TexasCHLforum.com

jordanmills wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jordanmills wrote:

canvasbck wrote:

Abraham wrote:The simple repeal of 46.035 sounds like a great idea...........but why have none of the LEGITIMATE gun advocate groups (NRA, TSRA) done anything to attempt repeal of 46.035? I would much rather have these experienced lobby groups pushing for it than amatures like we see from LonestarCDL and the OCDO crowd.

I think you need to reconsider your concept of "legitimate". The LSCDL started because the TSRA refused to take significant action for years, and as an alternative to their well publicized (if publicly denied) hostility to open carry. So, want to talk about legitimate, look to the group that was associated with actual legislation in key areas.

I'm not putting up with one more post falsely claiming TSRA or NRA doing anything to oppose open-carry. It not true and don't do it again.

Chas.

The only posts I've seen from you on it are . . . how it will never be passed

Don't make another post until you link to a post where I said open-carry will never pass. I've said it won't pass with a modification to TPC §30.06 making it apply to both open concealed carry. That's not saying it will never pass. If fact, I've said quite the opposite.

Again, do not make another post until you link to a post from me saying open-carry will never pass. If you do, I'll delete every post until I see the link.

Chas.

jordanmills wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

jordanmills wrote:

canvasbck wrote:

Abraham wrote:The simple repeal of 46.035 sounds like a great idea...........but why have none of the LEGITIMATE gun advocate groups (NRA, TSRA) done anything to attempt repeal of 46.035? I would much rather have these experienced lobby groups pushing for it than amatures like we see from LonestarCDL and the OCDO crowd.

I think you need to reconsider your concept of "legitimate". The LSCDL started because the TSRA refused to take significant action for years, and as an alternative to their well publicized (if publicly denied) hostility to open carry. So, want to talk about legitimate, look to the group that was associated with actual legislation in key areas.

I'm not putting up with one more post falsely claiming TSRA or NRA doing anything to oppose open-carry. It not true and don't do it again.

Chas.

Last time I asked, I was told by the TSRA that there is no support for open carry and they will continue working their agenda instead. That sounds like opposition to me.

The only posts I've seen from you on it are negative, how it will never be passed, or how you can't do it this way or that way. I can't recall a single constructive comment you've made on it. Could you show me any?

TSRA hasn't filed a bill to lower the cap for increases in property appraisals, but that doesn't mean TSRA opposes tax relief. I'm sick of people who can't get a job done complaining because those who can do not take up their cause. Not taking up a cause or issue is a far cry from opposing it and you know it.

Search for my posts and you'll see my suggestions. I guess you missed my posts about repealing TPC §46.035(a) in one session, then file a "clean-up" the next to remove "concealed" except in TPC §30.06. If that isn't constructive enough for you, then that's too bad.

Once again, you post false allegations. This is absolutely your last warning. Do it again and you're gone.

Chas.

jordanmills wrote:

canvasbck wrote:

Abraham wrote:The simple repeal of 46.035 sounds like a great idea...........but why have none of the LEGITIMATE gun advocate groups (NRA, TSRA) done anything to attempt repeal of 46.035? I would much rather have these experienced lobby groups pushing for it than amatures like we see from LonestarCDL and the OCDO crowd.

I think you need to reconsider your concept of "legitimate". The LSCDL started because the TSRA refused to take significant action for years, and as an alternative to their well publicized (if publicly denied) hostility to open carry. So, want to talk about legitimate, look to the group that was associated with actual legislation in key areas.

I'm not putting up with one more post falsely claiming TSRA or NRA doing anything to oppose open-carry. It not true and don't do it again.

Chas.

johnferg69 wrote:So where do we stand on the first step[.]

You'll have to ask the people who are promoting open-carry.

johnferg69 wrote: . . . why MUST TPC 46.035 be repelled first?

I explained that in my answer.

Chas.

johnferg69 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

DEB wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:I am FOR OC.
I would not OC myself. But OC would make it easier to carry concealed OWB without worry about unintentionally unconcealing.

This is exactly the reason I am for OC. Before anyone states that it isn't a problem, tell that to that young soldier arrested in Metroplex in Killeen, where L.E. first stated that the reason he was arrested was due to the bulge he saw.

It's not a problem! You point to an arrest that was allegedly made for something that was not illegal. If a LEO is going to do that, then they will arrest someone for open-carrying when that's not illegal either. Don't say that won't happen; just read OpenCarry.org (if you can stomach it) and you'll see countless examples. All an officer would have to do is claim the person "display[ed] a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm" in violation of TPC §42.01(a)(8). Simply putting one's hand on their openly-carried pistol would support such an arrest.

Open-carry does not solve any problems. OC supporters do not help their cause by trying to create a problem to solve. TPC §46.035(a) could not be more clear, one must "intentionally" fail to conceal their handgun before they have created a violation. Arguing otherwise will put people in the position of having to testify in public hearings that this is not a problem under current law and this hurts the open-carry cause.

Sell open-carry for what it is, an option that does not negatively impact public safety.

Chas.

Grant, I don't spend a lot of time on this forum but has there ever been an OC bill you supported?
Have you ever written, helped write, consulted or advised on a OC bill?

Only one open-carry bill has been introduced in the Texas Legislature and that was in the 2011 session. I didn't write that thing and I did not consult on it. I work on NRA and TSRA bills, as well as bills I am asked to write for Representatives and Senators. None of those persons or entities have put open-carry on their legislative agenda.

I have publicly stated/posted that open-carry should be approached with a two-prong, two-session strategy by simply repealing TPC §46.035(a) in one session, then filing an appropriately captioned "clean-up bill" the following session to remove the word "concealed" except in TPC §30.06. Yes, this takes two sessions, but it greatly reduces the chance of anti-gun amendments being added to a bill like the one filed last session. (Last session's open-carry bill opened virtually every important section of the Government Code and Penal Code to anti-gun amendment.) I've been even more vocal and published more about the need to maintain TPC §30.06 as it appears now and not amend it to cover both open-carry and concealed-carry as was done in last session's bill.

My suggestions have been ignored by the folks who claim to be spearheading the open-carry movement in Texas. In fact, the President of LoneStarCDL has expressly stated "they" will never accept leaving TPC §30.06 to cover only concealed-carry. In his words, it must be amended to cover both open-carry and concealed-carry to prevent a so-called "double standard." If an open-carry bill amends TPC §30.06, it will again fail.

Chas.

Oldgringo wrote:

flintknapper wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

johnferg69 wrote:

Keith B wrote:I just believe that the legialature would feel the sign needed to be more visible than a gun buster sign and would say 'We already have a sign, so just modify it to prevent any carry.' Then those businesses who today don't really know people are carrying would then post signs to prevent open carry and the single sign would prevent concealed carry too. It's the old adage, out of sight, out of mind. When people started open carrying I can garuntee you would see a new crop of signs go up.

Well the newest state to go open carry is Oklahoma. We'll see how much pandemonium ensues.

"Pandemonium?" You asked Keith about two signs and he explained (quite well) why the Texas Legislature won't require property owners to post two signs. How does his position suggest "pandemonium" in Texas?

Chas.

It doesn't.

He was speaking of pandemonium in Oklahoma (which isn't going to happen) and it was clearly meant as sarcasm...not a challenge to Keith's post.

Yepper, it's kinda' like the lawless pandemonium that's predicted when a legal precinct in Texas decides to have a wet/dry election. It never happens after the wets prevail and life goes on as usual. The outcome would be much the same after an OC victory at the polls and/or in the courts. FWIW, I wouldn't OC but I would like to see it legalized.

Yep, just like the argument that in 1995 negative reaction to concealed-carry was so strong that it almost killed CHL before it got started. Just like the argument that this was such a severe problem it was necessary to file and pass HB2909 in 1997 to save CHL in Texas.

Oh . . . wait a minute . . . those things did happen! Oh darn, I guess I have to take back my "agree" sign, don't I?

Chas.

DEB wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:I am FOR OC.
I would not OC myself. But OC would make it easier to carry concealed OWB without worry about unintentionally unconcealing.

This is exactly the reason I am for OC. Before anyone states that it isn't a problem, tell that to that young soldier arrested in Metroplex in Killeen, where L.E. first stated that the reason he was arrested was due to the bulge he saw.

It's not a problem! You point to an arrest that was allegedly made for something that was not illegal. If a LEO is going to do that, then they will arrest someone for open-carrying when that's not illegal either. Don't say that won't happen; just read OpenCarry.org (if you can stomach it) and you'll see countless examples. All an officer would have to do is claim the person "display[ed] a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm" in violation of TPC §42.01(a)(8). Simply putting one's hand on their openly-carried pistol would support such an arrest.

Open-carry does not solve any problems. OC supporters do not help their cause by trying to create a problem to solve. TPC §46.035(a) could not be more clear, one must "intentionally" fail to conceal their handgun before they have created a violation. Arguing otherwise will put people in the position of having to testify in public hearings that this is not a problem under current law and this hurts the open-carry cause.

Sell open-carry for what it is, an option that does not negatively impact public safety.

Chas.

tbrown wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:So when discussing open-carry, understand that in terms of signage, TPC §30.06 must remain applicable only to concealed-carry, or it's a deal-breaker.

That's the way it reads already, AFAICT. A generic "NO GUNS" sign is sufficient to prohibit rifles, shotguns, unlicensed handgun carry by travelers, MPA in non-employer parking lots, commissioned security guards with handguns, and many other combinations of guns and people. The only gun exceptions I see in 30.05 are for concealed handguns carried by licensed people, and for handguns or other weapons carried by LEO.

That's correct, but the bill Shane McCrary, President of LoneStarCDL, claims to have drafted and provided to Rep. Lavender in 2011 amended TPC §30.06 and removed the word "concealed" everywhere it appeared. When it was pointed out that the amendment would make one sign applicable for both concealed and open carry, Mr. McCrary argued that LoneStarCDL would never accept a different standard for open-carry and concealed-carry. (Not that LoneStarCDL has any influence whatsoever.) He flatly refused to amend the bill to leave TPC §30.06 as it currently reads.

This is why I'm trying to head off this potential problem before it occurs again. I cannot stress it too much; amending TPC §30.06 to apply to open-carry as well as concealed-carry is a deal breaker and it will generate opposition.

Chas.

Folks, on the issue of signage, 30.06, ghost-buster signs, etc., the Texas Legislature and a vast majority of 22 million Texans will never accept the concept that private property owners should not be able to prohibit entry to their property. Forcing them to allow entry, then hope they can catch the person and ask them to leave it will never pass, absolutely never!

So when discussing open-carry, understand that in terms of signage, TPC §30.06 must remain applicable only to concealed-carry, or it's a deal-breaker.

Chas.

Ericstac wrote:I see open carry frequently and just assume they are off duty law enforcement.. If we had a chl open carry rule I would think the common person would still think the guy wearing a gun on his hip is law enforcement..

I agree, but only if open-carry could pass quietly without any media coverage and the public would be largely unaware. Unfortunately, it will be big news, just as it was in 2011 when an open-carry bill was filed.

Chas.

johnferg69 wrote:

Keith B wrote:I just believe that the legialature would feel the sign needed to be more visible than a gun buster sign and would say 'We already have a sign, so just modify it to prevent any carry.' Then those businesses who today don't really know people are carrying would then post signs to prevent open carry and the single sign would prevent concealed carry too. It's the old adage, out of sight, out of mind. When people started open carrying I can garuntee you would see a new crop of signs go up.

Well the newest state to go open carry is Oklahoma. We'll see how much pandemonium ensues.

"Pandemonium?" You asked Keith about two signs and he explained (quite well) why the Texas Legislature won't require property owners to post two signs. How does his position suggest "pandemonium" in Texas?

Chas.