texas open carry

[mamabearCali]

This is true VA is a smaller state. "the sun has ris' the sun has set and here I be in TX yet".

[flb_78]

I have openly carried here in Kentucky since Ive moved here. Ive carried around Lexington (500K+ folk) with no problems. Ive even open carried on the State Capitol grounds in Frankfort.

Not a big deal here. I enjoy open carry.

[Jumping Frog]

But I digress, so bottom line, I would not be against open carry being legal in unincorporated parts of Texas (aka outside of the city limits), but anyone who thinks they are going to be able to strap on a gun and walk around Austin or Plano without causing a stir is delusional IMO.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree (partially). The biggest difference is that VA always has had it and Texas never has. Trying to educate all of the people all at once will be a major undertaking. Add to that the large amount of those who are here that don't have a firm (or any) concept of the English language and it would be a LONG road until the majority understand it is an accepted thing. And, yes, over time (a LONG time), it would get there.

One other factor to consider; VA has no city population over 425,000, with a total population of the state a little over 7 million. The Dallas/Fort Worth metro area has right at 7 million alone. Dallas, Houston and San Antonio cities alone are over 1 million each in population, with about 20 million total in the state.

Things can change easier than you think, Keith.

Ohio is not exactly known as the leading state for gun rights, having only passed CHL legislation in 2004. But there have been expansions of firearms rights in just about every session since, including a key one that established statewide preemption in 2007. Note the language that established open carry as a right, and note that cities/counties etc. are not allowed to make more restrictive laws.

Ohio Revised Code 9.68 Right to bear arms - challenge to law.

(A) The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio, the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition. Except as specifically provided by the United States Constitution, Ohio Constitution, state law, or federal law, a person, without further license, permission, restriction, delay, or process, may own, possess, purchase, sell, transfer, transport, store, or keep any firearm, part of a firearm, its components, and its ammunition.

(B) In addition to any other relief provided, the court shall award costs and reasonable attorney fees to any person, group, or entity that prevails in a challenge to an ordinance, rule, or regulation as being in conflict with this section.

(C) As used in this section:

(1) The possession, transporting, or carrying of firearms, their components, or their ammunition include, but are not limited to, the possession, transporting, or carrying, openly or concealed on a person’s person or concealed ready at hand, of firearms, their components, or their ammunition.

Once we had the legal foundation stating carrying openly was a right, Ohioans for Concealed Carry undertook a statewide education effort sending information packets regarding open carry to every police force in the state. We divvied up the state by counties and volunteers assembled mailing lists of all the village, city, township, and county police agencies in every county.

It notified law enforcement of the legal status, including that state law provides for paying attorney's fees when necessary. It also had the beneficial impact of putting all the agencies on written notice, so they could not claim ignorance if there were subsequent civil rights claims.

As a result, the climate for Open Carry has changed dramatically in that state in just a few years. Personally, I open carried in Columbus multiple days every week for years, including places like near the Ohio State campus, downtown, shopping malls, and all the kinds of trendy urban areas that you would not expect to see that happen. Columbus is larger than Austin, and is also a liberal state capital, with a Democrat Mayor-for-life.

I wasn't dogmatic about open carry. I simply liked having the choice of how much I wanted to cover up, and I liked never having to worry whether I was "correctly" concealed. For example, I like being unconcealed when driving because firearm access with a seatbelt was already hard enough. If I stopped for gas, it was great to just get out of the car and start pumping gas without going through the rigamarole of re-concealing.

During that time, I had 3 or 4 pleasant conversations with police officers, for example, when they were working private duty in the front of a grocery store. I never had a law enforcement problem when open carrying.

It was also interesting that almost no-one ever noticed I even had a gun on my hip. That is when I truly realized how the Sheeple walk around in Condition White all the time. As a consequence, I never worry about being made for carrying concealed around here.

Anyway, I am simply trying to say if you get the right kind of efforts underway, it is amazing how much things can change in a short time. I think you would be surprised how quickly things could change here, given the right circumstances. When it is 100 degrees next summer, I will think back fondly to how easy it is to carry in the heat when you don't need to fret about concealment.

[PATHFINDER]

I am a former Texas resident who now lives in Colorado where that State's constitution also reserves the right to bear arms- subject only to an exception for the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

In Texas Section 46.02(a) defines as a "crime" the very exercise of that State's own constitutionally declared right cited in Article 1, Section 23 of the State's constitution.

This is in spite of the fact that Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution declares that regulation of the right to keep & bear arms is OFF LIMITS to the high powers of the State government - except for the power granted to the legislature to regulate the "wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime" . No distinction is provided therein pertaining to specific categories of arms(rifles vs handguns) - only a provision for regulation by the legislature of the "wearing of arms".

Historically, and constitutionally the "wearing of arms" provision referred to in Article 1. Section 23 pertains to the practice of concealing deadly weapons - just as the Colorado Constitution excepts the carrying of concealed weapons from that State's recognition of the right to bear arms. The somewhat peculiar reference to the "wearing of arms" in the Texas Constitution equates to the concealment of arms addressed in most other state constitutions of that time. Wearing of arms is simply another way of addressing concealment of arms inside of , under, about or hidden among one's clothing or carry-alongs .

The movement to remedy this error in Texas only seeks the decriminalization of behavior that is protected by the State's constitution. Once this is accomplished folks can continue to make their own call as to conceal or not.

Two sections of the Texas Penal Code are inconsistent with Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution-
Section 46.02(a) which violates the Article 1, Section 23 provision empowering the legislature to regulate ONLY the CONCEALMENT of arms, and the Section 46.035(a) provision (intentional failure to conceal) which exceeds the limited legislative power to regulate concealment.

The fact that case law in Texas has yet to recognize these two constitutional inconsistencies - is a large part of the problem in Texas because the courts bear the burden of cleaning up the messes left after the Legislature adjourns.

Personal preferences regarding open or concealed carry notwithstanding - the former is a constitutional right in Texas - the latter is not.

[G.A. Heath]

I am a former Texas resident who now lives in Colorado where that State's constitution also reserves the right to bear arms- subject only to an exception for the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

In Texas Section 46.02(a) defines as a "crime" the very exercise of that State's own constitutionally declared right cited in Article 1, Section 23 of the State's constitution.

This is in spite of the fact that Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution declares that regulation of the right to keep & bear arms is OFF LIMITS to the high powers of the State government - except for the power granted to the legislature to regulate the "wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime" . No distinction is provided therein pertaining to specific categories of arms(rifles vs handguns) - only a provision for regulation by the legislature of the "wearing of arms".

Historically, and constitutionally the "wearing of arms" provision referred to in Article 1. Section 23 pertains to the practice of concealing deadly weapons - just as the Colorado Constitution excepts the carrying of concealed weapons from that State's recognition of the right to bear arms. The somewhat peculiar reference to the "wearing of arms" in the Texas Constitution equates to the concealment of arms addressed in most other state constitutions of that time. Wearing of arms is simply another way of addressing concealment of arms inside of , under, about or hidden among one's clothing or carry-alongs .

The movement to remedy this error in Texas only seeks the decriminalization of behavior that is protected by the State's constitution. Once this is accomplished folks can continue to make their own call as to conceal or not.

Two sections of the Texas Penal Code are inconsistent with Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution-
Section 46.02(a) which violates the Article 1, Section 23 provision empowering the legislature to regulate ONLY the CONCEALMENT of arms, and the Section 46.035(a) provision (intentional failure to conceal) which exceeds the limited legislative power to regulate concealment.

The fact that case law in Texas has yet to recognize these two constitutional inconsistencies - is a large part of the problem in Texas because the courts bear the burden of cleaning up the messes left after the Legislature adjourns.

Personal preferences regarding open or concealed carry notwithstanding - the former is a constitutional right in Texas - the latter is not.

Do you have case law to back up the claim that the Texas Constitution only allows the regulation of concealed carry? Everytime I have asked for such case law I get references to other states and their court rulings, never any TEXAS case law. Until there is such case law and a court case to use it towards invalidating portions of 46.02 these claims fall into the same category as the antis claims that the second amendment only applies to militia service.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Historically, and constitutionally the "wearing of arms" provision referred to in Article 1. Section 23 pertains to the practice of concealing deadly weapons - . . .

Please cite Texas or federal authority for this statement.

Chas.

[Ameer]

This is in spite of the fact that Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution declares that regulation of the right to keep & bear arms is OFF LIMITS to the high powers of the State government - except for the power granted to the legislature to regulate the "wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime" . No distinction is provided therein pertaining to specific categories of arms(rifles vs handguns) - only a provision for regulation by the legislature of the "wearing of arms".

A good argument can be made that handguns carried in a holster is wearing arms, no matter if it's open or concealed. A rifle or shotgun carried by hand or on a sling is not "wearing of arms" by that standard. However, by that standard, the prohibition against spears is unconstitutional because you don't wear a spear either. I think the real answer is the legislators who passed the law didn't care about the Texas Constitution. Only what they could get away with to stop "those people" from carrying guns and Bowie knives.

[Glenn61]

No purpose/need to advertise what I'm doing to the public or potential perpetrator. Last thing I want to do is tip my cards and take away my ability to respond/protect myself. I guess it's difficult for some to be humble when you have the benefit of carrying a firearm. I for one respect it and don't feel the need to stand out like a sore thumb--or put myself above everyone else--just my 2 cents.

[TexasRedneck]

I can understand those that choose not to open carry for their own reasons, and have no issue w/that....but I guess where I have a hard time understanding is those that don't WANT to carry that way being okay with stopping those that would. Every freedom we give up is one less between us and a controlling, over-reaching government - one that expands federal police powers, federal controls over states......oh, wait - we're already getting there, aren't we? We have federal agents taking over for local and state law enforcement officers, schools that have to follow FEDERAL guidelines - the list continues to grow.

Let me present it another way. I don't own full-automatic weapons or suppressors. TSRA has been promoting expanding the use of suppressors for hunting of game animals. Does that mean that because I don't use them, I should oppose it? Based on some of the comments here - yeah, I should....but I don't. I'm pushing for it to be passed, because there's no inherent harm and it is a right that should be returned to us.

It's just a shame that others don't feel the same - that they won't realize that we should support each other, not just that which fits OUR definition of "what should be."

Someone else can have the soapbox now....

[threeg45]

Just a note for interest. A member made mention of the post office and just going to UPS to send packages. The Fedex that I need to use in Arlington on Osler is now posted with a compliant 30.06 sign. I posted this infornation on the 30.06 site. Watch out for FedEx. UPS may follow suit.

[74novaman]

I can understand those that choose not to open carry for their own reasons, and have no issue w/that....but I guess where I have a hard time understanding is those that don't WANT to carry that way being okay with stopping those that would. Every freedom we give up is one less between us and a controlling, over-reaching government - one that expands federal police powers, federal controls over states......oh, wait - we're already getting there, aren't we? We have federal agents taking over for local and state law enforcement officers, schools that have to follow FEDERAL guidelines - the list continues to grow.

Let me present it another way. I don't own full-automatic weapons or suppressors. TSRA has been promoting expanding the use of suppressors for hunting of game animals. Does that mean that because I don't use them, I should oppose it? Based on some of the comments here - yeah, I should....but I don't. I'm pushing for it to be passed, because there's no inherent harm and it is a right that should be returned to us.

It's just a shame that others don't feel the same - that they won't realize that we should support each other, not just that which fits OUR definition of "what should be."

Someone else can have the soapbox now....

I'll jump up on that box.

There are large differences between those of us like you and I who don't own suppressors yet support the idea of their use in hunting being legal, and those who in the past have been the most vocal and ardent supporters of open carry.

You yourself mentioned that the TSRA has been supporting suppressors for hunting use. This is fantastic. TSRA has a PROVEN track record of assisting those who work in our state govt to understand and write GOOD laws for Texas gun owners. During the last session, when TSRA was focused on range protection bills and campus carry, an outside group introduced an open carry bill. Those who supported this bill then were extremely vocal about how WRONG it was of TSRA not to support a bill they didn't help author, when they were busy trying to pass other good gun laws.

You say we should support each other...but how is calling the TSRA "anti gun" or insulting people who have done quite a bit of good for us regarding gun rights in this state support? This seems to be a case of "don't spit on me and tell me its raining." The OC crowd seemed to show little/no enthusiasm for helping to pass campus carry, but we were all anti gun cowards for not supporting OC.

One more important distinction: Suppressor use during hunting has 0.0% percent chance of restricting my ability/right to hunt anywhere. IF open carry legislation adds OC to the 30.06 law, I firmly believe there will be a backlash of companies posting 30.06 when the news starts blaring about how to keep "openly carried LOADED guns" (emphasis news casters worrying tone) out of your businesses. So OC has a HUGE potential to restrict my ability to protect myself. Doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

Unless we approach OC the right way, it will result it my ability to carry concealed being diminished. We've seen how many "no gun" signs whent up when the original CHL law was passed. I see no reason it wouldn't be the same with 30.06 signs if we go about things the wrong way..

Suppressors for hunting is gaining momentum because educating the public on the legality and benefits of suppressors is already at work before any legislation is proposed. OC has no such efforts ongoing that I am aware of (and if a gun enthusiast isn't aware of them, they're not very good efforts).

For me personally to support an OC bill in Texas, here is what I'd like to see:
1)A campaign informing the public on other states who have OC and the lack of problems.
2)A bill at minimum endorsed by the TSRA being proposed for OC
3)Seperate signage to ban OC (say a no guns type sign) and CHL.

If that happens, you can bet I'll throw my support 100% being getting OC passed. Till then, until the OC crowd stops with the bomb throwing and name calling regarding their movement, I'll invest my time and money supporting more important gun issues to me.

[The Dude]

No purpose/need to advertise what I'm doing to the public or potential perpetrator.

If you don't want a bumper sticker on your car, don't put one on your car, but don't support a ban on bumper stickers for other people if you call yourself a friend of the first amendment. The same principle applies to open carry and the second amendment.

Abide.

[PATHFINDER]

Texans wouldn't still be having their ARTICLE 1, SECTION 23 declared right to bear arms suppressed by a transgressing State government if Texas judges had taken it upon themselves to exercise due diligence in the performance of their constituted duties during the last 136 years.

A point of factual information for the benefit of any who are convinced that rifles & shotguns are somehow excepted from this regulatory power provision of Article 1, Section 23 ...

"The wearing of arms" is a term applied in Article 1, Section 23 that pertains to the custom of habitually transporting a deadly weapon on one's person. That includes, by the way - inside of , or under clothing, hand-carried, or within reach of one's person. stowed inside of "carpet bags", and YES - even long-guns slung over the shoulder, or simply grasped in one hand -IF THE WEAPON WAS CARRIED HABITUALLY.

But I believe the question was.....why do I assert that " this wearing of arms" regulatory provision only applies to CONCEALMENT?

Well... the handgun prohibition was first enacted in 1871 -right ? The Texas Constitution was adopted in 1876 - right ?

Now - could a reasonable person come up with any logical explanation as to WHY...... the " wearing of " (REMEMBER- as in habitual carry) of rifles & shotguns hasn't been restricted post-1876 ? Could it possibly be due to the fact that rifles & shotguns are not readily CONCEALABLE ??? Remember pickup gun racks ? (back in the days when one's parked vehicle was considered a fairly "safe" place to stow things)

I don't know why I insist upon trying to sell air conditioners to " Eskimos"- I really don't.

Perhaps it's because I lived with them dang "Eskimos" for 45 years , and I still regularly "travel" within their "Republic", and it saddens me that they are so willing to exchange their constitutionally declared right for a grant of privilege from the high powers of State government.

_______-

P.S. - Why are all of those 30.06 signs appearing down there - given that nobody is open carrying ?

Although I am now a Colorado resident , I am also a direct descendant of an Alamo defender (William Linn), and I have held a Texas CHL for over 16 years.

[G.A. Heath]

Texans wouldn't still be having their ARTICLE 1, SECTION 23 declared right to bear arms suppressed by a transgressing State government if Texas judges had taken it upon themselves to exercise due diligence in the performance of their constituted duties during the last 136 years.

A point of factual information for the benefit of any who are convinced that rifles & shotguns are somehow excepted from this regulatory power provision of Article 1, Section 23 ...

"The wearing of arms" is a term applied in Article 1, Section 23 that pertains to the custom of habitually transporting a deadly weapon on one's person. That includes, by the way - inside of , or under clothing, hand-carried, or within reach of one's person. stowed inside of "carpet bags", and YES - even long-guns slung over the shoulder, or simply grasped in one hand -IF THE WEAPON WAS CARRIED HABITUALLY.

But I believe the question was.....why do I assert that " this wearing of arms" regulatory provision only applies to CONCEALMENT?

Well... the handgun prohibition was first enacted in 1871 -right ? The Texas Constitution was adopted in 1876 - right ?

Now - could a reasonable person come up with any logical explanation as to WHY...... the " wearing of " (REMEMBER- as in habitual carry) of rifles & shotguns hasn't been restricted post-1876 ? Could it possibly be due to the fact that rifles & shotguns are not readily CONCEALABLE ??? Remember pickup gun racks ? (back in the days when one's parked vehicle was considered a fairly "safe" place to stow things)

I don't know why I insist upon trying to sell air conditioners to " Eskimos"- I really don't.

Perhaps it's because I lived with them dang "Eskimos" for 45 years , and I still regularly "travel" within their "Republic", and it saddens me that they are so content with having to trade their right for a privilege.

Hey now, real Eskimos are taking offense that you are comparing them to me!

Now with that said, So your saying that the ban on open carry of handguns is unconstitutional (state const) because the ban on carry that was enacted before the state constitution was enacted and long guns weren't regulated because they are concealable and that makes the ban on Open Carry illegitimate? Ok, I'm confused even more on the issue because this logic is almost as fool proof as a child saying "Pineapples are yucky because apples are not oranges."

[Charles L. Cotton]

But I believe the question was.....why do I assert that " this wearing of arms" regulatory provision only applies to CONCEALMENT?

No, that wasn't the question. My request was to show me support in Texas or federal law supporting your incorrect theory that the reference to"wearing of arms" found in Art. I, Sec. 23 of the Texas Constitution applies only to "concealed" arms. I understand that is your opinion, but I am asking for statutory or case law supporting that opinion.

Chas.