TexasCHLforum.com

Part of the myth (Wild West) comes from the "Westernization" of Texas, which historically was really more "Dixie" than "Wild West", in fact. East Texas still has lots of cotton in it, back in the day it was part of the so-called "King Cotton" industry of the south and that is why Texas was prepared to surrender land that was too far north in order to qualify as a slaveholding state pre-Civil War. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries Texas leaders looked to the future and heavily played down their southern and Confederate culture and past. They invented the notion of Texas as part of "The West" and imported cowboy imagery, the idea that Texas was a heavy cattle economy (part of the economy was but it used to be dwarfed by other concerns) and so on. This is where the hat wearing, boots and giant belt buckles comes from. Also, they started erecting Alamo hero statues all over the place, naming roads in their honour, sometimes renaming roads that were honouring typical Southern figures, like Lee and Jackson. The net effect is that in 2011, when I was preparing to immigrate, I assumed that Texas was like southern Arizona, right down to open carry, old western towns with saloons and tumbleweeds skittering by. Was I ever shocked by the reality of San Antonio and Austin!

So, that Western mythbuilding (now very much a valid part of Texan identity, that is how these things work) moved Texas into the South-West rather than the Deep South and along with the cultural shift came the expectation that it was like the other Western and South-Western states but in fact, Texas never really was like that, for the most part and certainly not its populous parts.

Historically, too, rural Texas was much less inclined to enforce laws that locals didn't really consider relevant to them, especially on upstanding citizens (white Texans, not blacks, hispanics or those damn yankees). Thus, in theory, you couldn't have your pistol on your belt when you went into town to get some lunch and have a beer before heading back for another 6 hours of work but in practice, many could and did. Also, even ignoring the ... selective enforcement of many laws, Texas had quite a problem with corruption, especially in its law enforcement at various times and some still argue it does today.

Personally, I feel Texan laws are actually quite gun friendly; you are not going to be arrested for having loaded firearms in your vehicle (unless you have a loaded pistol on display and no justification). People will not look at you oddly when you are unloading weapons from your vehicle and into your home. Ranges are reasonably common, though in some areas face nuisance suits and complaints (comes with urbanization, inevitably). You can carry a pistol on your person since 1995 so long as you qualify for and acquire a licence, some consider the system overly burdensome (some imagine it is unconstitutional, actually but I think they are wrong and need to study some jurisprudence), especially in terms of cost but we can at least avail ourselves of that. We don't need any such licence to purchase, possess and have in our homes any number of firearms and the state imposes no additional restrictions on firearms generally beyond what the Federal laws mandate.

There are some odd and unnecessary restrictions but CHL holders are pushing these back by virtue of being demonstrably more law abiding than any other group in the state and not simply on firearms laws. The longer we keep doing it right the more ammunition we provide for our representatives to argue that we are unnecessarily burdened by such restrictions and can be trusted to carry weapons responsibly any way, anywhere, any time.