TexasCHLforum.com

oljames3 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Have you seen how few showed up to some of those forums? I think they are good but I don't think they have a widespread effect of informing the masses, especially those that aren't in the CC/OC community.

Attendance has varied widely. In Elgin, Texas, about 40 people showed up. That's out of about 8400. Abilene had over 600 RSVP, over 500 showed up. They had to change the venue three times before the meeting to accommodate the crowd. The first Houston meeting was SRO. Fort Bend County had good attendance, although the video did not show the whole room.

On the flip side, the second HPD meeting was less well-attended and the Round Rock attendance also seemed sparse.

All this is hardly statistically significant. However, I feel it does show that interest varies widely across the state. In the end, I expect that my fellow Texans will be able to adjust at least as well as the Okies have done.

If the okies can do it, there's no reason anyone else shouldn't be able to.

Have you seen how few showed up to some of those forums? I think they are good but I don't think they have a widespread effect of informing the masses, especially those that aren't in the CC/OC community.

oljames3 wrote:
KENS San Antonio: City says businesses leasing public land can opt out of open carry
http://www.kens5.com/story/news/2015/12 ... /77022724/
[/url]

More misinformation and/or intellectually dishonest interpretation of the law. It's been debated on here numerous times that it doesn't matter if the government entity is the landlord or tenant, the law still applies.

Seems like a lot a entities are setting themselves up to incur considerable legal fees and fines.

KXAN: City’s public safety commission addresses “Open Carry”
http://kxan.com/2015/12/07/citys-public ... pen-carry/

Some things in this article are somewhat concerning.

Different agencies within the same locale may have different protocols and directives based on different interpretations of the law and different attitudes of the top leadership in the various agencies. Contrary to what at least one former member believes, there is still question about what justifies lawful stop and demand for a license.

“I think different agencies, different prosecutors, have different ideas about exactly what authority police officers are going to have with regard to approaching someone who is openly carrying a firearm in a holster,” Texas Municipal Association Executive Director Kevin Lawrence said. “The question is, at what point can the officer insist that the individual actually display [the] license?”

Again, stop and interrogate someone for doing something legal? Rather than assume we are doing something that we have the right to do, they wanted us to have to have a license displayed. The requirements and issues weren't addressed in the law but they do indicate attitude and disposition.

To better ensure that situations “end well,” CLEAT pushed lawmakers to make three changes to the bill. The changes never made it into the final version, which became law.

“We expressed the concerns that we had. Are we going to be able to ask reasonable questions of someone openly carrying? Will their license be displayed on their person so an officer can see it and immediately be assured that… he has the perfect right to carry that gun openly?” Moritz explained, and finally, “Is there a restraint on his holster that would keep that gun in place?”

I haven't given this much thought until I read this. It appears stopping someone to verify they have an LTC may give rise to the opportunity for an officer to disarm a person. I believe it is implied an officer needs a justification to support him or her reasonably believing it necessary to disarm someone. In my mind, it is not appropriate for an officer to decide to disarm someone and then come up with a reason.

During Monday’s meeting, APD discussed how there are several factors to take into consideration if the need comes up to “disarm a person who is openly carrying based on the fact the officer ‘reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual.'” Those include:

Reason for the stop
Backup present
Demeanor (e.g., hostile/agitated)
Type of holster (shoulder or belt)
Whether or not to handcuff the subject
Lethal Cover (e.g., hostile subject who is openly carrying)
Verbal Commands
Environment (e.g., crowded street or alley)
Return of the weapon after disarming if no arrest is warranted

I'm posting all this not to bash any officers or LEO's in general. I am posting it to point out there is going to be a period where we all are trying to find the equilibrium as we go through this change and the law takes effect. I pray cooler heads will prevail and that both the officers and open carriers handle things in a professional cordial manner.

I also, based on personal discussions I've had with top law enforcement officers in our area plus some comments I've seen, some departments and agencies will be more aggressive about checking and verifying those that carry are legally carrying because the top leadership in the organizations are wholeheartedly against the populace being able to open carry.

Hopefully those of us on here will set the proper tone when it comes to dealing with cops on this issue.

locke_n_load wrote:

oljames3 wrote:"Coming Soon to San Antonio: Open Carry and Campus Carry"
http://therivardreport.com/coming-soon- ... pus-carry/

Rep Bernal is handing out 30.07 signs to business owners and has 1,000s of signs printed... Ugh.

I think he it's going out of his way to promote people posting no OC signs. I don't think this alone makes him anti-gun but I do believe it puts him in the jerk category.

Abraham,
Good job on pointing out their errors. I've found email seems to be the easiest and most effective way to get word to them. I've responded via email when possible and usually get a response.

oohrah wrote:And they got #10 partially wrong. After 8/1/16, it is no longer prohibited to carry at a college sporting event unless it posted 30.06.

Where do you get that? I'm not aware of the sporting events carry prohibition being changed?

treadlightly wrote:

I don't know this OCing guy. For all I know he's a powder keg ready to explode when told to leave his gun outside.

If so, he's very unlikely to be a license holder. I believe one might rightly assume 30.07 signs don't apply to smoldering powder kegs. 30.07 will only apply to license holders, whose fusing circuitry has long been known to be stable by nature.

Just playing devil's advocate. What if he isn't a license holder?

meddafuxa wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

meddafuxa wrote:So what happens when every business post anti gun signs?

How likely do you think this will be?

Since moving to Texas, very likely. You have more laws here than any pro gun state I feel. I'm in San Antonio. We almost got Acevedo as a chief, he hates OC. Our mayor or whatever she is big liberal too. So from what I've seen since moving here...likely. My state had CC and constitutional open carry. We had no problems, and hardly anyone OC. Some did to wal mart or out to eat and no one complained. We've even become a swing state. So I find it odd Texas has so many laws. I need a permit to sell my own _______ in my own yard for Christ sake. We couldn't even carry knives! Of course that contradicts my argument since they just passed a law allowing us to carry in San Antonio again. Still, you see where I am coming from? I won't be open carrying, and I'm glad it's an option. IT just seems we're all accepting unconstitutional laws, like CC permits for example.

The problem I have with your post is using "every". That just isn't accurate. Yes, we will initially see more signs as businesses just don't know what to expect and the subject is getting a lot of attention. However, that will fade over time and we may just end up as gun friendly as whichever state from which you came.

Out of curiosity, what is the origination of your user name? Is it a play on certain words?

gdanaher wrote:Well, maybe not EVERY store will post, but a good many will who would not have if it weren't for the practices of OCT. Thanks guys.

I agree there will be more than if the OCT idiots hadn't done what they did. I also do no't think we need to resort to exaggeration and hyperbole to make our points. That does more damage to our credibility.

meddafuxa wrote:So what happens when every business post anti gun signs?

How likely do you think this will be?

I suspect and hope, we don't see that many new signs. However, maybe the ones that do will only focus on posting 30.07 and the net effect will be fewer 30.06 signs.

It will be interesting to see if this has kicked the ant pile. We may see more 30.06 signs since this has been brought to the forefront. Hope people will settle down.