TexasCHLforum.com

Liko81 wrote:

NcongruNt wrote:Why? Is there some magical property about a place that serves alcohol that would suddenly render us too stupid to carry?

Well, given that the number one crime for which CHL holders were arrested over the 10-year DPS study was DUI, I would say the Legislature has a pretty good reason to not tempt fate. We Texans like our guns, and we like our beer. Nothing wrong with either, but the combination usually makes the front page news, from a drunken domestic dispute turned deadly to Plaxico Burress' idiocy.

Personal responsibility is why I disagree. Because some yahoo can get drunk at a bar doesn't mean that I will. And rest assured, I won't. If I were to ever do so, I would fully expect to be prosecuted and punished for my wrongdoing, because it is my personal responsibility to follow the law. Restricting the rights and liberties of the masses because of the potential wrongdoings of the few is just wrong. Should we outlaw driving for anyone traveling to and from a place that serves alcohol as its main commodity? From your reasoning, we should. Driving while intoxicated is a far more common occurance than a CHLer carrying while intoxicated, but I don't see law restricting freedom of travel in a blanket fashion just because someone might get drunk and drive. Punishing people who break the law by driving while intoxicated holds people accountable for their actions, as it should be. The same holds true for carrying while intoxicated, and anyone who does so should be thrown in jail.

Liko81 wrote:If there's one thing I know about politics and laws, it's that you can find quite a few reasons to be insulted as to your abilities no matter whose state statutes you read. You're insulted that Texas does not believe you capable of maintaining self-restraint in a 51% establishment while carrying. I'm insulted that Texas seems to think that I am so incompetent with a handgun that I should not be allowed to carry one publicly until I have sat through 10 hours of class time and proven my marksmanship, not to mention proving I'm fiscally solvent enough to spare $250 along the way. Given that a bar would be lucky to have one in ten patrons as designated drivers, and only one in 100 of them statistically speaking would have a CHL and therefore still be legal if bar carry were allowed, you're irritating .1% of the population at most. Contrast that with the millions of Texas handgun owners who do not have a CHL, and which law's logic do you think insults more people when you really get down to it?

I reiterate; what practical advantage do you see in licensing open carry? The fact that every OCer will have had training? I'll tell you that no absolute is true, and what's more, you'll never be able to prove or disprove it without blatant Fourth Amendment violations. The only way you could know for sure if an OCer was legal is a Terry stop for ID, just like the only way you'd know a particular driver had insurance and a valid license would be to pull them over. Here's the rub; a police officer CAN'T do either of those, unless he/she has caught them breaking some other law or has reasonable suspicion that they have or are about to. Open carry, where legal, is not reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime. Or so say court opinions in open-carry states where that question has come up.

The advantage is political. In order to make a progression towards unlicensed open carry, we need to make inroads. We have concealed carry because of the concessions for training requirements and background checks pursuant to the issue of a license. If unlicensed concealed carry had been pushed without these requirements, I'm quite certain the law would never have passed 13 years ago. Furthermore, had unlicensed concealed carry passed we'd have no reciprocity agreements with other states, rather than folks being able to carry in their travels as they do now. Licensed open carry is a more reasonable proposition because it provides some sort of assurance to the opposition and (more importantly) fence-sitters that people will be trained in the use of their firearms and applicable law. That reason alone could make the difference between a bill passing and failing. I'm sure you're quite proficient with the use of your firearms and familiar with Texas law concerning the regulation of carrying arms, but most people in Texas are not.

You find a regulation concerning the carrying of arms in a place that serves alcohol reasonable - even with the knowledge that everyone who has a CHL is required to be familiar with and prove that they are knowledgeable about where and when they can and cannot carry. Then you are opposed to a training requirement for folks carrying firearms who have no demonstrated knowledge in firearms safety or firearms law? Your logic fails me.

I am for all for freedom of travel, but I find it quite reasonable to require training, demonstrated knowledge of traffic law, and demonstrated driving skill to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. I find it quite reasonable to ask that if someone were to carry a handgun in public, that person should be able to demonstrate a basic knowledge of firearms safety and firearms law - especially given the political climate and opposition to open carry. A vehicle in the hands of someone without even basic driving skills and traffic law is a potentially very dangerous situation. The same can be said of firearms. If we can assure our political opponents that folks who open carry understand the law and how to safely carry and handle a firearm, it could make things considerably easier to pass OC legislation.

nitrogen wrote:I'd support licensed open carry.

My dream law would be open carry, unlicensed with similar restrictions as in force for CHL's now, then licensed open or concealed carry for CHL'ers with many fewer restrictions, keeping perhaps bars and courthouses.

Why? Is there some magical property about a place that serves alcohol that would suddenly render us too stupid to carry? We as CHLs are required to obey every other aspect of the law regarding our guns and behavior. I see not one reason why carry should be restricted in bars, especially considering that going to and from such a place places us at more risk to attack than most other places. Cars are frequently broken into near such locations, and barring carry from such a place increases the incidence of guns stolen from vehicles, enabling criminals to commit serious crimes and putting gun owners at risk to loss of property. We are expected to stay within the law regardless of location, and intoxicated is the same whether it is in a bar, a restaurant, or at a movie theater (such as Alamo Drafthouse).

Before anyone says "you shouldn't go to a location like that", I would say:

Not every 51% location is a "bar". For example, Stubb's in Austin is mainly a music venue, but posted 51%. Whether it actually is or not is inascertainable, because TABC provides no mechanism to concretely find out, short of specifically asking to see the liquor license - an action that would put the requester under considerable suspicion in many establishments, as well as being a significantly difficult task given the immense size of venues such as Stubb's. Even then, a location considered by TABC to be 51% could actually not be, (such as all-ages venues with high ticket prices such as Stubb's or Zona Rosa), but there is no concrete way to verify the esitmation short of an investigation of revenues, and that's simply not going to happen short of some sort of charge against the licensed property. Regardless, the venue a person patronizes is irrelevant, as long as is within the law for a person to be there in the first place. I shouldn't have to surrender my most effective means of defense because I decide to join friends or coworkers or family in a social gathering in a public place. I do not get intoxicated, regardless of whether I am carrying. It is an insult to imply in the law that I am somehow unable to control myself because I cross the property lines of a bar or pub or music venue.

Back to the topic at hand, I can't really participate in the poll, because I think the timing is poor to try and push open carry. Were it to even get introduced, licensed open carry would be preferable because it is a more defensible position to push, due to the incredible scrutiny and attack such proposed legislation would certainly come under. I'd much sooner see 51% locations, sporting events, political meetings, and universities be removed from the list of prohibited places first. Once the official implication in the law that we as people who carry for self-defense are somehow untrustworthy in these locations is eliminated, open carry would be an easier proposal to push. With the law implying that we are somehow dangerous in certain situations, it colors public perception about folks who carry for self defense in general. I'd like to see that cleared up and proven out first before jumping headlong into open carry.