TexasCHLforum.com

Douva wrote:

The experiences in open carry states also show that even when someone DOES open carry, few notice. From lethermen, to cell phones, to fanny packs, to belt buckles, so many items are now adorning our waist area that a gun just doesn't stick out. This combined with people being on their cell phone or otherwise not too aware about things in their immediate environment mean not many MWAG calls. Further, those that DO see the gun are likely to think you are an LEO. In summary, open carry just doesn't cause many problems and the news coverage of the soccer mom incident in PA demonstrates that by its news-worthiness. According to Ms. Hain, she carries her G26 openly EVERYWHERE and has for some time but only now has there been an incident.

"Few" is a relative term. Whatever the number of people who notice open carry, it will be exponentially higher than the number of people who notice concealed carry. Run a Google search for stories of police being called in response to legal open carry; then run a Google search for stories of people being called in response to legal concealed carry. Considering how many more individuals carry concealed, open carry's track record for not upsetting the general public is relatively poor, compared to that of concealed carry.

And personally, I don't think that relying on the "people will just think you're a cop" mentality is a smart strategy, especially since plain-clothes police officers are not allowed to open carry in the state of Texas (it's not something people are used to seeing).

For example, regarding 30.06 signs and open carry, could a section 30.07 be added (so as to not open up 30.06 to amendment) that says a business owner wishing to keep out those carrying handguns concealed or openly may adopt the following sign which encorporates the elements of 30.06 but with language added. Thus, no changes to 30.06 nor any references to 30.06 need to be changed.

Charles has already explained why the Texas Legislature is unlikely to pass a provision for dual signage.

Morgan wrote:Charles, I really want to say how much I appreciate the way you explain things.

Question in regard to your last statement... So a red ghostbuster sign would stop the aforementioned security guard... would it also stop an on-duty but on meal break LEO? Merely curious.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:If an open-carry bills gets introduced and passed, you can be certain of two things: 1) the Legislature isn't going to leave property owners without a way to keep armed citizens off their property; and 2) the Legislature isn't going to create a dual standard for "no trespass" signs, thus forcing property owners to post two signs instead of one, if they want to bar all armed citizens. So this means either TPC §30.06 will be amended to apply to open and concealed carry, or TPC §30.06 will be repealed and we return to the pre-1997 "ghost buster" signs and decals. I don't really think §30.06 would be repealed; I think it would be amended to apply to open and concealed carry.

Chas.