OCT: Proposed OC ACT for 2015

[rotor]

From so many of the threads on this site it almost appears that the CHL people are the ones most upset about open carry.

Strangely, a board called CHL forum, about CHL issues might have a preponderence of members who are CHLers replying on threads here.

Isn't it all 2nd ammendment rights?

[Cedar Park Dad]

From so many of the threads on this site it almost appears that the CHL people are the ones most upset about open carry.

Strangely, a board called CHL forum, about CHL issues might have a preponderence of members who are CHLers replying on threads here.

Isn't it all 2nd ammendment rights?

Er what? What are you trying to say? If a poster complaining on a CHL board about CHLers being the most vocal on the board, wouldn't that be...er logical?

If you go to a board about Ford 150s its logical that the preponderence of posters own or have owned F 150s no? Its kind of a strange argument.

[G.A. Heath]

Am I the only one who noticed Section 11 of this bill and realizes what it does?

Is it trying to repeal CHLs? It repeals the exemption of CHLs from 46.02, which is unlawful carrying of weapons.

Basically as written the bill would remove the exemption regarding 46.02 for CHL holders essentially, which if the bill was written better would not matter but it strikes language that doesn't exist in 46.02 so when that is "fixed" you could easily have a bill that outlaws licensed concealed carry.

[rotor]

From so many of the threads on this site it almost appears that the CHL people are the ones most upset about open carry.

Strangely, a board called CHL forum, about CHL issues might have a preponderence of members who are CHLers replying on threads here.

Isn't it all 2nd ammendment rights?

Er what? What are you trying to say? If a poster complaining on a CHL board about CHLers being the most vocal on the board, wouldn't that be...er logical?

If you go to a board about Ford 150s its logical that the preponderence of posters own or have owned F 150s no? Its kind of a strange argument.

I didn't originate this post. I am commenting that it seems that CHL people seem to be very negative to open carry. From what I have seen many posts seem to reflect that view. I would have thought that people that support 2nd ammendment would have supported open carry too. I didn't intend for this to become an argument, only a reflection of what I see. I am not really sure why CHL people tend to be anti open carry at least from the responses on these posts. Perhaps the majority of CHL are not open carry. I don't see why we can't support CHL and open carry. I am not in favor of the dumb open carry tactics that we all see. I see nothing wrong with having open carry in Texas and CHL for those that prefer concealed. I realize this is a CHL board but there are a lot of open carry posts. Obviously someone has an interest in open carry, perhaps for it and perhaps against it.

[G.A. Heath]

I didn't originate this post. I am commenting that it seems that CHL people seem to be very negative to open carry. From what I have seen many posts seem to reflect that view. I would have thought that people that support 2nd ammendment would have supported open carry too. I didn't intend for this to become an argument, only a reflection of what I see. I am not really sure why CHL people tend to be anti open carry at least from the responses on these posts. Perhaps the majority of CHL are not open carry. I don't see why we can't support CHL and open carry. I am not in favor of the dumb open carry tactics that we all see. I see nothing wrong with having open carry in Texas and CHL for those that prefer concealed. I realize this is a CHL board but there are a lot of open carry posts. Obviously someone has an interest in open carry, perhaps for it and perhaps against it.

I feel the CHL camp has the following major divisions:
Want/support OC.
Indifferent to OC.
Against OC because of past history (I could easily have fallen into this group a few times).
Against OC because of current tactics.
Against OC because they believe it will negatively impact them.

I strongly suspect the first group is the largest, if it's not then it would be the second. Combined the first and second groups are larger than the others combined, although I suspect each individually is larger than the last three combined. I have been threatened by supposed OC advocates in the past because I call things like I see them and they didn't like what I happened to say. Yet here I am working to move OC forward doing a podcast about OC. Just remember that you are seeing the more biased opinions, many people will look at these threads and say "Bleh, another OC thread that I am not interested in." I was in a thread debate with someone on another forum who views the number of open carry marches as being some sort of credential, I didn't tell him I had probably OCed a modern handgun more hours than he has. Also remember the point of a debate when it comes to civil rights is not to convince your opponent, but to convince the audience.

"wharrgarbl, It's my right wharrgarbl, so I am going to do it, wharrgarbl!" is not as convincing of an argument where you show that gun grabs are rare, the OCer being shot first simply doesn't happen, and that OC has actual statistical support.

[jmra]

I didn't originate this post. I am commenting that it seems that CHL people seem to be very negative to open carry. From what I have seen many posts seem to reflect that view. I would have thought that people that support 2nd ammendment would have supported open carry too. I didn't intend for this to become an argument, only a reflection of what I see. I am not really sure why CHL people tend to be anti open carry at least from the responses on these posts. Perhaps the majority of CHL are not open carry. I don't see why we can't support CHL and open carry. I am not in favor of the dumb open carry tactics that we all see. I see nothing wrong with having open carry in Texas and CHL for those that prefer concealed. I realize this is a CHL board but there are a lot of open carry posts. Obviously someone has an interest in open carry, perhaps for it and perhaps against it.

I support changing the law to legalize OC of handguns. I do believe demonstrations can be effective. I do not believe demonstrations involving the OC of long guns helps that cause.

A pro life group demonstrates in front of an abortion clinic. Does carrying long guns while demonstrating help or hinder their cause?

A group of parents demonstrates outside a school board meeting to protest the firing of a teacher. Does carrying long guns while demonstrating help or hinder their cause?

A religious group demonstrates for religious freedom. Does carrying long guns while demonstrating help or hinder their cause.

A group of people demonstrates in support of hand gun OC. Does carrying long guns while demonstrating help or hinder their cause?

If you answered "hinder" to the first three, I don't see how you could logically answer differently to the fourth. I know, you are only carrying a long gun because you can't carry a hand gun. The problem with that argument is that the fourth example incites and portrays the same image as the first three examples.

If you truly want to see OC of hand guns in Texas please go out and demonstrate but leave the long gun at home.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I didn't originate this post. I am commenting that it seems that CHL people seem to be very negative to open carry. From what I have seen many posts seem to reflect that view. I would have thought that people that support 2nd ammendment would have supported open carry too. I didn't intend for this to become an argument, only a reflection of what I see. I am not really sure why CHL people tend to be anti open carry at least from the responses on these posts. Perhaps the majority of CHL are not open carry. I don't see why we can't support CHL and open carry. I am not in favor of the dumb open carry tactics that we all see. I see nothing wrong with having open carry in Texas and CHL for those that prefer concealed. I realize this is a CHL board but there are a lot of open carry posts. Obviously someone has an interest in open carry, perhaps for it and perhaps against it.

I support changing the law to legalize OC of handguns. I do believe demonstrations can be effective. I do not believe demonstrations involving the OC of long guns helps that cause.

A pro life group demonstrates in front of an abortion clinic. Does carrying long guns while demonstrating help or hinder their cause?

A group of parents demonstrates outside a school board meeting to protest the firing of a teacher. Does carrying long guns while demonstrating help or hinder their cause?

A religious group demonstrates for religious freedom. Does carrying long guns while demonstrating help or hinder their cause.

A group of people demonstrates in support of hand gun OC. Does carrying long guns while demonstrating help or hinder their cause?

If you answered "hinder" to the first three, I don't see how you could logically answer differently to the fourth. I know, you are only carrying a long gun because you can't carry a hand gun. The problem with that argument is that the fourth example incites and portrays the same image as the first three examples.

If you truly want to see OC of hand guns in Texas please go out and demonstrate but leave the long gun at home.

This is an excellent analogy.

Chas.

[Keith B]

[Cedar Park Dad]

I agree with your agreement.

[RogueUSMC]

I am with ya jmra as to the fact that they are going about this whole thing the wrong way but...

Your above comparisons are not really fair. They are demonstrating in support of rights to open carry ANY firearms using a firearm that IS legal to open carry.

To those that are 'afeared' of guns, the fact that it is a long gun is irrelevant. They will be 'afeared' no matter WHAT kinda firearm it is.

As for those that say the difference matters, they are going to be your critics whether you have any visible firearms or not.

Your other protest examples are somewhat valid arguments against having guns present being as those protests have nothing to do with firearms at all and you are introducing an element that the average person in your opposition might take issue with considering the demographics expected.

Yet the presence of a legal firearm should be irrelevant as it is a right being exercised just like the protest itself. If I were one to carry a long gun everywhere I go, why should I be demonized in a religious freedom protest for having a firearm with me?

When we look at these guys and see the camo 5.11 tactical pants, Duck Dynasty t-shirt and the beard, we wanna deduct a few IQ points. But then again, someone like Mr Cotton, being the distinguished lawyer that he is, may look at me the same way in my starched jeans and Dustin Ellerman pray hard, shoot straight ballcap (not that that is my impression of Charles but I figure he wouldn't get insulted by my using him as an example.)

I am just saying that everyone has preferences and perceptions...it just irritates me when we are expected to cater to the perceptions that cries foul when you say you don't agree with them and the media lends legitimacy to their butt-hurt. We are the ones bending over backwards all the time. I was in a conversation yesterday with a guy who is anti-gun...the discussion went really well until he realized (he was a little slow on the up-take) that I was pro-gun. The discussion devolved to arguments that I was just uneducated and couldn't be expected to understand how things really are. After a few insults to my intelligence, I walked away before the insults moved on the my lineage.

Eventually, we will need to take the kid-gloves off...

[RogueUSMC]

Not that I support what they do, but I don't NOT support them either. Whatever criticism I have for them, I have to be agreeable to accept the same type of criticism returned (Matthew 7:12).

The fact that we differentiate a firearm that, having a cartridge inserted, uses a firing pin to strike a primer, igniting a powder in the casing to expel a projectile at high velocity towards an intended target from a firearm that, having a cartridge inserted, uses a firing pin to strike a primer, igniting a powder in the casing to expel a projectile at high velocity towards an intended target, is catering to the prejudices of others who don't like either one.

Would I carry a long-gun around with me everywhere I go? no. Is there one in my truck everywhere I go? yes there is. What if all I had was a motorcycle for transportation? Should I have my choices be limited by others perceptions?

Nowadays, emotion trumps logic...and if you still wanna use logic in opposition to an emotional response, you become a distasteful individual that has no problem with women and children getting shot...

Do I wish these guys would do things differently? Yes I do. I am not going to restrict their choices because of my perceptions.

[ShootDontTalk]

I agree that the tactic is detrimental to the cause of influencing legislators. One could argue that a pro life group demonstrating in front of the post office in complete silence without any placards highlighting the issue is an effective protest on the restriction to the right to life. However, in this case the clinic supplies the focus of the protest. A protest in front of such a clinic is arguably more effective. If your analogy is true then we must add this one as it must work as well:

A group of people protest OC restrictions and are carrying large placards with anti-abortion phrases and grisly photos of dead fetuses. Does the presence of the placards help or hurt their cause?

If not, then the whole analogy fails. In truth the clinic is exactly the "openly carried rifle" of the right to life group. The clinic is representative of the issue. The presence of a real slung rifle adds to the discussion perhaps, but on a completely different subject.

I just don't see how legally exercising the 2nd Amendment hinders the exercise of it. Our rights, as spelled out in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, come from our Creator. They are not granted by our government. They are gifted by our Creator. A state-issued CHL is not the sole expression of the right to keep and bear arms.

If your analogy is true, then one should never peacefully assemble to protest a restriction on peaceable assembly. Your analogy must stand the test of 1) is it legal and 2) is it Constitutional. Is open carry of a firearm legal (a long gun at least) and Constitutional in Texas as spelled out in the 2nd Amendment or not? (Again we do well to remember that our government has spelled out the restrictions, in spite of the Constitution.)

The current rash of tactics hinder the influence of politicians and legislation. No question. Scaring people demonstrates extremely poor judgement and perhaps pushes politicians to restrict Constitutional rights (unlawfully I should add) No question. Adjust the tactics? Absolutely, in my view at least. But to suggest some should stop exercising their legal, Constitutional rights in order to curry the favor of politicians to stop them from restricting our Creator-gifted rights and continue to relax the un-Constitutional restrictions, seems counter productive to the republic. After all, they did swear under oath to uphold and defend the Constitution when they took office. That oath was not conditional.

Call me naive, but I don't think the founding fathers ever envisioned the ugly political quagmire we find ourselves in. Surely there is a better way. Maybe what you suggest is the only way. I'm just not sure it makes the nation stronger. My opinions anyway.

[TexasGal]

I have been looking up media stories on the open carry demonstrations. In reading through the hundreds of comments at the foot of the media stories, it is interesting to see who is posting and what they are saying. Comments are coming from both gun owners and from non gun owners.

1. Gun owners in the comments overwhelmingly dislike the choice of OCT to carry rifles openly in places they don't belong knowing they will alarm people.
2. Gun owners are making calm reassuring statements to show readers the overwhelming majority of gun owners would not act this way, do not support these demonstrators carrying long guns instead of signs in settings where they do not belong, and are asking that OCT not be used as a reason for more laws restricting guns.
3. Gun owners are trying to eliminate any connection in the public's mind that this is connected to the NRA, Concealed Carry, or any other gun owning group.

4. Non gun owners' posts show they really want to see open carry of long guns this way to stop by whatever means necessary. They are absolutely not thinking these guys need more gun rights given to them but would not mind signs or literature to promote what they believe in.
5. Non-gun owners are very frequently expressing great relief that the antics of OCT do not have the approval of most of the gun owners who are posting.
6. Non-gun owners are expressing an appreciation to the gun owners' for explaining their reasons they don't like it and that they carry in discrete and responsible ways.

We can all agree or disagree with each other but the bottom line is what the voters are led to believe about gun owners by the press and their own experiences with how they see us behave will show in the ballot box. We can gain or lose freedoms by what a relatively few do.

[RogueUSMC]

We can all agree or disagree with each other but the bottom line is what the voters are led to believe about gun owners by the press and their own experiences with how they see us behave will show in the ballot box. We can gain or lose freedoms by what a relatively few do.

That statement is at once the solution and the problem...take the bolded words out and you are left with the republic in a nutshell

[srothstein]

Isn't it all 2nd ammendment rights?

Yes and no. The forum members are a mixed group and, as such, have different beliefs on what they support. I support a complete repeal of all gun laws, federal and state, but I am very confident that very few members of the forum agree with me on that extreme a position. I also do not ever expect to see that happen.

Some on the board may support much broader rights than others. Some support open carry even if they do not do it. Some support full-auto possession, even if they would never do it. Some do not support either of those positions for various reasons, including the possible repercussions hurting their personal carry/possession. Some support assault weapons bans as they do not see the need for them.

The forum welcomes all members who are interested in a polite and reasonable discussion. I would not be surprised to find people who do not support any gun rights on the board if they are polite and wanting to discuss the issue.