Open Carry

[03Lightningrocks]

I still believe the result of open carry will be more places restricting gun carry... it just doesn't seem worth it to me. I can already carry, why should I give a crud if someone who doesn't want to go to the same trouble I did is allowed to carry? Point two.... if your truly a tough guy and capable of handling yourself, you don't need to run around showing off your ability too shoot someone. Open carry in 2010 is simply show boating in my humble opinion and I have no desire to help anyone do it by risking the places I can carry.


Sorry if this hurts anyones feelings.... it is just the way I feel about it all. I do respect everyones opinions that are contrary to mine and not much anyone is going to say on the internet is going to change my mind. Guarantee me I won't be penalized for open carry... you have my vote. Tell me stories about how nobody actually does it anyway in states that allow it, just makes me wonder what the point is even more. maybe instead we can get some work done on the accidental exposure issues. That would solve most of the concerns I see expressed here... even though being outed is extremely rare when one is concealing responsibly.

[canvasbck]

I still believe the result of open carry will be more places restricting gun carry... it just doesn't seem worth it to me. I can already carry, why should I give a crud if someone who doesn't want to go to the same trouble I did is allowed to carry? Point two.... if your truly a tough guy and capable of handling yourself, you don't need to run around showing off your ability too shoot someone. Open carry in 2010 is simply show boating in my humble opinion and I have ne desire to help anyone do it by risking the places I can carry.

I have refrained from posting in this topic because my reason for wanting to have the OPTION of OC is very limited and does not reflect most CHLers. My wife and I trail ride frequently and I can now honestly say that CC is literaly and figuratively a pain. OC would be much simpler and easier. I know that my situation is unique and I would not want others to be imposed to satisfy my niche.

I am offended by the supporters of OC who have attacked pro 2A folks who don't feel that their cause is worth pressing in the current environment.

I am equally offended by your condescending tone towards those of us who support an OC movement. Saying that everyone who supports OC is either A) too lazy to go through the CHL process or B) is a jerk who just wants to look cool is a narrow minded view that ignores many valid and reasonable arguments in support of OC. (Although it would be cool to JUST ONCE walk through Wally World with the .500 on my hip. )

That said, I think that OC is now and should remain a back burner topic until we first, get the parking lot law passed and second, get campus carry.

Edit to add that I posted this before you added the second paragraph that softened your post.

[jester]

Charles has pointed out before that there is no way the legislature is going to have a two-sign requirement.

There's no need for a two-sign requirement, other than the current two-sign requirement. A 30.06 sign does not prohibit shotguns or rifles, whether carried openly or concealed. For that they need a generic "no guns" sign or similar notice.

Right now, a generic "no guns" or "no weapons" sign applies to almost everyone except:
A CHL carrying a concealed handgun and a license. [30.05(f) & 30.06]
A LEO carrying a handgun or other weapon. [30.05(i)]

As I hinted on page 8, if the requirement to conceal was lifted, and the wording of 30.05 and 30.06 remained exactly the same as right now, the 30.05(f) defense would still only apply if "the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license" so any notice under 30.05 would be sufficient to continue to prohibit openly carried handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. Except for cops.

[03Lightningrocks]

I still believe the result of open carry will be more places restricting gun carry... it just doesn't seem worth it to me. I can already carry, why should I give a crud if someone who doesn't want to go to the same trouble I did is allowed to carry? Point two.... if your truly a tough guy and capable of handling yourself, you don't need to run around showing off your ability too shoot someone. Open carry in 2010 is simply show boating in my humble opinion and I have ne desire to help anyone do it by risking the places I can carry.

I have refrained from posting in this topic because my reason for wanting to have the OPTION of OC is very limited and does not reflect most CHLers. My wife and I trail ride frequently and I can now honestly say that CC is literaly and figuratively a pain. OC would be much simpler and easier. I know that my situation is unique and I would not want others to be imposed to satisfy my niche.

I am offended by the supporters of OC who have attacked pro 2A folks who don't feel that their cause is worth pressing in the current environment.

I am equally offended by your condescending tone towards those of us who support an OC movement. Saying that everyone who supports OC is either A) too lazy to go through the CHL process or B) is a jerk who just wants to look cool is a narrow minded view that ignores many valid and reasonable arguments in support of OC. (Although it would be cool to JUST ONCE walk through Wally World with the .500 on my hip. )

That said, I think that OC is now and should remain a back burner topic until we first, get the parking lot law passed and second, get campus carry.

Edit to add that I posted this before you added the second paragraph that softened your post.

If it is any consolation, if open carry were allowed, i think it would be funny as all get out to open carry my 8 and 3/8th model 29 through Wally World. My fear is that Wally World would post just after you and I do this a couple times... and the natives get the crap scared out of them. Yeah... I shouldn't have implied that all proponents are just lazy... obviously there are other reasons for wanting open carry than laziness or bravado... my appologies.

[74novaman]

Tell me stories about how nobody actually does it anyway in states that allow it, just makes me wonder what the point is even more. maybe instead we can get some work done on the accidental exposure issues. That would solve most of the concerns I see expressed here... even though being outed is extremely rare when one is concealing responsibly.

I've always been curious about that too. Yes I understand that not being legally able to OC is an infringement upon our Constitutional right to do so. That being said, it seems a lot of political capital would be expended for something a few people might do occasionally.

I'd rather spend that capital on allowing people on campuses to protect themselves, and people with unfortunate work situations keep a gun in their car legally.

After we get those two things passed, then we can push for OC.

My .02, as has been expressed repeatedly.

[canvasbck]

If it is any consolation, if open carry were allowed, i think it would be funny as all get out to open carry my 8 and 3/8th model 29 through Wally World. My fear is that Wally World would post just after you and I do this a couple times... and the natives get the crap scared out of them. Yeah... I shouldn't have implied that all proponents are just lazy... obviously there are other reasons for wanting open carry than laziness or bravado... my appologies.

Perhaps you and I could meet up in Madisonville and both carry the hand cannons on the same day in the same Wally World. This would potentially cut in half the number of WallyWorlds that we cause to post signs.

Seriously, for me, the parking lot issue is a much bigger problem. Why on earth do we have laws that allow everyone without a criminal history to protect themselves as long as they are not heading to/from work?

[03Lightningrocks]

Seriously, for me, the parking lot issue is a much bigger problem. Why on earth do we have laws that allow everyone without a criminal history to protect themselves as long as they are not heading to/from work?

I agree... or the campus carry issue....that rates much higher in my mind than open carry.

[jester]

Why on earth do we have laws that allow everyone without a criminal history to protect themselves as long as they are not heading to/from work?

I just got home from work and carried to/from work without incident. Completely legal.

[G.A. Heath]

Why on earth do we have laws that allow everyone without a criminal history to protect themselves as long as they are not heading to/from work?

I just got home from work and carried to/from work without incident. Completely legal.

An employer can prohibit having a weapon in your vehicle while it is at work. The penalty can be up to and including termination of your employment if they have not given you notice under 30.06. If they have given effective notice under 30.06 then you it gets even worse. The goal of the parking lot bill is to allow people to store their weapons in their vehicles while their employers prohibit carry. The reason people can not defend themselves to and from work without it is because they have no storage solution while they are at work.

[jester]

It sounds like his problem is with the company policy, not the law. Perhaps he should find a different job if he doesn't like the company policy.

In any event, If we allow businesses to post 30.06 signs to prohibit concealed handguns, I don't see how we can reasonably prohibit businesses from firing employees who violate a policy against concealed handguns. It doesn't make sense. Either businesses have private property rights that allow them to prohibit guns, or they don't.

[G.A. Heath]

The idea of the parking lot bill would allow employees who carry to store the weapon in their vehicle. I have no idea how the bill address the 30.06 aspect but I assume it is dealt with in a fair manner. Some times private property rights are over ridden when it is in the best interest of society. For example a business can not limit access to people based on skin color or religious preference. An employer can not require you to vote for a specific candidate in order to retain your employment. An employer can however require you to meet a dress code that prohibits religious or political expression and prohibit you from exercising your first amendment rights while at work. An employer should not be able to terminate you because you carry a firearm to and from work, yet they will still be able to terminate you for carrying while at work should you do so.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles has pointed out before that there is no way the legislature is going to have a two-sign requirement.

There's no need for a two-sign requirement, other than the current two-sign requirement. A 30.06 sign does not prohibit shotguns or rifles, whether carried openly or concealed. For that they need a generic "no guns" sign or similar notice.

Right now, a generic "no guns" or "no weapons" sign applies to almost everyone except:
A CHL carrying a concealed handgun and a license. [30.05(f) & 30.06]
A LEO carrying a handgun or other weapon. [30.05(i)]

As I hinted on page 8, if the requirement to conceal was lifted, and the wording of 30.05 and 30.06 remained exactly the same as right now, the 30.05(f) defense would still only apply if "the person was carrying a concealed handgun and a license" so any notice under 30.05 would be sufficient to continue to prohibit openly carried handguns, rifles, shotguns, etc. Except for cops.

Sorry, you're wrong. If a property owner wanted to prohibit both concealed and open carry, then they would have to post both a 30.06 sign and another sign. The legislature will never allow that requirement to remain. TPC §30.06 will be amended to cover both concealed and open carry.

Currently, there is no "two sign" requirement. You can't legally carry outside your own property and vehicle (with some exceptions), so a property owner need only post a 30.06 sign. There's no need to post a sign under TPC §30.05 for firearms. Yeah, in theory you would have to do so for long guns, but that's not realistic; I've never seen anyone carry a rifle or shotgun into a Home Depot, restaurant or anywhere else we are talking about.

Chas.

[jester]

Yeah, in theory you would have to do so for long guns

That's what I said. No different than now. There are places that already have "no weapons" signs or policies.

[canvasbck]

It sounds like his problem is with the company policy, not the law. Perhaps he should find a different job if he doesn't like the company policy.

In any event, If we allow businesses to post 30.06 signs to prohibit concealed handguns, I don't see how we can reasonably prohibit businesses from firing employees who violate a policy against concealed handguns. It doesn't make sense. Either businesses have private property rights that allow them to prohibit guns, or they don't.

Well, it's a little difficult for someone who has been in the same industry for over 20 years to just pick up stakes and leave.

Your statement about property rights is not valid in this case. 30.06 allows a business to bar firearms from their business but 30.06 does not extend to the parking lot of said business.

In other words, say you are the owner of a large retail store in a tough part of town. If you are so inclined, you can post 30.06 signage at the entrance to the store and prohibit anyone from carrying inside the store. The force of law would apply to assist you in enforcing the no guns policy. The force of law would not be on your side in attempting to keep patrons from having firearms in their vehicles. You could post the parking lot, but state laws will not back you up on it.

If your company policy prohibits possession of a firearm on company property. This policy WOULD extend to the parking lot. Any employee could be fired if he/she leaves a firearm in their vehicle. If you go one step further and require your employees to wear certain clothes to work (uniform, FRC, ect). You have now made it easier for the BG's to identify the unarmed people.

In your own words, "It doesn't make sense. Either businesses have private property rights that allow them to prohibit guns, or they don't." Under current laws there are two sets of rules for parking lots, one for the public and one for a company's employees.

[03Lightningrocks]

Sorry, you're wrong. If a property owner wanted to prohibit both concealed and open carry, then they would have to post both a 30.06 sign and another sign. The legislature will never allow that requirement to remain. TPC §30.06 will be amended to cover both concealed and open carry.
Chas.

This is the reason for my concern about more places posting. Right now many of the businesses are not thinking about the issue because it is not out in the open. But I believe if these same folks start seeing guns hanging off folks belts they may decide to post out of fear and/or concern for their own safety. Many folks find guns a threatening thing.