TexasCHLforum.com

Just read an opinion from someone regarding open carry and whether it benefits anyone.

After thinking about it, two situations come to mind.

1 - It seems that unlicensed open carry laws would benefit criminals mostly, if there were no training or licensing requirements as in the CHL program. If you can't get a CHL because of past (or current) criminal activity, or because one is not willing learn the laws and train to be proficient, then perhaps they should not be allowed to carry a weapon in public, period. One forfeits certain rights when convicted of crimes. One can also forfeit privileges if unwilling or unable to practice those privileges (such as driving a car) in an intelligent and safe manner.

2- An open carry law would benefit those with CHL if in fact the requirement to conceal one's weapon was relaxed. One could wear a jacket, or suit and no longer worry about their semi-concealed weapon being exposed to view to the public. While I personally would not want to make it obvious that I'm carrying (most of the time), it would make carrying a bit easier if the weapon did not have to be completely concealed while in public.

I think it would be great to see law-abiding Texans, men and women, in malls and elsewhere wearing shoulder or belt holsters under their jackets or coats, or even 'un-jacketed' as a "fashion accessory".

The company LDWest(.com) makes shoulder holsters for carrying phones and wallets for men and women. I wish they'd use their tech to produce gun holsters for same. Carrying even an expensive and large iPhone in one of these seems more like 'posing' to me if the holster isn't carrying a real gun.

Anyway...

I'm thinking members of a certain 'peaceful religion' would think twice about perpetrating any of their evil in Texas if large numbers of the law-abiding civilian population of Texas were seen exercising their new freedoms under such laws.

While a separate issue, the murders at Fort Hood would probably never had occurred if our war fighters were allowed to open carry on base.

That particular situation should be rectified as well.

To think that American soldiers are not allowed to wear their own weapons on American soil 24x7x365, ESPECIALLY IN THIS DAY AND AGE OF TERRORISM, seems to me to be utterly stupid. Anyone who sincerely believes that our soldiers should continue to be disarmed given the current world terrorism climate, to me is at a minimum devoid of properly functioning brain cells, and at worst, a traitor, period.

The problem with your first point is that I don't think whether OC passes or not has one bit of effect on whether a criminal carries a gun or not. Criminals are already carrying guns. Matter of fact, I've had friends and family members that carried guns concealed long before the chl law passed and continued to carry without getting their chl afterwards.

Laws only effect the law abiding citizen on a daily basis and non-law abiding when they get caught.

mojo84 wrote:The problem with your first point, I don't think whether OC passes or not has one bit of effect on whether a criminal carries a gun or not. Criminals are already carrying guns. Matter of fact, I've had friends and family members that carried guns concealed long before the chl law passed and continued to carry without getting their chl afterwards.

Laws only effect the law abiding citizen on a daily basis and non-law abiding when they get caught.

OC is just not going to be that big of a deal. It will be rarely seen after the first few months and most criminals will not want the type of attention OC will draw.
I lived in an OC state for 30 years and can't recall a single point in time that I saw anyone OC. Maybe I did and just don't recall it, but it just didn't happen as a rule.

jmra wrote:I lived in an OC state for 30 years and can't recall a single point in time that I saw anyone OC. Maybe I did and just don't recall it, but it just didn't happen as a rule.

When I lived in an OC state and frequently open carried, 95% of the people in this large, urban, liberal city seemed utterly unaware that I was carrying. I also never noticed anyone open carrying until I started doing it myself, then I started noticing people OC'ing in the most innocuous of places.

Well, I can remember back when hiding your gun (aka concealed carry, CHL, etc.) was not considered to be 'normal', and when people who knew you and found out you were 'hiding a gun' and it was legal exclaimed, "What?! You're carrying a GUN! Oh my God"! Now, today, hiding your handgun (aka CHL) is somewhat normalized, and Not hiding your gun could be normalized in Texas soon. Hopefully.

It was nice, growing up in Oklahoma years ago, when we carried handguns in a belt holster, could -legally- walk to the truck, go down to the hardware store or gas station, get back in the truck and go home, and not have to worry about how to take care of that coyote or rattlesnake in the road or driveway. It's a matter of what you and others around you get accustomed to seeing people do.

Some of you other ole timers probably can related to this, eh?

K5GU wrote:Well, I can remember back when hiding your gun (aka concealed carry, CHL, etc.) was not considered to be 'normal', and when people who knew you and found out you were 'hiding a gun' and it was legal exclaimed, "What?! You're carrying a GUN! Oh my God"! Now, today, hiding your handgun (aka CHL) is somewhat normalized, and Not hiding your gun could be normalized in Texas soon. Hopefully.

It was nice, growing up in Oklahoma years ago, when we carried handguns in a belt holster, could -legally- walk to the truck, go down to the hardware store or gas station, get back in the truck and go home, and not have to worry about how to take care of that coyote or rattlesnake in the road or driveway. It's a matter of what you and others around you get accustomed to seeing people do.

Some of you other ole timers probably can related to this, eh?

BTW, I did use a piece of leather tied in a slip knot over the revolver hammer while in the holster to keep in the holster. Today I think they call that RETENTION, which is a good idea for holstered carry.

mojo84 wrote:The problem with your first point, I don't think whether OC passes or not has one bit of effect on whether a criminal carries a gun or not. Criminals are already carrying guns. Matter of fact, I've had friends and family members that carried guns concealed long before the chl law passed and continued to carry without getting their chl afterwards.

Laws only effect the law abiding citizen on a daily basis and non-law abiding when they get caught.

True. The real benefit of unlicensed carry would be closing the income gap of those who carry. John Lott has done studies showing the correlation of participation and price of licensing. There are also documented studies in TX showing the participation gap among higher median income zip codes and the lower zips in TX. Last I checked, TX has a top 3 price in the nation to exercise your right to bear arms.

ETA.... Both of those studies are posted on this forum somewhere.

TXBO wrote:

mojo84 wrote:The problem with your first point, I don't think whether OC passes or not has one bit of effect on whether a criminal carries a gun or not. Criminals are already carrying guns. Matter of fact, I've had friends and family members that carried guns concealed long before the chl law passed and continued to carry without getting their chl afterwards.

Laws only effect the law abiding citizen on a daily basis and non-law abiding when they get caught.

True. The real benefit of unlicensed carry would be closing the income gap of those who carry. John Lott has done studies showing the correlation of participation and price of licensing. There are also documented studies in TX showing the participation gap among higher median income zip codes and the lower zips in TX. Last I checked, TX has a top 3 price in the nation to exercise your right to bear arms.

ETA.... Both of those studies are posted on this forum somewhere.

Why did you quote me? I didn't say anything about the fees or costs to get a license. I'm all for reducing the fees or eliminating them. We are talking about open carry and criminals carrying our not.

mojo84 wrote:

TXBO wrote:

mojo84 wrote:The problem with your first point, I don't think whether OC passes or not has one bit of effect on whether a criminal carries a gun or not. Criminals are already carrying guns. Matter of fact, I've had friends and family members that carried guns concealed long before the chl law passed and continued to carry without getting their chl afterwards.

Laws only effect the law abiding citizen on a daily basis and non-law abiding when they get caught.

True. The real benefit of unlicensed carry would be closing the income gap of those who carry. John Lott has done studies showing the correlation of participation and price of licensing. There are also documented studies in TX showing the participation gap among higher median income zip codes and the lower zips in TX. Last I checked, TX has a top 3 price in the nation to exercise your right to bear arms.

ETA.... Both of those studies are posted on this forum somewhere.

Why did you quote me? I didn't say anything about the fees or costs to get a license. I'm all for reducing the fees or eliminating them. We are talking about open carry and criminals carrying our not.

I was simply agreeing with your point and adding my thoughts to the op's first point. I don't quite understand your last sentence but the op questioned the benefits of unlicensed carry as well as open carry.

OK. I was just addressing his first point. It confused me when you quoted me then addressed the fee issue as nothing I said involved the fee issue.

Sometimes it's a challenge to follow the conversations and I was wondering if I made a different point than I intended.

As a member of "Religion of Peace", I do carry and I do support OC for CHLers. How do you like, your CZ?

I love my CZ 75 SP-01 Tactical. It shoots like a laser.

Strat9mm wrote:Just read an opinion from someone regarding open carry and whether it benefits anyone.

I'm thinking members of a certain 'peaceful religion' would think twice about perpetrating any of their evil in Texas if large numbers of the law-abiding civilian population of Texas were seen exercising their new freedoms under such laws.

.

I think it makes no difference. They will come, open carry or not. Their zealotry and hate way outweigh the OC talisman effect. If they see OC, they will shoot the OC'er first. They are smart and trained enough to do that.