TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:I think Rep. Phillips is stating that he thinks the 2nd Amendment is a federal or state right and not an individual right. His statement would have been enough that I would have possibly voted for his apponent.

That wasn't Rep. Phillips statement at all! Rep. Phillips supports removing the concealment requirement for CHL's, so the open-carry zealots feel free to make unfounded claims. It's part of the "my way or no way" attitude. It's also why we need to know where OCT stands on the various open-carry bills.

Chas.

paxton25 wrote:

txcharvel wrote:I support the idea of open carry, but our society has become so "gun averse" that there is no way this is going to happen in a relatively short period of time. The current state of society took decades to develop, only the return of Jesus can make such a dramatic change happen overnight.

Taking all of this into account, along with the antics of OCT visiting Starbucks and Chipotle to get their picture taken...I can't understand how people don't see how this is already limiting our CHL rights with more places being posted 30.06 because of the misguided fear of being the next "target" for OCT. It pains me to say this, but it's like arguing with a liberal democrat over taxes.

I'm thankful there are people genuinely interested in preserving the freedoms that we currently enjoy. It seems that if we left it up to OCT, they would literally throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Which places have put up 30.06 signs because of OCT? And better yet if a business decides to put up a 30,06 sign why would a gun owner continue to desire to do business with someone that wants them to be disarmed?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:I am surprised however Chas, that 44 other states already have Open Carry options, with only 13 of those states requiring Licensed open carry. Why are we stuck with California, Florida, South Carolina, New York, and Illinois? (My numbers may be off, as my last print out of this information is over a year old, but it still represents my argument.)

What is it specifically that has kept our great state of Texas, from achieving this? Aside from a broad answer, I am very curious about this. There are just six states prohibiting Open Carry, and I believe there are more prohibiting concealed carry if I recall correctly. I have been under the impression that there is plenty of movement across the nation to gain reasoning from to push open carry through in the past, and it is still just up in the air now of course. Could you provide some helpful insight into what has been the main barrier in this Chas? I'm just looking to further my own knowledge on this topic.

Thank you.

I'm trying not to give arguments for the other side, but when someone wants to compare Texas with California and New York, then I can't let that go.

First, regardless how many states technically allow open-carry, it isn't commonly done except in some rural locations. When open-carry supporters claim that "XX number of states allow open-carry," they are implying that it is not only legal, it is commonplace and widely accepted by the population. That's simply untrue. Throughout my adult life, I've traveled to all but 2 states in the continental U.S., including so-called "gold states" for open-carry. I cannot recall ever seeing anyone openly carrying in an urban environment. Other Forum Members who travel the country report the same experience. Virginia is supposedly the true "gold state" for open-carry and I've gone there 2 to 3 times a year since 2001 on NRA business and I've never seen anyone openly carrying.

Secondly, open-carry hasn't passed prior to now because the NRA and TSRA haven't put it on our legislative agenda. We haven't because there are far more important issues on which to spend political capital. Some open-carry supporters act as if the battle to pass open-carry in Texas has been ongoing for several sessions, but that's simply not true. No organization with any clout has tied to pass open-carry. There have been some bomb-throwing people who made a lot of noise the last two sessions, but they also made a lot of enemies. We (NRA/TSRA) started promoting it at the end of last session, in the same manner we approach all controversial bills. That is the only reason why open-carry has a chance this session.

As I've said numerous times, I'm far more concerned about who can carry and where we can carry than with how we can carry. If we don't remove off-limits areas, prohibit the posting of unenforceable 30.06 signs on government property, pass campus-carry, exempt church volunteer "security" people from the restriction on being armed, remove successfully completed deferred adjudications and delinquent taxes or child-support from the list of CHL disqualifiers, or limit misdemeanor disqualifiers to only violent crimes, because we spent too much time and political capital on open-carry, I'm going to be a very bitter Second Amendment activist! Those are issues that will have a positive impact on hundreds of thousands if not millions of Texans, while open-carry will be practiced by only a relative handful of people.

Chas.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

I am surprised however Chas, that 44 other states already have Open Carry options, with only 13 of those states requiring Licensed open carry. Why are we stuck with California, Florida, South Carolina, New York, and Illinois? (My numbers may be off, as my last print out of this information is over a year old, but it still represents my argument.)

What is it specifically that has kept our great state of Texas, from achieving this? Aside from a broad answer, I am very curious about this. There are just six states prohibiting Open Carry, and I believe there are more prohibiting concealed carry if I recall correctly. I have been under the impression that there is plenty of movement across the nation to gain reasoning from to push open carry through in the past, and it is still just up in the air now of course. Could you provide some helpful insight into what has been the main barrier in this Chas? I'm just looking to further my own knowledge on this topic.

Thank you.

Mmmm so you're saying we can open carry in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts, and Michigan? Sure you can...You can't even own a gun in New Jersey, much less OC it. Connecticut with some of the most stringent bans in the Union, permits OC? Prove it, and no if the lasw is silent but you can't own the firearms in the first place, its irrelevant.

Keith B wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:I am surprised however Chas, that 44 other states already have Open Carry options, with only 13 of those states requiring Licensed open carry. Why are we stuck with California, Florida, South Carolina, New York, and Illinois? (My numbers may be off, as my last print out of this information is over a year old, but it still represents my argument.)

What is it specifically that has kept our great state of Texas, from achieving this? Aside from a broad answer, I am very curious about this. There are just six states prohibiting Open Carry, and I believe there are more prohibiting concealed carry if I recall correctly. I have been under the impression that there is plenty of movement across the nation to gain reasoning from to push open carry through in the past, and it is still just up in the air now of course. Could you provide some helpful insight into what has been the main barrier in this Chas? I'm just looking to further my own knowledge on this topic.

Thank you.

Most states that have open carry have never had a ban on it in the first place. Those that have licensed open carry may have once been illegal, but that was usually in cities.

An example of good change is Missouri, who has always had unlicensed open carry, but allowed cities and municipalities to enact ordinances prohibiting the open carry of a weapon. The legislature just passed a bill that now prohibits cities from enacting ordinances on licensed open carry. It is yet to see how that will be received in cities that once disallowed any open carry at all. You can still open carry without a license in rural areas and in cities that don't have ordinances against it.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:The CHL law was great because we had no way to carry a handgun in public previously. I just wonder if we go licensed OC, would we ever get the backing to go unlicensed? I am very doubtful of that. Don't get me wrong, if HB 195 or similar fails, I'll take licensed OC, but I just feel that now is the time to strive for "Constitutional Carry", with everyone pushing for it. If we get the licensed OC passed, I feel that we would lose some support of those who think that it is "enough" or who totally agree with licensing, and we couldn't go that one step farther.

Your assumption is either that 1) we can pass either licensed open-carry or unlicensed open-carry as a matter of choice; or 2) by filing and supporting licensed open-carry bills, it reduces the chance of passing unlicensed open-carry. Both are inaccurate.

We're about to go into legislative session trying to pass HB195 and as yet unfiled licensed open-carry bills, so I'm not going to post something that I don't want thrown in my face during committee hearings. I'll say this much; an all-or-nothing approach with highly controversial legislation almost always gets you the "nothing" result.

While the NRA and TSRA worked hard from the closing weeks of the 2013 Texas Legislative Session until now to build legislative support for open-carry, that support is for removing the duty to conceal from CHLs. (That's a logical and rational first step, just as CHL provided us the opportunity to pass unlicensed car-carry.) One of the strongest points in our argument in favor of open-carry is the excellent 18 year track record CHLs have earned. It's hard for any honest person to argue that CHLs, who are almost 17 times less likely to commit a crime than the general public, will mysteriously become a danger to society if they remove their jacket and expose their handguns. This cannot be said for unlicensed open-carry. In fact, the very people who would be able to carry for the first time are those who are 17 times more likely to commit a crime than those of us who are already carrying.

I'm done. I've already said too much.

Chas.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

tomdavis wrote:Thanks for the three points that describe the position of NRA/TSRA. What is the basic parameters of "constitutional carry" and why is it the ultimate goal? Likely when I know what it means the value will be obvious. Why is OC in a 30.06 area a step backward for us CHL's.

Sorry if those answers are somewhere as I did not find them.

I think what you referring to is any OC law that links to 30.06 aka you can use a 30.06 sign to ban OC. That would lead to a dramatic rise in locations excluding CHLS as well.