TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:A half a second can be the difference between living and dying.

It can be faster for most people. but that 0.5 second difference is negligible to meaningless for most people. I suspect the number of folks that are of Jerry Miculek competency with a handgun is extremely small so that 0.5 seconds would make a difference. Most all the theories about OC preventing a crime are just that. Theories without any stats to support them. Same as all the blood in the streets theories from the left when any pro-gun rights laws are passed.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Pb_shutr wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I hope that a lot of OCT/OCTC/CATI folks are watching this debate. If anyone watching thinks that unlicensed open-carry had any chance of passage, then they are unwilling to to fact political reality.

Chas.

Mr. Cotton,
Can you enlighten me what the useful purpose of "licensed" open carry is supposed to achieve? It is my concern that each and every LEO will feel obligated to enforce "licensed" open carry by approaching every open carry individual to check that person's compliance with said law and asking for proof of approval to open carry. Why would I subject myself to this forced interaction by each LEO, maybe even several times just on one particular outing. In addition, I think these LEO's are going to on very heightened alert. At this time I can carry concealed standing shoulder to should with an LEO and he/she never knows I'm carrying and has no concern with me. Now, I do understand if I encounter a bad guy and need my firearm, I do have to draw from concealment.
Thanks,
Mike

I see absolutely no utility to open-carry whatsoever. Some people want it for various reasons, none of which I've heard have anything to do with utility. The testimony today that open-carry reduces crime is utterly without any support or evidence. The testimony that someone carrying concealed would not have time to respond to a deadly attach whereas one carrying openly would be able to respond was laughable! My cover garment adds less than 1/2 second to my draw, if that.

I'm supporting it because I'm a good soldier and the decision was made to promote open-carry.
Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Strat9mm wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Pb_shutr wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I hope that a lot of OCT/OCTC/CATI folks are watching this debate. If anyone watching thinks that unlicensed open-carry had any chance of passage, then they are unwilling to to fact political reality.

Chas.

Mr. Cotton,
Can you enlighten me what the useful purpose of "licensed" open carry is supposed to achieve? It is my concern that each and every LEO will feel obligated to enforce "licensed" open carry by approaching every open carry individual to check that person's compliance with said law and asking for proof of approval to open carry. Why would I subject myself to this forced interaction by each LEO, maybe even several times just on one particular outing. In addition, I think these LEO's are going to on very heightened alert. At this time I can carry concealed standing shoulder to should with an LEO and he/she never knows I'm carrying and has no concern with me. Now, I do understand if I encounter a bad guy and need my firearm, I do have to draw from concealment.
Thanks,
Mike

I see absolutely no utility to open-carry whatsoever. Some people want it for various reasons, none of which I've heard have anything to do with utility. The testimony today that open-carry reduces crime is utterly without any support or evidence. The testimony that someone carrying concealed would not have time to respond to a deadly attach whereas one carrying openly would be able to respond was laughable! My cover garment adds less than 1/2 second to my draw, if that.

I'm supporting it because I'm a good soldier and the decision was made to promote open-carry.
Chas.

Open carry is easier and you just admitted it's faster, and it is.

I don't care if I have an INFIDEL cap on, and a shoot me first shirt on as well. If I decide to open carry because though it SHOULD be constitutionally allowed, but because it's finally at least legally allowed, I should be able to do it, and not have to wait around if I'm not required to take more training, just because others WILL be required to take modified training to become licensed and that training has not been prepared yet. Frankly, that's not my problem.

You need to read my response again; I did not say open-carry was faster. I said the testimony was laughable. I heard that bogus claim for the first time today during the hearing.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:There will be a string of absurd amendments offered.

Chas.

Do you expect any of them have any traction?

I don't know. The more ridiculous ones will not stick, but I don't know what all is going to be offered by Ellis and others.

Chas.

Fair enough. I just thought you might be able to share some insight.

Thank you.

All I know specifically is one amendment will call for 10 hrs of additional training to carry openly and one will require some type of retention holster. There will be many more and you can bet some will come straight out of the looney bin.

Chas.