Is Open Carry Activism Threatening our CHL rights.

[Beiruty]

I can't go into detail, but if the current tactics continue, then open-carry will be DOA in the 2015 Texas Legislative Session. The legislative response is bad and getting worse and it's not because our friends in Austin are anti-gun as some will scream from the rooftops.

Chas.

I hope that this info is relayed to OCT in some fashion. Coordination is the key. Maybe unarmed demonstrations could be as effective. Rally and political speakers could be enough.

[Cedar Park Dad]

I can't go into detail, but if the current tactics continue, then open-carry will be DOA in the 2015 Texas Legislative Session. The legislative response is bad and getting worse and it's not because our friends in Austin are anti-gun as some will scream from the rooftops.

Chas.

Well that stinks, but utterly predictable. Keep up the good fight Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I can't go into detail, but if the current tactics continue, then open-carry will be DOA in the 2015 Texas Legislative Session. The legislative response is bad and getting worse and it's not because our friends in Austin are anti-gun as some will scream from the rooftops.

Chas.

I hope that this info is relayed to OCT in some fashion. Coordination is the key. Maybe unarmed demonstrations could be as effective. Rally and political speakers could be enough.

It has been. Everyone can/should listen to G.A. Heath's podcast of the roundtable with C.J. Grisham, Alice Tripp and me on the open-carry issue.

No demonstrations, armed, unarmed or with signs, are necessary and they are counterproductive at this point. Passing a bill when you start in damage control mode does not bode well for one's legislation. I know this is going to fall on deaf ears for many who believe, or want to believe, that they are helping to pass open-carry. I/we can't control these folks and if they sink open-carry then perhaps they will reconsider their approach in 2017.

As I've said before, open-carry is not my issue; I'm far more concerned with removing off-limits areas, repeal of some unfair eligibility requirements, volunteer church "security," repeal of some CHL instructor eligibility requirements, repeal of certain sections of TPC § Chp. 9 that hamper self-defense, and other gun/self-defense related issues. I have also said repeatedly that I'm a good soldier and when the decision is made to pursue open-carry, I will dedicate myself to it's passage. However, speaking only in my personal capacity and not for the NRA, TSRA or Alice Tripp, I'm finding it increasingly difficult to stay motivated to promote open-carry when others are making the task much more difficult and potentially impossible.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

After Making National Headlines Group Promises "Greatest Open Carry" Rally Ever Seen

I think I'm just going to go fishing.

Chas.

[gigag04]

After Making National Headlines Group Promises "Greatest Open Carry" Rally Ever Seen

I think I'm just going to go fishing.

Chas.

What a bunch of mall ninja, wanna-bee operator, arfcom reading, magpul tacticool, video game warrior, mother's-basement-dwelling, goofballs.

[Cedar Park Dad]

After Making National Headlines Group Promises "Greatest Open Carry" Rally Ever Seen

I think I'm just going to go fishing.

Chas.

This is a forum about firearms. You should go shooting instead.

Fishing leads to falling asleep in folding chair on pier leads to sunburn! I know, oh how I know.

[Cedar Park Dad]

After Making National Headlines Group Promises "Greatest Open Carry" Rally Ever Seen

I think I'm just going to go fishing.

Chas.

What a bunch of mall ninja, wanna-bee operator, arfcom reading, magpul tacticool, video game warrior, mother's-basement-dwelling, goofballs.

Tell us how you really feel.
Am I incorrect or is it stating that themain group stil supports the antics of the Tarrant County group, and further wants to to publish the 911 call. Why is the govenrment releasing the 911 call in the first place, especially before it might have information on the actual caller. Thats disconcerting as a potential 911 caller of a crime. Does that mean that could potentially come back to me? If so, forget calling 911 ever again.

on the positive, the sourced article says they hid in the freezer. I guess that answers the question of whether BK burgers are in fact made of (unspecified) meat.

[Jim Beaux]

Also I'm a huge firearm supporter and gun rights guy but this 2A crap is wearing thin with me. The 2nd doesn't say you can go anywhere and do everything with a rifle on your back and people are prohibited from being concerned. Limited what you can buy, own, and keep. Restrictions on movement and punitive taxes are 2nd A issues, not going to the movies with an AK.

Respectfully my friend, the 2nd Amendment does not say anything whatsoever about people being concerned. Please correct me if I misread what you wrote, but you cite restrictions on movement and punitive taxes as 2nd Amendment issues, then cite a restriction on movement (carrying an AK) into a movie as not being a 2nd Amendment issue. Come to think of it, nothing in the entire Constitution speaks to how people feel about the rights laid out. Constitutional rights are rights and are not subject to how we, or any American citizen, feels about them.

You are absolutely correct in this. The 2nd Amendment offers no restrictions, positive or negative, on what or where you can own or carry. It is silent on those issues. But we must deal with those two simple words "keep and bear." I believe those two words are at the heart of the issue.

Again, with all due respect, a lot of people have bled and died to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, which includes the Bill of Rights. I believe it is the greatest document ever penned by man and worthy of respect. Of course, you're free to disagree.

I did state, and have in several other threads, that I too disagree with the tactics of those who want to force the issue. I understand our frustration. I am frustrated too. I would hope we seek a real solution, not just another fire.

I don't disagree with how great the constitution is but I just disagree with what it means. In my opinion it wasn't meant to do what you think. The Constitution and the 2nd A wasn't ever meant to be applied to states. That was a later afectation that I'm glad occurred but there is no way in heck that anyone would of agreed to a document that prohibited them from having any rules of any sort regarding firearms. They were concerned that, that among other things, the govt would seize guns not that someone couldn't show off their rifle or wander around town with their handgun out and obvious. While I'm pro CHL and even OC I don't think it is necessary a 2nd A issue. Plenty of towns had firearm restriction when the Constitution was adopted and it wasn't an issue in 1790's. James Madison Proposed a bill that, in an effort to prevent people from violating Virginia game law. "bear(s) a gun out of his enclosed ground unless whilst performing military duty" would face criminal penalties. (bill for the preservation of deer 1785). NJ had laws as far back as 1799 against the carrying of "offensive weaponry"(pistols). Under Common law, which is what everyone operated under at the time, law enforcement could and did disarm people "in terror of the peace". Other states could require you to take an oath to the govt or have your guns taken away. There were limits some places on the amount of powder you could posses, think ammo now, and if you had more you had to store it in public armories at your expense.

The first 10 Amendments are called the "Bill of Rights".

There is no ambiguity. These10 amendments clearly apply ONLY TO the PEOPLE. The Bill of Rights establish and guarantee the freedoms for the people ( and grant to the people everything that is not specifically given to the fed.)

[Abraham]

...sigh...

[canvasbck]

Let me get this straight, a couple of dozen mouth breathing jerks behaved in a way that irritated a couple of dozen legislators (could be less could be more , I don't know). I'm assuming that said legislators are being made aware that the buffoons do not represent the vast majority of CHL holders.

Texas CHL holders, as a group, have been proven to be the most law abiding among all citizens. More law abiding than those who write and those who enforce the laws. CHL holders have overwhelmingly spoken out against the tactics employed by over zealous OC supporters (at least on this forum). The majority of CHL holders either support or do not oppose OC but the actions of a few mouth breathers will prevent reasonable legislation from passing because they irritated the wrong folks? The difference between a law abiding CHL holder and a law breaking CHL holder will remain the presence or absence of a peice of cloth because one shunned chapter in one movement didn't behave the way they were told to.

For reference, I support OC. I think the guys parading around with ARs are making fools of themselves. I don't want OC because I want to parade around and have folks look at me. I want it to pass because I find the concealment requirement to be silly. "It's only legal if we can't tell your doing it". It would also be convenient to just go to lunch after an IDPA match without either changing clothes or disarming. (I won't go out to eat in my pink vest)

[Cedar Park Dad]

Let me get this straight, a couple of dozen mouth breathing jerks behaved in a way that irritated a couple of dozen legislators (could be less could be more , I don't know). I'm assuming that said legislators are being made aware that the buffoons do not represent the vast majority of CHL holders.

As the immortal bard once said: "This is why we can't have nice things."

[Charles L. Cotton]

Let me get this straight, a couple of dozen mouth breathing jerks behaved in a way that irritated a couple of dozen legislators (could be less could be more , I don't know). I'm assuming that said legislators are being made aware that the buffoons do not represent the vast majority of CHL holders.

Texas CHL holders, as a group, have been proven to be the most law abiding among all citizens. More law abiding than those who write and those who enforce the laws. CHL holders have overwhelmingly spoken out against the tactics employed by over zealous OC supporters (at least on this forum). The majority of CHL holders either support or do not oppose OC but the actions of a few mouth breathers will prevent reasonable legislation from passing because they irritated the wrong folks? The difference between a law abiding CHL holder and a law breaking CHL holder will remain the presence or absence of a peice of cloth because one shunned chapter in one movement didn't behave the way they were told to.

For reference, I support OC. I think the guys parading around with ARs are making fools of themselves. I don't want OC because I want to parade around and have folks look at me. I want it to pass because I find the concealment requirement to be silly. "It's only legal if we can't tell your doing it". It would also be convenient to just go to lunch after an IDPA match without either changing clothes or disarming. (I won't go out to eat in my pink vest)

I wish only a couple of dozen people in and outside the Legislature were upset. Calls from constituents who were present as well as those who saw the numerous negative TV new reports are demanding that something be done about "those people." You are correct that the demonstrators are not representative of all CHL holders and not all demonstrators are acting inappropriately. However, to the voters who are contacting their elected representatives, the people who are causing them fear or concern are the very people who will be most likely to open-carry if a bill passes.

Right or wrong, this is how open-carry demonstrations are being viewed by the public and it's harmful to the cause. I'm not arguing their evaluation is correct; I'm saying damage is being done on a scale much larger than ardent open-carry supporters are willing or capable of admitting.

Chas.

[SewTexas]

Let me get this straight, a couple of dozen mouth breathing jerks behaved in a way that irritated a couple of dozen legislators (could be less could be more , I don't know). I'm assuming that said legislators are being made aware that the buffoons do not represent the vast majority of CHL holders.

Texas CHL holders, as a group, have been proven to be the most law abiding among all citizens. More law abiding than those who write and those who enforce the laws. CHL holders have overwhelmingly spoken out against the tactics employed by over zealous OC supporters (at least on this forum). The majority of CHL holders either support or do not oppose OC but the actions of a few mouth breathers will prevent reasonable legislation from passing because they irritated the wrong folks? The difference between a law abiding CHL holder and a law breaking CHL holder will remain the presence or absence of a peice of cloth because one shunned chapter in one movement didn't behave the way they were told to.

For reference, I support OC. I think the guys parading around with ARs are making fools of themselves. I don't want OC because I want to parade around and have folks look at me. I want it to pass because I find the concealment requirement to be silly. "It's only legal if we can't tell your doing it". It would also be convenient to just go to lunch after an IDPA match without either changing clothes or disarming. (I won't go out to eat in my pink vest)

I wish only a couple of dozen people in and outside the Legislature were upset. Calls from constituents who were present as well as those who saw the numerous negative TV new reports are demanding that something be done about "those people." You are correct that the demonstrators are not representative of all CHL holders and not all demonstrators are acting inappropriately. However, to the voters who are contacting their elected representatives, the people who are causing them fear or concern are the very people who will be most likely to open-carry if a bill passes.

Right or wrong, this is how open-carry demonstrations are being viewed by the public and it's harmful to the cause. I'm not arguing their evaluation is correct; I'm saying damage is being done on a scale much larger than ardent open-carry supporters are willing or capable of admitting.

Chas.

how many times do I have to say it....don't scare the children or the old people!

frightening people is not the way to get things accomplished.

[canvasbck]

Charles,
I hope you understand my frustration. A VERY small minority of OC supporters is poisoning the well not only in the legislature, but with our own lobby. The vast majority of OC supporters are sitting back and waiting for calls to action and letting the people who know how to affect legislation do their thing. What we want is in jeopardy of never seeing the light of day because of these folks. It's like the whole family being seen as odd because of our crazy uncle Ron. We have not asked these groups that look like the Occupy Wall Street crowd with guns on their backs to get involved nor can we control what they do.

Almost makes me want to organize my own Brady campaign that uses in your face tactics to support gun control so that we can kill all proposed gun control legislation.

[Wodathunkit]

Sigh.