Open Carry?

[frazzled]

I can think of a few occasions and situations where OC would be appropriate if not preferable. If they pass OC however, I want the option to carry concealed left intact. I am one that does not care for the BG knowing my carry status.

That is true, Dragonfighter, and your sensible comment makes me recall such circumstances, and I am compelled to admit that, to use a Washington expression, I "misspoke" in my earlier post. A classic example of my overstating a case.

I did indeed open carry on occasion when out of uniform -- while hiking in Alaska in rough heavily-treed brownie country, as did anyone having good sense. One never could be sure just what might be around the corner.

Jim

Agreed, hiking/camping works for me. On your own property works for me as well.
Other than that I don't see the point.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Thank you srothstein for taking a stance against this authoritative elitism. I am saddened at the obvious reality, even on this forum that the liberalization of our great national has neutered our American independence. But to realize the pacification is so extensive that one could agree, much less support such irrational behaviour from one who is sworn to “protect and serve” is almost incomprehensible.

"Trust me on this, it may be legal for you to do so, but carrying open and not being a LEO is going to be MUCH greater trouble than you will want to deal with."

IMHO, any one who is not totally outraged at such an oppressive sentiment has either a complete disregard, or a perverted misunderstanding of the principles of our founding fathers and the premise on which this country was founded.

There is a big difference between agreeing that certain events would occur if open-carry were legal v. agreeing that a LEO would be justified in drawing on someone solely because they are carrying openly. I believe you are painting with too broad of a brush.

If open-carry is ever legalized in Texas, then any LEO drawing down on and detaining someone solely because they had a visible handgun is going to find himself/herself and their agency in a very bad situation. It will be a clear civil rights violation and §1983 lawsuits will follow. Possession of an openly-carried handgun would not constitute probable cause any more than wearing a blue suit on Fridays.

As I have said several times before, I believe the risk of the public's response to OC in Texas is not that LEO's will respond improperly, or that the Legislature will repeal the concealed-carry statute, but that customer complaints will prompt many businesses to post 30.06 signs. Anyone who was around in 1995 and who was old enough to care will remember the flood of "ghostbuster no-gun" signs that were popping up everywhere. Only passage of HB2909 in 1997 that created TPC §30.06 stemmed the tide of businesses posting there property against concealed-carry. Posting of businesses declined dramatically not because the business owners had a change of heart, but because they didn't want to post a big ugly sign.

Chas.

[gwashorn]

I may be remembering wrong or it may not have been a major concern, but in the late 90's and the discussion of the signage at businesses who wanted to prohibit those of us who legally carried came the possible legal problems of such a sign "IF" an incident occurred. One discussion was if I was prohibited to protect myself when say a BG came in and robbed, hurt or killed someone, did that sign make the business open to law suits because they took over my protection by preventing me from protecting myself with a firearm? It may not be a true legal issue for them but the road to prove otherwise could be a costly one. Comment on that?

Gary

[Conagher]

Thank you srothstein for taking a stance against this authoritative elitism. I am saddened at the obvious reality, even on this forum that the liberalization of our great national has neutered our American independence. But to realize the pacification is so extensive that one could agree, much less support such irrational behaviour from one who is sworn to “protect and serve” is almost incomprehensible.

"Trust me on this, it may be legal for you to do so, but carrying open and not being a LEO is going to be MUCH greater trouble than you will want to deal with."

IMHO, any one who is not totally outraged at such an oppressive sentiment has either a complete disregard, or a perverted misunderstanding of the principles of our founding fathers and the premise on which this country was founded.

There is a big difference between agreeing that certain events would occur if open-carry were legal v. agreeing that a LEO would be justified in drawing on someone solely because they are carrying openly. I believe you are painting with too broad of a brush.

If open-carry is ever legalized in Texas, then any LEO drawing down on and detaining someone solely because they had a visible handgun is going to find himself/herself and their agency in a very bad situation. It will be a clear civil rights violation and §1983 lawsuits will follow. Possession of an openly-carried handgun would not constitute probable cause any more than wearing a blue suit on Fridays.

As I have said several times before, I believe the risk of the public's response to OC in Texas is not that LEO's will respond improperly, or that the Legislature will repeal the concealed-carry statute, but that customer complaints will prompt many businesses to post 30.06 signs. Anyone who was around in 1995 and who was old enough to care will remember the flood of "ghostbuster no-gun" signs that were popping up everywhere. Only passage of HB2909 in 1997 that created TPC §30.06 stemmed the tide of businesses posting there property against concealed-carry. Posting of businesses declined dramatically not because the business owners had a change of heart, but because they didn't want to post a big ugly sign.

Chas.

Hello Charles. Thank you for your comments. Actually, in my initial response I was not referring specifically to open carry even though that is clearly the subject matter and I can certainly understand it may be construed as such. I believe I would be equally disgusted if in the referenced LEO phase above the word “open carry” was replace with ”voicing your opinion”, “practicing your religion”, or any other civil right.

Thanks and have a nice day.

[57Coastie]

SNIP Because its not 1878 on the open range any more?

Can someone out there tell me when, back in the history of our great state, the Texas legislature first prohibited the open carry of unconcealed handguns?

Or might it have happened while Texas was a republic?

Thanks much,

Jim

[casingpoint]

back in the history of our great state, the Texas legislature first prohibited the open carry of unconcealed handguns

LOL at that one, Coastie. In the collective mindset of the rest of the nation, Texas remains on the cutting edge of frontier justice, guns a-blazin' and nooses swinging from the post oaks. The last thing one expects to find in this vanguard state against crime in is a prohibition on openly carried handguns.

Me, I really like to be able to go into a Luby's Cafeteria packing a concealed 357 MAGNUM, take off my jacket and sit down and eat knowing all the while that if some moron drives his pickup truck through the wall and opens fire, I've got my donkey covered. And I would like to see a gun strapped on everybody else in the building.

Actually, I'd really rather eat a chicken fried steak at the Bon Ton Restaurant in LaGrange , but I guess it closed.

Coastie, speaking of chicken fried steak, is Youngbloods still on College Avenue?

[nitrogen]

If open carry is legal, I don't care why someone wants to do it, as long as they arent breaking the law, it doesn't matter.

If I want to open carry because i'm a cowboy, then I should be able to open carry, wear boots, spurs and a cowboy hat.

[Dragonfighter]

In the collective mindset of the rest of the nation, Texas remains on the cutting edge of frontier justice, guns a-blazin' and nooses swinging from the post oaks.

Don't be ridiculous, it's cottonwoods...you can't hang a clothes line from a post oak.

[joe817]

SNIP Because its not 1878 on the open range any more?

Can someone out there tell me when, back in the history of our great state, the Texas legislature first prohibited the open carry of unconcealed handguns? Or might it have happened while Texas was a republic?

Thanks much, Jim

Coastie, for some reason your question became compelling to me. I've enjoyed a fascinating afternoon searching for the answer. I've no definitive answer yet, but have come across a very interesting article published in the Baylor Law Review in 1989.

"Thus, the constitutional convention of 1845 established that in Texas, the right to keep and bear arms was considered to be absolute. Bowie knives and Colt pistols could be worn, openly or concealed, without legislative infringement."

Apparently this was reconfirmed by the 1866 Texas constitutional convention in Austin: "...The above civil rights apparently included bearing arms, for unlike other Southern states, Texas did not pass a black code provision disarming freedmen. T. J. Mackay, an ex-Confederate who assisted in the surrender of arms to the Northern army,[113] stated that "a majority of [the freedmen] are armed, and entitled to bear arms under the existing laws of the southern States."[114]".

BUT... The Texas Constitutional Convention of 1868 adopted: "Resolved, That the Convention do order that no person shall hereafter be allowed in this hall, who carries belted on his person, revolvers or other deadly weapons.[133]

To make a short story long.....1868 is your answer.

Sorry folks to make this so long, but this has been THE most educational and fascinating read I've had, almost ever. The article delves into the history of Texas, the fight for Independence, from a RKBA & 2A perspective.

Source: http://www.guncite.com/journals/haltex.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you have a few hours you want to spend learning about Texas, the origin of Texas gun culture, and how we wind up at where we are now, this is a should read for you.

God Bless Texas. (and thanks for taking a look)

[frazzled]

As I have said several times before, I believe the risk of the public's response to OC in Texas is not that LEO's will respond improperly, or that the Legislature will repeal the concealed-carry statute, but that customer complaints will prompt many businesses to post 30.06 signs. Anyone who was around in 1995 and who was old enough to care will remember the flood of "ghostbuster no-gun" signs that were popping up everywhere. Only passage of HB2909 in 1997 that created TPC §30.06 stemmed the tide of businesses posting there property against concealed-carry. Posting of businesses declined dramatically not because the business owners had a change of heart, but because they didn't want to post a big ugly sign.

Chas.

Agreed. That is my concern as well.

[57Coastie]

SNIP Because its not 1878 on the open range any more?

Can someone out there tell me when, back in the history of our great state, the Texas legislature first prohibited the open carry of unconcealed handguns? Or might it have happened while Texas was a republic?

Thanks much, Jim

Coastie, for some reason your question became compelling to me. I've enjoyed a fascinating afternoon searching for the answer. I've no definitive answer yet, but have come across a very interesting article published in the Baylor Law Review in 1989.

"Thus, the constitutional convention of 1845 established that in Texas, the right to keep and bear arms was considered to be absolute. Bowie knives and Colt pistols could be worn, openly or concealed, without legislative infringement."

Apparently this was reconfirmed by the 1866 Texas constitutional convention in Austin: "...The above civil rights apparently included bearing arms, for unlike other Southern states, Texas did not pass a black code provision disarming freedmen. T. J. Mackay, an ex-Confederate who assisted in the surrender of arms to the Northern army,[113] stated that "a majority of [the freedmen] are armed, and entitled to bear arms under the existing laws of the southern States."[114]".

BUT... The Texas Constitutional Convention of 1868 adopted: "Resolved, That the Convention do order that no person shall hereafter be allowed in this hall, who carries belted on his person, revolvers or other deadly weapons.[133]

To make a short story long.....1868 is your answer.

Sorry folks to make this so long, but this has been THE most educational and fascinating read I've had, almost ever. The article delves into the history of Texas, the fight for Independence, from a RKBA & 2A perspective.

Source: http://www.guncite.com/journals/haltex.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you have a few hours you want to spend learning about Texas, the origin of Texas gun culture, and how we wind up at where we are now, this is a should read for you.

God Bless Texas. (and thanks for taking a look)

Thank you for your arduous research, Joe. It is appreciated. I will be reading your cited article as soon as I can blast the computer out of dear wife's hands. I have been getting "The Look" for too long.

But ... are you satisfied that the 1868 Constitutional Convention's resolution about wearing handguns in the hall in which they were deliberating means that this policy was in force statewide? Certainly there was no such provision in the (new) state constitution preventing open carry. I would think there would have had to have been a subsequent legislative enactment signed into law. ???? I.e., what would necessarily be repealed in the statute books should the legislature pass a bill approving open carry tomorrow?

Again, I do 'preciate it. I am happily far from a law library, and I never did figure out Westlaw or Lexis.

BTW: There is no such thing as a too-long post when it is 100% useful and pertinent info.

Jim

[57Coastie]

Joe,

A quick review of your law review article (which our readers should recognize is somewhat dated when it talks about current events) causes me to again express my appreciation of your work.

As I suspected might be the case, getting an answer to my original question would drag into the discussion the elements of reconstruction and discriminatory disarming of ex-slaves, the latter elements being involved in probably all the ex-Confederate states' consideration of 2A at that time.

Since I have fallen out of the habit, most happily, of reading law review articles, and since its is getting close to my bedtime, I will study it closer later. My cursory review makes me suspect the answer to my question may be somewhat later than 1868, possibly vintage around 1871.

The article you floated, by the way, has a quite interesting discussion about today's hot topic of incorporation by way of the 14th amendment as seen in Texas when the 14th was being considered and then enacted. Fascinating! I expect to see points raised in this article raised in SCOTUS when McDonald comes down.

Jim

[Aggie_engr]

As I have said several times before, I believe the risk of the public's response to OC in Texas is not that LEO's will respond improperly, or that the Legislature will repeal the concealed-carry statute, but that customer complaints will prompt many businesses to post 30.06 signs. Anyone who was around in 1995 and who was old enough to care will remember the flood of "ghostbuster no-gun" signs that were popping up everywhere. Only passage of HB2909 in 1997 that created TPC §30.06 stemmed the tide of businesses posting there property against concealed-carry. Posting of businesses declined dramatically not because the business owners had a change of heart, but because they didn't want to post a big ugly sign.

Chas.

Agreed. That is my concern as well.

The sheeple would not swallow it too easily.

[57Coastie]

SNIPCoastie, speaking of chicken fried steak, is Youngbloods still on College Avenue?

I'm not familiar with it, casingpoint, but I am brand new to College Station, after being wiped out on Bolivar Peninsula by hurricane Ike. I looked thru the phone book and couldn't find Youngbloods. When my son gets back in town I will ask him. He is a true Aggie, graduating in '85, and now on the staff of A&M. You couldn't blast him out with Bouncing Betty.

Jim

[joe817]

Joe, As I suspected might be the case, getting an answer to my original question would drag into the discussion the elements of reconstruction and discriminatory disarming of ex-slaves, the latter elements being involved in probably all the ex-Confederate states' consideration of 2A at that time.

My cursory review makes me suspect the answer to my question may be somewhat later than 1868, possibly vintage around 1871.

The article you floated, by the way, has a quite interesting discussion about today's hot topic of incorporation by way of the 14th amendment as seen in Texas when the 14th was being considered and then enacted. Fascinating! I expect to see points raised in this article raised in SCOTUS when McDonald comes down. Jim

Coastie, I agree. The 1868 "law" was imposed upon Texas during the oppressive Reconstruction Period, by a corrupt state puppet government installed following the War of Northern Aggression. The 1876 Constitution and ensuing laws replaced the reconstruction constitution. And apparently the laws began popping up banning open carry.

For those interested, Texas has had 8 Constitutions since the formation of the Republic back in 1836:

http://www.tcrf.com/Texas%20History%20- ... Texas.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks for the kind words Coastie. I thoroughly enjoyed researching your question. And yes, right there at the end of the treatise, what's written is directly related to McDonald.