TexasCHLforum.com

My point is -- in the process of legislating us new rights (which if we're purists here we'd accept that the whole concept of licensing in the first place is unconstitutional) we may cause some initial alarm that results in businesses responding to their customer base who may object to that by posting lawful 30.06 signs. I'm also doubtful that folks will be convinced that guns aren't inherently dangerous as a result of this anymore than you can have/win the abortion argument (whatever side you are on) with someone with deeply convicted views to the contrary. I'm in the Austin area, and I could definitely see this happening in Travis County. I'd expect to see a lot more 30.06 signs. And I'm not sure what will have been gained by all this.

The only way I could see this working is if we eliminated the 30.06 notification and went with a verbal notification (like PA where I used to live) only, which I doubt would ever happen here -- and I'm not sure I'd support anyway since I'm a property rights guy, and folks ought to have the right to post private property to exclude folks with guns, dogs, tophats, etc.

I'm with a few other posters here who'd rather see the employer parking lot, same restrictions as LEOs, etc. be the priorities. I may or may not carry openly if this passes, and it would be nice to have the ability to do so. However, I'm concerned about a few secondary effects.

To me, this is an issue for the courts, not leglislation. Until/unless we have a firm and comprehensive judicial review of the intentions of the 2A, we're going to be stuck with this silly patchwork of state laws and rules that clearly infringe. Until then, I'm content to carry quietly and within the law here in Texas, and I try not to make too many waves.

mr.72 wrote:

ralewis wrote: fear that as folks (even in small numbers) begin to carry openly, places like Target, Best Buy, Applebees will respond to 'panicked' patrons by posting a lawful 30.06 sign.

Well, OTOH, this is partly the argument in favor of OC. I think the theory is that since guns being carried by regular citizens are hidden, then many people are oversensitized to the presence of guns, thus helping to perpetuate the idea among many people that only nuts and criminals are carrying guns. Now, if a large number of people do in fact think that only nuts and criminals are carrying guns, then suddenly they begin to see people carrying openly then they will naturally respond by thinking these must be nuts or criminals. However after some time, it is likely that society at large would become desensitized to the presence of guns in plain view and would not immediately assume that anyone openly carrying a handgun is either a criminal or a nut.

Of course, during the transition time, it very well may result in more lawful 30.06 signs. Assuming this theory holds true, and that eventually society will gain acceptance of guns carried in the open, then eventually these signs would likely be taken down as more people carry openly and it becomes clear that merchants are losing business due to their policies.

I am not necessarily endorsing this theory, just pointing out that there are two sides to the coin. I think that we'd all be better off if it was routine for people to see law-abiding citizens carrying guns without irrational reactions, but in the short term it would be foolish to expect this to happen instantly.

So, you are saying that an increase in the number of guns gun-fobic people see will increase their acceptance of guns? I get the logic of what you are saying, and I fundamentally believe that increasing your exposure to things you fear makes you fear them less, BUT we're not talking about folks that think through this issue. I mean the base issue we're fighting is that law abiding folks abide by the law and are the MOST impacted by gun control laws while criminals could care less about the laws that are passed. It's mathematically provable that folks are safer with more guns in the hands of law abiding folks, but that proof does not discourage gun control efforts. Normally reasonable people continue to believe they are safer by excluding law abiding citizens from carrying guns, and these are the folks you are counting on to accept guns by exposing them to more guns?..... Maybe you are right given a suitably long time frame, but I'm not sure I want this to become North Carolina where you can get a license but end up not being able to carry anywhere that most normal folks frequent.

My concern with the Open Carry issue is that increasing the awareness that folks carry may result in more placeing being legally posted. I've been carrying for 4 years now, and I'm quite happy to not highlight the fact that folks like me are carrying. I fear that as folks (even in small numbers) begin to carry openly, places like Target, Best Buy, Applebees will respond to 'panicked' patrons by posting a lawful 30.06 sign.

I'd rather put the emphasis on allowing CHL holders to carry anywhere LEOs can carry, and perhaps completely de-criminalize failing to conceal (which is different than open carry much in the way decriminalizing marajuana possession (vs distribution) has been decriminalized in some places-- make it at most the equivalent of a speeding ticket) .

Making a big deal about unintentially failing ot conceal as a justification for Open Carry to me is silly. As CHL folks, we're far more observent than most folks when it comes to guns (how many of us have 'made' other CHL folks and chuckled about it.), and I would be shocked if anyone would notice/care if they were witness any of us 'unintentionally failing to conceal."

I wouldn't vote against it certainly, but I definitely am NOT a passionate supporter of this issue. Let's think of some of the potential side effects though such as I suggested above.