A couple of thoughts on the Open Carry debate this session.

[CWOOD]

If it were to pass, however unlikely this time, I doubt that I would open carry much. Maybe it would be more likely in the more rural areas in the summer time but in Metro areas the loss of tactical advantage, and undue attention would probably prompt me to conceal as I do now. Not having to worry about accidental exposure would be a plus, but I really don't have much issue with that anyway. As they say "concealed means concealed'.

I have had a couple of thoughts about the issue during the recent discussions here and the general publicity.

One is the fact that with passage, those openly carrying would bring a LOT more attention to the fact that there are many of us out here who carry handguns. This might have the unintended and unwelcome consequence of having MORE businesses respond to anti-activists' compaints about "all the guns" by posting 30.06 signs or their equivalent. If any law were to pass there would certainly be a provision for private property owners to exclude them. As it is now, it is not really a big issue because "the public" has no idea how many armed fellow citizens there are around them at the lunch counter or retail outlet.

The other thought I have had is that the upcoming bill might be an advantage to the other pro-CHL oriented bills. I say this because in the past, those promoting improvements in the CHL law have been successful, in part I think, because they have maintained a low profile and worked behind the scenes much of the time. The VERY high profile way the Open Carry promoters have chosen to launch their efforts might cause their bill to be a lightning rod to all the ANTIS' efforts. By comparison, the school carry and employer parking lot bills might seem so modest and subdued that they could recieve much less attention by the usual anti-suspects.

Your thoughts?

[Purplehood]

I know I will get a lot of flack over this, but promoting CHL "fine-tuning" bills as an alternative to Open Carry might sound like a good deal to legislators.

[CWOOD]

I know I will get a lot of flack over this, but promoting CHL "fine-tuning" bills as an alternative to Open Carry might sound like a good deal to legislators.

I don't think you will get any flak. I think we agree. The modest and subdued "fine tuning" might be a refuge for legislators who really don't want to deal with the high profile Open Carry bill, but who are generally supportive of CHL's.

We'll see. It could be interesting, to say te least.

[k5dmb]

[CainA]

If it were to pass, however unlikely this time, I doubt that I would open carry much. Maybe it would be more likely in the more rural areas in the summer time but in Metro areas the loss of tactical advantage, and undue attention would probably prompt me to conceal as I do now. Not having to worry about accidental exposure would be a plus, but I really don't have much issue with that anyway. As they say "concealed means concealed'.

I have had a couple of thoughts about the issue during the recent discussions here and the general publicity.

One is the fact that with passage, those openly carrying would bring a LOT more attention to the fact that there are many of us out here who carry handguns. This might have the unintended and unwelcome consequence of having MORE businesses respond to anti-activists' compaints about "all the guns" by posting 30.06 signs or their equivalent. If any law were to pass there would certainly be a provision for private property owners to exclude them. As it is now, it is not really a big issue because "the public" has no idea how many armed fellow citizens there are around them at the lunch counter or retail outlet.

The other thought I have had is that the upcoming bill might be an advantage to the other pro-CHL oriented bills. I say this because in the past, those promoting improvements in the CHL law have been successful, in part I think, because they have maintained a low profile and worked behind the scenes much of the time. The VERY high profile way the Open Carry promoters have chosen to launch their efforts might cause their bill to be a lightning rod to all the ANTIS' efforts. By comparison, the school carry and employer parking lot bills might seem so modest and subdued that they could recieve much less attention by the usual anti-suspects.

Your thoughts?

I think you make some very valid and good points and .

-Cain

[CHLSteve]

Chas made a statement at the seminar we attended a few months ago along the lines of, "We don't want that kind of attention from the general public" (I'm paraphrasing here, so feel free to correct me Chas!)

I could not agree more, as we already have great CHL laws here in TX. The phrase, "Let sleeping dogs lie" comes to mind here.

[shootthesheet]

My opinion is that a well written law that allows any person who may legally own or possess a firearm to carry openly will not harm CHL at all. I don’t think it will pass the first session but it may later as the idea gets to the ears of the general public. Should we tie this in with CHL as an option? I don’t like that much because then CHL is put in danger because it will turn some legislators as well as revive an all but dead anti-gun movement in the state and we will not be able to get any improvements in CHL in the next few sessions. I want a stand alone bill that allows private property owners to post a specific type of sign to keep OC out of their place but does not otherwise restrict carry as long as it is not a genuine security issue. That can be later improved if necessary.

With all that said, when/if OC is proposed it will affect the attitudes of every person who hears about it. They will come down on one side or the other. What I think of is the election this year. Most of the big city types will not want it and most of the more rural types will. My view is that at this point we are on a roll. We have a pro-self defense governor and decent legislature. It is time to take a few risks as well as show the other side just what they will deal with if they do not work with us to “enact common sense gun laws the people support“. In this state the opposition understands just what the majority want and that is a return of their freedoms.

OC will pass, either now or later or when the U.S. 14 Amendment is applied to the states. Basically, the opposition can show their support for our civil right to keep and bear arms now or risk being shown as trying to deny us of these basic God given COTUS recognized rights now. Sold as them being either looked on as a champion of civil rights or tyrant, who fights to suppress them, I think they will come down on our side. And make no mistake; this is a civil rights issue now. We should embrace that and use it to change the hearts and minds of our political friends and enemies. The state must relinquish its hold on those civil rights of every law abiding person. Punish the guilty and leave the majority innocent alone. That is just my opinion.

[Supercat]

I agree with what was said above, and I see the point. However if we ever hope to change the unaware public's perception, you can't do it by hiding the fact that it exists.

I have turned a few people to the 2A side in my time, but never without exposing "something" about myself.

But you are correct this could be a positive win with a negative result.

[Douva]

http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2 ... -campuses/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;