Poll: Do you support open-carry in Texas?

[Broncrider]

No offense intended, but you guys must be looking at a different poll than this one. According to the numbers 80% support some form of open carry whether it is licensed or without a license. Only 20% have voted they are against any form of open carry. Even though I support the idea of having our rights restored, personally I would still carry concealed 99% of the time.
Just my 2 cents.

[flintknapper]

I saw a couple of people who were worried that open carry would cause many more businesses to post 30-06 signs. This could be compared right along side of the earlier people against concealed carry who said there would be blood in the streets... "Maybe everyone will post signs!" Maybe they won't.

No doubt, some businesses will post 30.06 as a "political statement", I suspect they would be few...since the "sign" currently is rather large and unattractive.

Then...consider: Only about 2% of the general population even have a CONCEALED carry license, of those numbers even fewer actually "carry" on a regular basis. Of this "adjusted number" a fairly small percentage would Open Carry (at certain times....under certain condtions...at certain places...for limited periods of time).

In other words...it will remain relatively uncommon in metropolitan and urban areas. Additionally, the passage of such a law will have been so "highlighted" by the media...that you would think the Second coming of Christ was the event! There won't be a person in Texas (probably the nation) that won't have heard of it. All the mental "hoopla" will have taken place long before the first person ever carries a weapon in public (openly). The "novelty" of it will soon be overlooked by the public, so NO need to worry about dissenters.

If those who oppose OC are so convinced that the citizenry of Texas (or the business men and women of this State) will react adversely....then I submit gun ownership (of any kind) is already a lost cause.....and it is just a matter of time until we lose those rights too.

The attitude of some folks here...seems to be "they just want to hold on to what they DO have" (concealed carry). Their position is that..."the less the public knows, the better". What that REALLY suggests is: The majority of Texas citizens are either Anti-Gun or would be so terrified at the mere sight of one....that there would be backlash. Is that what you REALLY think?

I'm sorry, but I give Texas and Texan's more credit than that.

I agree that Open Carry needs to be introduced incrementally and smartly. I agree that it needs to be presented through normal channels, by intelligent people....with consideration given to the political workings of the State and our elected officials. But, I adamantly disagree that we should EVER stop fighting to restore our rights to keep and bear arms, even if you wouldn't "personally" exercise that right.

To me...it is unbelievable that any true supporter of the 2nd amendment, RKBA, and gun ownership would oppose such advancement. If Texans had NOT been complacent about their rights to carry openly (or in any other fashion) some 100+ years ago...we wouldn't be talking about this now. Apparently, the citizenry of most of the other states were smarter (or more committed) than us back then!

Equally apparent, is that the same complacency continues today. Shame!


Thats Flints .02 on it (with a nickle rebate).

[roberts]

To me...it is unbelievable that any true supporter of the 2nd amendment, RKBA, and gun ownership would oppose such advancement. If Texans had NOT been complacent about their rights to carry openly (or in any other fashion) some 100+ years ago...we wouldn't be talking about this now. Apparently, the citizenry of most of the other states were smarter (or more committed) than us back then!

When I see Texas gun owners arguing to keep antigun laws I have to remind myself that 15 years ago there were more concealed carry licenses in Manhattan than all of Texas. It's a shame we have to fight both the Bradys and complacent gun owners.

[03Lightningrocks]

If those who oppose OC are so convinced that the citizenry of Texas (or the business men and women of this State) will react adversely....then I submit gun ownership (of any kind) is already a lost cause.....and it is just a matter of time until we lose those rights too.

This seems a little fatalistic to me. Just because a person thinks people shouldn't be strutting around openly brandishing a deadly weapon does not mean they are anti gun or that firearms ownership is in trouble. The majority of folks are neither here no there on gun ownership...meaning neutral.

Quite frankly...if anything in your reply had any merit, we would have already lost our rights to own firearms since open carry has not been allowed for over a hundred years. Your trying to tell us that all of a sudden, forbidding open carry has some meaning it hasn't had in over one hundred years?

[Charles L. Cotton]

To me...it is unbelievable that any true supporter of the 2nd amendment, RKBA, and gun ownership would oppose such advancement. If Texans had NOT been complacent about their rights to carry openly (or in any other fashion) some 100+ years ago...we wouldn't be talking about this now. Apparently, the citizenry of most of the other states were smarter (or more committed) than us back then!

When I see Texas gun owners arguing to keep antigun laws I have to remind myself that 15 years ago there were more concealed carry licenses in Manhattan than all of Texas. It's a shame we have to fight both the Bradys and complacent gun owners.

That's because Texas' CHL statute only passed 13 1/2 years ago. Would you like to compare numbers now?

Chas.

[flintknapper]

03Lightingrocks wrote:

This seems a little fatalistic to me.

Then maybe you're waking up. Do you NOT see your gun rights dieing a slow death? Each year, are not more and more attempts (and success) at eroding the rights of law abiding gun owners realized. So...ask yourself, is what was written really "fatalistic" or perhaps more "prophetic"?

Just because a person thinks people shouldn't be strutting around openly brandishing a deadly weapon does not mean they are anti gun or that firearms ownership is in trouble.

LEO do it every day (except the "strut"), and don't get so much as a second glance from most folks. What are your specific reasons/concerns about citizens doing the same?

The majority of folks are neither here no there on gun ownership...meaning neutral.

Well.....this would seem to contradict what many have said here, when we consider that one of the prime objections would be the backlash/startling effect of the citizenry and business owners. How do you reconcile this? Which is it?

Quite frankly...if anything in your reply had any merit, we would have already lost our rights to own firearms since open carry has not been allowed for over a hundred years.

Open carry of pistols to be exact. And "concealed" carry of pistols is a "privilege" we have only recently regained. My point (apparently lost on some) is that continued lack of action to promote reinstating every gun right that we can....will eventually result in our losing them all. We have several Nations we can look to for confirmation of this.

Your trying to tell us that all of a sudden, forbidding open carry has some meaning it hasn't had in over one hundred years?

No, I am trying to tell you its way past time for gun owners to "stand on their hind legs" and fight for their long lost rights. For everything there is a time.

[NcongruNt]

I read some, but I must admit I read less than 1/2 of the posts in this thread. I saw a couple of people who were worried that open carry would cause many more businesses to post 30-06 signs. This could be compared right along side of the earlier people against concealed carry who said there would be blood in the streets... "Maybe everyone will post signs!" Maybe they won't. Otherwise I respond with the following: Those places will likely become targets of bad guys. After several bad guys prove this for us, we can make commercials letting the public (and at the same time business owners) know that bad guys go around looking for these signs because they know there is little chance of themselves being harmed. Once the general public has been made aware of this, many business owners will likely change their mind about keeping that sign there because they don't want to lose business! Scare tactics can be used in many different ways, sometimes against us sometimes to benefit us. Another thing that could be done would be for a non gun owner to send a letter to a place of business who has posted a sign, and say: "Well I was going to frequent your business today, but then I saw that sign in your window that welcomes bad guys... Sorry but I wont come back to your business unless I see that you have removed that Bad-Guy-Welcome-Sign". Just some things to think about.

If you want to compare the actual history of the events regarding CHL in Texas, then let's do that. When CHL was passed there was a mass posting of signs. Originally, gunbuster signs were valid in Texas, and there WAS a huge movement by business associations and chambers of commerce to do this. It got to the point that in a later session the legislature had to pass the 30.06 sign requirement to limit the damage - making the sign large and specific enough that a company posting had to know exactly what they were doing to commit to posting, rather than simply posting some generic gunbusters sign because they were told to by someone else.

In light of those events, I think the concern is considerably more valid than you give it credit for. As has been discussed here before, the legislature is not going to go for a 2-sign requirement (one for CHL and one for open carry), so you're going to end up with single sign that bans both open carry and CHL. Given the visible nature of open carry, I think you would see a jump in postings in reaction to seeing people openly carrying. The reason this doesn't happen much with CHL is because the very nature of a concealed handgun makes it invisible to the public eye - out of sight, out of mind.

As for your latter proposal, I honestly think that would never work. Carry is too small of an issue for this to effectively come to light in the public eye like you describe. The public is not going to give the specific, prolonged, and informed thought required to make a reasoned observation and correlation of circumstances that you describe. For most people guns are guns. What they see in the news and in the media in general is that guns are used to rob, assault, and kill people. The obvious answer in the public eye is to ban guns in whatever places they think the guns are doing harm. It is counter-intuitive, yes. But that's how it is, and that's how it has played out for decades now. We all know that criminals do not obey the laws regarding guns, but the public as a whole is of the mindset that making laws is how you prevent crime. In reality, enforcing laws against specific acts mitigates the extent to which specific criminals can continue their criminal acts (and act as somewhat of a deterrent for those considering committing crimes), but laws do not prevent crimes. Society's willingness to tolerate crime and its willingness to effectively punish those who break the law plays a much bigger role in crime reduction.

Now, I have stated this before, but I see part of the problem with trying to make open carry legal right now is that there is a public perception that someone who carries a gun is likely to commit a crime with that gun. It is an emotional knee-jerk reaction without any specific thought-out reasoning to it, very much grounded in "what if" scenarios. The law does not help with this, because we are deemed not to be trustworthy to maintain proper conduct in certain areas - schools, meetings of government entities, 51% establishments, professional sporting events, etc. As long as the law reinforces the belief that a CHL holder is likely to "lose it" within the imaginary mental boundaries of these specific areas, I believe the climate for passing open carry legislation will not be good. Removing the official prejudice in the law against those of us who carry right now would make it easier to change public perception about people who carry firearms for self-defense in general. It is not going to happen overnight, and incremental steps towards more sane laws is the only way I see positive change coming about.

So, for those that believe the TSRA is wasting its energies on parking lot carry and campus carry bills rather than OC legislation, I sincerely disagree. These kinds of specific changes are part of a greater strategy to make carry in general more accepted. I can see this already with the Motorist Protection Act, in my interactions with folks who are relatively new to the idea of going about armed. Reducing the places in the law where we are not trusted to carry goes a long way in making carry in general a more accepted and normal practice, paving the way to a social and political climate where Open Carry is a realistic possibility.

[flintknapper]

"NcongruNt" wrote:

If you want to compare the actual history of the events regarding CHL in Texas, then let's do that. When CHL was passed there was a mass posting of signs. Originally, gunbuster signs were valid in Texas, and there WAS a huge movement by business associations and chambers of commerce to do this. It got to the point that in a later session the legislature had to pass the 30.06 sign requirement to limit the damage - making the sign large and specific enough that a company posting had to know exactly what they were doing to commit to posting, rather than simply posting some generic gunbusters sign because they were told to by someone else.

In light of those events, I think the concern is considerably more valid than you give it credit for. As has been discussed here before, the legislature is not going to go for a 2-sign requirement (one for CHL and one for open carry), so you're going to end up with single sign that bans both open carry and CHL. Given the visible nature of open carry, I think you would see a jump in postings in reaction to seeing people openly carrying. The reason this doesn't happen much with CHL is because the very nature of a concealed handgun makes it invisible to the public eye - out of sight, out of mind.

As for your latter proposal, I honestly think that would never work. Carry is too small of an issue for this to effectively come to light in the public eye like you describe. The public is not going to give the specific, prolonged, and informed thought required to make a reasoned observation and correlation of circumstances that you describe. For most people guns are guns. What they see in the news and in the media in general is that guns are used to rob, assault, and kill people. The obvious answer in the public eye is to ban guns in whatever places they think the guns are doing harm. It is counter-intuitive, yes. But that's how it is, and that's how it has played out for decades now. We all know that criminals do not obey the laws regarding guns, but the public as a whole is of the mindset that making laws is how you prevent crime. In reality, enforcing laws against specific acts mitigates the extent to which specific criminals can continue their criminal acts (and act as somewhat of a deterrent for those considering committing crimes), but laws do not prevent crimes. Society's willingness to tolerate crime and its willingness to effectively punish those who break the law plays a much bigger role in crime reduction.

Now, I have stated this before, but I see part of the problem with trying to make open carry legal right now is that there is a public perception that someone who carries a gun is likely to commit a crime with that gun. It is an emotional knee-jerk reaction without any specific thought-out reasoning to it, very much grounded in "what if" scenarios. The law does not help with this, because we are deemed not to be trustworthy to maintain proper conduct in certain areas - schools, meetings of government entities, 51% establishments, professional sporting events, etc. As long as the law reinforces the belief that a CHL holder is likely to "lose it" within the imaginary mental boundaries of these specific areas, I believe the climate for passing open carry legislation will not be good. Removing the official prejudice in the law against those of us who carry right now would make it easier to change public perception about people who carry firearms for self-defense in general. It is not going to happen overnight, and incremental steps towards more sane laws is the only way I see positive change coming about.

So, for those that believe the TSRA is wasting its energies on parking lot carry and campus carry bills rather than OC legislation, I sincerely disagree. These kinds of specific changes are part of a greater strategy to make carry in general more accepted. I can see this already with the Motorist Protection Act, in my interactions with folks who are relatively new to the idea of going about armed. Reducing the places in the law where we are not trusted to carry goes a long way in making carry in general a more accepted and normal practice, paving the way to a social and political climate where Open Carry is a realistic possibility.

A good summary of how I believe both the citizenry of Texas and the Legislature feel about this issue at the present time. You have an excellent understanding of "how things are" and "what it will take" to change that.

I agree OC (if it has any chance), must be done incrementally...and have stated that for at least a couple of years we've been talking about it. Much must be done in preparation...and your outline of what would be required is spot on IMO.

That is why I find it discouraging (sickening really) that so many folks are not willing to start the educational process needed to pave the way for other advances that will restore our gun rights. Instead... they seem only interested in avoiding any and all conflict, dissent or oppostion...they just want to "keep what they have".

That is the pinnacle of complancency...and that is what I am railing against.

The institution of Gun Rights (or all rights) will not be not be accomplished by the timid (all of those...please take a seat in the back..and get out of the way).

[03Lightningrocks]

03Lightingrocks wrote:

This seems a little fatalistic to me.

Then maybe you're waking up. Do you NOT see your gun rights dieing a slow death? Each year, are not more and more attempts (and success) at eroding the rights of law abiding gun owners realized. So...ask yourself, is what was written really "fatalistic" or perhaps more "prophetic"?

I don't believe our right to keep and bear arms hinges on allowing open carry. If it did, we would have already lost the right to keep and bear arms, since open carry has been outlawed for more than a hundred years.

Just because a person thinks people shouldn't be strutting around openly brandishing a deadly weapon does not mean they are anti gun or that firearms ownership is in trouble.

LEO do it every day (except the "strut"), and don't get so much as a second glance from most folks. What are your specific reasons/concerns about citizens doing the same?

It isn't so much the gun folks are afraid of as it is the person carrying it. Folks see LEO as being charged with protecting the public. Folks see LEO as the "expert" with special training and the authority to do what is right. Folks don't know anything about Joe Six pack or Harlem homeboy.

The majority of folks are neither here no there on gun ownership...meaning neutral.

Well.....this would seem to contradict what many have said here, when we consider that one of the prime objections would be the backlash/startling effect of the citizenry and business owners. How do you reconcile this? Which is it?

My point is, until you make it an issue by allowing everyone to walk around with a gun on their hip they are neutral. Being confronted by the wild west will likely bring out the fear in the masses. People are neutral because they are allowed to be neutral. Start packing guns openly all over the place and they will likely become fearful of the very concept. So obviously there is nothing to reconcile here.

Quite frankly...if anything in your reply had any merit, we would have already lost our rights to own firearms since open carry has not been allowed for over a hundred years.

Open carry of pistols to be exact. And "concealed" carry of pistols is a "privilege" we have only recently regained. My point (apparently lost on some) is that continued lack of action to promote reinstating every gun right that we can....will eventually result in our losing them all. We have several Nations we can look to for confirmation of this.

Your point is not lost on anybody. It is just that not everybody thinks the two issues are interwoven so tightly as you do. I stated as proof of this the fact that open carry has been outlawed for more than 100 years and we still maintain our right to keep and bear arms.

Your trying to tell us that all of a sudden, forbidding open carry has some meaning it hasn't had in over one hundred years?

No, I am trying to tell you its way past time for gun owners to "stand on their hind legs" and fight for their long lost rights. For everything there is a time.

I did not realize that gun owners had quit fighting for their right to keep and bear arms. We do however have to choose our battles wisely.

I will say this about it all. Initially I voted for having open carry without a license. As I consider what this means exactly, I am not so sure I think it is a good idea to do this. Open carry without a permit or license means ANYBODY can carry a weapon and not be questioned. This includes some very unsavory types that frequent many of the larger cities in Texas. It could make it very hard to know the good guys from the bad guys.

The other issue we should consider is the possibility that many folks who have no real "position" on gun control could very well swing to the "anti-gun" side of things once they are confronted with a daily life that involves firearms everywhere they go. This IS NOT the same as the concealed carry issue...so don't try to go there. Concealed carry does not put it in their face each and every day.

[TheArmedFarmer]

Open carry without a permit or license means ANYBODY can carry a weapon and not be questioned. This includes some very unsavory types that frequent many of the larger cities in Texas. It could make it very hard to know the good guys from the bad guys.

No, friend! Put restrictions on "who can carry", just like is done in the motorists protection act.

1) Not engaging in criminal activity

2) Not prohibited from possessing a firearm (this one weeds out most of the bad guys out there)

3) Not a member of a street gang.

So, if open carry is given the same restrictions (which seem reasonable to me), then images of unsavory types running around Dallas with a six shooter are unrealistic for two reasons:

1) Many of the bad guys have a criminal record that would prohibit their carrying.

2) The bad guys will continue to carry concealed (illegally) so as to not draw attention to themselves. It would be stupid for a thug to walk around in front of the cops with a gun on his side. He'll hide it in his pants as he always has.

Therefore, only good guys with a clean record and nothing to fear from the police will be the ones openly carrying.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'm locking this thread. As I said in the original post, this was never intended to be the 1,000th thread on the pros and cons of open-carry. I just wanted a simple poll to get an idea where TexasCHLforum members were on this issue. Unfortunately, it's become one of the more confrontational threads on this subject.

Chas.