Is Open Carry Activism Threatening our CHL rights.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

I understand your frustration quite well and I share it. While these tactics may be poisoning the legislative well, they are not poisoning the lobby well, but only the former get to vote on bills. We'll keep working on open-carry, but the chances of success are diminishing.

Chas.

[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.

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.

Do we need to contact our reps in support of CHL?

[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.

Do we need to contact our reps in support of CHL?

Not now. It's way too early. The best thing that could happen at this point is for open-carry to fall off the radar screen. When the legislative session begins, calls-to-action will go out at the proper times.

Chas.

[EEllis]

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.)

No it doesn't. Not historically. The States were not bound by the Bill of Rights, just the Feds. It wasn't until the 1800's that the courts applied Constitution to State laws as individual rights. Mind you most States have Constitutions that are very close to the fed but.....

[Jason K]

I support OC. I used to support OCT, but they've become tasteless glory hounds that the anti-2A's can use as bad examples. They're not useful to the OC cause anymore.

I like the Campus Carry movement's "empty holster" campaign as an example of tasteful, non-threatening, and effective protest. And CC seems to be gaining more ground nationwide. OCT should look hard at their tactics.

[jmra]

I support OC. I used to support OCT, but they've become tasteless glory hounds that the anti-2A's can use as bad examples. They're not useful to the OC cause anymore.

I like the Campus Carry movement's "empty holster" campaign as an example of tasteful, non-threatening, and effective protest. And CC seems to be gaining more ground nationwide. OCT should look hard at their tactics.

[rbwhatever1]

"Jim Beaux wrote:
The first 10 Amendments are called the "Bill of Rights".
There is no ambiguity. These10 amendments clearly apply ONLY TO the PEOPLE."

I agree. These "God Given Rights" existed before Madison wrote the Bill of Rights. We can all thank Thomas Jefferson, the Anti-Federalists and the State delegates for the creation of the Bill of Rights otherwise the U.S. Constitution would never have been ratified. Madison penned those words only because Ratification of the Constitution by the States was in jeopardy without this "Bill of Rights" concession with specific safeguards on limits of Federal Power and Individual Rights Guarantees. James Madison's thoughts on the matter of a "Bill of Rights" was changed completely by Thomas Jefferson.

Just one Federalist argument of many: Very dangerous to create a Bill of Rights because the "Government" may "Infringe" on individual God Given rights not listed.

Anti-Federalists thoughts: We just got rid of one Oppressive Government with War, why would I want to create another?

The Bill of Rights was demanded by the People.

[Cedar Park Dad]

I support OC. I used to support OCT, but they've become tasteless glory hounds that the anti-2A's can use as bad examples. They're not useful to the OC cause anymore.

I like the Campus Carry movement's "empty holster" campaign as an example of tasteful, non-threatening, and effective protest. And CC seems to be gaining more ground nationwide. OCT should look hard at their tactics.

Agreed. Its absolutely peaceful, nonalarming, and in line with time honored traditions of protest.

[Jim Beaux]

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.)

No it doesn't. Not historically. The States were not bound by the Bill of Rights, just the Feds. It wasn't until the 1800's that the courts applied Constitution to State laws as individual rights. Mind you most States have Constitutions that are very close to the fed but.....

No it doesnt???? If not intended to guarantee the rights of the people, then just what does The Bill of Rights mean & who does it apply to?? Also explain why you think the states can ignore the Bill of Rights?

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.)

No it doesn't. Not historically. The States were not bound by the Bill of Rights, just the Feds. It wasn't until the 1800's that the courts applied Constitution to State laws as individual rights. Mind you most States have Constitutions that are very close to the fed but.....

No it doesnt???? If not intended to guarantee the rights of the people, then just what does The Bill of Rights mean & who does it apply to?? Also explain why you think the states can ignore the Bill of Rights?

The U.S. Constitution protects citizens and states from the federal government. It was not initially intended to limit state action against its citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court has applied some but not all of the first 10 amendments to the states to protect citizens from state action.

As to so-called "constitutional carry" (a/k/a open-carry), people need to recognize that the U.S. Supreme Court has just refused to consider a New Jersey law requiring a person seeking a carry permit to show a "special need" beyond self-defense. This leaves the appellate court decision upholding the law in tact. The challenge was that the Second Amendment protects a right to carry (bear) arms outside one's home. As I've said countless times before, regardless what I or anyone else thinks the Constitution means, only the opinions of at least 5 of 9 Supreme Court justices matter. Perhaps now folks will stop trying to elevate open-carry to a constitutional right. We may get there some day, but we haven't yet and the U.S. Supreme Court just declined the opportunity to so proclaim.

Chas.

[mojo84]

I highly recommend this free online Constitution course.

https://online.hillsdale.edu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[EEllis]

No it doesnt???? If not intended to guarantee the rights of the people, then just what does The Bill of Rights mean & who does it apply to?? Also explain why you think the states can ignore the Bill of Rights?

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. we are also taking this conversation way off the topic. Sufficient to say the understanding of the courts and the people of the meaning Constitution in early America is different than it is today.

[TexasGal]

I firmly believe the persons most likely to run around with a long gun in places they simply do not belong are also persons' whose reasons have little or nothing to do with truly caring one bit about gun rights. It is way more about ego and personal importance, but Gigag04 described them so much better than I ever could.
If they keep it up, not only will OC not pass, it can't be too long before a law IS passed that does away with the ability to open carry a long gun anywhere but in normal hunting and shooting settings. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see they have no intention of stopping until they are made to.

[couzin]

^^^ Yup!!!