Open-Carry: Pro/Con - Split from "Still No Open Carry Bill

[Douva]

I too have seen several plain-clothes LEOs openly carrying. A month or so ago, one was at the next table to me munching on his lunch while I was concealed and chowing down on mine.

If I'm not mistaken, a Texas law enforcement officer must have a badge showing in order to open carry. A lot of them wear their badges on their belts or holsters (I've even heard of sheriffs having their badges inset into a pistol grip). Though I suppose these people could be described as "plain clothes," their badges clearly identifies them as law enforcement officers. When I have more time, I'll try to track down the law in question and cite it here.

EDITED TO ADD:

After doing some digging, it appears that this may simply be the policy of most Texas law enforcement agencies, rather than a state law. I've always heard it cited (including in at least one CHL class) as state law, and apparently there are a few Texas law enforcement officers who think it's the law, but judging from the fact that I couldn't find anything about it in either the Texas Penal Code or the Texas Code of Criminal procedure, as well as the information in THIS TexasCHLforum thread, the best conclusion I can reach is that it's probably just a commonly accepted agency policy. Apparently, some agencies require firearms to be concealed when an officer is out of uniform, and some agencies require that a badge be worn near the gun when an officer carries openly while out of uniform, and a few agencies allow officers to carry openly even when they're not wearing a uniform or a badge.

So, depending on where you live, people might just assume you're a law enforcement officer if they see you carrying openly; however, I still think this is a bad strategy. It reminds me of a message board post I once saw where a guy asked if other CHL holders thought it would be a god idea to carry handcuffs on his belt, next to his gun, so that if his shirt ever rode up, allowing people to see his gun, they'd just assume he was a law enforcement officer. The consensus was that you really don't want people thinking you're a law enforcement officer if you're not.

[bayouhazard]

So, depending on where you live, people might just assume you're a law enforcement officer if they see you carrying openly; however, I still think this is a bad strategy.

Then you probably shouldn't do it.

[anygunanywhere]

So, depending on where you live, people might just assume you're a law enforcement officer if they see you carrying openly; however, I still think this is a bad strategy.

Then you probably shouldn't do it.

It should be a "bad strategy" to assume that someone OCing is LEO, not the other way around.

Thinking outside the box!

Anygunanywhere

[jimlongley]

A couple of the cops I have seen in "plain clothes" OCing, had badges clearly visible, but I have seen more than a couple with badges very hard to find if visible at all.

[SA-TX]

The big difference is that Pennsylvania and Virginia have, to the best of my knowledge, never had a lengthy, heated, well-publicized legislative battle over the merits and pitfalls of open carry. Pennsylvania and Virginia haven't had the issue brought to the public's attention by every local and state news agency (and most likely, a few national news agencies) simultaneously.

...

"Few" is a relative term. Whatever the number of people who notice open carry, it will be exponentially higher than the number of people who notice concealed carry. Run a Google search for stories of police being called in response to legal open carry; then run a Google search for stories of people being called in response to legal concealed carry. Considering how many more individuals carry concealed, open carry's track record for not upsetting the general public is relatively poor, compared to that of concealed carry.

And personally, I don't think that relying on the "people will just think you're a cop" mentality is a smart strategy, especially since plain-clothes police officers are not allowed to open carry in the state of Texas (it's not something people are used to seeing).

...

Charles has already explained why the Texas Legislature is unlikely to pass a provision for dual signage.

My responses in the order above:

True, they haven't had "lengthy, heated, well-publicized legislative battle over the merits and pitfalls of open carry" but neither have we, yet. It remains to be seen if that will happen. If your point is that open carry hasn't been widely reported on in those states, I would differ with you. There have been several cases in PA, VA, OH, CA, WA and in other states recently. Even in CT there has been enough incidents that a lawmaker asked the research arm of the legislature if any CT statue makes it illegal given the controversy at the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners.

That some people notice and call the police is unfortunate but shouldn't reflect poorly on open carry. I'll stipulate that it isn't common in American society as it was in the 19th century. There are many legal activities that may offend or scare people. Many are very opposed to smoking in public, for example. I would further name saggy pants, studs and chains, wild hair, clothing with profanity, etc. The list could be a long one. I respectfully disagree with the argument that because some people don't like something that a) it should be made illegal or b) the police should be summoned and the lawabiding person made to defend their non-criminal actions. I would suggest that the true fix for the problem of MWAG calls is for the 911 dispatcher to ask "What is the armed person doing and where is the gun?" If the response to question 1 is not indicative of criminal behavior such as "walking down the street" or "eating at the table next to me" or "shopping at the store I'm in" or "pumping gas", etc. and the answer to question two is "in a holster", the operator should tell the person "that's legal. Call back if the gun comes out of the holster." No officers sent; no resources wasted. This is no different than when an idiot call 911 and demands that the police come to Burger King because the fry cook can't make his burger correcly (yes, this has happened).

I'm not saying that relying on people thinking you are a police officer is "good strategy". I'm simply saying that, based on the questions that open carriers get, that is the assumption of many people. My point that was 1) many people don't notice, and 2) of those that do, some percentage of them will likely think you are a police officer and thus not make a MWAG call.

I wasn't very clear on my signage proposal. Under my plan, businesses wouldn't have to post two signs, just one. There is one sign that bans only concealed carry: 30.06. It wouldn't be changed at all. The new 30.07 would incorporate the language of 30.06 but also add language around open carry. Thus, to prevent both, a business need only post the new 30.07 sign.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The last thing we need is for them to get the feeling that "the bun lobby" (sic) are trying to pull a fast one on open-carry, and then distrust everything else that's related to guns.

Chas.

As you say, let's use history as a guide. I predict that if we get open carry (licensed or not), very few will practice it. It will still be VERY unusual and most folks won't have any cause to freak out and call their legislator demanding change. Much like the blood not running in the streets when the CHL bill was passed, after the news stories about the novelty of it are done, soccer moms are not very likely to encounter an open carrier in their local mall.

The history I feel is of value is Texas history, not the history of other states that OpenCarry.org wants to use as an indication of the response in Texas. Even without seeing a single gun, there was a near panic when CHL passed in 1995. It was so bad that clear "no guns" decals were popping up everywhere and we had to pass a bill in 1997 establishing the "big ugly sign" (30.06 signs) to stem the tide. Does this mean a similar response to open-carry will occur? Of course not. But I believe it is a better predictor than the reaction of people in rural PA or AZ.

For example, regarding 30.06 signs and open carry, could a section 30.07 be added (so as to not open up 30.06 to amendment) that says a business owner wishing to keep out those carrying handguns concealed or openly may adopt the following sign which incorporates the elements of 30.06 but with language added. Thus, no changes to 30.06 nor any references to 30.06 need to be changed.

The trespass/private property rights issues are insurmountable hurdles, in my opinion. The stated goal of open-carry supporters is have a system in place that allows property owners to post a sign that prevents open-carry, but not concealed carry. The only way to accomplish this is with two signs. One suggestion was a separate sign only for open-carry and one only for concealed-carry. This would require a property owner to post both, if they want no guns on the property. The legislature will never do this.

The system you propose is also a two sign scheme that would allow a business to post just one sign (proposed TPC 30.07), but that sign would prohibit both open and concealed carry. So CHL's will be prejudiced by the acts of open-carry people.

Another two sign suggestion was made that works in the reverse in that 30.06 would be modified to apply to open and concealed carry, and a new Penal Code section (ex. 30.07) would be created that would prohibit only open-carry. This would leave CHL's alone, but the legislature would never pass it because our opponents would argue that it would confuse property owners. The argument for a single sign to keep all armed people off of the property will ultimately prevail.

Regarding your view about legislation changing several sections rather than just simply adding "concealed" in TPC 46.02 seems to lead to different off-limits places for unlicensed open carry. All of the preemption wouldn't apply unless the open carrier also had a CHL. It is imperative that CC and OC have an equal footing -- either you can carry somewhere or you cannot. The Virginia situation of open-carry only in places that serve alcohol, for example, is definitely to be avoided. This is the reason for the complex legislation.

I understand your position and it's a valid point. However, I am not willing to risk amendments making more off-limits locations for CHLs for the sake of OpenCarry.org's goal of uniformity. That said, there is a somewhat safer way to accomplish the uniformity goal by leaving TPC §46.035 in tact and merely changing the phrase "license holder" to "person" and deleting references to "Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code." This is not "safe" from anti-gun amendments, but it does make it a bit harder to add such an amendment than repealing all of TPC §46.035 and moving it into TPC §46.02 as in OpenCarry.org's bill. This approach would not create a conflict with TPC §46.03 since that section applies to all weapons and TPC §46.035 applies to only to handguns. Again, this is not "safe," it is "safer" and I don't want anyone at OpenCarry.org believing that I am saying this is a good approach. It's not, it's just better than the sweeping change in OpenCarry.org's bill. It is also critical that the caption be as limited as possible, or that would open other areas to amendment.

All of this may be moot, as I suspect the bill to be introduced will call for licensed open-carry and if I am correct, all that will be necessary is the repeal of TPC §46.035(a) that requires concealment and that won't open up anything to amendment.

Chas.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

I may have missed it but does anyone know what the OC bill will entail exactly and what will need to be done for it to pass?

[Charles L. Cotton]

I may have missed it but does anyone know what the OC bill will entail exactly and what will need to be done for it to pass?

It's my understanding the bill is being drafted, but I don't know any of the specific provisions.

Chas.

[SA-TX]

[quote="Charles L. Cotton]

All of this may be moot, as I suspect the bill to be introduced will call for licensed open-carry and if I am correct, all that will be necessary is the repeal of TPC §46.035(a) that requires concealment and that won't open up anything to amendment.

Chas.[/quote]

That works for me. It isn't ideal, but incrementalism has been proven to work.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

Thanks for the reply. If there is any update or a place where one could check it out when it is done could someone point me in the direction to look at it?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Thanks for the reply. If there is any update or a place where one could check it out when it is done could someone point me in the direction to look at it?

If/when a bill is filed, I will have it in the Bill Status Report and there will probably be a thread started on it. Since OpenCarry.org is leading the open-carry effort, they may well see and publish a draft before it's filed. (So will I, but I cannot post anything on a draft.)

Chas.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

Thanks I look forward to seeing how they are going to go about this.