TexasCHLforum.com

[quote="Charles L. Cotton]

All of this may be moot, as I suspect the bill to be introduced will call for licensed open-carry and if I am correct, all that will be necessary is the repeal of TPC §46.035(a) that requires concealment and that won't open up anything to amendment.

Chas.[/quote]

That works for me. It isn't ideal, but incrementalism has been proven to work.

Douva wrote: The big difference is that Pennsylvania and Virginia have, to the best of my knowledge, never had a lengthy, heated, well-publicized legislative battle over the merits and pitfalls of open carry. Pennsylvania and Virginia haven't had the issue brought to the public's attention by every local and state news agency (and most likely, a few national news agencies) simultaneously.

...

"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).

...

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

My responses in the order above:

True, they haven't had "lengthy, heated, well-publicized legislative battle over the merits and pitfalls of open carry" but neither have we, yet. It remains to be seen if that will happen. If your point is that open carry hasn't been widely reported on in those states, I would differ with you. There have been several cases in PA, VA, OH, CA, WA and in other states recently. Even in CT there has been enough incidents that a lawmaker asked the research arm of the legislature if any CT statue makes it illegal given the controversy at the Board of Firearms Permit Examiners.

That some people notice and call the police is unfortunate but shouldn't reflect poorly on open carry. I'll stipulate that it isn't common in American society as it was in the 19th century. There are many legal activities that may offend or scare people. Many are very opposed to smoking in public, for example. I would further name saggy pants, studs and chains, wild hair, clothing with profanity, etc. The list could be a long one. I respectfully disagree with the argument that because some people don't like something that a) it should be made illegal or b) the police should be summoned and the lawabiding person made to defend their non-criminal actions. I would suggest that the true fix for the problem of MWAG calls is for the 911 dispatcher to ask "What is the armed person doing and where is the gun?" If the response to question 1 is not indicative of criminal behavior such as "walking down the street" or "eating at the table next to me" or "shopping at the store I'm in" or "pumping gas", etc. and the answer to question two is "in a holster", the operator should tell the person "that's legal. Call back if the gun comes out of the holster." No officers sent; no resources wasted. This is no different than when an idiot call 911 and demands that the police come to Burger King because the fry cook can't make his burger correcly (yes, this has happened).

I'm not saying that relying on people thinking you are a police officer is "good strategy". I'm simply saying that, based on the questions that open carriers get, that is the assumption of many people. My point that was 1) many people don't notice, and 2) of those that do, some percentage of them will likely think you are a police officer and thus not make a MWAG call.

I wasn't very clear on my signage proposal. Under my plan, businesses wouldn't have to post two signs, just one. There is one sign that bans only concealed carry: 30.06. It wouldn't be changed at all. The new 30.07 would incorporate the language of 30.06 but also add language around open carry. Thus, to prevent both, a business need only post the new 30.07 sign.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The last thing we need is for them to get the feeling that "the bun lobby" (sic) are trying to pull a fast one on open-carry, and then distrust everything else that's related to guns.

Chas.

Charles, I agree that supporters of open carry and OpenCarry.org -- of which I am both -- need to be clear about our objectives. Unlicensed open carry is the ideal, but nearly all supporters will compromise to licensed open carry if that is all that we can get. The point it to not compromise unless and until we have to. You've been such a successful legislative advocate exactly because you start strong (verbal AND written notice, for example) and then bargain downward.

As for the historical differences that you pointed to earlier in the thread, I must say that I doubt that the experiences in Pennsylvania or Virginia are much different than Texas. It is true that it has always been legal to open carry there, but as you point out, it is not at all common. Most urban residents in those states have rarely or never seen anyone open carrying. Most rural residents probably haven't seen it much either, but they are comfortable with the concept of guns and are more used to seeing long guns due to hunting. Both of these seem to hold true for Texans.

As you say, let's use history as a guide. I predict that if we get open carry (licensed or not), very few will practice it. It will still be VERY unusual and most folks won't have any cause to freak out and call their legislator demanding change. Much like the blood not running in the streets when the CHL bill was passed, after the news stories about the novelty of it are done, soccer moms are not very likely to encounter an open carrier in their local mall.

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.

Your posts about the tactics of the legislative process, germaneness, and not wanting to jeopardize what we have with 30.06 carry great weight with me. Thus, I hope you will provide whatever assistance you can to those leading the effort to ensure that such concerns are dealt with.

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.

Regarding your view about legislation changing several sections rather than just simply adding "concealed" in TPC 46.02 seems to lead to different off-limits places for unlicensed open carry. All of the preemption wouldn't apply unless the open carrier also had a CHL. It is imperative that CC and OC have an equal footing -- either you can carry somewhere or you cannot. The Virginia situation of open-carry only in places that serve alcohol, for example, is definitely to be avoided. This is the reason for the complex legislation.

Setting aside open carry for a minute, are there other resticted places that may get opened up in 2009 besides college campuses? The "court office" item along with "building or part of a building" has been abused and I know that you, more than anyone else, would like to get that rectified. What about polling places? Sporting events?

Thanks, SA-TX