TexasCHLforum.com

blue wrote:What we have now has so many black holes, grey areas, and land mines BUILT IN that carefully starting new would dump completely.

Please list them for us.

Chas.

Heartland Patriot wrote:@Charles L. Cotton:

Alright, sir, so you are saying that folks getting arrested for accidental exposure just doesn't happen often enough to warrant worrying about it, AND that a person can "file Section 1983 civil rights lawsuits" if they are mistreated in such a fashion. How much does it cost to file one of those lawsuits? I know that lawyers are highly educated folks who paid a lot of money as well as invested a lot of time to get that way. As such I would imagine they expect quite the return on the investment of their time and efforts to bring a lawsuit as well as not taking a case unless they can have a reasonable expectation of winning it. Like I said before I do NOT belong to any open carry group or organization; I'm just a mechanic with a CHL trying to learn stuff on here. I believe that forewarned is forearmed...so I read and I ask questions. This IS life and death stuff, if not today or tomorrow, but maybe someday. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't have gone through the trouble and spent the money to get the license. And I would guess that is true of you, as well.

"Alright sir" here is your response. If changing the law to benefit 3 people doesn't have a potential downside to other citizens, then it is easier to take on that project. (This ignores the need to use your political resources to bring the biggest benefit to the most people.) However, if changing the law to help 3 people puts over 450,000 CHL's (and more everyday) at risk of losing the right to carry defensive handguns in a significant number of businesses, then it becomes an unjustifiable risk.

Support open-carry if you will, but arguing that arrests for unintentional failure to conceal is a reason to pass OC is an unsupportable position that damages the credibility of OC movement.

As for the cost of retaining an attorney, that the individual's call, just the decision on what house to buy, what car to buy, and whether you eat at home or go out. You can make that decision based upon how important the issue is to you.

Chas.

jordanmills wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:@G.A. Heath:

Yes, those of us on THIS forum generally understand what the text of the laws means...and tend to agree with each other...however, tell that to the gentleman from Round Rock who accidentally exposed and then got himself a ride to jail along with an arrest record EVEN THOUGH the judge threw it out...I'm not worried about a CONVICTION if I'm doing things right, but I do worry about a nervous nelly type who calls in MWG, and the cops of course not wanting to lose their lives while "on the job" arrest first and let the courts sort later...but I don't have the kind of cash required just to throw around getting a bull arrest expunged from my record...and I have NEVER been arrested for ANYTHING. In fact, I've only ever had one speeding ticket, and that was one of those "country club" speed zones way outside where the city limits SHOULD have been. THAT is why I would like to see OC, just so that I never have to worry about accidental exposure, not so I can go swaggering around with a hog-leg on.

Taking the number of CHL's each year from 1996 through 2010 (2010 is estimated), there have been 3,770,107 CHL-man-years. I think I can recall hearing of three alleged arrests for unintentional failure to conceal. Let's be overly cautious in our calculation and we'll use ten arrests in our formula: 10/3,770,107 = 2.652444612314717e-6 (I don't even know what that is! I think it's equates to 0.00000265.)

Do OC supporters really want to use the smoke screen of arrests for unintentional failure to conceal as a reason to pass open-carry? If so, credibility is at risk and I can promise that some Senator or Representative on a committee is going to inquire about the number and ratio of arrests for unintentional failure to conceal. Over-selling your case can be costly.

Chas.

I bet the arrest record is pretty significant to those three.

If it is, they can file Section 1983 civil rights lawsuits.

jordanmills wrote:What would it cost you to not try to discount them?

I don't understand what you are asking; please explain.

Chas.

Heartland Patriot wrote:@G.A. Heath:

Yes, those of us on THIS forum generally understand what the text of the laws means...and tend to agree with each other...however, tell that to the gentleman from Round Rock who accidentally exposed and then got himself a ride to jail along with an arrest record EVEN THOUGH the judge threw it out...I'm not worried about a CONVICTION if I'm doing things right, but I do worry about a nervous nelly type who calls in MWG, and the cops of course not wanting to lose their lives while "on the job" arrest first and let the courts sort later...but I don't have the kind of cash required just to throw around getting a bull arrest expunged from my record...and I have NEVER been arrested for ANYTHING. In fact, I've only ever had one speeding ticket, and that was one of those "country club" speed zones way outside where the city limits SHOULD have been. THAT is why I would like to see OC, just so that I never have to worry about accidental exposure, not so I can go swaggering around with a hog-leg on.

Taking the number of CHL's each year from 1996 through 2010 (2010 is estimated), there have been 3,770,107 CHL-man-years. I think I can recall hearing of three alleged arrests for unintentional failure to conceal. Let's be overly cautious in our calculation and we'll use ten arrests in our formula: 10/3,770,107 = 2.652444612314717e-6 (I don't even know what that is! I think it's equates to 0.00000265.)

Do OC supporters really want to use the smoke screen of arrests for unintentional failure to conceal as a reason to pass open-carry? If so, credibility is at risk and I can promise that some Senator or Representative on a committee is going to inquire about the number and ratio of arrests for unintentional failure to conceal. Over-selling your case can be costly.

Chas.

Bullwhip wrote:Funny that our gun rights lobbyists can work with everybody except other gun rights folks.

What do you mean by this? Lobbyists work with legislators, they are the people who pass bills, not "other gun rights folks."

Chas.

Heartland Patriot wrote:@Charles L. Cotton:

Sir, as I read one of your earlier replies in regards to the dangers that OC holds for CC folks, you talked about one customer complaining to a store owner and the store owner rapidly putting up 30.06 signage to avoid having to deal with the hassles. By that token, it seems to me that the entire State of Texas, a fairly conservative state by any measure, is at the mercy of a handful of hyperventilating "hoplophobes"...why is that? Once again, I'm trying to learn something here. I'll say that I have already learned things, like having an arrest record even if the judge takes one look at the file and throws the thing out, like the poor gentleman in Round Rock now has to deal with (as well as him being poorer). I do understand that politics is a dirty business full of backroom deals and stomach-twisting compromises. But something is terribly wrong when a handful of folks who would be much better off in Berkeley, California can dictate the nature of Second Amendment interpretation and implementation in the State of Texas.

Again, for the record, I am in NO WAY connected to any OC group or organization...and I AM located in the Fort Worth area!

That was merely an example to show the impact a few people openly carrying can have on the public. It has nothing to do with politics, it focuses solely on a business owner facing complaints by customers.

Insulting people by name-calling doesn't help us win them to our side of the issue. These are precisely the people we need to support us. We aren't going to win the support of Sarah Brady and her ilk, and we already NRA members on our side. We need the millions of people who are not anti-gun but who also aren't active in support of the Second Amendment to get involved on our side of the issue. Obviously, I'm not talking about open-carry specifically, but about gun rights in general.

Chas.

jsimmons wrote:Mr. Cotton, if you have a plan drawn up, and you don't want to work directly with OCDO, send it to the LSCDL people along with a list of people in Austin they might want to talk to.

Please read by earlier post to see why I will not do what you demand. And give a list of my contacts to someone else so they can use my name to get in the door . . . you cannot be serious!

As for working with OCDO, I'll repeat what I said in 2009. OCDO doesn't want to work with the TSRA or NRA; they want both organizations to blindly endorse whatever they want to file. The last thing they want is NRA/TSRA carrying on OC bill. I have no idea about LSCDL, but as I posted elsewhere, LSCDL is far more than a "gun group." Lending an organization's name and reputation to any organization that deals with issues other than gun rights is very risky since their positions on some non-gun issues could alienate NRA/TSRA's members and supporters. For example, regardless where they fall on the issues of abortion, prayer in school, or illegal immigration, a large segment of the population is going to be offended and neither the NRA or TSRA can afford to lose members and support because of non-gun issues.

jsimmons wrote:I've gone from interested, through concerned, into annoyed, and ended up at just plain angry. This whole thing is freakin' absurd.

What's absurd?

Chas.

cbr600 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:As an aside, some employers will not allow employees to have guns in their cars during the workday even when it is not on the employer's property. There's certainly no property right claim in that situation.

Suppose a husband and wife work for different companies a few blocks apart in downtown Houston. They carpool and park in a mutally convenient third party parking deck. Which employers will not allow them to leave a gun in their car during the workday?

I don't know how to answer this question. I was talking about people who drive around in their own car during the workday. Many employers won't let them park in a customer's surface lot with a gun in their own car.

Chas.

TexasRedneck wrote:Now, please tell me a single state where passage of OC has caused CC to be banned.

I never said concealed-carry would be repealed and for the record, it wouldn't be repealed. I said there is a substantial risk that the public reaction seen in the 1995 to 1997 time frame would be repeated and many businesses would post against all carrying. Will you at least acknowledge the risk exists?

TexasRedneck wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: For the most part I agree, but since OC supporters claim only a very small number of people will actually carry openly, prudence requires an honest risk evaluation. OC supporters clearly feel the risk is worth taking and many concealed-carriers do not. As for the iron being hot, what makes you think the Texas Legislature or the public are ripe for passing and excepting OC? I see absolutely no evidence of either and I do spend a little time with legislative folks and their staff. But as I have been pointing out for three years now, a rational and well planned program could change both legislative and public perception of OC.

You say you have one, I ask that you share it.

I've offered several suggestions, all of which were ignored. Early on I pointed out that the bill proposed by OCDC was an absolute disaster and I pointed out how a bill should be written to minimize the opportunity to amend anti-gun, anti-carry provisions to the OCDC bill. Those suggestions were also ignored.

I offered to help anyone who wanted to organize a Texas based, Texas only, association to promote OC in Texas, but no one accepted the offer.

I'm not about to put my 30 year reputation on the line and risk my ability to work with the legislature in the future by working with anyone or any organization I don't know. I'm certainly not going to work with people and/or organizations who have proven themselves not only to be ineffective, but destructive also.

As for my contingency plan, I'm not going to hand it to anyone and have them screw it up because they don't have the patience or resources to get it done. Plus, I stand ready to promote OC in the future, if and when our Members want it done.

TexasRedneck wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: It didn't get done because concealed-carry supporters tried to ram it down the legislature's throat. But there is a flaw in your analogy. Passing the CHL statute didn't put any other gun rights or abilities at risk; passing OC most certainly does.

So, you're saying that it should be abandoned? If not, then help those trying to bring it about to understand the challenges and pitfalls and work with them to bring it through safely.

No, I'm not saying abandon the OC cause, but I am saying abandon methods, people and organizations that have proven themselves not only useless but damaging to the overall OC cause as well. I've already addressed the trying to help issue.

TexasRedneck wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I hope you are right, but I wonder why these folks waiting until Nov. 2010 to start. The legislature should be the last stop in the program, not the first. I know nothing about the people or the effort, but I do see people posting on OCDO with the LSCDL logo as an avatar. Is there some place I can go to see their mission statement, or how they plan to approach the task of passing OC?

At their website.

I see that it is up. I looked as recently as two or three days ago and it wasn't up. I have now read it, and its goals are far wider reaching than merely open-carry. They want to get into sentencing in criminal matters, just to name one. This is a big mistake.

In fact, their website shows they are far more than a gun rights group; they appear to be more of a Libertarian organization. Here is a portion of their statement in the "About Us" section of their website:

LoneStarCDL.org wrote:The Lone Star Citizens Defense League (LSCDL) is a non-profit, all volunteer, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to the principles contained in Article I, Section 2 of the Texas Constitution that "INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient." Our freedom of speech, our freedom from unreasonable searches, our rights against self-incrimination, our right to bear arms, all of our fundamental rights only exist because we stand firmly resolved to preserve them. The LSCDL exists to strengthen that resolve.

LSCDL was founded by a group of activists who are from all across Texas who recognized that a sustained, coordinated, statewide effort was critical to protecting and expanding the rights of law-abiding citizens. Between legislative sessions, we look for ways to improve existing laws and meet with legislators on proposed bills. During a session, LSCDL’s representatives work full-time at the Capitol, testifying at committee hearings, monitoring Floor votes, working with other pro-rights groups and reporting back to you. LSCDL lobbies heavily on behalf of our membership and the good citizens of Texas. We lobby against bills that constitute a direct or indirect impairment on your Constitutional Rights.

Let me say that I have nothing against this organization nor against the people who founded it. I am merely noting that LoneStarcdl is not solely a gun rights organization and this dilutes any pro-gun message they want to send.

TexasRedneck wrote: Have you contacted them with your questions/concerns? Have you offered to help? Have you done anything to let them know the kinds of pitfalls they could face?

I hope you don't mean this as it appears. You seem to think I have an obligation to contact them and "help." As previously noted, I don't work with strangers. My recommendations are in the public domain and these new folks can find them if they wish.

TexasRedneck wrote:I can tell you that there is discussion with the NRA in terms of input/ideas/guidance.

This is interesting. I'm on the NRA Board and serve on several committees. I wasn't aware that we are working with LSCDL. Who are you/they dealing with at NRA?

TexasRedneck wrote:The guy that is putting this together isn't a lawyer or even a "polished professional". Much like the men that founded this country, he's a simple man trying to return a right that many feel should never have been relinquished. Will he do it "right"? I don't know - but I know that standing on the sidelines and throwing rocks at him certainly isn't going to help.

Do you mean me throwing rocks? If so, based upon what? This is so typical of the OCDO types who truly believe that "if you are not with us, you are against us." Everyone who doesn't shout AMEN after every chest-pounding post is an anti-gun heretic.

TexasRedneck wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I know I'm going to regret disclosing this, but I prepared a open-carry battle plan in 2008, just in case NRA or TSRA Members wanted us to pursue OC legislation. I can promise you that most of the work would be done before the gavel sounded for the beginning of the 2009 or 2011 Texas Legislative Session. And every bit as much of that preparatory work involved the public as it did the legislature.

Rather than worry about my basis of some percentage poll that can cause change, why not say "Hey, maybe not a bad idea, but there are dangers you need to be aware of - let me get hold of these folks and HELP."?????

Because I don't feel that way, that's why. You seem to believe I have a duty, beyond the Membership I represent, to help anyone and everyone who wants OC. I'm far more interested in employer parking lots, campus-carry and range protection than I am pouring political capital into a cause our members have not indicated they support in any significant numbers. If an organization wants to get serious about OC and do it the right way, I may change my mind. After three years of making this offer, no one has accepted it. And "the right way" doesn't begin this session.

Chas.

SA-TX wrote:This is try #3 to post from my phone so pardon my brevity. I hope I am on of those reasonable members of both forums.

You are. In fact, I need to talk to you so please PM your phone number if you don't mind.

SA-TX wrote:Even some legit signs have come down since 1997. You are right about out of sight out of mind but legal OC will still be defacto out of site because so few will practice it.

No, by definition OC cannot enjoy the out-of-sight-out-of-mind effect because it isn't out of sight! I have no doubt that there will be few people who actually OC, but it will only take one to cause a store to post -- literally only one. If/when a shopper who is oblivious to Texas gun laws complains to a business owner or manager, that business man or woman has to respond. They can tell the complaining shopper he/she will do nothing, or he can tell the person openly-carrying to leave and post a sign so he doesn't have to deal with the issue again. One man, one gun, one complaining shopper and 450,000 CHL can no longer carry in that establishment. Now multiply that by the number of people openly carrying and the number of stores they enter. I can't guarantee this will happen and OC supporters can't guarantee it will not. The best evidence we have to go on is how Texans responded to citizen-carry in 1995 - 1997. This is why I say the path to passing OC doesn't begin with the legislature.

SA-TX wrote:I still respectfully disagree with the assumption that there will be mass postings. On e the news coverage goes away so will the mindshare. Particularly if it is CHL-only OC, the history since 97 has been as you said fewer real signs over time and I'll add with increasing CHL #s. Our reputation with police are good as well. Total = more pital environment now than then.

Obviously you and I disagree as to whether a risk of backlash exists, but I agree with everything else you said in this paragraph. These are facts that should be put to use outside of the legislative arena and before, not after, an OC bill is passed.

SA-TX wrote:Why isn't verbal notice sufficient for the rare occurance where an open carrier finds himself in a place where he isn't welcome?

If you mean legally sufficient, it will be sufficient. If you are talking day to day practicality, it is far easier for a business owner to post a sign, rather than have to deal with customer complaints and confront people openly carrying. If you are talking about the Legislature's perspective, they simply will not allow a law to be passed that would require a business owner to post two signs to keep armed customers out of their store -- one for OC and one for CC.

SA-TX wrote:I think rejecting evidence from other states is unfair. Didn't we point to other states in 95 to assuage opponent's fears?

Yes, we pointed to Florida to help pass SB60. However, the best evidence of what to expect in response to OC is what actually occurred in Texas in response to concealed-carry. The irony is that OC supporters blast those of us who express concern saying we ignore other states' experiences, yet this is precisely what they are doing when they ignore Texas in 1995-1997. Plus, trying to argue that openly carrying so everyone can see is no different than concealed-carry around the same people is going to fall on deaf ears.

SA-TX wrote:Open carry isn't likely to happen without TSRA's support and it has almost zero chance with its opposition.

I can't speak for TSRA but unless its policy changes, TSRA will not push OC unless its members want it to do so. When I say members, I don't mean a relative hand full, I mean a significant majority. If an equal number of TSRA members oppose OC, then TSRA cannot get involved. I feel confident that TSRA will not oppose OC, so long as any OC bill (as filed or as amended) does not hurt any current gun rights.

SA-TX wrote:Adjust the battle plan now that the opposition is on the run.

There is no organized opposition to OC, there just isn't any support either. This can be changed, but it won't happen during the session. As you noted, 2011 is the worst year to try to pass OC; redistricting, budget shortfall, and school funding will eat up the majority of time. Remember what the Democrats did last time redistricting was an issue; then ran to Oklahoma to avoid a vote. It's going to be a slim year for pro-gun bills and it's not because of a lack of support; it's the calendar.

Chas.

Bart wrote:

Heartland Patriot wrote:@Bart:

The issue that I have with your claim that the Parking Lot Bill would violate property rights is that it IS violating property rights...MINE!

You can do what you want with your property when you're not on company property. If companies have the right to prohibit guns inside a briefcase on company property, they have a right to prohibit guns inside a car on company property. You can park somewhere else if you won't follow the rules of the property owner.

You can even be a capitalist and buy land nearby, build a parking lot, and rent spaces to people who like your rules.

They won't have that "right" if the employer parking lot bill passes. Commercial property is already regulated with fire codes, building codes, elevator codes, requirements for towing vehicles, ADA requirements for people with disabilities, the Civil Rights Act, and various county and city ordinances. Private commercial property is not on the same footing as private non-commercial property and this has been challenged in court.

The parking lot bill is the least invasive regulation a business owner faces; it simply says he can't control firearms in an employee's vehicle. The employer doesn't have to do anything.

As an aside, some employers will not allow employees to have guns in their cars during the workday even when it is not on the employer's property. There's certainly no property right claim in that situation.

Chas.

TexasRedneck wrote:Charley, you missed (or chose to ignore) my point - that there were LOTS of signs precluding CC immediately after passage, which faded away quickly as folks realized their fears were groundless. The 30.06 signage requirements further reduced the places you couldn't carry - but again, it was because of acceptance and education. And if you never talk about it, you'll never gain acceptance.

I didn't ignore anything, I answered by pointing out that your statement was factually incorrect. The number of "no guns" decals and small signs were not "fading away" at all; they were growing exponentially! If you were in Texas in the 1995 to 1997 period and were interested in concealed-carry, then you must know this. That's why it was critically important to pass HB2909 that set up TPC §30.06, among other things. Then and only then did we see a reduction in private businesses posting and that was solely because they didn't want to post "the big ugly sign." HB2909 went into effect on Sept. 1, 1997, only 21 months after the first CHL's became effective (Jan. 1, 1996). The public wasn't taught anything in that short of a time frame.

TexasRedneck wrote:And if a minority of folks want something, they can have no effect? Really? How many times over the years have vocal minorities changed laws/business models? It happens regularly.

That's a very broad and vague statement. Give us some examples where 1.8% of the population changed business models, not the law, just business models and practices. Since you say it "happens regularly," it should be easy to give some examples.

TexasRedneck wrote:As to "risk of backlash"......there's a risk ANY time you change something. Does that mean we shouldn't attempt it? More and more folks are becoming more open-minded about the carrying of firearms, thanks in part to the issues in Mexico, and the growing public realization that Police organizations can't (and aren't required to) protect us individually. There's something to be said for "striking when the iron is hot" as well, isn't there?

For the most part I agree, but since OC supporters claim only a very small number of people will actually carry openly, prudence requires an honest risk evaluation. OC supporters clearly feel the risk is worth taking and many concealed-carriers do not. As for the iron being hot, what makes you think the Texas Legislature or the public are ripe for passing and excepting OC? I see absolutely no evidence of either and I do spend a little time with legislative folks and their staff. But as I have been pointing out for three years now, a rational and well planned program could change both legislative and public perception of OC.

TexasRedneck wrote:You decry the OCDC attitude, and I agree to a large extent - but I'll also point out that without some pretty strident efforts, CC would likely have never come to pass, either.

I know, I was there from the beginning. I wrote the first CHL bill in 1980 for the 1981 session. Rep. Ralph Wallace was going to introduce it in the House and I don't know who he had as a Senate sponsor. It wasn't introduced because the Dec. 1980 murder of John Lennon with a handgun spawned a nationwide anti-handgun furor. It took many sessions and a lot of very hard work to get CHL passed. It didn't get done because concealed-carry supporters tried to ram it down the legislature's throat. But there is a flaw in your analogy. Passing the CHL statute didn't put any other gun rights or abilities at risk; passing OC most certainly does.

TexasRedneck wrote:One of the things that the new organization coming together to push for OC in Texas is working VERY hard toward is to ensure that the goals of other Pro-2nd organizations are not hurt by their efforts, and to find ways of effectively working together.

I hope you are right, but I wonder why these folks waiting until Nov. 2010 to start. The legislature should be the last stop in the program, not the first. I know nothing about the people or the effort, but I do see people posting on OCDO with the LSCDL logo as an avatar. Is there some place I can go to see their mission statement, or how they plan to approach the task of passing OC?

I know I'm going to regret disclosing this, but I prepared a open-carry battle plan in 2008, just in case NRA or TSRA Members wanted us to pursue OC legislation. I can promise you that most of the work would be done before the gavel sounded for the beginning of the 2009 or 2011 Texas Legislative Session. And every bit as much of that preparatory work involved the public as it did the legislature.

Chas.

TexasRedneck wrote:A few comments, then I'll sit back an' toss on the kevlar an' nomex....

There are sure to be some that would post anti-carry signage that currently don't. It will then be up to us to "educate" these establishments with our vote of "No Carry = No $$$" as we walk away. I was among the first CHL classes/licensees, and can remember the proliferation of 30.06 signage. I walked out of a number of stores after going in (unarmed) and having as polite and informative discussion possible with the owner/manager. LOTS of calls to various Corporate offices, letters, faxes, etc. As folks became more educated that those of us carrying were thoroughly vetted, and large numbers of those licensed expressed their own reaction to the signage, they rapidly started coming back down.

Now, one of my other hobbies is motorcycle riding. It's challenging enough to select good protective riding gear without ALSO having to buy it based on its' ability to cover a weapon. I generally wear IWB or a shoulder rig - the IWB is generally okay, but the shoulder rig can be a challenge if it turns hot and you want to stop in for a soda or a bite to eat, but can't remove the jacket. On the hot Texas days, an IWB carry results in a thoroughly sweat-soaked weapon - which is almost impossible to keep the rust off of if you're on the road. There's also the consideration of "accidental" exposure. There is always going to be the potential of harrassment by LEO's over that issue, until OC is possible.

OCDO is a bit too "in your face" IMO - and I'm generally not considered too PC. There is a new group in Texas putting together a lobbying effort towards OC, and I'm hoping to see it succeed. I'll deal w/the discrimination by the store owners again - because as I saw the first time around, once it's actually "out there" the furor soon dies down and folks really don't even notice any longer because it becomes commonplace.

When SB60 passed in 1995 and we finally had our CHL statute, there was no TPC §30.06. Any "no guns" signs or decals would be sufficient to keep armed CHl's off of the property. TPC §30.06 was enacted in 1997 (HB2909) to deal with the epidemic of ghostbuster "no gun" decals. TPC §30.06 brought with it the requirement to post what was and is known as "the big ugly sign." Very few "big ugly sings" were posted and even fewer are still posted. The public, especially business owners and/or managers, weren't educated at all; they simply didn't want to post "the big ugly sign." (This was precisely our goal and why the sign was given its size requirements.) No signs came down, the ghostbuster "no guns" decals simply were not effective to prevent CHL's from entering the property.

As for "carriers" having a negative impact on business, we can forget it. About 1.8 percent of the Texas population have a CHL, so 92.2 percent do not. We are far outnumbered and business owners/managers will protect their businesses by doing what the 92.2 percent of their customers want them to do.

There are two primary reasons armed citizens are not an issue now; 1) our great 15 year track record of being law-abiding citizens; and 2) no one sees us walking around with our guns -- the "out of sight, out of mind" effect.

I can no more guarantee the public's reaction to open-carry would be a repeat of its 1995 reaction to concealed-carry anymore than OC supporters can guarantee we would not.

As I have said before, open carry could pass in Texas and possibly be successfully implemented vis-a-vis public acceptance, but not by bully tactics, or even being polite during a legislative session. It's amazing to me that the most ardent of OC supporters (not you, the OCDC types) won't take a reasoned approach during the off season and do nothing more than put on shoulder pads and helmets a few weeks before the legislative session begins. The thing that frustrates me is that most OC supporters will not even acknowledge that there is a risk of public backlash against OC that would impact concealed-carry. They point to other states that have always allowed open-carry (at least technically) and ignore what actually did occur in Texas. If one will not admit that a risk exists, then they certainly won't take steps to prevent the risk from occurring. Open-carry can pass in Texas, but not as it's being approached. Without proper ground work the risk remains too high.

Chas.

PATHFINDER wrote:If OC is legalized in Texas no one will be forced to OC. As for as the 30.06 sign concern - the purpose of the sign is to serve written notice to persons carrying HANDGUNS that their patronage is not wanted on the premises. The signs refer to CONCEALED handguns simply because that's the only way they can be worn in Texas. Why would someone who would be legally open carrying attempt to proceed past a current 30.06 sign? " What's that ? Who me ? OH - I'm OK . I 'm not carrying concealed so your sign doesn't apply to me."

We can argue all day about signs and there are very good suggestions that could be made about signage. But the simple fact is the legislature will not create a situation where a property owner had to post two signs to keep guns off of their property. It absolutely will not happen; it will be considered too much of a burden on property owners. TPC §30.06 will be amended to cover both open and concealed carry. I don't care if the OpenCarry.org bill from 2009 didn't address signage; the committee an OC bill goes to will add the TPC §30.06 change.

PATHFINDER wrote:This in-fighting between TSRA and OCDO needs to be halted. I think there's plenty of "heartburn" in both camps. We all need to chew on some rolaids and get past it.

I don't speak for TSRA, but there is no in-fighting. TSRA has never said anything about OpenCarry.org, but the reverse is not the case. OCDO has repeated claimed that TSRA opposed OC and that it worked behind the scenes to kill it. This is a lie, pure and simple.

PATHFINDER wrote:The OCDO folks started from scratch 2 years ago tryiing to resolve a constitutional conflict that is all the more apparent since the McDonald decision . No they aren't well versed in legislative lobbying.

That's like saying Hitler wasn't much of a statesman! OCDO was an absolute disaster in 2009. They alienated the entire staff of every Senator and House Member in Austin. The tactics they used on poor Rep. Debbie Riddle was not merely mistakes of inexperience, it was indicative of the approach taken by most people posting on OCDO. Now that we are getting close to the 2011 session, I look at the OCDO Texas forum and nothing has changed. Most people still label as anti-gun or anti-Second Amendment anyone who doesn't buy their "kill them all and let God sort it out" approach. Two of their members who took a much more level headed approach used to post here also. I saw their posts on OCDO calling for a more respectful approach to promoting OC in Texas and they were rebuffed.

PATHFINDER wrote:I think we all need to air out our "attics" a bit, and strive to work together this go-around.

Again, I don't speak for TSRA, but no well respected Second Amendment organization that enjoys a good reputation and working relationship in Austin will work with any organization with a scorched earth approach.

The sad thing is that if a proper approach had been taken in 2008, 2009 or 2010, open-carry could have possibly passed this session, though more likely in 2013 because so much time will be spent on redistricting and the $25 billion budget shortfall. I made this suggestion in 2009 and nothing was done. I'm starting to better understand how John the Baptist felt, that is "a voice in the wilderness . . ."

Chas.

safety1 wrote:

Salty1 wrote:When a respected Texas based organization backs OC then I will as well, in my opinion it will take a well financed organization that has a relationship with our elected officials if this has any chance of becoming reality. So far all I have seen have been loud mouths that have caused more harm than good. Personally I could care less about OC.org, they do not believe in the small step theory and have no concerns for all the work that has been done to expand our gun rights in Texas prior to them trying to make a name for themselves.

Let’s be honest, many people and an OC organization misrepresent facts regarding OC. As an example they say that Massachusetts is an open carry state. Go ahead and try it, if somebody is actually stupid enough to do it they will find themselves in the prone position very quickly and face serious charges. Because there are not laws on the books against it does not mean it can be done.

If OC is so important then why not start in an Anti State and expend money and resources there, if you can get them to change then the rest will be less of a battle to fight each time.

Those gun owners who disagree with the OC movement are not anti 2nd Amendment, people who spew this just show their ignorance. Until the US Constitution is interpreted as written then people can refer to the 2nd Amendment as a right, which it truly is, unfortunately it has also been legislated as a privilege in the overwhelmingly majority of the States. I prefer to spend my free time wisely and will continue to make phone calls, write letters and send faxes regarding Campus Carry and the Parking Lot Bills when the time is appropriate. Once they are passed then and only then will I look at other items that will enhance our legislated rights. I am done with this topic until 2012…………..

Why does it have to be a respected organization backing it before you will?? Makes no sense, you either do or you dont. I call that jumping on the "Bandwagon". Once you think OC will have a fighting chance you will support it. This approach is why we are years behind. If somethings worth fighting for....FIGHT FOR IT!!!!

This is perilously close to a personal insult.

It has to be a respected organization so there would be some change of getting it passed, and to keep any bill passed from damaging both open and concealed carry. Bully tactics didn't work too well in 2009.


Chas.