TexasCHLforum.com

DoubleJ wrote:

HerbM wrote: How many CHL holders (or illegal) guns have you seen or (likely) detected this week? This year? Ever?

I just assume everyone's carrying.
especially is they have a fannypack on ......

Good plan!

And thanks everyone for signing -- I think I prefer CC myself, but removing as many gun control laws as possible is a good thing.

Control criminals.

Texan wrote:I'm not against Open Carry, I think it would serve as a deterrent, Crackhead thugs would know that the Battlefield is equal.
My Question is, Wouldn't an Open Carry Law cause Business owners to Post the Legal No gun signs?, I'm sure Business owners would be thinking about the concerns of their customers who would Probably Protest someone walking in the Store with a weapon. People way of thinking, they wouldn't be ready for that.

We don't know yet, since we don't know what such a law would say.

Let's not assume the worst, but lets also make sure that changes we encourage are good changes.

Maybe a simple "No guns" or ghostbuster could prohibit open carry while leaving the CHL laws unchanged.

Personally, I think anyone running a public access business can either provide a secure lockup for checking firearms, and armed search of those entering, or take down the signs. After all, that sign is NOT STOPPING the DANGEROUS CRIMINAL.

Most people only put up such signs due to their insurance companies or boiler plate company policies, especially for CHL. It's concealed so no one cares otherwise.

How many CHL holders (or illegal) guns have you seen or (likely) detected this week? This year? Ever?

And if you have seen them, were they LEOs, CHL, otherwise law abiding, or generally criminals?

Without a security check point a sign is worse than worthless -- they are dangerous.

maximus2161 wrote:My question is how likely is the real possibility of Texas allowing open carry? And if something like that happened would Texas be either open carry only or concealed carry only?

Personally I would love the option to have both.

We must not lose CHL unless it is merely to remove the licensing portion of concealed carry.

The VA model seems right as a good start: OC unlicensed and CHL licensed even though the license is unconstitutional for a natural right (as declared in Heller) since they cannot show any value over unlicensed concealed carry.

Keep what we have -- get back the rest of our rights.

It should never be about "which is better" -- that is for each person to decide, and to alter as circumstance indicate.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

HerbM wrote:Why a flame shield? There is a giant difference between arguing for gun control and prioritizing your own desires for what should be fixed.

Two people have recently been banned because of their incessant argumentative, condescending and inflammatory statements towards other members. In fact, you sound so much like one of them, I suspect you are. I'm sick of you labeling any position you disagree with as "gun control." Knock it off.

Chas.

I am not any of those people, and I was agreeing with him -- he wasn't using any gun control arguments long exposed as fallacious, but was rather expressing a preference for which order things should be done.

Please check your facts and get them correct before threatening to ban someone.

Owens wrote:I've had a few things to say regarding my opinion of OC before. No need to rehash.

Could it happen some day? Yes. Would I make use of it? Maybe. Here's the thing. I believe there are other things that need fixed and just may make an inroad to OC.

1. The 'parking lot' law. This needs to get fixed. As an example, there are colleges that having a firearm on campus is not a problem. How? Having the firearm in a vehicle is not considered having it on campus. On campus begins at the door of a building. The campuses are considered 'open with public access'. How is this ANY different from a parking lot of the XYZ Company?
...
2. carry restrictions. Governor Perry, not long after the Virginia Tech incident, made the statement that CHL folks should be able to carry anywhere they wanted. As we all know, a CHL'd person is not the problem. Basically, a CHL person should be able to carry anywhere a LEO does.
...
/flameshield on

Why a flame shield? There is a giant difference between arguing for gun control and prioritizing your own desires for what should be fixed.

Parking lots are actually much more controversial -- an interesting number of CHL holders believe that "property rights" (of the business) trump your rights to self-defense and to keep and bear arms. (I disagree, and do so on both property right AND self-defense AND RKBA grounds 3 to 1). Your car you rights. If the business doesn't want to allow firearms in the parking lot then don't allow private vehicles.

Once you allow my vehicle you accept the lawful contents of it.

And I do thank everyone for signing the petition for open carry.

ALL gun control laws should be repealed. Every single one of them.

Liberty wrote:

HerbM wrote:
If you are one of the ones inventing reasons not to do this, ask yourself why you are having an emotion reaction and not going over the OpenCarry.org and discussing the technical and tactical details with expert and experienced people?

Mostly because THe arguement on both sides gets pretty old. Its all been said on this board 100 times before.

HerbM wrote: Why would anyone with a CHL or who even owns a firearm at home favor gun control?

Gun control is wrong. ALL gun control.

None of it can be proven to work. None.

with many of us its not about supporting gun control. its about distraction from more important issues. Some folks want to carry in the open. I personally care more about unarmed teachers and students. I don't want to see distractions that don't stand a chance interfere with a school carry bill.

So do I -- priorities are one thing, right and wrong another.

It is also possible we can achiever more sweeping reform all at once if we find the write leverage point and it is important that even as we accept infringements we do so KNOWINGLY and not gratefully.

That is referring to grateful to the GOVERNMENT -- it is fine to be (forever) grateful to someone like Rep Hupp and all the others in and out of government who pushed the CHL changes while still recognizing that even a CHL (requirement) is an infringement of rights.

It is one thing to want to see more changes in a certain order (presuming we can't have the all which should itself never be considered a given) and quite another to accept gun control and excuse it.

It is quite common for many of us (myself at times too) to presume that something like NICS/Brady background checks are "reasonable" when they simply are not.

Target1911, I'm impressed.

anygunanywhere wrote: ...
MOst states made concealed carry illegal. SCOTUS ruled a long time ago that concealed carry is not protected. I think the ruling would have to go that OC is protected.

...
Anygun

There is no such US Supreme Court case or decision.

Tomorrow's Heller is almost with any precedent -- although there is Miller and some other dicta mentions of the 2nd Amendment, there isn't anything that controls on the RKBA. Miller is defective -- this was always easy to see because it is used by both sides (no one can really say what Miller says with any certainty).

NcongruNt wrote:

HerbM wrote:There still has not been ONE argument against open carry either supported by the facts or different from the EXACT SAME (and tired) old arguments copied direction from the Brady Bunch against home defense and concealed carry -- except one:

I don't like it and it is therefore not for me.

Every other 'reason' is just a bad as what the Brady folks do...and by now everyone knows that.

You seem to be repeating yourself:

HerbM wrote: Of course the arguments against open carry are tired old arguments -- they are tired and old because they are the same ones the gun banners use against the CHL/CCW and even defensive guns in the home.

There is only one valid argument against open carry. It is true, and it is sufficient.

"I don't want to open carry, as it is not right for me."

All the other reasons turn out to be just nonsense when applied to anyone else and we know this the same way we know that the arguments against defensive firearms and the CHL are bogus:

Opinions are fine when they sound reasonable unless they just don't correspond to the reality of the evidence.

People doing it everyday prove that all of this works. Home defense, concealed carry, and open carry.

The only difference that means anything is personal choice.

Choice is good. Gun control is bad.


ALL gun control is bad.

Perhaps you would like to bring something new to the discussion. Where are these "FACTS" you mention, and how to we obtain them. It seems to me that Charles brought a valid argument supported by historical facts that occurred here in Texas in response to the CHL statute being passed. You seem to be dismissing what he has contributed to the discussion.

No, not really because there are no facts that support the gun control position -- including the arguments against open carry.

Someone would have to post something because rank opinion, some study or some such that shows some gun control work -- but that isn't going to happen because all that has been refuted over and over.

In the places where open carry is practiced they have no problems -- show otherwise, don't speculate or make up problems that don't exist.

That is precisely equal to the "blood will run in the streets" argument against CHLs.

There is no difference when you or they make up problems that are not supported by the facts nor any evidence.

Gun control is nothing but propaganda. All gun control.

There still has not been ONE argument against open carry either supported by the facts or different from the EXACT SAME (and tired) old arguments copied direction from the Brady Bunch against home defense and concealed carry -- except one:

I don't like it and it is therefore not for me.

Every other 'reason' is just a bad as what the Brady folks do...and by now everyone knows that.

Don't you just love it when friends and supporters tell you that failure is inevitable even before any evidence is available?

Of course the arguments against open carry are tired old arguments -- they are tired and old because they are the same ones the gun banners use against the CHL/CCW and even defensive guns in the home.

There is only one valid argument against open carry. It is true, and it is sufficient.

"I don't want to open carry, as it is not right for me."

All the other reasons turn out to be just nonsense when applied to anyone else and we know this the same way we know that the arguments against defensive firearms and the CHL are bogus:

Opinions are fine when they sound reasonable unless they just don't correspond to the reality of the evidence.

People doing it everyday prove that all of this works. Home defense, concealed carry, and open carry.

The only difference that means anything is personal choice.

Choice is good. Gun control is bad.


ALL gun control is bad.

iratollah wrote:Question for the proponents of OC. Why don't you open carry your long guns today? Think of the deterrent value if 4 of you are sitting in the park or the Dairy Queen with your Remington 870s. Throw in maybe an M4 into the mix just for a little variety. This is legal, so long as the DQ manager has no issue with it and the park is public property. Why aren't you doing this sort of thing today if OC is such a great idea and an ideal exercise of your 2A rights?

Good idea. We should have a meet sometime.

But mostly it is a matter of convenience -- a long gun ties up your hands even if you sling it -- and when slung is isn't nearly are ready to be deployed (as all soldiers know, you don't sling a rifle when you think there might be combat.)

Again and again, the behavior we see is that people who either don't want, or don't understand open carry retread the tired old arguments and lies we hear from the gun banners.

If you are one of the ones inventing reasons not to do this, ask yourself why you are having an emotion reaction and not going over the OpenCarry.org and discussing the technical and tactical details with expert and experienced people?

Why would anyone with a CHL or who even owns a firearm at home favor gun control?

Gun control is wrong. ALL gun control.

None of it can be proven to work. None.

I wonder how many (non-shooting enthusiasts) in those open carry states even realize that it is legal in their state?

They are learning -- that is what the very healthy open carry Internet site and groups are doing.

(Re-)Establishing their rights -- getting people, citizens and police used to it again.

It's working. No significant problems.

And yes, more and more are carrying, just like CHL/CCW grows.

We can make up a million reasons why it won't work but the simple truth is that:

It's all good.

135boomer wrote:Open carry would also be another obstacle the anti gunners would have to deal with before they get to our CHLs. I'm all for that!

Good point!!! Push 'em back. Push 'em back. Waaaay baack!

As one of the proponents here of open carry, I asked in the thread that I started that we take the argument over Open Carry tactics over to the experienced folks at OpenCarry.org http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/, especially VA, PA, NC, and some of the more active states.

Most of us aren't qualified to say what open carry tactics make sense (yet), but we do KNOW that Open Carry causes NO significant problems just like CHL/CCW concealed carry cause NO significant problem.

We all should have the CHOICE. No one should be required to open carry, nor concealed carry, nor even own a firearm. No license nor even training should ever be required by the state. Not to own, not to carry concealed, nor openly.

Training is good, but there is no evidence (none) that training makes a difference to open nor concealed carry. Get training because you want to be safe, not because the government setup a barrier to you exercising a right.

Maybe some people do think that because we have "training" and we have a "license" we are special -- we are not.

Maybe some people think it is impossible but then 40+ states with essentially Shall Issue Concealed Carry would have sounded impossible in 1990. Defeatism is never a valid argument.

Anti-gunners always start the propaganda war with "blood in the streets", "return to the wild west", and "shoot outs at every red light" etc, but these things just don't happen in any significant way no matter how many gun control laws get kicked to the curb.

Problems with law-abiding citizens and firearms are virtually non-existent.



And none of use should be punished nor denied our rights due to the bad behavior of OTHER PEOPLE, e.g., criminals.