TexasCHLforum.com

Douva wrote: Refresh my memory--when was New Mexico's lengthy, heated, well-publicized legislative battle over open carry? Oh, that's right, they never had one. New Mexico never had a statutory prohibition against open carry. They had legalized open carry long before they had legalized concealed carry; therefore, you're comparing apples to oranges.

Also, New Mexico does not have specific signage requirements--a business owner can use any sign, no matter how big or small, to prohibit carry on the premises. And until next month, restaurant carry is still illegal. Convenience store/grocery store carry was illegal until 2007. And they still don't allow carry in state parks or on public transportation. In the seven years I've been a CHL holder, we Texans have had a lot more freedom in where we can carry than have our neighbors in New Mexico, so I don't really envy New Mexico's freedom in how they can carry.

First off your right they never had to fight to get this right restored, however when it comes to making money a business will do whats in its best interest. If you have people start faxing, mailing, and/or emailing copies of receipts from competitors they will either change their ways or ignore you based on how many people and how much money is involved.

Secondly, your right NM doesn't have specific requirements for a sign, BUT I was comparing the number of signs I have seen over there to the number of signs I have seen here INCLUDING our 30.06 sign. As I said earlier a GOOD OC/CC bill would include language that sufficient notice was acceptable to prevent unlicensed carry which would push businesses to post any sign besides 30.06 to ban unlicensed carry leaving 30.06 to be used for banning carry by license holders. If a business wanted to completely ban legal carry they would have to post the "Big Ugly" and another sign which would make them seem redundant, ignorant, paranoid, unreasonable, scared, ect. to their customers. As for comparing apples to oranges you sometimes have to, especially when you want to describe the taste, look, feel, or other differences between them. I like both, but one of my friends is allergic to citrus so she can only have apples.

When I leave work I can drive twenty miles to cross the state line into New Mexico and into an open carry state. As a general rule they have on average no more or fewer "no guns signs" than we do (our 30.06 included). I want to think that some businesses would post signs to prohibit carry while many more will take the Starbuck's approach and simply ignore the issue. The few that do post signs will get all the media attention while those that don't will get our money. A good OC/CC (Constitutional Carry) bill would have language to the effect that sufficient notice is all that is required to prevent open/unlicensed carry leaving 30.06 alone where it applies to license holders only. A good OC/CC bill would need to go out of its way to ensure that its goals do not conflict or reduce our current rights and the bill that was proposed last session would not have done that.

I think the end result that everyone wants to see is constitutional carry for Texas in the AZ and AK style (no license required but one is available if you want to go out of state). In the end I would like to constitutional carry nation wide without any kind of baggage. Now for those who remember the whole media backlash against concealed carry I would like to point out that the public went against the media and demanded concealed carry and it was a key issue in the governors race back then which put "W." into the governor's seat.

I'm not saying OC can or will repeat this I'm just saying that the media backlash can have little or no meaning.

Its not that anyone is saying that promoting OC will hurt other pro-gun bills, its that TSRA will not support OC with its limited political capital at this time because the membership doesn't indicate that they want it on the agenda. If the TSRA is shown a significant amount of interest in OC by its membership then they will consider it for the 2013 session. As it stands they want to concentrate the majority of their political capital on Campus Carry and the parking lot bill. My advice is draft a GOOD bill that will not hurt concealed carry and get someone to support it. If OCDO wants to make progress then they need to be polite, friendly, and go back to the politicians they burned last session in order to apologize. I am willing to work towards OC myself, but I will not be involved in any name calling or political flame wars. The whole point of our current situation is that OC is currently not on the TSRA agenda but they will fight a bad bill so any legislation that is proposed needs to be good or neutral towards their efforts. My instincts are to listen to what Mr Cotton says because he has played this game a lot longer than we have and he knows what he's doing.

Conagher wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:To summarize the results of this thread
1: TSRA is not going to do anything for OC at this time, its not part of their agenda because there is not enough interest in their membership.

How do you know this? How is this being determined? How was this determined for Employeer Parking Lot and SCCC?

G.A. Heath wrote: 2: TSRA will not appose a GOOD OC bill (Last years drafted legislation does not qualify as good), but will appose a bad one.

How will TSRA know if it is a GOOD or BAD OC bill? Charles has stated, and I am assume this to be true for other TSRA staffers, that they cannot and will not review and comment

G.A. Heath wrote: 3: OCDO Has made personal attacks on legislators, TSRA staff, ect. and as a result has hurt their efforts in the future.

O.K.??? Not sure what this has to do with the OP.

G.A. Heath wrote: 4: A Texas based organization is needed because: A: Texans don't want to be told what to do by people from out of state. B: It has more political potential.

This was not true for Employee Parking Lot or SCCC, but please sign me up as member #2! (assuming you are member 1)

G.A. Heath wrote: 5: SCCC may not be a Texas based organization but after the Virginia Tech attack the governor indicated he would support such legislation so it gets a better position than OC along with other reasons).

I believe the governer also indicated his support of OC last year.

G.A. Heath wrote: 6: Its too late to get the TSRA involved in this years OC movement, even if the membership showed major support for it, so we need to quit beating that dead horse.

OC carry will be pursued in 2011, even Charles recognizes this. How will TSRA respond if a legislator asks for their review or opinion on a draft bill?

Thanks and Have a Nice Day!

All my statements regarding the TSRA are based on Mr Cotton's statements in this thread and others. As for Parking lot and SCCC getting TSRA support you have to know that the membership indicated they want those items. As for TSRA not reading a bill, you can sure bet they will read ANYTHING remotely gun related and will appose anything that will have a negative impact on what they have already achieved. As for #3, lets just say that its a lot harder to get someones assistance after you have attacked them as a group or individually. My purpose regarding txopencarry.com is to get the ball rolling on a Texas based group, if anyone wants to help and behaves themselves (none of that ugly business from last session please) I'm willing to work with them. Maybe the governor did indicate support for it, but he voice it very loudly. You want to get a public record of his position out in mass media? Call Tom Gresham's Gun Talk radio show this Sunday and see if you can ask him, or better yet email Tom and see if you can get him to ask Governor Perry about it. I never said OC will not be persued in 2011, I just repeated the fact that TSRA will not be involved in it for 2011.

To summarize the results of this thread
1: TSRA is not going to do anything for OC at this time, its not part of their agenda because there is not enough interest in their membership.
2: TSRA will not appose a GOOD OC bill (Last years drafted legislation does not qualify as good), but will appose a bad one.
3: OCDO Has made personal attacks on legislators, TSRA staff, ect. and as a result has hurt their efforts in the future.
4: A Texas based organization is needed because: A: Texans don't want to be told what to do by people from out of state. B: It has more political potential.
5: SCCC may not be a Texas based organization but after the Virginia Tech attack the governor indicated he would support such legislation so it gets a better position than OC along with other reasons).
6: Its too late to get the TSRA involved in this years OC movement, even if the membership showed major support for it, so we need to quit beating that dead horse.

Due to computer issues I have not had much time for this since Saturday. I am willing to step up and do something, not because I want to open carry (because I don't) but because I feel it is important.

One thing I am reading Charles as saying is that we need a Texas based group/organization to get involved, I personally doubt we will see anything this session as time is running out, but in order to facilitate a Texas organization I registered a domain and setup some forums. I was wanting to wait and get things cleaned up and a logo of some sort in place but I will go public with it now. Should a Texas based organization form and prove themselves organized I will transfer the domain to them. I will even host it as long as I can afford to. Now who else is willing to step up to the plate and do something besides demand someone else do something? The website is http://txopencarry.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In fact if someone drafts a GOOD bill I will even contact my legislators and politely ask them to support it after thanking them for the work they have done so far.

Here's my opinion. A well written bill will not permit any additional regulation on concealed carry (Could even improve it), will not tie OC to 30.06. Preferably it will not even touch on prohibition beyond reasonable notification and will allow gun busters and the ilk to prohibit open carry at will while retaining the requirement that 30.06 be used to ban concealed carry only.

The bill that was proposed for the 2009 session was an effort to get OC by restricting CC. Ideally I would like to see constitutional carry Along the lines of Alaska and Arizona (When it goes into effect) where there is no requirement for a license period, but retaining the CHL for people who wish to carry into more "restricted" locations and/or out of state. Based on what I observed the guys who were pushing OC last session have a long term goal of Vermont style carry (no license/permit required, none offered) and saw trading "short term" losses regarding CC in exchange for OC as acceptable. To me, I believe it also applies to most Texans and the TSRA, this is unacceptable as we want to gain, gain, gain and not give up any more ground. We have given up, or lost, ground since reconstruction and now is the time to take back what the carpet baggers, KKK, and their racist ilk have stolen back from us. I will take any gains we can get that do not come with too high of a price tag, but I also want to see our political capital be spent wisely getting legislation that we can get instead of wasting it on something that manner politicians are afraid of touching because of certain parties last session.