carlson1 wrote:This is a hard topic because of the hard feelings on both sides.
This is worth pointing out, IMHO, because this Topic was not started by the OP as the umpteenth one about open carry itself, or rights versus privileges, or DPS delays in issuing CHLs.
It was started to discuss the specific issue of OpenCarry.org's new, aggressive focus on Texas and our 81st state legislature, now only weeks away; the gavel falls at noon on January 13.
To me, that's a very specific distinction. If someone could wave a magic wand and, voila!, Texas had permissible open carry
with no other impact whatsoever to the hard-thought and hard-fought laws that are in place today, and to those that are being prepared--that have been in the works for months and even years (remember, we had a parking lot bill in 2007 that passed committees but could never get on calendar)--of course I'd be for it. No problem.
But the real world doesn't work that way. Nobody has a magic wand; we don't have an autocracy or monocracy where one opinion can be swayed and everyone else in the land hops-to and falls into ranks.
The reality is that everything is about politics. Everyone and every special interest group has an opinion that is allowed to be heard; there are fulltime lobbyists who fight for specific agendas; there are a broad array of interests aligned against what next steps need to happen
in Texas to improve our state laws with respect to firearms.
It's about politics and it's complex. As Charles has pointed out, even the change of one or two words has kept bill sponsors, attorneys, and lobbyists up late into the night negotiating over what may seem to be minutiae. On the pro-gun side, those who have been involved in crafting and pushing legislation have been--must be--extremely careful of the ripple effects of any single change. And they must have near-term and long-term strategies and be forever cognizant of the political reality so that they can, in fact, negotiate: we have no issue that can be won with a sledgehammer; it takes superior strategy and finesse, not a bull in the china shop.
Look how much was achieved in the 2007 legislative session.
There are two things troubling me most about OpenCarry.org's approach. The first I can sum up as: "United we conquer; divided we fall."
We are in a minority to begin with. The pressures that kept the 2007 parking lot bill out of calendar came, in large part, from strong lobbying by the business sector and chambers of commerce. Powerful opposition with a lot of money behind them. Pardon the metaphor, but we can't overcome opposition like that with a spray-and-pray approach.
We need to pick our battles logically, carefully, and marshal our RKBA forces in a focused effort to make gains in the legislature.
To my knowledge, OpenCarry.org did not work with the TSRA (and I may write Alice Tripp to confirm), the NRA, or any of our state's longtime legislative authors and supporters before arbitrarily deciding they wanted to jump into the fray and push their single agenda. To heck with whether or not it's the best thing for Texas and firearm laws in Texas.
Nitrogen won the thread's Best Post award so far: "I wish these people were more concerned with
where they can carry than with
how."
Pushing an open-carry agenda that is single-minded, that is poorly thought out, that disregards the political landscape in Texas, and that does so without cooperation and solidarity from the TSRA, NRA, and those with their fingers on the gun-pulse of Texas is, in my opinion,
precisely the wrong thing to do. It is divisive to the state's gun owners and RKBA advocates, it will add confusion to bills that need to be on the table, and it will give a new rallying point for anti-gun lobbyists.
Which leads me to reason number two, and I already said it: poorly thought out.
If OpenCarry.org
really wanted to win this emotionally-charged political battle in Texas, don't you think they might actually do some research? Learn the history of gun legislation in the state? Talk to the TSRA and build a coalition? Actually pay a Texas lawyer to draft their first offering of a bill?
Instead, the only place we're seeing money spent is on billboard and radio advertising. Call me naive, but that tells me OpenCarry.org's agenda is OpenCarry.org.
I hope you all looked at my earlier post, visited their site, and read what they are touting as their "bill" that they suggest we all should send to our state representatives. Not only does it look like it was dashed off in an hour by someone not a JD or member of the bar, they chose to edit not the currently published state penal code, but an interim version issued after the close of the 2007 session that still contains reference to changes made during that 80th legislature.
As an example of how little thought seemed to go into that document, consider that under it, if you do not have a CHL, the only way you can carry in your car is if the gun remains plainly visible. So what do you do if you need to go to a hospital or church or school or anywhere else where carrying would be prohibited? Leave your Glock sitting on your dashboard?
That's the kind of planning and professionalism that will hurt us, not help us.
My cautionary statement is this: Don't spam your state representatives with any and everything that comes along. Pick your battles wisely, focus on those battles, and then make your voice heard.
I personally have absolutely zero opposition to open carry, per se. But like I said, there ain't no magic wand. We all need to analyze, understand, and decide where to put our support. Just because the term "open carry" sounds good to you, doesn't mean that it's the best agenda to push in our 81st legislative session.
