TexasCHLforum.com

LSUTiger wrote:

Why shouldn't you get plugged on sight when walking into anywhere OCing a handgun? Why shouldn't you get plugged on sight the second you accidentally expose your CC handgun? So you are saying that it's ok to just go an shoot anyone who is exercising their 2A rights and following the law? Their needs to be a little more that just possessing firearms to justify shooting on sight when carrying . Carrying a long gun whether OC or CC is lawful in TX and not LTC required.

Because a holstered handgun, either openly carried or concealed sends a totally different message than a rifle slung across your chest at the low ready. Just as you stated, the terrorists and nut jobs are shooting up places with a rifle, so I am rather uncomfortable when someone comes walking into a public place with an AR 15 slung across their chest, magazine inserted, ejection port cover closed, and their hand on the pistol grip. You can thank OCT for this. Out where I hunt in west Texas, everyone carries their rifles into the local cafe instead of leaving them on the jeeps and four wheelers... but they are slung over the shoulder, and then placed in racks or corners... again, different vibe and does not cause anyone concern.

LSUTiger wrote:Yes, I do carry a rifle caliber pistol in my vehicle. But like all guns, it won't do me much good if I don't have it on me when I need it. If I can make it back to my vehicle chances are I am going to just get the heck out.

So we are the on the same page here... first response is to leave the situation.

LSUTiger wrote:And sheeple is a good word to describe the people, whether they know it or not, that are just going around waiting to be slaughtered like sheep with out any sort of armed self defense plan. That doesn't make me a sheepdog. The only sheep I worry about are my own, I'll help others if I can but it's a me first attitude not a hero complex.

Most folks who use the term sheeple, also use sheepdog and wolves... if you aren't one of the sheep, then you are either a sheepdog or wolve.

LSUTiger wrote:I have occasionally OCed a long guns although it was briefly, getting in and out of vehicles, returning guns/showing guns to friends in the parking lot at lunch, after sighting in rifles/mounting scopes and such things. No one has ever complained.

Nobody will give much thought to you getting out of your car with a rifle in the parking lot at Cabela's or the local range. Bringing a rifle into a work Christmas party (San Bernadino) or open carrying your AR into Starbuck's or the local grocery are a little different... and continually doing it to the point where the business must take a stand on firearms is just stupid.

LSUTiger wrote:The reason I don't regularly OC a long gun is not because it's inconvenient, I'd do it in a heart beat of it was more acceptable. Now that OC of handguns for LTC is law, they can go take a flying leap, I'll OC hand guns where allowed.

That is fine, carry away... but from the number of signs going up, the places allowed seem to be somewhat limited.

LSUTiger wrote:In any case, OC handguns or long guns, a journey of a 1000 miles begins with the first step. Now that OC of handguns is legal, more people will become desensitized to it. Hopefully in time that will transfer over to long guns. I'm not using OCT in you face sort of tactics, but I'm trying to use the one step at a time approach. But there comes a time when the next step forward is to actually exercise your rights instead of being afraid to use them. And if merely exercising your rights is considered "in your face" tactics then I'll just have to say suck it up buttercup.

So I'll OC handguns where I can and I still have no problems with people OCing long guns.

As for carrying long guns when eating dinner or movies, whether OC or CC is lawful in TX and not LTC required. If take down long guns were more practical to deploy, I certainly would.

I see a Keltec Sub2000 or SU-16 in my future or perhaps I'll have to SBR my AR pistol, it sure would help to get around those annoying 30.06 signs.

Next time I go to dinner I will bring my AR pistol in my tennis racket case. I will let you know how it goes.

I really doubt that more people will become desensitized from open carry. If it goes like most other states, after the newness wears off, very few will actually do it in the urban areas. Many will save the OC for when they are out on the farm, or the hunting lease. The signs may even come down in the urban areas, but if you carry into a business you may still be asked to leave.

And I've never seen open carry of long guns (other than hunting or military environments) anywhere but here... and that has only been recently.

chuckybrown wrote:

cyphertext wrote: and is not an accepted social norm.

"...and ladies and gentlemen of the jury, THIS is exactly where our Constitutuion began to wither on the vine..."

(and how men came to wear skinny jeans with decorated pockets, which is a while 'nother thread in and of itself)

A business or private property owner telling you that you can not carry your rifle, or any other weapon for that matter, on their property has nothing to do with your constitutional rights.

Even our fore fathers did not carry their rifles around the town square at all times. They took up arms at times when needed, not for parading and attention whoring.

LSUTiger wrote:
Ancedotal evidence isn't a wise strategy and "sheepdog" is not my term.

I carry to protect me and mine and if In the process someone else benefits then it's their lucky day.

A problem some people have is assuming they know what type of person someone is and questioning their motives because of it instead of evaluating the logic behind what they say

im sure you think I'm the sheepdog type out to play hero to the world but thats the furthest from the truth.

i just believe you feel it necessary to carry a handgun you probably should also carry a rifle too as a practicle matter

Umm, anecdotal evidence is exactly what you give in your "remember San Bernadino" line... And you used the word "sheeple", "wolf" and "sheepdog" are the other terms that go with that. I also notice that you are trying to dodge my question of why you shouldn't be plugged on site when walking into a Christmas party carrying a rifle and wearing a vest with 210 round load out.

So, again I will ask, do you carry a rifle everywhere you go? You carry that rifle with you when you go out to eat with your wife? Maybe to the movies?

I doubt it, as it is just too inconvenient and is not an accepted social norm.

Ruark wrote:

Middle Age Russ wrote:[quoteGood luck winning anyone over using insults such as "Fudds".]

I certainly agree that insulting someone will never help win them over. While I might recognize someone as having the opinions of a Fudd, I certainly would never refer to them in that manner in any discourse with them.

I agree. The name-calling isn't warranted, but the fundamental concept is valid. I had an assistant once (R.I.P.), an old guy in his 70s who had been an avid deer hunter for some 50-60 years. Him and his old buddies bought a big deer lease every year, bagged a bunch of deer, he had mounts in his house, the whole nine yards. But he'd probably never been near a handgun in his life. Once I commented to him how some idiots wanted to ban handguns, and he got fired up and said "well, they should ban'em, good heavens, too many people out there shootin' each other, there's no use for those stupid things." End of conversation.

There are fewer and fewer of those type... at least in my experience. Most of the under 50 crowd today support the ownership of semi automatics, and are involved with shooting sports outside of hunting.

Middle Age Russ wrote:2A supporters come in all stripes -- from rabid absolutists (Everyone should Always have multiple guns on them and the Government can't do anything to stop them) to the aforementioned Fudds whose support is largely based on having and using game-getting guns in-season. While not totally an absolutist myself, their stance is both irritating in the bravado often expressed and correct from the perspective of history. A monopoly of force inevitably results in individual rights being trampled -- an eventuality the Founders clearly understood and the reason for the Second Amendment to our Constitution. The "danger" I see with the Fudds is their apparent willingness to "compromise" again and again as long as the results don't affect their ability to go afield a few times a year. The resolve of the anti-gun element is consistent, and they fully understand the strategy of incrementalism, so such compromises only result in further compromises until the right has been limited out of existence. There are droves of Fudds out there, and at least some of them might be sympathetic to a broader reading of the Second Amendment than they typically espouse, but the challenge is to win them over. Too few people today bother with history and the lessons we should have learned from it.

Good luck winning anyone over using insults such as "Fudds".

LSUTiger wrote:

cyphertext wrote:

LSUTiger wrote:

cyphertext wrote:

LSUTiger wrote:
And before the anti-OCT/OC crowd chimes in I must say that while OCT's cause is righteous I disagree with much of their tactics. But rights not exercised are rights lost.

I think you will find that most agree with you here about the cause vs. tactics. However, I don't believe that the 2A gives you the right to carry your AR 15 into the local Chipotle... As you stated, that right is there to protect against tyranny, and I haven't witnessed an tyrannical oppression at my local Starbuck's. Look at the Battle of Athens... Those men took up their arms when it was necessary to insure their county election was without corruption. Once order had been restored, the arms were put away... not paraded down at the local cafe. Time and place.

When I'm sitting at the cafe and some terrorist or other crazy wants to have his/her 15 minutes of infamy at decides to shoot the place up I 'd rather have a rifle handy than just a puny handgun.

How's the saying go, "a pistol is just so you can fight your way back to the rifle you should have never left behind "

Rifles meant for defense against tyranny and oppression can also be used against other everyday threats and are what I'd rather have in a defensive situation. That's a true tactical advantage.

Your argument is silly.

So you carry a rifle everywhere you go? I don't. That isn't practical. We are not at a point in this country where I live in fear and feel the need to carry an AR 15 and a 210 round load out everywhere I go. That day hopefully will never come. Today, I am quite comfortable with my Sig P290 and 7 round capacity. And I don't believe that the 2A trumps property rights.

I never said that 2A rights trump property rights just pointing out the validity of carrying a long gun for self defense

Carrying an AR15 with a 210 rd loadout is legal whether it's cc or oc. the only thing that makes it impractical is the response of the sheeple who pee their pants when they see it and the police who are not worthy of the badge if they can't fully support and respect people's 2A right.

What makes you comfortable leaves me feeling uncomfortably under prepared.

Remember San Bernadino?

While it is legal, it is very impractical due to more than "response of the sheeple"... but let's look at that response first... Let's think about San Bernadino. You walk into the room wearing your vest with 210 rounds and your rifle slung across your chest at the low ready from a single point sling... I have no way of knowing what your intentions are. To use your terms, a "sheepdog" would plug you right there when you walked in, as you are an unknown threat to the flock.

Besides making others uncomfortable, a rifle and ammo is heavy and cumbersome. With my handgun, it is still on my hip when I sit down at a table at a restaurant... where is your rifle? You have to unsling it, and put it somewhere which equates to more handling of the rifle... or more opportunity for negligent discharge.

I can see the logic of carrying a rifle and ammo in the trunk of your car, if you feel so inclined... but if I am with my family, and we make it out of the danger zone to our car, then we are leaving. I don't carry with the intention of being the hero.

And if we are going to throw out incidents that have very low odds of you being involved in them as San Bernadino as support, then remember Garland? One officer with a pistol took down two terrorists armed with AKs.

Heck, another Texas lawman took down an active shooter from 100 yards away with his pistol, while holding horses in the other hand.

Mel wrote:

Richbirdhunter wrote:

I know we're late to the OC party in Texas being the 45th state to allow some form of OC, but are we #1 in distress over it ? Did the other 44 states that already allow OC go through these same pains?

No! Those other states didn't have "OCT"!

Bingo! When Oklahoma passed OC, I never saw any OC advocates carrying long guns into businesses and forcing businesses to take a stand. They never made the national news... yet OC still passed in Oklahoma. Very few businesses posted signs in OK to restrict carry, yet here in Texas, signs have been going up for weeks. This is evidence that OCT did more harm than good.

LSUTiger wrote:

cyphertext wrote:

LSUTiger wrote:
And before the anti-OCT/OC crowd chimes in I must say that while OCT's cause is righteous I disagree with much of their tactics. But rights not exercised are rights lost.

I think you will find that most agree with you here about the cause vs. tactics. However, I don't believe that the 2A gives you the right to carry your AR 15 into the local Chipotle... As you stated, that right is there to protect against tyranny, and I haven't witnessed an tyrannical oppression at my local Starbuck's. Look at the Battle of Athens... Those men took up their arms when it was necessary to insure their county election was without corruption. Once order had been restored, the arms were put away... not paraded down at the local cafe. Time and place.

When I'm sitting at the cafe and some terrorist or other crazy wants to have his/her 15 minutes of infamy at decides to shoot the place up I 'd rather have a rifle handy than just a puny handgun.

How's the saying go, "a pistol is just so you can fight your way back to the rifle you should have never left behind "

Rifles meant for defense against tyranny and oppression can also be used against other everyday threats and are what I'd rather have in a defensive situation. That's a true tactical advantage.

Your argument is silly.

So you carry a rifle everywhere you go? I don't. That isn't practical. We are not at a point in this country where I live in fear and feel the need to carry an AR 15 and a 210 round load out everywhere I go. That day hopefully will never come. Today, I am quite comfortable with my Sig P290 and 7 round capacity. And I don't believe that the 2A trumps property rights.

LSUTiger wrote:
And before the anti-OCT/OC crowd chimes in I must say that while OCT's cause is righteous I disagree with much of their tactics. But rights not exercised are rights lost.

I think you will find that most agree with you here about the cause vs. tactics. However, I don't believe that the 2A gives you the right to carry your AR 15 into the local Chipotle... As you stated, that right is there to protect against tyranny, and I haven't witnessed an tyrannical oppression at my local Starbuck's. Look at the Battle of Athens... Those men took up their arms when it was necessary to insure their county election was without corruption. Once order had been restored, the arms were put away... not paraded down at the local cafe. Time and place.

stingeragent wrote:As I've said in posts before I'm not a member of OCT, but I honestly don't see why what they did was a big deal. What is the difference between going into whataburger with a holstered handgun (hypothetically if it was legal before an hour from now), and going into one with an AR-15 slung over the back. Both weapons can inflict serious damage. Theres plenty of pistol mags out there with the same capacity as an AR. If it was reversed and rifle open carry was banned, but pistols weren't, and they all went in with pistols , the same people would have freaked out. A gun is a gun. You can pop off a handgun just as fast as a legal AR. There's gonna be just as many people freaking out come 1 more hour when they see people with handguns. It doesn't matter if its a rifle or a pistol, MDA, and the typical anti gun person doesn't want to see a gun. Rifle, pistol, or a shotgun.

It is two parts, what they carried and how they carried them...

First, not all of the OCT folks carried the rifle slung over their back. Many of them had the tactical slings and carried slung across the chest, or at their side. These rifles were basically being carried at the low ready, much like an infantry soldier or a police officer would carry their rifle when patrolling a high threat area. As a gun owner, I am not comfortable around anyone that I do not know carrying a long arm in this manner, especially when their hands are on the firearm. A rifle carried in this manner is meant to be intimidating... a show of force. It has a very different message than a rifle carried across your back or on the shoulder.

The choice of an AR or an AK was also poor, given how the media would portray the carrying of an "assault rifle". The media rarely spoke to the person with granpappy's duck hunting shotgun on their back... no, they focused on the tacticool guys with the AR or AK.

While you may think a gun is a gun, the general public does not. I've spoken to many folks who tell me that assault rifles should be banned. I show them a picture of a Ruger Mini 14 with wood stock and a scope, and they say that rifle is fine.. it's a hunting rifle. Yet show them a Mini 14 with a collapsible stock, extended magazine and a flash hider and they say that is the type of firearm that they feel should be banned... same gun, just dressed up differently. I can assure you that a revolver does not invoke the same fears as an AR in these folks either.

Richbirdhunter wrote:What was the anxiety level like 20 years ago when CC became legal in Texas? Did people think we should be able to keep guns but not carry them at church or kids birthday parties?

Is this just part of growing pains?

You had the same argument from the antis that blood would flow in the street, but we didn't have so much publicity about the issue. We didn't have scores of businesses coming forward saying that they were going to post before the law went into effect. There were no images of people with guns in local businesses constantly being shown in the media to get the soccer moms upset.

And again, most of us here are for open carry, we just do not agree with the tactics taken by the OC activist groups. Could they not have gotten their same message across with empty holsters, or bananas in the holster? Who looks more menacing to a soccer mom, a guy with a banana on his hip, or a guy with an "assault rifle"?

I think you will find that most on here support OC, but we also support property rights. If it weren't for the antics of the OCT and CATI groups, you probably wouldn't see such a backlash against open carry. If you don't believe me, just look at how many businesses are posting against OC, but are ok with CC... you didn't see that in Oklahoma when they first went to OC, but they didn't have folks running into the local Whataburger with AR 15s slung across their chests trying to "educate" the public.