OpenCarry.org Lying about TSRA, Again . . .

[Charles L. Cotton]

I would like to see OC as well.

I too....would like to see some type of statement beyond the benign "we don't have a position" given by the NRA/TSRA. Folks are simply curious IF there is discussion being had about the subject.

There is no position, so we can't state something that doesn't exist. There have been no official discussions by TSRA on open-carry, much less a vote or consensus, and that is what is required in order for TSRA to have a position on any issue. Unless a significant percentage of our members want us to take on this issue, then there will never be an official TSRA position on open-carry.

Apparently, it is something that interests a fairly good number of people. Even the poll here (though locked IIRC and never spoken of again) showed an approval of OC (in some form) of 81%.

I didn't lock the thread because of the way the poll was going. I locked it because, in spite of my request not to make the thread another open-carry pro/con argument, it became 7 pages of the most heated discussion to date. Here is my announcement as to why it was locked:

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.

If anyone wants to see the poll, the thread has not been deleted or moved. http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... =poll+Chas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Chas.

[SA-TX]

Charles,

It is good to engage with you again. I'm pressed for time so all I offer at the moment is the following. Open Carry DOES have many bad examples posted (illegal detainment & extra-legal hassles usually, but some arrests & the rare prosecution, too) but:

a) It also has many examples of "I carried yesterday in downtown <city name> and no one noticed. As it should be."

b) These are only the stories get posted. It is the self-reporting data problem. Only those people who are members of Open Carry.org post there, for good or for ill. It is highly likely that there are people that open carry regularly or at least sometimes who do not post there.

c) I still believe it to be radical in thought more than in practice. It shounds scary. Given the extremely rare practice of it that would occur even if legal, I think it woulld ACTUALLY scare few. Look at the poster from CO. He used to live there and saw no one open carrying, yet unlicensed open carry is completely legal (except for in Denver).

d) To have new 30.06 signs would mean that people would have to be scared. For them to be scared, there would have to be a substantial amount of open carrying and I don't think there would be. I think very few want to FULLY open carry. I think many more want to casually conceal (in other words, you are generally or somewhat covered but if you become quite exposed, no big deal).

e) Again, I ask about Tennessee. They have licensed carry, open or concealed. I'll bet the vast majority choose to conceal or mostly conceal. For those who do carry fully openly, OpenCarry.Org isn't ablaze with LEO hassles. The cops there seem to know the law and let people go about their business without hassle. I maybe naive but I beleive Texas could be exactly like this.

Here's my prediciton for the day after licensed open carry passes and after the news stories about the novelity have stopped airing: very few will do it, there will be few or no new 30.06 signs. Many more will simply be less stringent about their concealment choices. The vast majority of the people that would be scared by the sight of an open gun will never see one, just as today.

I look forward to working with you and others to continue the Texas-only dialog. Again let me say, I want what works. I accept incrementalism. I accept dealing with the objections, fears (unfounded though they may be), working shrewdly with our legislators, etc. Whatever the process is that works, I'm for it. I assure you, I want results not to hear the sound of my voice and take a no-compromise "moral victory" position.

SA-TX

[Mike1951]

e) Again, I ask about Tennessee. They have licensed carry, open or concealed. I'll bet the vast majority choose to conceal or mostly conceal. For those who do carry fully openly, OpenCarry.Org isn't ablaze with LEO hassles. The cops there seem to know the law and let people go about their business without hassle. I maybe naive but I beleive Texas could be exactly like this.

Here's my prediciton for the day after licensed open carry passes and after the news stories about the novelity have stopped airing: very few will do it, there will be few or no new 30.06 signs. Many more will simply be less stringent about their concealment choices. The vast majority of the people that would be scared by the sight of an open gun will never see one, just as today.

i would make the point again that the only valid comparison would be another state that legalized OC after a century. In the other states where it is technically legal, to anyone inclined to open carry it is 'old hat'. Many have gotten it out of their system while others seldom OC.

In Texas, you have at least many tens of thousands who will be 'chompin' at the bit' for the first day of legal OC. Even some of us who are not strong advocates might be tempted to wear our BBQ rigs! Coupled with this pent up flood of OC will be an equal response from the media.

I can think of no other state that would have had as much attention drawn from both sides.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Here is another example why I am sick of OpenCarry.org and many of its members. The gentleman from San Diego California is trying to defend OpenCarry.org’s lie that TSRA "leaders" deliberated on open-carry and decided not to support open-carry. He does so by grossly misquoting me from posts here on TexasCHLforum.com. He is referencing my response to Flint on the subject of TSRA Directors not having discussed open-carry. I have copied his post below; notice how he misquotes me and references not “taking a stand to support open carry.”

I went and read the posting and the comments and I'm confused.

"So one must ask why anyone would intentionally make a false allegation that "TSRA leaders do not support open carry."

Then he goes on to say that the leadership has not taken, or even discussed taking, a stand to support open carry. Therefore they "do not support" open carry. So why is the "false allegation" false?

He goes on at great length to state that neither the TSRA nor he himself support open carry. So why is the allegation false.

Do I have to be a lawyer to understand this convoluted thought process?

Here is the exchange and what I actually said; i.e. that there had been no discussion of open-carry at all.

I would like to see OC as well.

I too....would like to see some type of statement beyond the benign "we don't have a position" given by the NRA/TSRA. Folks are simply curious IF there is discussion being had about the subject.

There is no position, so we can't state something that doesn't exist. There have been no official discussions by TSRA on open-carry, much less a vote or consensus, and that is what is required in order for TSRA to have a position on any issue. Unless a significant percentage of our members want us to take on this issue, then there will never be an official TSRA position on open-carry.

Surely the gentleman understands the distinction between “deliberating” an issue and choosing not to support it, and not discussing the issue at all. OpenCarry.org intentionally posted a misleading thread trying to convince its members that TSRA "leaders" had "deliberated" then rejected the concept of open-carry. That’s patently false. Also, contrary to what the gentleman from California said, I never stated that TSRA does not support open-carry. That too is blatantly false.

OpenCarry.org’s motive for the original thread is quite clear. Mr. Stollenwerk used Howard Nimrov’s article about conversations with TSRA members and their feelings about open-carry to imply that TSRA “leaders” had discussed and rejected support of open-carry. Here is the title of his thread, “Summary of TSRA deliberations on open carry from annual meeting” and this is the subtitle he added, “Looks like TSRA leaders do not support open carry.”

Chas.

[Captain Matt]

I can think of no other state that would have had as much attention drawn from both sides.

It will be more popular than gay marriage in Massachusetts!

[jimlongley]

d) To have new 30.06 signs would mean that people would have to be scared. For them to be scared, there would have to be a substantial amount of open carrying and I don't think there would be. I think very few want to FULLY open carry. I think many more want to casually conceal (in other words, you are generally or somewhat covered but if you become quite exposed, no big deal).

. . .

Here's my prediciton for the day after licensed open carry passes and after the news stories about the novelity have stopped airing: very few will do it, there will be few or no new 30.06 signs. Many more will simply be less stringent about their concealment choices. The vast majority of the people that would be scared by the sight of an open gun will never see one, just as today.

I think you're a little short sighted on 'd' - when CHL passed, without the clarification that had to wait two years, "no guns" signs popped up all over the place. It wasn't "scared" or at least validly scared people putting up the signs, it was just "I don't want any of them gun nuts carrying guns in my place!" kind of things. Two years later after the first round of signage clarification, not as many signs got updated - some paid little attention to the change, others realized that the CHL carriers were not the threat they had assumed they would be, but an adequate number did get changed. After the second round, still more unaware that the law had changed, and likewise those that bothered to upgrade. These are part of the reason I keep asking Charles and TSRA for another signage clarification, but I am also willing to bide my time if I can get parking lot and school carry.

I think that if an open carry law passes we will see a whole new spate of "no guns" signs that comply with whatever is written into the law, and those signs will be just as entrenched as any we have ever seen, making them almost impossible to get removed whether or not OC proves to be as much of a non-issue as it is in other states.

[SA-TX]

I think that if an open carry law passes we will see a whole new spate of "no guns" signs that comply with whatever is written into the law, and those signs will be just as entrenched as any we have ever seen, making them almost impossible to get removed whether or not OC proves to be as much of a non-issue as it is in other states.

I respectfully disagree. I think most business owners don't follow what is going on at the Legislature unless they have a particular issue they are following. If, for example, a Concealed Handgun License became a Texas Handgun License, few would understand the distinction. Moreover, those that are adament against gun carry probably already have a legit 30.06 sign. Those that do not now would have little new incentive to add one. Besides, this could be your new way of getting a new sign: update 30.06 to account for the name change and now all of the current signs are out-of-date and not identical to the language in the statue.

[rodbender]

I cannot and will not be involved on an ongoing basis, unless TSRA/NRA take on the project. If we do, then I'll jump in with both feet.
Chas.

I suppose I am about to be accused of taking the "GOD" of TexasCHL.com out of context and be banned. OH, well!!!

Even if you put the statements before and after this comment in place, the comment still holds the same meaning.

Charles, Are you such a weenie that you have to wait for the "boss" to say you can do something? Grow some and don't wait for the "boss" to OK the move on open carry. Push the issue yourself. Push for open carry. If you are "in" with them as deep as you pretend to be, it shouldn't be a problem. Personally, I think that thinking like a sheeple and waiting for the OK so you won't [weak-minded profanity used for the express purpose of violating forum rules was deleted] anybody off is, well, not showing any leadership. What ever you think of open carrry is irrelevent. You are in a position to help move gun rights BACK to where they should be, and yet you refuse to move without prior approval. This is appalling to me.

Maybe OCDO is not doing things the "right" way, but by golly, we are trying do do something without begging for it. I just don't see that we should have to beg for anything from the oligharcy that is in place in D.C. or Austin. That is the way I see what NRA and TSRA does. They have a bad case of Oliver Twist Syndrome I guess. "Please, sir, may I have some more." I think we should be able to push, not beg, them to act. After all, we are the people, we are the boss, or, at least, we should be.

Give me a break, Charles. Grow some [weak-minded profanity used for the express purpose of violating forum rules was deleted].

Dennis

[flintknapper]

I cannot and will not be involved on an ongoing basis, unless TSRA/NRA take on the project. If we do, then I'll jump in with both feet.
Chas.

I suppose I am about to be accused of taking the "GOD" of TexasCHL.com out of context and be banned. OH, well!!!

Even if you put the statements before and after this comment in place, the comment still holds the same meaning.

Charles, Are you such a weenie that you have to wait for the "boss" to say you can do something? Grow some and don't wait for the "boss" to OK the move on open carry. Push the issue yourself. Push for open carry. If you are "in" with them as deep as you pretend to be, it shouldn't be a problem. Personally, I think that thinking like a sheeple and waiting for the OK so you won't piss anybody off is, well, not showing any leadership. What ever you think of open carrry is irrelevent. You are in a position to help move gun rights BACK to where they should be, and yet you refuse to move without prior approval. This is appalling to me.

Maybe OCDO is not doing things the "right" way, but by golly, we are trying do do something without begging for it. I just don't see that we should have to beg for anything from the oligharcy that is in place in D.C. or Austin. That is the way I see what NRA and TSRA does. They have a bad case of Oliver Twist Syndrome I guess. "Please, sir, may I have some more." I think we should be able to push, not beg, them to act. After all, we are the people, we are the boss, or, at least, we should be.

Give me a break, Charles. [weak-minded profanity used for the express purpose of violating forum rules was deleted].

Dennis

Dennis,

Rather than take a "hand picked" quote to make your argument, it would be well for you to read ALL of Chas.' posts regarding this issue.

IMO, your objections are grossly unfair.

Also, we do try to exercise a certain amount of tact and decorum around here when making a point. I am sure when you re-read your post, you will spot the "offense" in it.

I know of no one here that discourages "spirited debate", but gratuitous remarks questioning a person's manhood are definitely "out of place" don't you think?

Regards,

Flint.

[will381796]

I cannot and will not be involved on an ongoing basis, unless TSRA/NRA take on the project. If we do, then I'll jump in with both feet.
Chas.

I suppose I am about to be accused of taking the "GOD" of TexasCHL.com out of context and be banned. OH, well!!!

Even if you put the statements before and after this comment in place, the comment still holds the same meaning.

Charles, Are you such a weenie that you have to wait for the "boss" to say you can do something? Grow some and don't wait for the "boss" to OK the move on open carry. Push the issue yourself. Push for open carry. If you are "in" with them as deep as you pretend to be, it shouldn't be a problem. Personally, I think that thinking like a sheeple and waiting for the OK so you won't [weak-minded profanity used for the express purpose of violating forum rules was deleted] anybody off is, well, not showing any leadership. What ever you think of open carrry is irrelevent. You are in a position to help move gun rights BACK to where they should be, and yet you refuse to move without prior approval. This is appalling to me.

Maybe OCDO is not doing things the "right" way, but by golly, we are trying do do something without begging for it. I just don't see that we should have to beg for anything from the oligharcy that is in place in D.C. or Austin. That is the way I see what NRA and TSRA does. They have a bad case of Oliver Twist Syndrome I guess. "Please, sir, may I have some more." I think we should be able to push, not beg, them to act. After all, we are the people, we are the boss, or, at least, we should be.

Give me a break, Charles. Grow some [weak-minded profanity used for the express purpose of violating forum rules was deleted].

Dennis

Dennis,

Rather than take a "hand picked" quote to make your argument, it would be well for you to read ALL of Chas.' posts regarding this issue.

IMO, your objections are grossly unfair.

Also, we do try to exercise a certain amount of tact and decorum around here when making a point. I am sure when you re-read your post, you will spot the "offense" in it.

I know of no one here that discourages "spirited debate", but gratuitous remarks questioning a person's manhood are definitely "out of place" don't you think?

Regards,

Flint.

When you have no logical argument, it only makes sense to begin personal attacks. You see it continuously from the left...lol.

[The Annoyed Man]

[RANT]
Lord, I hate the term "sheeple." It is the most dismissive, most contemptuous, and the most unreasoned term in political discourse today. It is the conservative's equivalent of when a liberal calls anyone with whom they disagree a "nazi." It's just dumb because it is self-defeating. Anyone who thinks they can bring another person around to their way of thinking by insulting their thought processes and impugning their manhood probably didn't do well in debate class. If we are in the right, then we are supposed to be able to bring people around to our way of thinking by means of the power of our ideas - not by contemptuous dismissal and showing them such profound disrespect. To me, "sheeple" is the political equivalent of "the 'N' word" and it has no place in reasoned discourse. When we use it, it is because we have run out of belief in the superiority of our ideas.
[/RANT]

I apologize if the above detracts from this thread. Some things just push my buttons, and that word is one of them.

[rodbender]

Hand picked or not, the statement stands alone. BTW, my comments were meant to be offensive and a personal attack. His comment should be offensive to all who want gun rights restored. It was a personal statement so who was I suppose to attack? If he wants to wait for an approval from the higher ups in the NRA and TSRA, then he is definitely a sheeple. There I said it again. Sheeple is merely a term for someone that can't or won't think on their own and must follow the direction of someone else. GET OVER IT!!!! If Charles is of the mindset that he must wait for approval to discuss something then he is a sheeple. GET OVER IT AGAIN!!!!

Dennis

[Charles L. Cotton]

I cannot and will not be involved on an ongoing basis, unless TSRA/NRA take on the project. If we do, then I'll jump in with both feet.
Chas.

I suppose I am about to be accused of taking the "GOD" of TexasCHL.com out of context and be banned. OH, well!!!

Even if you put the statements before and after this comment in place, the comment still holds the same meaning.

Charles, Are you such a weenie that you have to wait for the "boss" to say you can do something? Grow some and don't wait for the "boss" to OK the move on open carry. Push the issue yourself. Push for open carry. If you are "in" with them as deep as you pretend to be, it shouldn't be a problem. Personally, I think that thinking like a sheeple and waiting for the OK so you won't [weak-minded profanity intended to violate forum rules deleted] anybody off is, well, not showing any leadership. What ever you think of open carrry is irrelevent. You are in a position to help move gun rights BACK to where they should be, and yet you refuse to move without prior approval. This is appalling to me.

Maybe OCDO is not doing things the "right" way, but by golly, we are trying do do something without begging for it. I just don't see that we should have to beg for anything from the oligharcy that is in place in D.C. or Austin. That is the way I see what NRA and TSRA does. They have a bad case of Oliver Twist Syndrome I guess. "Please, sir, may I have some more." I think we should be able to push, not beg, them to act. After all, we are the people, we are the boss, or, at least, we should be.

Give me a break, Charles. Grow some ]weak-minded profanity intended to violate forum rules deleted].

Dennis

First you question if I am really involved with TSRA, then you argue, "What ever you think of open carrry [sic] is irrelevent [sic]. You are in a position to help move gun rights BACK to where they should be, and yet you refuse to move without prior approval. This is appalling to me." Which is it Dennis? Am I a fraud, or the man you say is "in a position to help move gun rights BACK to where they should be[?]" You are an excellent example why I offered to consult with a Texas-based, Texas-only organization that has absolutely no ties to OpenCarry.org. Do you actually think that if you scream louder, use profanity and make personal attacks, your message is somehow more palatable? This attitude is precisely why OpenCarry.org has garnered a horrendous reputation in Austin.

I suspect you know why I cannot publicly get involved with issues that NRA and TSRA haven't taken on as a project, but I'll play along and answer you. Because of my positions with NRA and TSRA, every time I say something or take a position on an issue, it will be attributed to both organizations. This is true no matter how loudly or how often I claim otherwise. You know this to be true, otherwise you wouldn't be point to me as someone who could help your cause.

When I was elected to the NRA Board of Directors and when I accepted the position of Vice-Chairman of the TSRA Legislative Committee, I gave up the right to take on any and every cause I might otherwise champion. This was not a requirement of either organization, but it was the prudent and honorable thing to do. Otherwise, my personal actions might prove counterproductive and perhaps even harmful to those organizations. I feel very strongly about other political issues, but I do not allow myself to get involved because I don't want people refusing to join and/or support TSRA or NRA because I have taken a position on an unrelated issue that they find offensive. To do otherwise would be to shirk my responsibilities to millions of members of the NRA and TSRA. I'm not waiting for permission from the "boss" as you quip; I am conducting myself in compliance with a standard of conduct and code of honor to which I hold myself accountable. Based upon your demeanor, I suspect this is a foreign concept to you.

As for OpenCarry.org, if you feel its approach is effective then stick with it and don't worry about what NRA, TSRA or I am doing or not doing. Apparently you feel that being civil and using methods that have proven effective for decades is "begging" and that OpenCarry.org's in-your-face, threatening of pro-gun elected officials is prudent. Fine, stay the course with OCO and don't worry about what I'm doing.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

BTW, my comments were meant to be offensive and a personal attack.
Dennis

Well, you must enjoy flaunting our rules and violating the decorum we enjoy at TexasCHLforum. This post is clearly daring us to ban you. After posting your tripe, you hopped over to OpenCarry.org to brag and claim you were banned. You have not been banned, but you will be unless you apologize for violating forum rules by using profanity and making personal attacks.

Of course, we all know that you won't apologize, because that would be "begging," right Dennis?

You have until 3:00pm before you are banned. Don't even bother posting more profanity and/or personal attacks; those posts most definitely will be deleted.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I want to publicly apologize to the Moderators for moving this thread back to the open forum. Rodbender intentionally violated forum rules by using profanity and by making a personal attack. He expressly admitted the latter in a follow-up post. The Moderators appropriately split his post and moved it to the Moderator Forum.

I decided to move the post back here for two reasons. First, I am certain several members including new members had read rodbender's post and I wanted to tell the truth as to why I cannot get involved. Secondly, rodbender went home to OpenCarry.org to falsely claim he was banned just for criticizing my statement. That was a blatant lie; the Moderators moved the post because he used profanity and because he made a personal attack, both of which violate forum rules.

Chas.