TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

SA-TX wrote:KC5AV, a quick history of the threads here will indicate that some of us have been working with TSRA and others on OC since the last session. There hasn't been any waiting. Until Charles's recent announcement that OC would definitely not be a part of the TSRA agenda, I thought we were making progress. I had hoped that while it may not be the highest priority bill -- and I agree that it should not be -- that it might at least be on the list of things that we attempt to get done.

You have called for TSRA involvement in the open-carry movement and you started stating that position during the 2009 Texas Legislative Session. However, you did so only here on TexasCHLforum and neither you nor anyone else have been "working with TSRA" on the open-carry issue. Also, since shortly before the 2009 legislative session when OC first came up, I have steadfastly stated that TSRA was not going to push for OC until and unless our members wanted us to do so. I was equally clear that if our members every did, then we would put OC through our regular two year cycle, since it is a high profile issue.

I am at a loss to understand how you would have entertained even the slightest thought that TSRA was going to put OC on our legislative agenda for 2011. My "recent announcement that OC would definitely not be a part of the TSRA agenda" was not the first time I've said this, it's merely the most recent.

I will follow up on KC5AV's question and ask why OC supporters haven't formed a Texas-based, Texas-controlled organization to work for OC? If my suggestion had been acted upon, then you would have had over a year to organize and promote a responsible OC bill. More importantly, you would have had the opportunity to measure the real public support for OC by looking at the number of members this new organization would or would not have attracted. People who are serious about OC better start making plans for 2013 now, but I suspect this will again fall on deaf ears.

Chas.

Charles, I cannot answer the question. Those who have approached me about being a prominent part of such an organization have always received the same reply: I travel very frequently for business and cannot play such a role. I'm doing what I can do for the advancement of ALL pro-2A causes by participating here, at OCDO, and being a life member of TSRA. As for "working with TSRA" I tried to schedule a meeting with you and offered to buy you the drink of your choice in Charlotte. Doesn't that count?

Charles you once posted a very compliment note about my involvement here and at OCDO and mentioned that I might make a good representative of the OC movement. I haven't gone back to dig up the thread but I'll bet that my reply to you was very similar: while that may be a good path and someone should act upon your advice, I am not in a position to do so. Given that, I've poured my energies into getting new people to join TSRA and appealing for all pro-2A Texans to be supportive of all pro-gun legislation whether it is their personal highest priority or not. Out of curiosity, how many other times have you suggested that fellow gun owners form a separate organization to pursue a broadening of Texas law regarding firearms?

Perhaps my hope was misplaced. Maybe my feeling that OK passing a bill might be a harbinger of good things to come in Texas was unrealistic. I suppose the activity in nearly all other shall-issue non-OC states led me to think that TSRA might reconsider. If my optimism stemming from the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram interviewing Alice and getting comment from the governor's office was unwarranted, I plead guilty. No, you never said so but YES I really thought that we'd find some common ground to where SOME small step in the right direction might be taken.

SA-TX

stevie_d_64 wrote:I think I can illustrate what can happen if you let a bull enter a china shop...

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlat ... ses-2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sure, the California law was kinda screwy, what isn't

But the fact of the matter is everything this group has touched has turned to garbage...

Get a win under your hat before coming back to Texas...I think I would like to protect what we have more than lose some, or all of it, for vanity...

Which group would that be? OpenCarry.org? Firstly, unlike other groups, it rarely sponsors or organizes anything. The UOC carriers in CA may be members, but I doubt much was centrally planned or orchastrated by John or Mark, the only two individuals who can speak for OCDO. My assessment of the membership is that they are 2A activists. OC is by its nature somewhat bold and it shouldn't come as a surprise that those who fervently believe in it are unafraid to take unilateral action. The highway litter pick-ups in PA and OH are other examples. The gathering in Las Vegas on the strip is another. I'm not aware of any official OCDO sponsorship of any of these activities or meetings, like the UOC gatherings in CA, but instead a product of the members taking action on their own. If you read some of the threads about UOC in CA you'll find that some members argued AGAINST widespread UOC predicting that exactly this might happen.

Those who read my posts here know that I'm a participating member of both forums. I try to "call 'em as I see 'em". When folks there acted in ways that I thought were counter-productive, I said so. Likewise when I think a broadside against that group of folks is unwarranted, I'll try to bring my perspective to the conversation.

As for wins, some members of OCDO have "wins" in court and out-of-court settlements for violations of their civil rights. Police agencies in several states have issued new opinions/orders/directives/memoranda based on interactions with OCDO members. These tend to state that OC is legal and they direct officers how to interact with them while respecting federal and state court decisions on 4A/search-and-seizure law. I regard these as victories because the rights of all gun carriers are strengthened.

Legislative victories are harder to quantify because, as I mentioned, the organization rarely gets involved directly. Mark and John publish articles and give interviews but the Texas billboard and radio ad campaign was the first time I'm aware of a coordinated attempt to raise the issue. That campaign suceeded in raising awareness and getting politicans to at least comment on the issue (the governor's office, Land Commissioner Patterson, Sen. Wentworth and others). Most recently Governor Perry was on Tom Gresham's GunTalk radio program. To put it in full context, the governor stated that he was a big CC guy. When Tom said "that's your choice, governor, but why shouldn't all Texans be able to make up their own minds as I do here in Louisiana" Perry said that something "might get done" about open carry this session. A victory? Certainly not winning the war, but I don't think it is an exaggeration to say it was a small skirmish that ended well when OC has gained enough prominance to have a radio host press the governor of Texas about it and for him to not oppose or dismiss the idea out of hand. My guess is that while Perry isn't going to campaign for it, he'd sign an OC bill.

As I've stated many times before, I agree that some members didn't help the cause in the way that they behaved. That is unfortunate but we need to move beyond it. I continue to believe that all Texas gun owners should try to be as united as possible to ensure that our pro-2A agenda gets the attention that it deserves and I believe that we harm our ability to marshall those forces if we fight amongst ourselves. I confess that I find it disappointing that there is seeming hostility to OC. I'll speak only for myself, but earlier in this thread I reiterated yet again how I am FOR all of TSRA's agenda and agree that OC isn't among the top four or five priorities. Where is the similar sentiment? I don't own .50 cal weapons, but I'd never agree to a ban on them. I'm not a hunter, but I don't want to see restrictions there either. My point is that I support ALL pro-2A legislation whether I personally benefit or not. I hope others will consider a similar approach to OC.

SA-TX

Rex B wrote:SA-TX, I agree with you 99%

this part

"...next part of the debate has to be "What is the nature of the right conveyed by the 2nd that is beyond governmental control?""

needs to read

"...next part of the debate has to be "What is the nature of the right recognized by the 2nd that is beyond governmental control?""

Agreed. I stand corrected. The 2nd, like all of the bill of rights, simply protects the pre-existing rights endowed by our Creator as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

Purplehood wrote:

KC5AV wrote:I'd like to know what the open carry advocates have been doing for the last year since the legislature adjourned on June 1. Why have they waited until 6 months before the elections to attempt to get this on the TSRA agenda?

IMHO, that is opening up a whole new can of worms. Very good point. The implication to me is that there really is not as much fervent support for OC as some posters might like there to be.
My own list has it under the category of "Basic Rights that need to be reclaimed from overreaching governments", but not on my Priority List of "Realistic things that need to be done".

KC5AV, a quick history of the threads here will indicate that some of us have been working with TSRA and others on OC since the last session. There hasn't been any waiting. Until Charles's recent announcement that OC would definitely not be a part of the TSRA agenda, I thought we were making progress. I had hoped that while it may not be the highest priority bill -- and I agree that it should not be -- that it might at least be on the list of things that we attempt to get done.

To think that OC shouldn't be illegal doesn't mean that one can't support CC and the other items on TSRA's agenda. I support them all. I'll work hard for them all. I look forward to when they become law. I just want OC to be a part of the discussion.

Purplehood, I agree with you on the constitutional nature of this. Which parts of the First Amendment do we have to get a government license to exercise? What about the 4th Amemdement? The 5th? The 6th? These are fundamental principles of liberty. The forthcoming McDonald case should help this discussion. If the USSC says that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states via the 14th, the next part of the debate has to be "What is the nature of the right conveyed by the 2nd that is beyond governmental control?". That will get us to the heart of the matter, as I see it.

SA-TX

Jungle Work wrote:I was one of the few Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs who supported Concealed Carry in the eighties and early nineties and went to Austin to testify before committies on its impact in Texas. I told Ma Richards in August befor the election in November that she had lost the
election to George W. because of her stand on Concealed Carry. She told me that her advisors told her that Texans didn't want concealed
gun law. I have a nice letter from her telling me that she should have listened to the common Texan instead of her "advisor from Austin".

I support OC, but I'm also smart engouh to know that people have been working on the Parking Lot and Campus Carry Bills for far longer in
TSRA. I, as a member of TSRA am not willing to put Parking Lot and Campus Carry in jepardy to include OC this session. There are other sessions to include this. If it can be included without putting Parking Lot and Campus Carry in jepardy, I'm all for it.

Also, it so nice to be retired from LE.

Jungle Work

Thank you for your trust in the citizenry of Texas. We owe you a debt that is best repaid by continuing to demonstrate that your choice was a wise one.

I've said repeatedly that OC should not be ahead of those other bills nor threaten them.

What concerns me is our collective reluctance to take even the most minimal of steps. No planning. No drafting of a bill that would try to address all reasonable concerns. No discussion with legislators. If we don't have a bill introduced, we may be the ONLY non-OC shall-issue state not to have done so. I accept correction if proved otherwise but I believe that SC and FL had bills introduced last year and we know AR had a committee vote and OK passes a bill.

I can't speak for others but I'd like to not conclude so early that OC isn't possible in TX this session without hurting other pro-2A bills. If we HAVE to choose, I completely understand it being deferred but why is it DOA so early? Legislative sessions with generally favorable members & a pro-gun governor are too precious to waste.

SA-TX

cbunt1 wrote: for those who are adamant about openly carrying, would you be satisfied with making a revision to Texas' current CHL -- perhaps make it a "Carry a Handgun License" rather than a "Concealed Handgun License"?

That being said, if I have to choose between my TSRA working on Parking Lot Carry, and Campus Carry vs. a modification of what we already have...well, I say carry on Charles and Alice.

Yes it would be a good first step. While others might differ, I've said many times that parking lots, campus carry and others issues do deserve a higher priority. I simply want OC to be on the list, not at the top of it.

SA-TX

Charles L. Cotton wrote: When I use "OC" I'm using it here as shorthand because most members know what it means. When I'm talking to people, I always use the phrase "open carry." I can assure you that OC is not a little known concept, nor was the OC movement in 2009. The billboards and radio ads purchased by OpenCarry.org, combined with TV news reports and newspaper articles all combined to make the general population in Texas very much aware of OC. OC is appears to be a major issue with only a very small percentage of Texas gun owners.

Chas.

Given your position to make this evaluation, I trust your analysis. My gut also agrees and that's why I've said it is a niche issue.

Popularity aside, if the forthcoming McDonald decision applies the 2A to the States, shouldn't all Texas gun laws be examined by looking at 1) what is the fundamental right protected from governmental interferece by the 2A and 2) does the given law encroach on that inviolable territory. Unless you meet one of the exemptions, carrying a handgun in this state is a serious criminal offense. Can this be squared with "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? I don't see how a virtual BAN on bearing handguns -- clearly protected arms under Heller -- absent government permission and subject to their restrictions isn't infringing the core right.

Charles please help me understand this: what can the core right of "bearing arms", that is beyond regulation, be if it doesn't involve the most basic act possible -- openly carrying a handgun?

In asking the above question, which I believe is fundamental, I'm not disrespecting CC. I love CC and I think that states like Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona have it right when they allow their residents to exercise their freedom to bear arms in the manner they choose. I'm simply trying to make the constitutional question as simple as possible. For whatever reason most states have decided that concealed carry demands more scrutiny and thus have implemented licensing. Ultimately, those licensing schemes may or may not pass constitutional muster, but since these are more complex questions, I just want to stick to the clearest case.

Because I believe that bearing arms openly -- the simplest case -- is clearly within the core of the protected right, I believe that Texas' current statute is unconstitutional. I would prefer that the Legislature change it rather than the courts. That doesn't mean Texas has to have unfettered open carry. I'm confident that some time/place/manner restrictions would survive, as Heller discussed. Shouldn't the Legislature have the benefit of TSRA's views on this topic of epic importance? If, in fact, a United States Supreme Court ruling strongly implies that a Texas gun law is unconstitutional, shouldn't TSRA be leading the charge to have the Legislature fix this?

SA-TX

Charles L. Cotton wrote: First, I didn't say the entire 40,000 membership is evenly split. I said the "several members" with whom Howard Nimrov spoke were evenly split. Based upon the lack of calls or emails by our members, there is no reason to believe that OC is an issue to any significant portion of our membership. Even if the entire membership were evenly split, your suggestion would alienate 1/2 of our members by supporting the OC effort. How would you feel if we took the opposite approach and said something tending to oppose OC? I suspect you would be more than a little upset.

You've noted rightly that lack of support and opposition are two different things. Would 1/2 of the members necessarily be alienated simply because the affirmative support was 50%? There certainly have been more than a few "I don't really care one way or the other" replies here. Additionally there have been some "I support it but not ahead of x, y, z, ... ". Even the opposition here has been what I would classify as tactical: "I don't want more 30.06 signs"; "It isn't worth the risks to other priorities", etc. This implies that should it succeed without the bad stuff, they would not be unhappy but only that they are making risk/reward calculations. There probably have been some examples, but I don't recall many "I oppose OC in principle and will be upset should it come to Texas!" posts. I'm not claiming that this forum is representative of the TSRA membership as a whole -- in fact, my opinion is that it is not; I suspect this group is more activist and more closely follows all things gun-related -- but I do think it demonstrates that OC is an issue that has SOME level of interest beyond de minimus.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: As noted above, the members to whom Howard spoke at the 2009 annual meeting were evenly split. While he talked to several members, he didn't talk to all of the members present and certainly nowhere near our 40,000 members. Yes, TSRA knew of the OC movement so it was on our radar screen, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not on the radar screen of our members.

Could "Based upon the lack of calls or emails by our members, there is no reason to believe that OC is an issue to any significant portion of our membership." be related to "it's not on the radar screen of our members"? That is, many TSRA members probably don't know that "OC" stands for "open carry" or perhaps even what "open carry" is. I'll be the first to admit that OC is somewhat of a niche issue. If you don't closely follow events relating to legal gun carry across the nation it isn't a topic you'd likely encounter even for those who are generally pro-2A, sportsman, target shooters, etc.

Has TSRA considered actively measuring the opinion of its members on issues of interest? This is not limited to OC. Does regular polling or focus groups or requests for feedback on selected issues take place? Even though OC's general recognition is still low, there's been more reporting and newsworthy events surrounding it over the last few years. Has TSRA run any stories about it or published any information that fairly lists the pros and cons?

Charles L. Cotton wrote: My point is that Virginia-based OpenCarry.org was not well received in Austin and to start building goodwill in the Capitol and to have any realistic chance of passing OC, I believe the work must be done by an organization that is Texas-based and run by people who know how to pass legislation in Texas. TSRA could be an organization such as I described and undoubtedly would be, if a significant majority of our members supported OC and wanted us to spend a lot of political capital on OC.

...

Chas.

You've made it perfectly clear that it OC won't be a part of the 2011 agenda. You also said that planning for the next session starts 30 days after this one ends. Assume a perfect world where parking lot, college campus, and the range bill pass and become law. How would TSRA determine what the priorities are for the 2013 session?

SA-TX