OK passes open carry & TSRA planning for Texas '11 session

[mr surveyor]

hhhmmmm.... are Six Flags and Government meetings "off limits" due to statute or due to 30.06 postings?

One of us needs to brush up on our knowledge of the Texas CHL laws in order to be more persuasive in our arguments.....maybe it's me


surv

eta: nope..it's not me.....I just checked, and the little item "i" is still in the code

[74novaman]

I'm in not interested in showing off anything but I would like to know what a bar-b-que gun is .

I definitely want parking lot carry and campus carry. If I could only choose 1, I'd choose parking lot carry because I think it affects the most people. But why do we only have to choose two (parking lot and campus) or three (parking lot, schools, and range protection)? Isn't the Legislature capable of dealing with multiple 2A proposals in a given session? As I said originally, I'm a pragmatist. If I have to settle or take a 1/2 loaf or bargain down from what I really want I'm willing to do that at the appropriate time but before the discussion is even undertaken?
SA-TX

Bar-B-Que gun in a term I picked up from this board...basically its a gun that's "pretty". After all, who wouldn't want to show off a pretty gun?

I'm all for OC, just kind of got a bad taste in my mouth after the end of last session when from all accounts it seemed the OC supporters were willing to burn bridges with legislators and dump the other 2A issues for OC.

So if we took your approach of trying to get it all done while we have a favorable legislature (a valid point), I would rank our "goals" in this order:
1)Parking lot bill
2)Campus Carry
3)Range protection
4)Open carry

Why is open carry last? In my opinion, it does the least in regards to protections of rights already written into Texas law. I certainly want to get OC passed, but if I have to pick and choose what we get passed, it will be my last priority out of issues currently on the agenda.

Edit: Others may disagree and thats fine. I just have a real hard time understanding why people view OC as more important than parking lots or campus carry.

[mr surveyor]

I am a business owner, and have been for 27 years. No one sent me any kind of information to alert me that there was such a sign as a "30.06" that would effectively give notice to legal CHL's that their concealed handguns weren't welcome in my place of business. I have several other friends and acquaintances that also own businesses of various types, and not one of them knows the difference between a "gun-busters" sign and a 30.06. Since they never actually "see" a handgun in their place of business, they are oblivious to the CHLs that come and go on a daily basis. Once a few "Bareque" guns start showing up, and a few of their customers get that "not so fresh feeling", they WILL find out about proper signage that will no doubt include prohibiting concealed as well as open carry. THAT will limit my currently wonderful freedom to carry. No doubt about it. The only "remedy" would be to completely trample private (business owner's) property rights.... but we've beat this one to death, and it seems no one has changed their minds.


surv

[AJ80]

I wouldn't mind open carry everywhere, but what I really want is open carry on private property with owner consent.

I may be wrong, but I don't see an exception for displaying a gun to a friend at his house, or on his land when he wishes to see it.
If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will clarify.

[chabouk]

OC advocates willing to toss all other gun rights under the bus? What?

The only "under the bus" issue I recall from 2009, was Students for Concealed Carry proclaiming that they had nothing to do with OC, and didn't want any talk of OC scaring away legislators who might support campus carry. Not that it did them any good, in the end. I don't recall any OC advocates declaiming campus carry until after the fact, when some said they could no longer support SCC (although almost all had been supporting them until then).

I recall lots of worry that passing OC would result in an increase in places that were off limits for all gun carriers. I didn't agree, but I do remember the concern. Those were CC advocates worrying about OC, not the other way around. The legislative fixes to allay those worries were pretty simple, but too many people were thinking inside the box.

I don't recall any cases of OC proponents either advocating, admitting, or even subtly hinting, that they would accept a reduction in CC rights in exchange for legal OC. For the most part, OC advocates are 2A absolutists: "shall not infringe" is pretty darn clear, and the 14th Amendment is also pretty clear to everyone except nine people in silly costumes, whose predecessors invented "incorporation" and limited it to certain amendments. And they did so specifically because they were worried that the "wrong people" would be able to enjoy full Constitutional rights; specifically, the right to keep and bear arms.

I recall accusations that open carry advocates were a bunch of "outsiders" interfering with Texas. I don't recall the accusers admitting that over 8,000 Texans signed the OC petition. Mike Stollenwerk, one of the founders of opencarry.org (Lt. Col., U.S. Army, Retired), was called an outside agitator, despite owning a home in Killeen and having been stationed at Fort Hood for several years. And the truly ironic thing is that of everyone on OCDO, he's particularly sensitive to issues of "perception", and just this past weekend urged people to not OC 1911s, because the "cocked hammer" might scare people.

Open carry advocates tend to truly support RKBA without limits. Most I'm acquainted with don't support limitations based on citizenship, previous criminal record, or licenses that grant an exemption to carry bans. To the degree that anyone argues "OC is Constitutionally protected, CC isn't", I believe they're just trying to point out the case law history, as SA-TX did a good job of analyzing. I don't know any OC advocate who believes in further restrictions on CC or any other form of carry.

This is why the recent Arizona law has been dubbed "Constitutional Carry": no license or permission needed to carry concealed, openly, loaded, in a vehicle, or otherwise. The availability of a concealed carry license is a courtesy for those Arizonans who might visit states where "Constitutional Carry" is not yet recognized.

Several years of effort by TSRA to gain carry rights went unrewarded in Texas. I salute the efforts, and I support TSRA. But the one thing that finally got concealed carry legalized in Texas was the sea-change of public opinion that swept Ma Richards and her cronies out of office. No offense to the TSRA efforts, but those were the years when the Republicans started sweeping the nation for reasons mostly unrelated to gun rights. We have concealed carry today because Texans (like the rest of the country) were PO'd at, and scared of, Bill Clinton.

Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America swept into office, and the Texas CHL was a fortunate side effect.

I don't support any restrictions on CC (except those that violate private property rights), but I do support OC.

Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

Those words are clear enough.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'll have to prepare a more detailed reply to the questions you raise than I have time to do now. I'm heading to Charlotte tomorrow for NRA committee meetings, the Annual Meeting and a lot of other events. I promise I'll try to get to it sometime this week, but that may be impossible.

The bottom line is this; as Scalia stated, carrying a handgun was not an issue in Heller. I agree with you that there is good reason to believe that the Supreme Court will allow states to regulate the carrying of handguns. However, I don't think the Court will allow the absolute prohibition of carrying a handgun in view of its clear recognition of the right of self-defense. (This is the first S/Ct. opinion doing so and this is every bit as important as the Second Amendment portion of the opinion.) Also, I don't think Scalia's comments about concealed carry indicates a distinction between OC and CC. CC laws are now in 48 of the 50 states so it is natural that his dicta on "carrying" would be focused on CC. Further, I don't know if there are any states that issue a license solely for OC, but I may be wrong. If such laws exist, they are so few in number that they would not readily come to mind when Scalia was talking about carry laws. If this had been an issue briefed in the case, then a distinction between OC and CC would most definitely be significant.

I do not think there is a rational basis, and certainly no S/Ct. decisions, to argue that OC is a constitutionally protected right, but CC is not. Rather, I think the S/Ct. will allow states to decide for themselves whether either OC or CC will require a license. Some states may allow OC without a license and require one for CC under the guise that not being able to see if someone is armed somehow raises the threat level. While I disagree with that premise, I think the Court would find it rational and constitutional.

Chas.

It hasn't happened. I've never seen a concealed-carry proponent argue that CC is constitutionally protected, but OC isn't. OC supporters are just mad that TSRA and NRA haven't taken up the OC banner. Not supporting an issue is not the same as opposing it and it certainly doesn't constitute throwing them under the bus. OC supporters repeatedly contend that OC is protected by the Second Amendment, but CC isn't. That's throwing CC under the bus.

Chas.

Charles is good, isn't he?

Yes he is. Being an attorney and one with great gun-rights bon fides, it concerns me that I find myself on the opposite side of the argument from him.

Charles, as you know I am not mad at TSRA and do not confuse not supporting something with opposing it. As for throwing CC under the bus, that certainly isn't my intention. I L-O-V-E what TSRA has accomplished in Texas. It was only a few short years ago that we had nothing and I haven't forgotten! I also support the goals that you have the upcoming session (campus, parking lot, and range protection). My position is that, in addition, I support open carry.

As for what is constitutionally protected, please put on your lawyer hat for a minute and help me make sense of what the SC said in Heller and what was said in the oral arguments for McDonald:

Beginning on page 42 of the official Heller decision where the Court is discussing the meaning of "carry", some early court cases are reviewed. Nunn v. State struck down a Georgia law against carrying pistols openly. The same is true in State v. Chandler from Louisiana. Here the Court quotes from Chandler:

]“This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble
defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”

It then goes on to discuss Aymette v State (TN) where the Court concludes that Aymett's holding is

Aymette held that the state constitutional guarantee of the right to “bear” arms did not prohibit the banning of concealed weapons.

Further the Court quotes J. Kent from "Commentaries on American Law" (12th edition, 1873). I've shortened the quote for brevity, but I don't think I've damaged the context. The italics are in the original.

whether a statute prohibiting persons, when not on a journey, or as travellers, from wearing or carrying concealed weapons,be constitutional. There has been a great difference of opinion on the question.”

On page 57, there is this:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example,
the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2
Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n.11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Question -- I took these passages from the Opinion of the Court section of the document. Can any of them be considered dicta? The rules on what is and what isn't are confusing to me.

From the oral arguments for McDonald:

JUSTICE SCALIA: Well, why would this one be resolved on the basis of statistics? If there’s a constitutional right, we find what the minimum constitutional right is, and everything above that is up to the States.
MR. GURA: That --
JUSTICE SCALIA: If they want to have, you know -- I think we mentioned in Heller concealed carry laws. I mean, those are -- those are matters that we didn't decide in Heller. And you may have a great deal of divergence from State to State. And on that, I suppose, you would do statistics, wouldn't you? Or the legislature would.

(page 17 of the official oral argument transcript)

Justice Scalia mentions that the status of concealed carry specifically wasn't decided in Heller. True enough, but his implication seems to be that concealed carry may not be inside the "minimum constitutional right" particularly considering that all of the 19th century cases cited either a) overturned attempts to ban open carry or b) upheld the banning of concealed carry.

In this passage, Feldman (for Chicago) is expressing concern about the Court's interpretation of "carry" because of its implications.

MR. FELDMAN: ... But even more than that, Heller construed the Second Amendment's "bear" -- the word "bear," "to keep and bear arms" -- to mean the same thing as "carry" in this Court's case in Muscarello, much later. And to carry -- generally to carry. Many -- there’s a long history of regulation of not just concealed carry, as the Court did recognize in Heller, but of banning open carry in a variety of jurisdictions. Again, generally, it's someplace that is -- it has a particular problem; it's a city or something like that.

(page 56)

I believe Feldman thinks that Heller stands for the proposition that concealed carry can be regulated (and presumably banned) by States and localities but no so for open carry.

SA-TX

[Pete92FS]

So if we took your approach of trying to get it all done while we have a favorable legislature (a valid point), I would rank our "goals" in this order:
1)Parking lot bill
2)Campus Carry
3)Range protection
4)Open carry

Why is open carry last? In my opinion, it does the least in regards to protections of rights already written into Texas law. I certainly want to get OC passed, but if I have to pick and choose what we get passed, it will be my last priority out of issues currently on the agenda.

Edit: Others may disagree and thats fine. I just have a real hard time understanding why people view OC as more important than parking lots or campus carry.

Personally I could care less about OC. Even if it passed I would still carry concealed; I have been to 2 states that have open carry (Georgia and Louisiana) and have yet to see anyone open carry.

What I am worried about is any of the above passing if White defeats Perry this November.

[Charles L. Cotton]

OC supporters repeatedly contend that OC is protected by the Second Amendment, but CC isn't.

I must be talking, online and IRL, with the wrong OC supporters because I've never heard such a thing.

It's all over OpenCarry.com and there are a number of posts here on TexasCHLforum. I understand the tactic; throw the legislature a bone (i.e. let them regulate concealed carry) in order to get open-carry passed using the constitutionality argument.

In my view, it's dangerous to sacrifice one aspect of gun ownership to further another; much like throwing 50 BMG to the wolves to protect shotguns, or black rifles.

The real irony is that two states passed open-carry after the end of the 2009 Texas Legislative Session, which should have been helpful in passing OC in Texas. However, the tactics used by OpenCarry.org in the Texas Legislature and the venomous attacks on any person, entity or organization that did not openly and actively support OC, has squandered what could have been a very good boost to the effort in Texas. Hopefully, there won't be a repeat of those tactics again in 2011.

Chas.

[Conagher]

IMHO 2011 is the right time for Open Carry in Texas.

My rationale:

• Oklahoma legislature passing what is said to be “veto proof” bill.
• Starbuck’s very visible support of 2nd amendment to include OC.
• OC deterred armed robbery in Georgia
• Tea Party political clout.
• And numerous national and international media attention on OC.

Please allow me to address a few of the issues in the above posts:

“idiot OC supporters” from last session:

I would like to try to close this and move forward. I hereby publically and humbly apologize to any and all that were offended, angered, slighted or otherwise disturbed by any and all OC supporters from last session. In all sincerity I ask that you accept this apology and allow this issue to be put to bed. I have spoken with my senator and representative, neither of which feel in the lease bit put-off on the Texas OC effort. If you have a legislator that feels otherwise, please send me a PM and I will personally contact them and apologize. Thank you.


Even if it passed I would still carry concealed:

I think as a general rule this will be true for the vast majority of CHL’s, including me at times. However, I also believe that most CHL’s will practice OC to some extent, even though they may not visualize that now. Let’s take a few examples. To my knowledge, all of the below are currently illegal w/o OC.

• Removing your jacket/vest which was providing your concealment before you get into your car during our hot Texas summers (assuming not on your property).
• Keeping the handgun exposed on your hip while driving your vehicle.
• Exiting the vehicle prior to putting on your jacket to conceal your handgun (assuming not on your property).
• Showing your buddy the new 1911 you just purchased at his backyard BBQ.
• Removing your handgun from bodily concealment to store in a lock box in your vehicle prior to entering your child’s school.
• Laying your trusty 45 LC in the truck seat next to you to dispense of hogs, coyotes, mexican buzzards, snakes, etc. as you go check on your neighbour’s heifer that is suppose to calve while he is out of town for the weekend (OK, may this one is just me).
• And I’m sure others can think of many, many more.


“…giant surge in new locations posting valid 30.06 signs”:

Maybe a recognized risk, but I certainly do not see this as rationale to not pursue OC. It is true that there are no guarantees in the fight for freedom and civil liberties, and the fight is definitely not without risk. But risks are to be managed, not rationalized as justification for inaction. My understanding is the 30.06 sign was created to dwarf such an issue; so this risk is certainly not without a resolution.

I assume there were those that believed Rosa Parks should have given up her seat and not caused any trouble. After all, they were allowed to ride on the back of the bus and pushing the issue could result in banning them from the bus completely. Thank God for the Rosa Parks, we are a better country for it. I am almost embarrassed as a man that I do not exhibit equal courage as this woman. Accepting restrictions and limitations on our freedoms and liberties for fear of losing the status quo seems to run counter to my perception of America history.

We have businesses that post valid 30.06 signs now, and for the most part we simply choose not to darken the doors of their establishment. I think Starbuck’s stance is a prime example of how most of the national chains will respond. As for the local convenience store putting up a 30.06, I would simply cross the street to the next one. I personally believe this will be as rare as seeing someone open carry; but would gladly walk to the convenience store on the next corner in order to restore my liberty. If these businesses are really anti-2A I would prefer not to give them my business anyway.

How to move forward?

Mr. Cotton mentioned last year that if TSRA members wanted OC then they would push for it. (Charles please correct or qualify as necessary). So if you are a member of TSRA (if not, please consider joining) please communicate to Charles Cotton and Alice Tripp that you would like OC in the 2011 session.

I think there will be attempts at OC in 2011 with or without TSRA involvement. My belief is the best shot at having OC in 2011, and certainly my preference, would be to have TSRA spear-head this to ensure coherency with other 2A legislative activities. So please, contact TSRA and let them know your wishes.


Thanks and Have a Nice Day.

[wheelgun1958]

I'd rather see TSRA spend time on a parking lot bill.

[Charles L. Cotton]

“idiot OC supporters” from last session:

I would like to try to close this and move forward. I hereby publically and humbly apologize to any and all that were offended, angered, slighted or otherwise disturbed by any and all OC supporters from last session. In all sincerity I ask that you accept this apology and allow this issue to be put to bed. I have spoken with my senator and representative, neither of which feel in the lease bit put-off on the Texas OC effort. If you have a legislator that feels otherwise, please send me a PM and I will personally contact them and apologize. Thank you.

No need for you to apologize; you were always rational and respectful in your support of OC. By the same token, you cannot apologize for the conduct of others. Plus, even a cursory review of OpenCarry.org quickly reveals that attitudes haven't changed.

“…giant surge in new locations posting valid 30.06 signs”:

Maybe a recognized risk, but I certainly do not see this as rationale to not pursue OC. It is true that there are no guarantees in the fight for freedom and civil liberties, and the fight is definitely not without risk. But risks are to be managed, not rationalized as justification for inaction. My understanding is the 30.06 sign was created to dwarf such an issue; so this risk is certainly not without a resolution.
. . .

We have businesses that post valid 30.06 signs now, and for the most part we simply choose not to darken the doors of their establishment. I think Starbuck’s stance is a prime example of how most of the national chains will respond. As for the local convenience store putting up a 30.06, I would simply cross the street to the next one. I personally believe this will be as rare as seeing someone open carry; but would gladly walk to the convenience store on the next corner in order to restore my liberty. If these businesses are really anti-2A I would prefer not to give them my business anyway.

Starbucks is only one company; how can we view the action of one company as indicative of what others will do? It's more revealing to look at the many hundreds of companies that posted generic "no gun" signs from May, 1995 until Sept. 1, 1997. That was the period before TPC §30.06 was created along with the 30.06 "big, ugly sign." With passage of HB2909, the small generic "no gun" sign was no longer effective and businesses would have to post the "big, ugly sign" if they wanted to exclude armed CHL's. The combination of the big, ugly sign and the "out of sight, out of mind" phenomenon brought an end to posting by most businesses. The conduct of one business is not indicative of the whole, but the conduct of hundreds of businesses just might be. I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge the risk exists; many OC supporters don't.

Chas.

[A-R]

As usual, I'm playing the middle of the debate a bit (my MO in such things), but Conagher that was a VERY well reasoned and well written appeal for OC. your examples of current relevant and worthwhile "uses" for OC even while maintaining general CC are worthy of thought and consideration.

And Mr. Cotton as usual is a steady voice of reason on all gun issues in this state.

I honestly agree with you both in many ways. And I'd like to see all of these issues pursued along with others in 2011.

[SA-TX]

hhhmmmm.... are Six Flags and Government meetings "off limits" due to statute or due to 30.06 postings?

One of us needs to brush up on our knowledge of the Texas CHL laws in order to be more persuasive in our arguments.....maybe it's me


surv

eta: nope..it's not me.....I just checked, and the little item "i" is still in the code

Good point. You're are right about (i). That illustrates something I described in another post: general prohibitions with a million little exceptions. I don't think you have be a pie-in-the-sky idealist to point out that the section 46 of the Penal Code could be much simpler than it currently is. Instead of adding (i), why not remove (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c)?

That emphasizes my main point: I love Texas but our gun laws are not even close to the best in the country.

[SA-TX]

I am a business owner, and have been for 27 years. No one sent me any kind of information to alert me that there was such a sign as a "30.06" that would effectively give notice to legal CHL's that their concealed handguns weren't welcome in my place of business. I have several other friends and acquaintances that also own businesses of various types, and not one of them knows the difference between a "gun-busters" sign and a 30.06. Since they never actually "see" a handgun in their place of business, they are oblivious to the CHLs that come and go on a daily basis. Once a few "Bareque" guns start showing up, and a few of their customers get that "not so fresh feeling", they WILL find out about proper signage that will no doubt include prohibiting concealed as well as open carry. THAT will limit my currently wonderful freedom to carry. No doubt about it. The only "remedy" would be to completely trample private (business owner's) property rights.... but we've beat this one to death, and it seems no one has changed their minds.


surv

Your hypothetical has some assumptions built in:

1) "Once a few [guns] start showing up ..." Open carry is rare even where legal. Your friends are not likely to ever see it even if Texas allowed OC tomorrow. Based on reports, I'd say that PA, VA, WA, NV, and AZ are probably the most active OC states. I've been to all of them (and all but VA in the last 12 months) and the only time I've seen someone OCing was when a gun store employee went to the neighboring convenience store to buy a soda. How often do merchants in downtown Seattle see an open carrier? Almost never. Most would probably tell you that OC is illegal in WA even though they would be wrong.

2) "... customers get that 'not so fresh feeling' ..." This is Texas and as a rule, folks aren't anti-gun and won't be prone to freak out at the sight of a sidearm. If I remember your location, you are in East Texas. While the I can imagine there might be some discomfort from tourists at Dealy Plaza in downtown Dallas if they saw an open carrier -- or maybe not; they probably expect it from us crazy Texans -- I doubt that would be the case for most folks in Athens or Texarkana. It has been my experience that the residents of smaller cities/towns away from the major metro areas tend to be easy going and many have grown up in rural environments. Both of those characteristics lend themselves to being tolerant of if not pro-gun.

Moreover, customers have to notice before they can become frightened. Open carriers report that they are actually somewhat surprised at how FEW people notice. Cell phones, iPods and a myriad of other distractions keep folks pretty pre-occupied such that they really aren't that aware of their surroundings.

3) " ... they WILL find out about proper signage ... " Perhaps. That means that they aren't strong 2A supporters themselves.

I'll agree with you that:

IF 1) open carry becomes so frequent that 2) the number of customers exposed to it means that the few who react negatively 3) complain enough to put a business owner in a tough spot and 4) that business owner values the business of the anti over the business of the OCer 5) then he might go to the trouble to post a 30.06 sign.

All things considered, I am personally convinced that we can have OC be legal and have very few new 30.06 signs. In fact, depending on how the law was changed, a 30.06 sign might not even be valid against OC. Regardless, the business owner can ALWAYS simply ask the person to leave and, by law, they must. No sign, no fuss, no muss. That seems like the best solution to me.

[SA-TX]

Starbucks is only one company; how can we view the action of one company as indicative of what others will do? It's more revealing to look at the many hundreds of companies that posted generic "no gun" signs from May, 1995 until Sept. 1, 1997. That was the period before TPC §30.06 was created along with the 30.06 "big, ugly sign." With passage of HB2909, the small generic "no gun" sign was no longer effective and businesses would have to post the "big, ugly sign" if they wanted to exclude armed CHL's. The combination of the big, ugly sign and the "out of sight, out of mind" phenomenon brought an end to posting by most businesses. The conduct of one business is not indicative of the whole, but the conduct of hundreds of businesses just might be. I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge the risk exists; many OC supporters don't.

Chas.

Like Conagher, I recognize that OC could lead to more 30.06 signs. I've thought about this quite a bit and I take the argument very seriously. As a CHL-holder that's the last thing that I want. Out-of-sight, out-of-mind is a powerful thing and even some legit 30.06 signs that went up have come down because business owners heard from CHLs who said "I'll go elsewhere with my money". We certainly need to keep that momentum going.

For me the key question is: what is the liklihood that OC would bring about a significant increase in 30.06 postings?

I travel quite a bit for business so I've had a chance to visit most states in the country. Some that I visit the most frequently are WA, NC, and NV. All 3 are OC states. In the last 3 years I have probably racked up 25 one-week trips to those states alone, so I have a pretty good sample size. With the exception of a gun shop employee on lunch break going next door to a convenience store to get a soda, I've never seen an open carrier.

So, would that be different in Texas? When CC opponents said "there will be problems!", we said "the evidance from other states says otherwise". I believe that CHLers proved themselves to be like other lawfully armed folks: very law abiding. When that fact set in and the media wasn't running gun stories due to the novelity of the new law, the controversy evaporated. I predict the same thing with OC. It will be a big non-event once the news cycle has moved on to something else. OK should serve as a valuable example. If they have big problems, I'll be the first one to offer a mea culpa. Since they went with licensed OC, I simply won't believe that those good certified folks will all of a sudden become irresponsible until I see the evidance.

Notice the number of folks in this pro-gun, pro-carry audience who say "I'll never OC!" You are talking about a small percentage of gun carriers, who are a small percentage of handgun owners, who are a subset of gun owners, who are a subset of the population as a whole. The amount of OCing that would occur would be very, very minimal and thus there just won't be many business owners being scared into posting 30.06 signs. Statistically speaking, it will be absolutely insignificant.

Why then undertake the effort of changing the law? Because I believe in restoring as much God-given freedom as possible in a day and age where government is growing and liberty is shrinking. Not just for gun carriers; I'm for business owner freedom too and have no problem with them asking an OCer to leave. For that matter, if a business owner who truly doesn't approve of guns and doesn't want them on his property but is ignorant of the 30.06 law finds out about it, whether by someone OCing or some other means, and posts, I'm not concerned by this.

SA-TX