TexasCHLforum.com

gmckinl wrote:Arggggggggh. As Popeye says I can't stands no more.

Just wanted to throw out an observation from one who spends and has spent way too much time in Virginia. Virginia ie the holy grail of OC; from the OC.org website - OpenCarry.org was founded in 2004 by Virginia gun-rights activists John Pierce and Mike Stollenwerk and has served to ignite the "Open Carry Movement".

Keeping it brief, OC is allowed in VA. Going into ANY restaurant that serves alcohol precludes concealed carry, hence the frequent web references to taking your coat off at the door.

My point is, that in all my time in VA I've seen... wait for it... NO ONE open carrying. Not one single person other than uniformed LEOs. Yes I've heard all the blather (web postings) about OC get togethers at restaurant xyz. BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT EVEN ONCE.

I can only conclude that either it's not frequent (not many people wish to), or some of the proponents preach but don't practice. I don't know the answer, maybe a bit of both?????

I'm on the company's nickle so you can jolly well bet I'm eating out all three meals a day, yet in five years of going up there, from my point of view - no one seen to be OC'ing.

I would love to watch someone OC'ing down King Street in Alexandria. Pop into some snooty art gallery w/ a great big ole pistol on their hip for all the world to see. Or, into go into 219 for a nice dinner with it shining in the sun. Yeah right, sure you would do it. How about the Ruth's Chris in Pentagon City (or is it Crystal City) - and walk through the neighboring mall to get there. More

"Rare occurrence" is the key phrase.

Over and Out.

That mirrors my experience in eight years of going to Virginia at least 6 to 8 times a year. I go to Arlington and Fairfax primarily, but have been to other cities/towns on rare occasions. In fact, this mirrors my experience in traveling all over the country for over 30 years.

Chas.

I think we need to remember two things from the recent past, when deciding what chances open-carry has of passing, and the potential negative response from the general public. First, unlicensed car-carry only passed last session and it was a radical idea to many. For the first time since 1871, Texans could carry a handgun in their car without a license. It took eleven years from the time CHL passed until unlicensed car-carry was achieveable and that was largely because the Legislature was really ticked off at Rosenthal and his ilk who thumbed there nose at the "traveling presumption." Going to unlicensed open-carry is another very large step whose timing probably isn't good.

As for public reaction, there was tremendous media coverage in 1995 and there was a huge negative backlash against people carrying "hidden guns" even after an extensive background check and a training course. It was so bad, we had to create TPC 30.06 in 1997 to stem the spread of the ghostbuster "no gun" decals. This isn't theoretical, it happened! If unlicensed open-carry were to pass (and it won't), then the media would have a field day pointing out that CHLs have a background check done and they attend a training course, but people "walking around openly packing heat" don't. I can hear it now, "you won't know if the man packing heat next to you in the grocery store is a child molester or not, because he doesn't have to have a license to carry that gun." That approach will be intellectually dishonest and alarmist in nature, but the media won't pass up the opportunity to take a shot at us (no pun intended). They did it in 1995 and I haven't noticed in improvement in accuracy in the media's reporting of gun-related stories.

Chas.

HGWC wrote:

kw5kw wrote: This is the part that bothers me--"it's presence cannot be discernible through ordinary observation." An unintentional "flash" at a gas pump could be considered by some: "I saw it through ordinary observation of this person filling up his car, the wind blew his shirt open and there it was...."Brvroom in plain sight!... a GUN!"

It doesn't even have to be a flash. It could be a suspicious bump under your shirt. What does "ordinary observation" mean?

No it can't. "Ordinary observation" means a normal person must be able to look at you and say "there is a gun;" not "there is a bulge that could be a gun;" or "I think he has a gun."

The CHL must intentionally fail to conceal. Intentional conduct is very hard to prove, that's why I could only find two cases where a CHL was convicted for violating 46.035(a). If it were as gray an area as many seem to fear, there would be a lot of convictions folks. If you support open-carry fine, but don't let unintentional failure to conceal be the reason.

Chas.

A lot of people are basing their support of open-carry solely on the Second Amendment, arguing that not allowing unlicensed open-carry violates the Second Amendment. In a purist sense, I agree. To me, the Second Amendment means precisely what it says; i.e. no infringement.

However, what I think about the Second Amendment doesn't matter. Like it or not, accept it or not, the only opinions as to the constitutionality of any laws that matter are those in the majority of any U.S. Supreme Court decision. Right now, five of the nine justices tell us the Second Amendment is an individual right. In dicta, those same five justices tell us that states can restrict where guns can be carried and the states/cities can even require a license merely to own a gun, not to mention carry one in public. I'm very happy with the Heller decision, but I would have been elated if Alan Gura had not conceded that licensing is constitutional, so the majority opinion would have directly addressed licensing. My guess is that licensing would be found constitutional, so long as it is not arbitrary or capricious or merely veiled prohibition.

So when supporters of open-carry argue that any opponents don't support the Second Amendment, the allegation is unfounded. All this means is that opponents don't accept their interpretation of the scope of the Second Amendment. As I stated earlier, no opinions matter unless they get a vote on the Supreme Court. It doesn't matter how much we scream and holler or beat our chests, open-carry isn't mandated by any decision of the U.S. Supreme Court or the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

I wish it were different, but it is not. We get things done by dealing with how things are, not how we wish them to be. Reasonable minds can differ on whether open-carry should be pursued in Texas, and if so, how should it be done (licensed v. unlicensed, etc.) and who should carry the flag. Since valid, rational arguments can be made on both sides of the debate, there is no reason to question the dedication of people who don't share our opinions on this very emotional issue.

Chas.

KBCraig wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:OpenCarry.org, a Virginia-based organization....

I didn't realize that Virginia-based organizations were unwelcome in Texas. Don't you happen to sit on the Board of Directors of a Virginia-based organization?

My point is that "organizations" based in other states that are not knowledgeable in the procedural rules and customs in Texas are at a disadvantage when trying to draft legislation and in deciding how to get it introduced. My comment was prompted by the quote in the article that the open-carry supporters would try to attach their bill to another bill, if they couldn't get a sponsor. Those are fighting words to anyone experienced in shepherding a bill through the legislative process! All kidding aside, the last thing any bill promoter wants is to have a well-crafted bill with a narrow scope amended to include subject matter unrelated to your goals. And "my" Virginia-based organization has expertise in every state, as well as on the federal level.

KBCraig wrote:OpenCarry.org is no more an "organization" than TexasCHLforum.com is. I wouldn't even call it "Virginia-based", although that's where the founders live. It's an online, grassroots, community of gun rights activists, with volunteer researchers and advocates for almost every state. There are clashing opinions and clashing personalities, and no 10 year old daughter rule. It's not the same as this forum, but every community has its own norm.

I agree. I wasn't condemning OpenCarry.org, I just noted that I went there to invite their members to TexasCHLforum to discuss the open-carry issue. I chose not to post anything since, as you noted, the atmosphere there was markedly different than here and inviting that type of "discussion" here in TexasCHLforum would not have been prudent.

KBCraig wrote:You mentioned that people who disagree are treated viciously over there. There have been plenty of trolls there who deserve to be treated with scorn. Why would anyone join a position advocacy forum just to tell them how wrong and crazy they are? Would you welcome someone who came here and on the first post started telling us we're wrong and crazy for carrying guns? How "inappropriate" it is? How dangerous it is for us to be around children while we're carrying? And wouldn't it be a hundred times more irritating if this person claimed to be a gun owner who supports the Second, just "not like that"?

There's a new thread like that almost weekly on OCDO, where a concealed carry advocate joins up and denigrates open carry, because "they'll snatch your gun!" or "they'll take you out first!" or "you're ruining it for the rest of us!"; such people get the "welcome" they deserve.

I don't like trolls on any board and they may have theirs. But I don't consider everyone with an opposing view a troll. If open-carry supporters can't calmly and respectfully discuss such issues as you mentioned ("snatch" risk, first target, etc.), then they don't want honest and open discourse, they just want cheerleaders and "yes men." We do nothing to discourage open discussion of diverse views here on TexasCHLforum; we just require that people be respectful. But again, as you mentioned, it's their board and it can be run as they see fit. If I thought there was something wrong with OpenCarry.org I certainly wouldn't have a link to their website in our links section.

Chas.

HGWC wrote:Finally, you seem to represent the small percentage of people that already have a CHL and those that will tolerate the current situation,

HGWC wrote:Despite the recent success in the legislature, I and countless other people are being indefinitely denied the right to defend myself, my family, and my community with the most popular firearm for self defense. You support the legislation that infringes on my rights in such a fundamental way. That's a divisive issue, and if that's the last thing we need, I suggest you stop supporting the infringement of my rights. That doesn't sound very pro gun to me. It sounds a lot more like supporting reasonable gun control.

You've been a member of TexasCHLforum for a very short while and you obviously know absolutely nothing about my history with this issue. Keep your insults to yourself.

HGWC wrote:Sorry Charles, but if you were sitting in my shoes, I suspect you'd feel the same way. I'll support any bill you get introduced, but what you're supporting is just not enough. I thought it was in August when I applied for the CHL, but clearly now, it's not. I don't accept that this is a take it or leave it proposition. I seriously believe that this isn't going to get resolved until we get court cases filed. I believe we need to be pursuing this in both the legislature and the courts. The TSRA and opencarry.org don't agree with me, but maybe when the open carry bill fails we'll get the court cases. Maybe that's just what we need is to continue to deny the rights of more people just like me. Eventually, the court cases will come.

You have no idea what we're working on, so don't tell me it won't fix the delay problem. Obviously, you're mad about the delay and have every reason to be mad. But that doesn't justify the Chicken Little approach and it doesn't help fix the problem.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

HGWC wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: That's not nit-picking, it's accurate reporting, unlike the article. It really burns me up when open-carry supporters from other states make statements that inadvertent exposure of your handgun in Texas is illegal. At least learn our laws rather than pointing out a non-existent problem. There is a very good reason why the statute only reads "intentionally" fails to conceal, rather than the traditional "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly."

Chas.

Charles, I know you realize it's not just the wording of the statute but also the interpretation by law enforcement and the courts. Can you offer CHL members here an explanation of how "intentional exposure" is being enforced by all police officers, district attorneys, and judges across the state?

I am only aware of one conviction for violating TPC §46.035(a) and that was in the McDermott case where Mr. McDermott laid his pistol on the dash of his car to scare a lady. It worked, she called the police and he was convicted of intentionally failing to conceal his handgun. Are you aware of any other cases where a CHL was convicted of intentionally failing to conceal? There may be more, I'm just not aware of them and none other than McDermott were reported as recently as about 18 to 24 months ago.

Most penal statutes have a mens rea (mental state) requirement of "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly" in order to get a conviction. TPC §46.035(a) requires the much tougher standard of "intentionally" failing to conceal. This was not an accident. In fact, the precise reason I gave for this unique mens rea during my testimony on SB60 was to prevent prosecution of a CHL because the wind blew open his/her coat, or because the bottom of their holster was inadvertently exposed when they reached for the top shelf at the supermarket, or for any other inadvertent exposure.

I have never seen a case of inadvertent exposure resulting in an arrest, prosecution or conviction. If I'm mistaken, please show me the case.

Chas.

I did more research and found a second conviction for violation of TPC §46.035(a) "Intentional Failure to Conceal." Spielman v. State. Like McDermott, Mr. Spielman intentionally put his hand on his pistol in his pocket during a disagreement with two young people over a parking space. He testified he never pulled the pistol out, and two complaining witnesses testified he did. The jury believed the complaining witnesses.

I am attaching copies of both McDermott and Spielman.

Chas.

thankGod wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I want to note that although I personally oppose open-carry because of the backlash I believe we would face, I still have a link to OpenCarry.org in the links thread here on TexasCHLforum.com. I have read that board and I must say that open-carry supporters are incredibly vicious in their attacks on opponents of open-carry. I went there to invite some of the members to come to TexasCHLforum.com and discuss their views and plans. But when I saw the way they described pro-gun people who disagreed with their position, I decided not to post. As others have noted in another thread, the last thing pro-gun people need now is a divisive fight over open-carry, or any other firearms issue.

Charles, I am remaining neutral on the issue. However, as it appears to me, you are in a particular position that would allow you to have your input with the 'organizers' of opencarry.org prior to any bill, to ensure that the current laws are not put in harms way.

I'm trying desperately to remain neutral too!

As an NRA Board member and TSRA Legislative Committee Vice-Chairman, I can't do that. I could shout from the rooftops that I was doing this in my individual capacity and not as a representative of either of those organizations, but that would fall on deaf ears. And to be perfectly candid, OpenCarry.org wouldn't want my input anyway. They have no patience for anyone who doesn't show 100% support for their position. Just reading their board makes that abundantly clear.

Chas.

rodbender wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I've made my feelings about open-carry known, but I will not oppose their efforts either openly or behind the scenes. However, if they try to amend one of our bills and tack on their stuff, I promise you it will fail! Our bills are very carefully drafted and I'm not going to let anyone screw one up and harm our chances of getting something passed. I hope this is just interview talk and not part of their battle plan. If it really is, they will be making a very big mistake and making an enemy they don't want or need. I'll stay neutral as long as they don't mess with our legislation.

Chas.

. . . This decision was not because of your threats. Wanted to let you know that you haven't scared anyone, OK?

I wasn't trying to scare anyone, I was just stating facts. But if anyone thinks we can't protect our bills, then just try to attach open-carry provisions and see what happens.

As for the proposed bill, I've seen it and it is a very big mistake. Unlike the federal congress, the Texas Legislature strictly adheres to the germane rule. That means amendments cannot be made to any bill, unless the amendment is directly related to the subject matter of the bill. The proposed bill goes far far beyond what is necessary to legalize open-carry. By repealing TPC §46.035 and moving those provisions to TPC §46.02, the entire subject matter area of §§46.02 and 46.03 is now fair game for anti-gun amendments. My guess is that the law student in Virginia that wrote the bill didn't understand the procedural significance of that approach. That's one of the dangers in trying to draft legislation for another state. I'm sure he was just trying to draft something that accomplished OpenCarry.org's goal, but I personally would not have opened the door to potential anti-guns amendments. It's no fun having to pull your own bill down because something got added by amendment.

Chas.

HGWC wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. I live in Galveston County and my law office is in Harris County. Could you tell me how and where this is being done?

I have a letter in my possession where DPS has stated that my CHL application is being delayed indefinitely due to hurricane IKE. As I understand, my application is tied up, indefinitely, in Brazoria and Harris counties on background checks.

Okay, I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were saying large counties were preventing CHLs from carrying in public places. Ike caused tremendous damage in Galveston so I'm not surprised the portion of the background checks that must be done "on location" were delayed. The Galveston County Courthouse was not operational for many weeks. I don't know about Brazoria County and Harris County wasn't damaged.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:There are delays to be sure and this has been discussed in detail in several different threads. However, DPS hasn't interpreted the current CHL laws as allowing indefinite delays. In fact, DPS has admitted in meetings with Chairman Driver and a representative of Governor Perry that they are "out of statute" (meaning they are late) by as much as 100 days, due to a shortage of personnel. DPS has acknowledged they are not complying with the law, they are not interpreting current law as allowing indefinite delays.

HGWC wrote:I have been told personally by the DPS on several occasions that they interpret Gov Code 411.177 as allowing them to delay issuance of CHLs indefinitely waiting on background checks. According to the DPS, the law allows Harris county to delay background checks indefinitely, and all DPS has to do is send a letter stating that fact to be in compliance with 411.177. They are interpreting the law as allowing indefinite delays, hence the letter I and countless others have received stating that my application has been delayed indefinitely.

Sorry, but I know that not to be DPS's position. I don't know who you talked to, but that's not the law and that is not what DPS contended in a very uncomfortable meeting about their delays. How would you have been in a position to have been told that "on several occasions?"

I have already drafted two bills to streamline the processing of CHL applications and that should help everyone including DPS, CHL instructors and CHL applicants. If it passes, it should help DPS issue licenses much faster.

HGWC wrote:That's great. I'd like to hear more about this.

Then watch for my Bill Status Report updates.

HGWC wrote:I want to see an elimination of the student loan and taxes requirement.

I have felt this way for a long time.

HGWC wrote:I want to see an end to the $140 charge plus $100+ for the training, . . .

It'll never happen, but there is no harm in wanting. For clarity, only the initial license fee is $140 and this is reduced by 50% if you qualify for a fee reduction. Renewals are only $70, unless you qualify for the 50% reduction.

HGWC wrote:. . . and I want to see an end to the indefinite delays.

There are delays, but again there are no indefinite delays in the context you are using the term. Overstating the problem doesn't help the open-carry cause. It's much like the absurd statement in the article, "As Texans realize how restrictive their rights are . . . there will be an awakening. Get ready for a showdown in Austin come January.". Texas does not allow open-carry, but otherwise Texas law on guns is very liberal. Grossly inaccurate and purely emotional statements like the one quoted will not garner support in Austin.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:We will not risk losing campus-carry, employee parking lots, or other important bills, because someone decided to tack on open-carry.
Chas.

HGWC wrote:I understand your point about not tying the issues together. However, when the most populace counties in the state are delaying all CHLs indefinitely, I don't see why campus carry and employee parking lots are the top priority.

Because 1) I’m far more concerned about preventing a Virginia Tech in Texas than I am people being able to wear their guns in the open; 2) I am far more interested in people not being disarmed going to and from their places of employment; 3) it affects far more people than those in two or three counties for a limited period of time; 4) there are no “indefinite delays” in the context in which you have repeatedly used the term; 5) because unlicensed open-carry isn’t going to pass and we will not let these two bills that are so important to tens of thousands of CHLs die because OpenCarry.org can’t get their own bill introduced and/or doesn't have the horsepower to get it passed.

OpenCarry.org, a Virginia-based organization, decided to take on this project and that's fine. But their bill sponsor problem isn't going to become our problem by way of an ill-advised amendment to an NRA/TSRA bill. That's not being antagonistic to the open-carry bill; it's being protective of our own bills.

HGWC wrote: Frankly, if I can't step foot outside of my car with a handgun, I don't see much value in taking it out of the house. If I could get a CHL, then, yes, I would like to know I could at least leave it in my employer's parking lot. If my son could get a CHL, I'd like to know he could carry it with him on campus. Only, I can't get a CHL and nothing in the law is going to change that indefinitely. Until then, I'm supporting the open carry law. I encourage everyone else to as well.

Again, I oppose open-carry for the reasons I have stated, but I will not oppose opencarry.org’s bill, so long there is no attempt to saddle any of our bills with that poison-pill. If that attempt is made, I’ll go after it like it is an “assault weapons” ban bill.

I want to note that although I personally oppose open-carry because of the backlash I believe we would face, I still have a link to OpenCarry.org in the links thread here on TexasCHLforum.com. I have read that board and I must say that open-carry supporters are incredibly vicious in their attacks on opponents of open-carry. I went there to invite some of the members to come to TexasCHLforum.com and discuss their views and plans. But when I saw the way they described pro-gun people who disagreed with their position, I decided not to post. As others have noted in another thread, the last thing pro-gun people need now is a divisive fight over open-carry, or any other firearms issue.

Chas.

HGWC wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: That's not nit-picking, it's accurate reporting, unlike the article. It really burns me up when open-carry supporters from other states make statements that inadvertent exposure of your handgun in Texas is illegal. At least learn our laws rather than pointing out a non-existent problem. There is a very good reason why the statute only reads "intentionally" fails to conceal, rather than the traditional "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly."

Chas.

Charles, I know you realize it's not just the wording of the statute but also the interpretation by law enforcement and the courts. Can you offer CHL members here an explanation of how "intentional exposure" is being enforced by all police officers, district attorneys, and judges across the state?

I am only aware of one conviction for violating TPC §46.035(a) and that was in the McDermott case where Mr. McDermott laid his pistol on the dash of his car to scare a lady. It worked, she called the police and he was convicted of intentionally failing to conceal his handgun. Are you aware of any other cases where a CHL was convicted of intentionally failing to conceal? There may be more, I'm just not aware of them and none other than McDermott were reported as recently as about 18 to 24 months ago.

Most penal statutes have a mens rea (mental state) requirement of "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly" in order to get a conviction. TPC §46.035(a) requires the much tougher standard of "intentionally" failing to conceal. This was not an accident. In fact, the precise reason I gave for this unique mens rea during my testimony on SB60 was to prevent prosecution of a CHL because the wind blew open his/her coat, or because the bottom of their holster was inadvertently exposed when they reached for the top shelf at the supermarket, or for any other inadvertent exposure.

I have never seen a case of inadvertent exposure resulting in an arrest, prosecution or conviction. If I'm mistaken, please show me the case.

Chas.

HGWC wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I've made my feelings about open-carry known, but I will not oppose their efforts either openly or behind the scenes. However, if they try to amend one of our bills and tack on their stuff, I promise you it will fail! Our bills are very carefully drafted and I'm not going to let anyone screw one up and harm our chances of getting something passed. I hope this is just interview talk and not part of their battle plan. If it really is, they will be making a very big mistake and making an enemy they don't want or need. I'll stay neutral as long as they don't mess with our legislation.

Chas.

As it stands now Charles, some of the most populace counties in the state are instituting what amounts to a complete ban on the possession of handguns in public for a countless number of citizens in good standing.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. I live in Galveston County and my law office is in Harris County. Could you tell me how and where this is being done?

HGWC wrote:They've interpreted the CHL laws as allowing indefinite delays in processing background checks, and that's what they are doing. They are delaying indefinitely. The open carry law would eliminate this ban.

There are delays to be sure and this has been discussed in detail in several different threads. However, DPS hasn't interpreted the current CHL laws as allowing indefinite delays. In fact, DPS has admitted in meetings with Chairman Driver and a representative of Governor Perry that they are "out of statute" (meaning they are late) by as much as 100 days, due to a shortage of personnel. DPS has acknowledged they are not complying with the law, they are not interpreting current law as allowing indefinite delays.

HGWC wrote:If you oppose the open carry law, will you be proposing legislation that will ensure that Texas "shall issue" CHL's without exception in a timely fashion?

I do oppose open-carry for the reasons I've stated, but I don't trade my positions on issues. I have already drafted two bills to streamline the processing of CHL applications and that should help everyone including DPS, CHL instructors and CHL applicants. If it passes, it should help DPS issue licenses much faster. I drafted those bills because changes are needed, not because I oppose open-carry. As I have said, my opposition is my personal belief, not an official position of NRA or TSRA and we do not intend to oppose an open-carry bill. However, if any attempt is made to amend an open-carry provision to one of our bills, you can bet we will kill it. We will not risk losing campus-carry, employee parking lots, or other important bills, because someone decided to tack on open-carry.

Chas.

HGWC wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I've made my feelings about open-carry known, but I will not oppose their efforts either openly or behind the scenes. However, if they try to amend one of our bills and tack on their stuff, I promise you it will fail! Our bills are very carefully drafted and I'm not going to let anyone screw one up and harm our chances of getting something passed. I hope this is just interview talk and not part of their battle plan. If it really is, they will be making a very big mistake and making an enemy they don't want or need. I'll stay neutral as long as they don't mess with our legislation.

Chas.

As it stands now Charles, some of the most populace counties in the state are instituting what amounts to a complete ban on the possession of handguns in public for a countless number of citizens in good standing.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. I live in Galveston County and my law office is in Harris County. Could you tell me how and where this is being done?

HGWC wrote:They've interpreted the CHL laws as allowing indefinite delays in processing background checks, and that's what they are doing. They are delaying indefinitely. The open carry law would eliminate this ban.

There are delays to be sure and this has been discussed in detail in several different threads. However, DPS hasn't interpreted the current CHL laws as allowing indefinite delays. In fact, DPS has admitted in meetings with Chairman Driver and a representative of Governor Perry that they are "out of statute" (meaning they are late) by as much as 100 days, due to a shortage of personnel. DPS has acknowledged they are not complying with the law, they are not interpreting current law as allowing indefinite delays.

HGWC wrote:If you oppose the open carry law, will you be proposing legislation that will ensure that Texas "shall issue" CHL's without exception in a timely fashion?

I do oppose open-carry for the reasons I've stated, but I don't trade my positions on issues. I have already drafted two bills to streamline the processing of CHL applications and that should help everyone including DPS, CHL instructors and CHL applicants. If it passes, it should help DPS issue licenses much faster. I drafted those bills because changes are needed, not because I oppose open-carry. As I have said, my opposition is my personal belief, not an official position of NRA or TSRA and we do not intend to oppose an open-carry bill. However, if any attempt is made to amend an open-carry provision to one of our bills, you can bet we will kill it. We will not risk losing campus-carry, employee parking lots, or other important bills, because someone decided to tack on open-carry.

Chas.

bigolbigun wrote:Stollenwerk said a draft of a bill to allow open carry in Texas has been prepared.

While several Texas lawmakers have said they’ll support such a bill, none have stepped up to carry it.

"This is crunchtime before the session starts," Stollenwerk said. "If no legislator steps forward, we will try to amend a bill midstream to get it in somewhere."

I've made my feelings about open-carry known, but I will not oppose their efforts either openly or behind the scenes. However, if they try to amend one of our bills and tack on their stuff, I promise you it will fail! Our bills are very carefully drafted and I'm not going to let anyone screw one up and harm our chances of getting something passed. I hope this is just interview talk and not part of their battle plan. If it really is, they will be making a very big mistake and making an enemy they don't want or need. I'll stay neutral as long as they don't mess with our legislation.

Chas.

CainA wrote:

atxgun wrote:...but it would be nice to not have to worry about getting busted for failure to conceal.

picking nits but...

PC s46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE
HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license
holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person
under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun.

-Cain

That's not nit-picking, it's accurate reporting, unlike the article. It really burns me up when open-carry supporters from other states make statements that inadvertent exposure of your handgun in Texas is illegal. At least learn our laws rather than pointing out a non-existent problem. There is a very good reason why the statute only reads "intentionally" fails to conceal, rather than the traditional "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly."

Chas.