TexasCHLforum.com

Oops my mistake Frankie the Yankee not you flintknapper.

Well flintknapper when I first saw your recommendation about carry on private property I to thought it was legal to do so now. Just goes to show you this forum will keep you on your toes! I have certainly been guilty of this myself. My only saving grace is that we do have a firing range set up and we are normally shooting.

But yes, I agree that items such as this and university carry should be more important to us at this time. Along with a stronger education regarding the use of 30.06. I do not beleive that all of the establishments that currently post are really aware of what they are posting or who they are basically locking their doors to.

When I sent my email to AMC, rather than point out the facts of the background check and qualifiing steps. I asked if there was some incident that prompted the use of a 30.06 sign. That question must have really stumped them, I did not even get the canned response that everyone received.

I have been a little slow at work, so I have been doing some research at http://www.opencarry.org. Here are some of the things I have found.

1. In "Gold States" (there are 10) where no permits is required to open carry it is an immense hassle to do so. Everthing you read that some believe may happen will happen. The sheeple call 911, LEO's will stop and question you, and buisnesses will post.

2. In the green states (there are 13) where permits are required to carry OC or CC (in most of these you have choice) The same listed hassle's apply when individuals or groups OC. States in this category include New Jersey and Rhode Island. The forums make it sound near impossible to get permits there.

3. The next group are states where state law says OC is legal, but cities can overide the state. (preemption) Included in this group is Colorado and Kansas. OCer's in these states have the same issues as the first two with the added flavor of staying up to date with city laws. Do not OC in Denver. Permits are required for CC but not for OC in most of these.

4. The red group which Texas falls into of course is no OC. Surprising that only 6 states are in this group.

5. The last group is for California and Illinois. I don't need to fill you in here do I.

One thing that really stood out is that in most of the OC states there seems to be a struggle keeping new more restrictive laws from passing. Major cities are trying to over rule state laws in many large populated areas. Different from here in Texas where most of the attempts for change would give those of us with CHL's more freedom.

Several business including some reports from wally worlds around the country take no issue to CC, but will ask you to leave or cover when you are OC. Adds some argument to a post by Charles. The sheeple have very sensitive eyes and prefer to stay in the dark.

I would just reccomend to those of you that are still trying to decide to be for or against OC to visit open carry for a little reading.

Do not expect that a change in the law in Texas will make all the issues disappear.

By the way Alaska seems to be the best bet for those who want to OC on a daily bases.

frankie_the_yankee wrote:I have no problem with having the option of open carry. But for my own part, I wouldn't use that option too often.

I agree with you on this. However I am really becoming pro-choice. We should have the option based on our preference and not someone else's.

I am spending time on the open carry forums just to find out for myself how serious this is getting to be. From what I have seen they are starting to pick up some steam in Texas. I have also been visiting some of the forums based in the current OC states. Things seem to be working there, however there are still many issues with LEO's and the sheeple.

The Texas group is looking for LEO's that support OC here in our state. There is apparently many LEO's who would rather see who is armed when responding to calls. I know there are both active LEO's and retired LEO's that are members here, it would be nice to here their opinion on OC in Texas. As an ex-LEO I can agree there are benefits to both and I am starting to lean toward the OC side provided there remains a screening and qualification standard.

I found this on the Opencarry.org site. Although a little long it certainly makes some great points.

After reading and posting on this topic I have started visiting some of the forums for states that allow OC. I am starting to favor their thinking more and more.

OPEN CARRY VS. CONCEALED CARRY

Revision 1.24

Written By: Garry E. Harvey
Contributing Editors: OpenCarry.org Members


The purpose of this essay is to examine the two competing points of view within the handgun carry community and consider each one for its merits, both good and bad, from a common sense and logical point of view.

INTRODUCTION

"AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY"

Weapons and firearms in particular have been personified by many in recent decades as being evil and able to impart that evil into anyone who chooses to wield the weapon. In the anti-gun community, the only ones who appear to be immune from the gun's evil are those acting under the authority of government. It has been engrained into the minds of millions that ordinary citizens cannot and should not be trusted with the ability to use firearms for protection much less carry them into the public. Anyone who advocates such action is labeled evil, dangerous, or a vigilante. This line of thinking appears to be slowing eroding away as evidenced by the fall of the once prominent and powerful anti-gun lobby. The number of people choosing to carry a weapon for self protection has been growing steadily since the first laws were enacted. The cry of anarchy and blood running in the streets by the anti-gun lobby has proven false. As this has become more and more apparent, no thinks to the main stream media, the average citizen is beginning to change their minds over the issue. Criminals in an armed society know that their actions may garner them instant peril of death should they choose the wrong victim. That old saying still proves to be as true as it ever was, "An armed society is a polite society."
Carrying a pistol has been a part of my daily routine for going on four years. During that time I've taken almost every opportunity to speak with people from each end of the spectrum regarding the issue. Before I ever received my permit I remember part of a conversation I had with a party advocate for the Al Gore campaign in early 2000. Among the issues I posed to her during our conversation was that of Mr. Gore's support of gun control measures. She scoffed at me and snobbishly remarked that we didn't live in the Wild West. At the time I was not as well versed in the issue as I am now and really had no response although with her status I would have had more luck convincing a fence post otherwise. Over the next seven years I made it a point to broach the topic every chance I had with whomever I thought might have an interesting opinion on the matter. I researched the writing of the founding fathers and their predecessors with fervor. I studied the history of gun-control in America from the civil war forward, the rise of anti-gun organizations and those pro-gun organizations who rose in opposition to defend the Constitution. Having made my decision as to which side I was on I was surprised at the sometimes hateful opposition to carrying a firearm openly by members of the pro-gun rights community. It is for this reason I have undertaken to write this for everyone within that community. Before I delve into specifics let me state firstly that how one chooses to carry their weapon is their own choice and should not be subjected to harassment from others who disagree with that choice. My purpose is not to hold one method above the other but rather detail the benefits of both and leave it to the reader to decide for his or herself which they prefer.


CONCEALED CARRY

THE ELEMENT OF SURPRISE

The most prominent reason given by proponents of carrying concealed is the element of surprise. There are many hypothetical situations which have been posed to prove this point but they all boil down to the CRIMINAL not being aware of the ARMED CITIZEN as anymore of a threat than the UNARMED CITIZEN. The result is that the ARMED CITIZEN may reserve the option to use deadly force until the situation is favorable or not, should the threat cease.
What are the negatives associated with this logic and why is it not perfect in all situations? Well, one must first assume they will not be the sole primary target but rather a third party or in a group setting. The element of surprise is quickly rendered null once you are at knife or gunpoint with nothing to distract your attacker. Assuming the attacker becomes distracted sufficiently enough to attempt a weapon draw the victim must consider the risk and added time needed to draw from a concealed location. If all factors are not in the victim’s favor then the attacker is likely to win as his weapon was already in the ready position.
Another reason given for favoring concealed carry is the fear or perceived risk of the weapon being taken by the CRIMINAL. In one of two versions the CRIMINAL takes the weapon after it has been drawn from the holster and pointed at him. This is commonly shown in movies where the CRIMINAL takes the gun as the ARMED CITIZEN is too afraid to shoot. Unless the attacker is suicidal or the firearm is incapable of firing for some reason, expect to see this situation stay in the movies. The second of the two concerns the CRIMINAL successfully taking the weapon from the holster before the ARMED CITIZEN can react. This has happened to police officers and so it could happen to the ARMED CITIZEN as well but consider this following difference. In all but a minority of cases, the CRIMINAL took the officer's weapon once being confronted by the officer or while being placed under arrest. The act was one of desperation as the reward of escape outweighed the risk of taking the weapon from the officer. Assuming the weapon is properly holstered in a professional manner, the ARMED CITIZEN would only pose a threat to the CRIMINAL within a self-defense situation; the risk to the CRIMINAL would be overwhelming in attempting to steal the weapon as this act would trigger the self defense reaction from the ARMED CITIZEN.
Another less logical reason for not carrying openly is that one does not want to appear to be "looking for trouble." This line of thought seems to have evolved from the anti-gun accusation that everyone who carries a weapon is looking for a fight. The illogical hypothetical given for example tends to go as follows. The CRIMINAL sees the ARMED CITIZEN carrying a weapon and for no logical reason chooses to confront the ARMED CITIZEN and instigate a fight which inevitably ends with the CRIMINAL winning. Upon close scrutiny the reason and the hypothetical posed do not match up. First, why would the CRIMINAL want to fight an armed opponent for no reason? The CRIMINAL would have to lack any kind of judgment, have no fear of death and believe he is the fastest shooter on earth, not to mention invincible to bullets. Finally, how exactly is the ARMED CITIZEN the one "looking for trouble" when the CRIMINAL prompted the confrontation? Was it not the CRIMINAL "looking for trouble" by targeting the ARMED CITIZEN and pushing him into a self defense situation? This line of thinking is similar to accusing a rape victim of wanting to be raped because she was supposedly dressed provocatively.
Although there are other reasons I've been given for carrying concealed, the ones discussed have been some of the most prevalent; of the three only two hold some historical basis for concern but the last one falls apart upon a logical evaluation. The real reason for concealment has less to do with a tactical advantage, I think, and more to do with a social advantage. If the ARMED CITIZEN thinks he would be better served in a temporary social environment to have his weapon concealed then by all means do so. An example might be that you're shopping at a local mall owned and operated by big city politically correct hacks that are obviously anti-gun. If you know they'll ask you to leave their property should they become aware of you exercising your rights, it would be understandable to conceal it from their view; that is if you have to shop there. Maybe you're going to church and you don't want to draw attention from the preacher and his sermon. Bottom line, you should conceal when you think it is reasonable and serves a nobler purpose, not because someone pressured you.


THE CASE FOR OPEN CARRY

BEWARE OF DOG/GUN

A sign, be it text, picture, or symbol, is something visual which communicates a clear message to the observer. The observer can choose to disregard the sign but nonetheless they are forced to consider the message before proceeding. Examples of signs conveying an important message would be "BEWARE OF DOG", "NO SMOKING", "EMERGENCY EXIT", or the more ominous "DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED". Each sign aids the observer in any potential decision making. Of course, the observer may choose to ignore the warning but this choice will be made based on whether the potential reward outweighs the risk.
The case for open carry is simple. I would submit that in much the same way that a sign works, when the ARMED CITIZEN carries his weapon in the open it communicates a clear message to any observer. To an observer who has no intention of causing harm or using illegal force the sign should be meaningless. However, when the CRIMINAL observes this same sign he must reconsider whether the potential reward outweighs the risk. Where the risk was simply being caught or having to physically overpower the UNARMED CITIZEN it now suddenly rises to potentially enduring great pain and death when confronting the ARMED CITIZEN. Do insane or even desperate CRIMINALS exist who would disregard such an obvious sign and follow through with an attack? As with any possibility the answer is YES but even though they exist their actions do not support the opposing view that open carry should be avoided. They can still be potentially stopped by the ARMED CITIZEN once he becomes aware of the CRIMINALS intent to present a lethal threat.
With regard to the element of surprise discussed earlier, open carry actually supersedes the need for surprise. If carrying openly causes the CRIMINAL to avoid you and those around you as his victims then the need for surprise is negated. Your display of an ability to employ deadly force has avoided the confrontation before it even began, avoided the threat to your life and having to actually use your weapon. As the CRIMINAL moves on to easier prey you will likely never be aware it even happened.


CONCLUSION

THE REAL PROBLEM WITH OPEN CARRY

What is the real reason some shy from open carry? I believe it to be fear; the anxiety of having to confront someone hostile to their choice to carry a weapon for personal defense. As a pro-carry activist I welcome it but I can understand where a large section of armed citizens do not. Are there times when it is expedient to conceal your sidearm, definitely! Should you feel ashamed to carry it openly, NO! Hundreds of thousands of people have fought state after state to pass legislation to restore that right which was once only granted at the behest of local law enforcement.
Anti-gun hacks claim to have a right to "feel safe." This non-existent right has been twisted from the right to "be secure in one's person and effects" a right I exercise whenever I carry my weapon. The anti-gun crowd has the twisted perception that the weapon and not the criminal is the threat. They will and have called the police to harass the ARMED CITIZEN; I advise you show your permit and carry on. They may card you as many times as they wish as I long as you know you are legal nothing they do should stop you from carrying openly.
We, the pro-carry citizens, have to stop criticizing each other. We have to stop playing footsy with the politically correct crowd and stick together. Public opinion can be swayed in our favor if we as law abiding citizens can show through open carry that we are safe, caring individuals whose only want is to be able to defend our family and ourselves from needless victimization. Ben Franklin said it best when he explained that "the very fame of our strength and readiness would be a means of discouraging our enemies; for tis a wise and true saying that one sword often keeps the other in the scabbard. The way to secure peace is to be prepared for war. Those who are on the guard and appear ready to receive their adversaries are in much less danger of attack than the secure, the supine, and the negligent."

2007, Garry Harvey. This essay may be reproduced with the condition that it be kept in its entirety and cited accordingly

It is not that I agree with laws that we currently live with. However staying on the firearm topic. We have come a long way baby.

Compared to what we had before CHL we are headed in the right direction. The new version of traveling with a firearm is a major improvement. I think everyone would agree with those two. No, we are not as for as some would wish, that is why there is now a group that is seaking open carry approval.

With regards to laws pertaining to firearms, I am extremely careful to follow them. Anything we might do that is "unlawful" gets so blown out of poportion by the antis, I refuse to knowingly break any "gun law". There are ways to change laws. I would think ones time would be better spent in the pursuit of change rather than filing serial numbers.

Gun owners that really care about what rights we have should be diligent in protecting them. Do not give the other side fuel for their fire, the sheeple will be gathered into giant herds and we will lose again.

I know people like that as well (maybe not that part about the serial numbers) that does not mean I want one for back up in a gun fight.

Do you not take acception to any of those items in your post? Do you beleive that it is perfectly legal behavior? Do you beleive that it is their 2nd ammendment right to possess and carry those weapons? It is fine if you do, I do. It is there choice, I wish them luck if they are caught with the missing serial numbers. Everything you said about owning and having firearms at home and in a vehicle is legal. I am also sure that some are carrying in there pocket, their choice.

Do you hold a CHL, if so ask yourself why? Do you have children, if so what are you teaching them about firearms.

Now lets allow OC and put them all on the street with the additional number of first time gun owners, all toting guns around acting like they know what they are doing. Maybe it is me, and I am dead wrong in my thinking, but I am seeing chaos. Then I see chaos becoming ammunition for the anti's then I start seeing the right to OC starting to be taken away, but they will not just go after OC they will come after CHL as well. It will be like the assault weapons ban, everything will be attached.

While we are at it should we require drivers training and licensing. What about the license to fly an airplane.

I am not against OC, I support the 2nd amendment, and I do beleive it is our right to keep and bear arms. I also beleive it is our responsibility to know how and when to use them.

Wildbill I should have included that in my post excellant comment. I agree that it should not be in the Goverments hands. The only thing I would like to see from government on the city level would be free firarms training classes. I will not hold my breath for that.

I like that comment about the Doofi. Some of you who condem the idea of training being required might want to reconsider. If OC was to pass and everyone who wanted could strap up and walk the streets can you imagine what would follow.

I can see it in bold print "NO GUNS ALLOWED INSIDE CITY LIMITS" does that sound fimiliar. That is what Wyatt Earp like to post outside towns when he was elected sheriff. Those signs spread like wild fire across this nation at one time. It was not because of the law abiding citizen, it was caused by the ever growing number of Doofi.

We had the right to OC once in this country, and yes I do beleive it was our right then and still is. However we lost that right and some of the blame must be placed on the Doofi of the time. Someone and/or some group has spent dollars and hours (I am sorry to say I do not know who to thank) fighting for our right to carry once again although it is concealed and you must go through the qualification process and obtain a license.

I do not want to give the anti's anymore rocks to throw in our direction and I could see their pile growing. Colorado is another state that allows open carry, but in that state cities have the right to over rule state. Of course Denver as well as many front range towns said not here. From what I understand the did not want licensed concealed carry either. They lost that battle.

Population has certainly increased, the percentage of Doofis has probably gone up, but the biggest issue that I see is firearm training in the home is not what it once was. I would guess that the vast majority of members of this forum and the vast majority of CHL holders owned and operated firearms before CHL passed. I would also bet that the children raised in their homes were educated in firearm safety and use. The anti's and their agenda have been effective in far to many homes and have taken a toll in our society.

When my kids starting getting older, it became harder for me to hide coming and going to the range, or packing for hunting trips the fact that I owned and used guns from their friends. It didn't help when friends would invite them on an outing and they said "no I am going with my dad to shoot at the range". Far to many of these other children were shocked that I owned firearms and allowed my kids to shoot them. Others were immeadiatly drawn to the idea and requsted that I teach them about the shooting sport. Which I was more than happy to do once I had agreement from the parents. My next surprise was the number of parents that came forward with the same request. By the way, those of you that have not started a family yet, but intend to, get ready you are going to see this.

Whether it is CHL or OC I beleive in mandatory training, and yes that means you must have a peice of paper. Gun safety and shooting skills have been bred out of far to many sheeple.

I have looked at that site and am a little concerned. They appear to be lobbying for "Open Carry" no permit required.

I am not so sure about open carry and no training and/or qualification process. I am currently working on a project in Indiana where open carry is permitted (with a permit), but is not practiced much that I have witnessed. Allot of talks in the local forums and there does seem to be a fairly large group that is promoting it. Local LEO's are not fond of it at all.

Like others I am staying squarely on the fence with this one.