TexasCHLforum.com

gmckinl wrote:I too have seen several plain-clothes LEOs openly carrying. A month or so ago, one was at the next table to me munching on his lunch while I was concealed and chowing down on mine.

SA-TX wrote:As for the historical differences that you pointed to earlier in the thread, I must say that I doubt that the experiences in Pennsylvania or Virginia are much different than Texas. It is true that it has always been legal to open carry there, but as you point out, it is not at all common. Most urban residents in those states have rarely or never seen anyone open carrying. Most rural residents probably haven't seen it much either, but they are comfortable with the concept of guns and are more used to seeing long guns due to hunting. Both of these seem to hold true for Texans.

The experiences in open carry states also show that even when someone DOES open carry, few notice. From lethermen, to cell phones, to fanny packs, to belt buckles, so many items are now adorning our waist area that a gun just doesn't stick out. This combined with people being on their cell phone or otherwise not too aware about things in their immediate environment mean not many MWAG calls. Further, those that DO see the gun are likely to think you are an LEO. In summary, open carry just doesn't cause many problems and the news coverage of the soccer mom incident in PA demonstrates that by its news-worthiness. According to Ms. Hain, she carries her G26 openly EVERYWHERE and has for some time but only now has there been an incident.

For example, regarding 30.06 signs and open carry, could a section 30.07 be added (so as to not open up 30.06 to amendment) that says a business owner wishing to keep out those carrying handguns concealed or openly may adopt the following sign which encorporates the elements of 30.06 but with language added. Thus, no changes to 30.06 nor any references to 30.06 need to be changed.

CHLSteve wrote:Yes, you should have known better. Leave us simpletons to our misery.

You know, I did say "if". You can simply say, "No, that's not what I meant" instead of adopting a condescending attitude and writing anyone off who doesn't interpret your post how you intended it. That's part of posting on a forum where we can't have a face to face conversation.

(PS--can I use a rolleyes here?)

CHLSteve wrote:

Douva wrote: History's most horrific mistakes and egregious injustices have been perpetuated by those who sought and those who offered simple solutions to complex problems. The questions surrounding right-to-carry are complex. To propose less-than-complex answers to those questions is dangerous.

OK, not that's just off the wall. You are taking his "simple" comment out of context because the poster was only conveying that Chas had a way of making a complex problem easier to understand, NOT that Chas had a simple solution.

Secondly, if you are really saying that the failure to pass OC will somehow result in one of history's "most horrific mistakes and egregious injustices" then that's just hogwash. OC is a Bad Idea(tm) and Chas has outlined some very real reasons on why. Unfortunately, the OC crowd fails to see the forest for the trees. If they get their way, I think it will end up spoiling it for the rest of us. The only bright side in all this is that no one seems to be taking them seriously this session.

Let's just make it easier for us and for the Public (business owners).

CHL Holders authorized to carry openly or concealed anywhere a LEO is.
Pretty simple.......

XtremeDuty.45 wrote:AEA...you said it so perfect and made it so simple. I agree with that logic totally. Just wish everyone else did too.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Bart wrote:What kind of sign does a business have to post today to ban people who can OC legally today? Like if a restaurant doesn't want security guards from another business to wear guns if they eat there during lunch break.

Anything that gets the "no guns" message across.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Your suggestion would provide a method for property owners to select between two types of signs to either 1) bar only open-carry; or 2) bar open and concealed carry with a single sign. But the problem isn’t with drafting something that would work, but in getting it passed without doing damage to safeguards we already have and without winding up with only a 30.06 sign.

From a purely technical approach, incorporating a criminal trespass provision into Chp. 46 dealing with weapons is something the Legislature isn't going to do. The proposal also puts "conditional" off-limits areas into a part of the Code that lists only locations that are always off-limits. (The DAs would oppose this mixing of apples and oranges and in this argument, their opinions would carry a lot of weight.) That said, TPC §30.05 could be amended to do precisely what your proposal accomplishes.

Unfortunately, the Legislature would most likely take the easy way out and simply amend TPC §30.06 to be a "one size fits all" notice requirement for anyone with a gun. It will be argued that the proposal is confusing to property owners and they should have a single, simple and easy way to post one sign and keep all people off of their property if they have guns. To most legislators and the majority of the non-CHL, non-OC folks, this argument will make a lot of sense.

There is also a very real danger that we could lose the protections of TPC §30.06, if we try to adopt a statue that allows the use of any sign that doesn’t meet the size and language requirements of TPC §30.06. We have to remember that we were able to pass HB2909 in 1997 establishing TPC §30.06 (and it's onerous signage requirement ) based upon the argument that it was unfair to prosecute a CHL for trespass when it is so easy to miss the little "ghostbuster" decals found on several businesses. They were especially difficult to see when placed in the lower corners of glass doors, as was often the case. If we were to now promote a scheme by which an open-carrier could be prosecuted for crossing something less than a large 30.06 sign, then it would be both unfair to the open-carrier and it would be evidence that the large signs required by TPC §30.06 must not really be necessary. There would be no good response to that argument. None of us want to return to the pre-1997 days when excluding CHLs was absurdly easy.

The small sign problem could be addressed by requiring a sign that met TPC §30.06 dimensions but different language for open-carriers, but then we’re back to two-sign requirement for property owners waning to exclude all armed citizens. Unfortunately, the most likely result of open-carry, as it deals with criminal trespass, would be an amendment to TPC 30.06 such that it applies to both open and concealed carry.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:If an open-carry bills gets introduced and passed, you can be certain of two things: 1) the Legislature isn't going to leave property owners without a way to keep armed citizens off their property; and 2) the Legislature isn't going to create a dual standard for "no trespass" signs, thus forcing property owners to post two signs instead of one, if they want to bar all armed citizens. So this means either TPC §30.06 will be amended to apply to open and concealed carry, or TPC §30.06 will be repealed and we return to the pre-1997 "ghost buster" signs and decals. I don't really think §30.06 would be repealed; I think it would be amended to apply to open and concealed carry.

Chas.

• • (A) the actor received notice that:
    
    • (1) entry on the property by a person with a handgun was forbidden; or
      
      (2) remaining on the property with a handgun was forbidden and failed to depart.

• • (A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;
    
    (B) a sign or signs posted on the property or at the entrance to the building, reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders, indicating that entry with a handgun is forbidden;
    
    (C) notice under Section 30.06.

• (1) the actor did not intentionally fail to conceal the handgun; and
  
  (2) the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

• (1) was not licensed to carry a concealed handgun under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code; or
  
  (2) carried a handgun but made no attempt to conceal it.

CleverNickname wrote:

Douva wrote:I would definitely like to see the open carry bill worded so that businesses and property owners would be able to prohibit open carry on their property by posting a simple "gunbuster" sign. I'd hate to see a public backlash against open carry lead to an increase in 30.06 posting.

What? Unless 30.06 was rewritten, it wouldn't apply to open carriers. But a sign wouldn't be necessary. It's open carry. If whoever is in charge of the property sees someone carrying a gun, then they can tell the carrier to leave, just like if they didn't want someone on their property who wasn't wearing a shirt/shoes, etc.

srothstein wrote:I think the main problem is the goal of opencarry.org is unlicensed carry and they don't know how to draftbills, as Chalres has pointed out.