I've explained our two-year cycle and how we measure and garner support for issues and bills. Open-carry is no different.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Beiruty wrote:After the election is over, NRA/TSRA has to lay it bare on the ground their strategy for open-carry. There is no point of keeping silent or keeping it a secret.

I've explained our two-year cycle and how we measure and garner support for issues and bills. Open-carry is no different.

Chas.

Chas,
What I meant: "Are we looking for unlicensed open-carry, or CHL with an option to OC?" If I am asked, I do not know what to say.

I would think whatever we get. Go in hoping for the best and shooting for the stars and take whatever we can get.

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time.

Beiruty wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Beiruty wrote:After the election is over, NRA/TSRA has to lay it bare on the ground their strategy for open-carry. There is no point of keeping silent or keeping it a secret.

I've explained our two-year cycle and how we measure and garner support for issues and bills. Open-carry is no different.

Chas.

Cahs,
What I meant: "Are we looking for unlicensed open-carry, or CHL with an option to OC?" If I am asked, I do not know what to say.

Beiruty, the strategy is this: Several OC bills are being advanced. The NRA/TSRA goal appears to be ultimately unlicensed open carry, with a recognition that we may have to achieve that in steps. Bills being advanced seem to run the gamut from Constitutional Carry with 30.06 inclusive for OC (not supported) to Constitutional Carry with 30.07 for OC (recommended and the one with best NRA/TSRA support), to licensed OC with and without inclusion of OC into 30.06 (NRA/TSRA will not support inclusion of OC into 30.06 under any argument), and other bills not addressing OC but expanding our rights in other ways......for instance getting rid of exclusion areas in which CHLs cannot carry.

Here's what you can probably count on to tell your friends who ask:

1. TSRA and NRA will not support the inclusion of OC into 30.06 for any reason whatsoever because it is a step backward for concealed carry, so any OC bill that does this will not have their support.
2. Whatever we can get passed that does not include OC in 30.06 is a net positive gain.
3. The ultimate goal, whether we achieve it in this session or some future session is Constitutional Carry.

Charles, have I stated it accurately enough for general terms?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Beiruty wrote:After the election is over, NRA/TSRA has to lay it bare on the ground their strategy for open-carry. There is no point of keeping silent or keeping it a secret.

I've explained our two-year cycle and how we measure and garner support for issues and bills. Open-carry is no different.

Chas.

Cahs,
What I meant: "Are we looking for unlicensed open-carry, or CHL with an option to OC?" If I am asked, I do not know what to say.

Beiruty, the strategy is this: Several OC bills are being advanced. The NRA/TSRA goal appears to be ultimately unlicensed open carry, with a recognition that we may have to achieve that in steps. Bills being advanced seem to run the gamut from Constitutional Carry with 30.06 inclusive for OC (not supported) to Constitutional Carry with 30.07 for OC (recommended and the one with best NRA/TSRA support), to licensed OC with and without inclusion of OC into 30.06 (NRA/TSRA will not support inclusion of OC into 30.06 under any argument), and other bills not addressing OC but expanding our rights in other ways......for instance getting rid of exclusion areas in which CHLs cannot carry.

Here's what you can probably count on to tell your friends who ask:

1. TSRA and NRA will not support the inclusion of OC into 30.06 for any reason whatsoever because it is a step backward for concealed carry, so any OC bill that does this will not have their support.
2. Whatever we can get passed that does not include OC in 30.06 is a net positive gain.
3. The ultimate goal, whether we achieve it in this session or some future session is Constitutional Carry.

Charles, have I stated it accurately enough for general terms?

My only problem with the "steps" idea, is that if we get licensed open carry, would we ever be able to get enough support to remove the license requirement in further sessions? The question people would ask is "why remove the requirement for license and background checks, they are a good idea" to which we reply "licensing is burdensome and against the Constitution" to which they say "we don't care, it's good enough."

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Beiruty wrote:After the election is over, NRA/TSRA has to lay it bare on the ground their strategy for open-carry. There is no point of keeping silent or keeping it a secret.

I've explained our two-year cycle and how we measure and garner support for issues and bills. Open-carry is no different.

Chas.

Cahs,
What I meant: "Are we looking for unlicensed open-carry, or CHL with an option to OC?" If I am asked, I do not know what to say.

Beiruty, the strategy is this: Several OC bills are being advanced. The NRA/TSRA goal appears to be ultimately unlicensed open carry, with a recognition that we may have to achieve that in steps. Bills being advanced seem to run the gamut from Constitutional Carry with 30.06 inclusive for OC (not supported) to Constitutional Carry with 30.07 for OC (recommended and the one with best NRA/TSRA support), to licensed OC with and without inclusion of OC into 30.06 (NRA/TSRA will not support inclusion of OC into 30.06 under any argument), and other bills not addressing OC but expanding our rights in other ways......for instance getting rid of exclusion areas in which CHLs cannot carry.

Here's what you can probably count on to tell your friends who ask:

1. TSRA and NRA will not support the inclusion of OC into 30.06 for any reason whatsoever because it is a step backward for concealed carry, so any OC bill that does this will not have their support.
2. Whatever we can get passed that does not include OC in 30.06 is a net positive gain.
3. The ultimate goal, whether we achieve it in this session or some future session is Constitutional Carry.

Charles, have I stated it accurately enough for general terms?

Yes, this is correct.

Chas.

locke_n_load wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Beiruty wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Beiruty wrote:After the election is over, NRA/TSRA has to lay it bare on the ground their strategy for open-carry. There is no point of keeping silent or keeping it a secret.

I've explained our two-year cycle and how we measure and garner support for issues and bills. Open-carry is no different.

Chas.

Cahs,
What I meant: "Are we looking for unlicensed open-carry, or CHL with an option to OC?" If I am asked, I do not know what to say.

Beiruty, the strategy is this: Several OC bills are being advanced. The NRA/TSRA goal appears to be ultimately unlicensed open carry, with a recognition that we may have to achieve that in steps. Bills being advanced seem to run the gamut from Constitutional Carry with 30.06 inclusive for OC (not supported) to Constitutional Carry with 30.07 for OC (recommended and the one with best NRA/TSRA support), to licensed OC with and without inclusion of OC into 30.06 (NRA/TSRA will not support inclusion of OC into 30.06 under any argument), and other bills not addressing OC but expanding our rights in other ways......for instance getting rid of exclusion areas in which CHLs cannot carry.

Here's what you can probably count on to tell your friends who ask:

1. TSRA and NRA will not support the inclusion of OC into 30.06 for any reason whatsoever because it is a step backward for concealed carry, so any OC bill that does this will not have their support.
2. Whatever we can get passed that does not include OC in 30.06 is a net positive gain.
3. The ultimate goal, whether we achieve it in this session or some future session is Constitutional Carry.

Charles, have I stated it accurately enough for general terms?

My only problem with the "steps" idea, is that if we get licensed open carry, would we ever be able to get enough support to remove the license requirement in further sessions? The question people would ask is "why remove the requirement for license and background checks, they are a good idea" to which we reply "licensing is burdensome and against the Constitution" to which they say "we don't care, it's good enough."

So you would rather not have the option to OC at all than to have licensed OC? Would you have preferred that we didn't pass a CHL law because it has restrictions that are difficult to get removed? Would you prefer that we didn't have the ability to CC because we didn't get what we wanted from the get go?

Some people can't be pleased and groups like OCT is one of them.

There are some people who are only happy if they have something to complain about.. There is a medical term to describe this condition, but I am too tired to look it up.

Thanks for the three points that describe the position of NRA/TSRA. What is the basic parameters of "constitutional carry" and why is it the ultimate goal? Likely when I know what it means the value will be obvious. Why is OC in a 30.06 area a step backward for us CHL's.

Sorry if those answers are somewhere as I did not find them.

tomdavis wrote:Thanks for the three points that describe the position of NRA/TSRA. What is the basic parameters of "constitutional carry" and why is it the ultimate goal? Likely when I know what it means the value will be obvious. Why is OC in a 30.06 area a step backward for us CHL's.

Sorry if those answers are somewhere as I did not find them.

I think what you referring to is any OC law that links to 30.06 aka you can use a 30.06 sign to ban OC. That would lead to a dramatic rise in locations excluding CHLS as well.

tomdavis wrote:Thanks for the three points that describe the position of NRA/TSRA. What is the basic parameters of "constitutional carry" and why is it the ultimate goal? Likely when I know what it means the value will be obvious. Why is OC in a 30.06 area a step backward for us CHL's.

Sorry if those answers are somewhere as I did not find them.

Tom,

“Constitutional Carry” is the ultimate goal because it is what the founders of this country intended before incremental steps have limited the carrying of arms to where we were prior to 1995, no carrying by anyone other than police and only in a vehicle when traveling, and travel was not defined. Constitutional Carry would be the restoration of the right to bear arms, anyone who can legally own a firearm can carry it, openly or concealed, as long as they do not break the law. Of course this is the ultimate goal allowing the most freedom.

We cannot have a bill that ties open carry to TPC 30.06 because the sign is for concealed carry. Businesses do not want to put up a big ugly sign to limit something people do not see, only the rabid anti-gun types even bother. However, open carry is clearly visible and many stores, shops, malls, restaurants, theaters, and other venues may not wish to have people openly carrying a pistol into their establishment. If the only way to limit openly carried pistols is to also limit concealed pistols than it is a loss for concealed carry. I personally would like to see a 30.07 sign so the rabid anti-gun folks have to put up two big ugly signs, but will settle for a gun buster of sufficient size. I would also like to see the penalty reduced to Class C Misdemeanor for not seeing a sign.