TexasCHLforum.com

G.A. Heath wrote:

paxton25 wrote:I don't get it, if they are everything many in here say they are and the bill they support won't get any traction then why does it seem some are pushing them to support compromise licensed open carry bills? If they are so irrelevant and caustic why call them out for not supporting other bills? From a pure strategy point of view letting them put all of their resources into a bill the experts say won't get passed seems like a good idea. And if you succeed in getting them to support a licensed open carry bill that TSRA/NRA is working to pass and they demonstrate in support of it because you convinced them to do so isn't that going to bring your bill bad press and all the other things you condemn them for?

The problem is not that they can get legislation passed, but that they can do tons of damage to bills, even the ones they support. If we are to get OC passed, in any form, OCT, OCTC, CATI, Texas Carry, and others will need to learn some manners in regards to politics. If/When their bill fails they will go berserk and start attacking anything they see as "an infringement", even if it means that current infringements are lessened w/o adding new ones.

Keith B wrote:

CleverNickname wrote:However HB195 also doesn't modify TABC 11.041, so it also appears that non-licensees would be unable to legally carry in any location with a TABC license, whereas licensees would continue to only be limited from carrying at 51% locations.

Nope, see this post in this topic http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 10#p947174" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and also this one with a link in it http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 26#p947464" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

46.02 would not be being violated by openly carrying a pistol, so there would be no law broken for TABC to arrest on. HOWEVER, TABC would need to either remove or not enforce the rule that says a store licensee cannot allow a unlicensed firearm on premises or lose their TABC license.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

paxton25 wrote:So since HB195 is a supported bill and there are no notes about it's effect with regards to 30.06 like there is in the other ones does that mean the concern you mentioned with bringing OC into 30.06 is not an issue with HB195?

Correct. At least as Charles has outlined it above, HB195 does not incorporate OC into 30.06. What exactly it does do about signage, if anything, I don't know. But as long 30.06 is protected and remains relevant only for CC, then HB195 would be a good bill. However, I wish Charles would give us some detail here if he can, because the text of HB195 (upon my first reading of it) is actually disturbing. Ideally, HB195 would add PC §30.07 to the code, which would be to OC as 30.06 is to CC. So if a business wanted to block ALL carrying into its premises, it would have to post BOTH "big ugly signs", and they would BOTH have to be compliant. ..... but that does not appear to be the case as I read the bill.

Here is a link to the changes that HB195 would make to TPC §46.035: http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84 ... 00195I.htm. Here is a link to TPC §46.035 as it currently stands: (UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER) http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... /PE.46.htm.

Currently, paragraph 46.035(i) says: "Subsections (b)(4) [hospitals/nursing homes], (b)(5) [amusement parks], (b)(6) [churches], and (c) [government meetings] do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."

Since HB195 removes the license requirement and changes the wording from "carrying a concealed handgun" to "carrying a handgun"...... it says:

(a) A person in possession of a handgun commits an offense if they intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carry a handgun on or about their person:

• (1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;
  (2) on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place, unless the [license holder] person is a participant in the event where [and] a handgun is used in the event;
  (3) on the premises of a correctional facility;
  (4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the person has written authorization of the hospital or nursing home administration, as appropriate;
  (5) in an amusement park;
  (6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship;
  (7) at any meeting of a governmental entity;
  (8) while intoxicated

Further down in subsection (g), it says: "Subsections (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06."
That appears to me to make 30.06 apply to all carry, not just concealed carry. Now I am confused, but if this says what I think it says, then I cannot support HB195, even though initially Charles said it was "supported".

Charles, can you shed some light on this?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

paxton25 wrote:I simply want the best bill passed in the next session and I personally believe it is constitutional carry, right now the best bill I see is HB195. I am sincerely interested in seeing if TSRA or NRA or Mr. Cotton have an alternate bill in the works that I can support if there are good reasons not to support hb195 other than some say it can't pass. I have been told by politicians and the political elites several times that what I am pushing for won't happen only to see it happen after not giving in. I don't really see why this should be contentious and cause conflict among 2A supporters.

Paxton25, since you appear to be asking this question in good faith, there are two factors at work here: how a bill affects PC §30.06, and how much political capital will have to be expended in order to pass it.

Here is why anything that messes with PC §30.06 is a bad bill that will not get NRA/TSRA support, and will most likely killed: If it incorporates Open Carry (OC, going forward) into PC §30.06, there is a very good reason for why that must not be allowed to happen. Today, when a CHL walks into an unposted store, so long as he/she behaves themselves, the store owner is not motivated to post a 30.06 sign. Why would he be? Even if he is really ANTI-2nd Amendment, he has no way of knowing if the person entering his store is a CHL or not. Very FEW business owners are self-motivated enough to either do the research, or to hire an attorney to do it for them, to find a way to keep CC out of their stores. It just isn't on their radar, because "out of sight = out of mind". For them, it does not take some kind of pivotal event involving an exposed gun to make then exercise anti-gun activism in their places of business. However, OC is not that way. Whether it is intended as a provocation or not, the OCer has absolutely ZERO control over whether the gun is perceived as a provocative act. The fence-sitter who hadn't give it much though until now, or the rabidly antigun person who simply hadn't considered the possibility until now, will with a high probability post a sign to keep OCers out of the store. Mind you, they STILL won't know they are affecting CCers because CCers fly low and avoid the radar. When they post that sign, if OC is incorporated under 30.06, then BOTH OCers AND CCers are now banned from carrying into the store. This is a step backward for the CCer, caused by the OCer's provocation of the store owner.......and remember, this is provocation whether or not it is intentional. It still provokes a reaction from the business owner.

SO..... exactly ZERO bills that incorporate OC under 30.06 will receive NRA/TSRA support, and in fact will probably be killed—because a setback for CC is completely unacceptable as the price of passing OC. And this is the absolutely CRUCIAL point that OCT refuses to take into account in their calculations.......either that, or they are deliberately trying to sabotage CC. Since they refuse to consider it, they are vastly out of touch with reality.

If you refer to this thread - viewtopic.php?f=133&t=75052" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; - you will see that there are more than one OC bill under consideration. Here are the one's I've lifted from Charles' opening post in that thread:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Color-coded and linked bills are available on the 2015 Bill Status Report on the Texas Firearms Coalition website. UPDATED: 11/14/14

HOUSE BILLS:

HB92 (White) Relating to the definition of an illegal knife.
Impact: Removes Bowie knife from definition of illegal knives and from a defense for historical reinactments. Still illegal to carry knives with blades over 5 1/2".
Postion on Bill: Neutral. This bill does not help Texans.
Status: Filed 11/10/14

HB106 (Flynn, R, A+) Relating to the authority of a person who is licensed to carry a handgun to openly carry the handgun; providing penalties.
Impact: Creates licensed open-carry, but destroys the protections of Tex. Penal Code §30.06.
Position on Bill: Oppose, becaue of the amendment to Tex. Penal Code §30.06.
Status: Filed 11/10/14.

HB118 (Flynn, R, A+) Relating to a fee waiver for a combination resident hunting and fishing license for certain military personnel.
Impact: Removes the fee for a combined hunting and fishing license for disabled veterans and active military.
Position on Bill: Neutral.
Status: Filed 11/10/14

HB164 (White) Relating to the authority of a person who is licensed to carry a handgun to openly carry the handgun; providing penalties.
Impact: Creates licensed open-carry and preserves the protection of Tex. Penal Code §30.06
Position on Bill: Support.
Status: Filed 11/10/14

HB152 (Harless, R, A) Relating to the authority of the voters of certain counties to authorize the county to regulate the sale and use of fireworks; providing penalties.
Impact: Deals with county regulation of fireworks.
Position on Bill: Neutral, but monitor to ensure firearms and sport shooting ranges are not added to the bill.
Status: Filed 11/10/14

HB153 (Harless, R, A) Relating to the adoption of noise regulations by certain counties; providing a criminal penalty; authorizing a fee.
Impact: Deals with county regulation of noise generated by loud speakers.
Position on Bill: Neutral, but monitor to ensure firearms and sport shooting ranges are not added to the bill.
Status: Filed 11/10/14

HB172 (Stickland) Relating to municipal regulation of electric stun guns, knives, and personal defense sprays.
Impact: Adds stun guns, knives and personal defense sprays to the Texas preemption statute preventing municipal regulation thereof. However, it adds an unnecessary provision that guts much of the Texas Sport Shooting Range Protection law passed in 2011.
Position on Bill: Oppose this bad bill, unless the proposed Tex. Local Gov't Code §229.(b)(10) is removed.
Status: Filed 11/10/14.

HB176 (Kleinschmidt, R, A+) Relating to protection of the right to keep and bear arms within the State of Texas.
Impact: Attempts to invalidate certain federal gun laws. Also prohibits state law enforcement officer from enforcing certain federal laws.
Position on Bill: Support.
Status: Filed 11/10/15.

HB195 (Stickland, R) Relating to the carrying of handguns; providing for the open carrying of handguns; removing the requirement that a person who may lawfully possess handguns obtain a Concealed Handgun License in order to carry a handgun lawfully in the state of Texas, and conforming changes.
Impact: Created unlicensed open or concealed carry; retains all current off-limits areas.
Position on Bill: Support.
Status: Filed 11/10/14.

HB198 (Huberty) Relating to the carrying of concealed handguns by certain persons attending a school board meeting.
Impact: Would allow school board members and school superintendents to carry handguns at school board meetings.
Position on Bill: Oppose.
Status: Filed 11/10/14.

HB206 (Leach) Relating to an exemption from the sales tax for firearms and hunting supplies for a limited period.
Impact: Creats a sales tax free day for purchasing firearms and hunting supplies.
Position on Bill: Neutral.
Status: Filed 11/10/14.

HB223 (Guillen, D) Relating to acceptable conduct of students in kindergarten through grade five.
Impact: Protects school children from K - 5th grades from being disciplined for certain acts related to firearm representations.
Position on Bill: Support.
Status: Filed 11/10/14.

HB226 (Guillen, D) Relating to certain offenses relating to carrying concealed handguns on property owned or leased by a governmental entity; providing a civil penalty.
Impact: Creats a civil penalty for local governments and agencies that post unenforceable 30.06 signs.
Position on Bill: Support, but demand amendment to allow for private causes of action.
Status: Filed 11/10/14.

HB278 (Ashby) Relating to authorizing certain attorneys representing the state to openly carry a handgun.
Impact: Would allow government attorneys to carry handgun openly.
Position on Bill: Oppose.
Status: Filed 11/12/14

HB284 (Springer, R, A+)
Impact: Sets the minimum caliber for CHL qualification to .22.
Companion Bill: SB179 by Perry.
Position on Bill: Support.
Status: Filed 11/13/14.

HB291 (Huberty) Relating to the authority of a person who is licensed to carry a handgun to openly carry the handgun; providing penalties.
Impact: Creates licensed open-carry, but destroys the protections of Tex. Penal Code §30.06. (Appears identical to HB106.)
Position on Bill: Oppose, becaue of the amendment to Tex. Penal Code §30.06.
Status: 11/14/14.

Senate Bills:[/size][/b]

SB124 (West, D) Relating to certain criminal offenses concerning the unlawful transfer or purchase of certain weapons.
Impact: Expands the scope of Tex. Penal Code §46.06 to certain purchases of firearms making it unlawful to purchase with intent to transfer under certain vague and ambiguous circumstances. This is a class Sen. Royce West anti-gun, anti-gun owner bill. It is intentionally vague so as to be a trap for unsuspecting persons.
Position on Bill: Oppose.
Status: 11/10/14

SB179 (Perry) Relating to the handgun proficiency required to obtain or renew a concealed handgun license.
Companion Bill: HB284 by Rep. Springer
Impact: Sets the minimum caliber for CHL qualification to .22.
Position on Bill: Support.
Status: Filed 11/12/14.

As you can see from this list, there are FOUR Open Carry bills under consideration.

1. HB106 creates licensed OC and amends 30.06 to include OC. That last bit makes it a non-starter.
2. HB164 creates licensed OC and leaves 30.06 alone.
3. HB195 creates Constitutional Carry and leaves 30.06 alone.
4. HM291 creates licensed OC and amends 30.06 to include OC. That last bit makes it a non-starter.

So as you can see, of the four bills, 1 & 4 are non-starters because of amending 30.06. 2 creates Constitutional Carry and protects 30.06. 3 creates licensed carry and protects 30.06. And, further, both 2 & 3 have TSRA/NRA support.

So the next consideration is, "how much political capital will either of these two bills cost? That question is almost irrelevant if HB164 and HB195 are the only two gun-legislation bills currently under consideration. But, they are NOT. As you can see from Charles' quote I included above, there are currently SIXTEEN bills before the House and TWO before the Senate......and these are just the ones we know about NOW. Each one of those spends some of that political capital.......and please note that Campus Carry, another very important bill, isn't even on that list yet.

Currently, it seems that HB164 probably has a very good chance of passing - creating licensed OC with protection for 30.06. And given the excellent record of CHLers in terms of criminal statistics, there probably ins't going to be that much opposition in the House, at least among the republican majority. Since HB164 wouldn't affect democrat Joe Pickett's income stream from CHL instruction, he might even get some democrats on board.

HB195 is a good bill, but it is a much tougher sell. The question is then, is it important enough to try to push it through in this session, if the price is NOT passing any of the other bills? And then, even if that question is answered in the affirmative and supporters try to ram HB195 through, what happens if they fail? They could fail, you know. It's not unheard of. In that case not only did HB195 fail, but so did a dozen other good bills......bills which might have passed if we had taken the less ambitious route and passed HB164 instead.

And even though it seems too long to wait, what if passing HB164 now makes it a slam-dunk to pass HB195 in 6 years from now?

I would dearly like to see HB195 pass, but NOT if it means that we get nothing at all. HB195 or nothing is a losing game. I'd take HB164 happily and look forward to Constitutional Carry in the future.

paxton25 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

paxton25 wrote:[quote="Charles L. Cotton]
Then my personal observations are markedly different from yours and I' talked to no small number of CHLs.

paxton25 wrote:I don't think you would deny that one hurdle facing passing constitutional carry is a certain amount of comfort with the current licensing system.

I absolutely agree that the current license requirement gives the general public a great deal of comfort, based upon our 18 year track record. I also agree that some percentage of CHLs share that comfort level, but that's a totally different issue from the claim that CHL's take an elitist view to the license requirement.

Chas.

paxton25 wrote:Everyone has different personal observations, doesn't make mine any less true. I am going to assume I wasn't clear on the last part, not that you willfully convoluted what I said, so let me be a bit more clear; I wasn't referring to the public's perception or comfort knowing there are armed citizens out there. I was referring to the fact that one hurdle passing any legislation that does away with the licensing requirement Is the resistance by SOME CHL holders that they are content with the current system, that they already have their license so why do they care if unlicensed carry passes or not. Some may even feel, as has been expressed to me by more than one CHL holder over the years that "I had to take a class and pay the fees everyone else should have to" Are you really saying that isn't something to consider when you are garnering support for unlicensed carry? And I don't know who made the claim that CHL's take an elitist view to the license requirement. It sure wasn't me. I clearly indicated that I feel that SOME CHL holders have an elitist view about their CHL and gave examples of such from my experience.

I didn't need you to repeat your statement. I understood it and I disagree with your premise. Even if you have heard CHLs make such statements, something I've never heard in talking to far more CHLs than you in all likelihood, they have no impact on open-carry efforts, either licensed or unlicensed. While Texas has something over 760,000 CHLs, that's not enough to block open-carry legislation even if every single one of them called to oppose open-carry.

I stated that the general public enjoys a significant comfort level that comes with the 18 track record CHLs have earned because they hold the fate of open-carry to a great extent. They are the voting block that will either be quiet about open-carry, or be calling legislators demanding that they oppose open-carry. I'm at a loss as to how you ignore the general public and point to a tiny segment of the Texas population implying that they can or would block open-carry. You like most open-carry zealots want to blame CHLs for the public opposition to open-carry when it was generated almost exclusively by OCT and OCTC's in-your-face tactics.

"willfully convoluted . . ." Tone it down sport; your OCT roots are showing.

Chas.

Maybe I do need to keep repeating my statements. You are claiming I am making a premise I am not. My premise was that I think we would get more CHL holders to support constitutional carry if there wasn't a view among SOME that they were in an elite club or that it wasn't fair that they had to pay and new people won't. Never said ALL chls had this attitude. Never claimed or implied that this minority can or would be sufficient to block open carry so stop making things up. Maybe the reason you haven't heard that is because you never asked the CHL holders you talk to how they would feel about unlicensed carry open and concelaed? Disagree with the observation or not it is still my observation based on my experience long before there was an OCT.

I said I assumed I wasn't being clear and that you weren't willfully convoluting what I had said, I guess that was a wrong assumption since you are intent on repeating that action when you have been corrected. And now quote that out of context. And then, not only do you insinuate I am lying, talk to me as if I were a child "sport", but because I don't jump in line to kiss your butt and just say how great you are because you have lunch with politicians who sells us out that I must be an OCT member. For the record, I never agreed with forcing a business to make a stand on 2A issues, businesses should just be worried about business and not politics unless they OFFER to engage in an issue, I have never been to an OC rally of any kind, OCT, CATI or any other group, don't pay dues to any OC group, have never open carried any type of firearm farther than my dove lease or from my house to my truck but it's easier for you to lump someone who you can't have an intelligent discussion with as an open carry zealot. It's amusing really from someone that says everyone is welcome and the discussion is open but you can't refrain from personal attacks on people that don't agree with you on 100% of the time. Wait a minute, isn't that kind of what you are claiming the OCT guys are doing? It's a shame really because I was really getting into the track you were talking about on focusing on where we can carry and reducing the disqualifiers for CHLs.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:

canvasbck wrote:ETA: I didn't OC extensively while I was there, just stopped into a convenience store and then shopped at Sam's after an IDPA match at WB Gun Club. Since OC was legal, I just kept my competition rig on instead of swapping out to my IWB rig, didn't wear my competition vest because it's pink,.............kind of like what I will do after OC passes in Tx.

I've done that after a night match, just kept on my "shoot me first" vest.

mojo84 wrote:I don't see 8-10 people making much of a difference overall.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

paxton25 wrote:[quote="Charles L. Cotton]
Then my personal observations are markedly different from yours and I' talked to no small number of CHLs.

paxton25 wrote:I don't think you would deny that one hurdle facing passing constitutional carry is a certain amount of comfort with the current licensing system.

I absolutely agree that the current license requirement gives the general public a great deal of comfort, based upon our 18 year track record. I also agree that some percentage of CHLs share that comfort level, but that's a totally different issue from the claim that CHL's take an elitist view to the license requirement.

Chas.

paxton25 wrote:Everyone has different personal observations, doesn't make mine any less true. I am going to assume I wasn't clear on the last part, not that you willfully convoluted what I said, so let me be a bit more clear; I wasn't referring to the public's perception or comfort knowing there are armed citizens out there. I was referring to the fact that one hurdle passing any legislation that does away with the licensing requirement Is the resistance by SOME CHL holders that they are content with the current system, that they already have their license so why do they care if unlicensed carry passes or not. Some may even feel, as has been expressed to me by more than one CHL holder over the years that "I had to take a class and pay the fees everyone else should have to" Are you really saying that isn't something to consider when you are garnering support for unlicensed carry? And I don't know who made the claim that CHL's take an elitist view to the license requirement. It sure wasn't me. I clearly indicated that I feel that SOME CHL holders have an elitist view about their CHL and gave examples of such from my experience.

I didn't need you to repeat your statement. I understood it and I disagree with your premise. Even if you have heard CHLs make such statements, something I've never heard in talking to far more CHLs than you in all likelihood, they have no impact on open-carry efforts, either licensed or unlicensed. While Texas has something over 760,000 CHLs, that's not enough to block open-carry legislation even if every single one of them called to oppose open-carry.

I stated that the general public enjoys a significant comfort level that comes with the 18 track record CHLs have earned because they hold the fate of open-carry to a great extent. They are the voting block that will either be quiet about open-carry, or be calling legislators demanding that they oppose open-carry. I'm at a loss as to how you ignore the general public and point to a tiny segment of the Texas population implying that they can or would block open-carry. You like most open-carry zealots want to blame CHLs for the public opposition to open-carry when it was generated almost exclusively by OCT and OCTC's in-your-face tactics.

"willfully convoluted . . ." Tone it down sport; your OCT roots are showing.

Chas.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

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?

A valid point of course. I have difficulty find any 30.06 signs, but I do live and work in a rural area, but if there were effects from it, it would likely be in a city or such, I have seen no evidence myself. But the idea of it still does worry me.

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.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

paxton25 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

IlliniBill wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
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.

Agree 100%. I believe these issues are much more important than open carry. I sent my representative a letter yesterday stating that opinion.

And that's the crux of the issue. Any one of those issues outline by Charles will, by far, affect more people than will the passage of any OC bill. If an OC bill does pass there will probably initially be decent numbers of people doing it just because. However, once the novelty settles down and or more places post whatever sign is required to prohibit the activity, it will become a rarity except for those unable to obtain a CHL, if a license to OC is not required. That also seems to be the group with the loudest voices in opposition to any licensed OC bill. Those that are unable for whatever reason to obtain a CHL, IMO.

I honestly don't know why so money people obsess either way about OC, just like the other states with legal OC it will be a relatively rare occurrence.

The only people I see obsessing are the radical open-carry-or-nothing crowd. I don't see any strong opposition to open-carry in the gun community. Yes, we will kill any open-carry bill that makes TPC §30.06 apply to both concealed and open carry, but that's not opposition to open-carry, that's protecting current gun rights.

paxton25 wrote:I would like the option so I don't have to switch to my pocket pistol in the summer time and keep wearing my full frame 9 . . .

I'm 5'9", weigh 175# and I carry a 5" all steel Government Model 1911 in .45ACP year round. I must admit that when I hear the different gun for different seasons argument, it falls on deaf ears. I've counseled open-carry supporters not to over state their case and make unfounded claims of necessity and benefit. Open-carry is a minor convenience to very few people on very few occasions. Open-carry is the type of legislation to sell not be falsely claiming it is needed, but by asking the question, "why not, why do you think Texans are not as responsible as residents of the states that have open-carry?"

paxton25 wrote:. If we all agree that constitutional carry is the way to go, for the OC crowd and for the concealed carry crowd why don't we all coalesce around the bill that is best for everyone, IMO that is HB 195.

HB195 is not the way to go, not by any stretch of the imagination. You try to both emphasize the claimed importance of open-carry, while at the same time minimize it's impact by admitting that very few people will carry openly. You then use this argument to trivialize the horrendous political war that will result if the NRA and TSRA make HB195 their focus. Passage of HB195 is "problematic" and for it to have any chance, the NRA will have to throw it's full political weight and support behind it. Doing so will alienate political allies and friends in Austin, it will leave many feeling abandoned (I won't say more, so don't ask) and it will burn all of our political capital leaving far more important issues to die in committee. All this for a bill that, at the end of the day, will not pass. There is a way to get to unlicensed open or concealed carry, but open-carry zealots wanting instant gratification don't have the patience to accomplish it.

I'll say this much. If OCT carries through with its promise to attack any and all legislators who don't support HB195 even though licensed open-carry is passed, it will guarantee that unlicensed open-carry will not pass for years, if ever.

Chas.

paxton25 wrote:I don't think you would deny that one hurdle facing passing constitutional carry is a certain amount of comfort with the current licensing system.

C-dub wrote:

paxton25 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

IlliniBill wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
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.

Agree 100%. I believe these issues are much more important than open carry. I sent my representative a letter yesterday stating that opinion.

And that's the crux of the issue. Any one of those issues outline by Charles will, by far, affect more people than will the passage of any OC bill. If an OC bill does pass there will probably initially be decent numbers of people doing it just because. However, once the novelty settles down and or more places post whatever sign is required to prohibit the activity, it will become a rarity except for those unable to obtain a CHL, if a license to OC is not required. That also seems to be the group with the loudest voices in opposition to any licensed OC bill. Those that are unable for whatever reason to obtain a CHL, IMO.

In my view the constitutional carry bill will better the gun rights of more Texans. Especially compared to a bill that just allows CHL holders to OC. Constitutional Carry is a lot more than just OC. No license required for open or concealed carry, no state registration data base. I honestly don't know why so money people obsess either way about OC, just like the other states with legal OC it will be a relatively rare occurrence. I would like the option so I don't have to switch to my pocket pistol in the summer time and keep wearing my full frame 9 but so much of the drama and back and forth revolves around what very few gun owners would do. If we all agree that constitutional carry is the way to go, for the OC crowd and for the concealed carry crowd why don't we all coalesce around the bill that is best for everyone, IMO that is HB 195.

If those are the only reasons you want OC, then that is the same as most of us here and probably most all CHLs that care at all about OC in the state. It does have the potential to affect more people than those with CHLs, but in reality, it won't because an extremely small number of people will actually OC on a regular basis once the novelty wears off. That's the case in other states that have always had OC and that will be the case here if it passes.