TexasCHLforum.com

TexasCajun wrote:Does anyone think it will go beyond ranting and rhetoric?

No, I suspect there's be a lot of DPS Troopers in the room in case Kory shows up. They don't ignore death threats against elected officials.

Chas.

cb1000rider wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:It would be great if OCT/OCTC/CATI would be able to take a step back and objectively look at what their antics have ACTUALLY accomplished. But that will never happen. The media has personified open carry with Kory and CJ, so dislodging them is probably next to impossible. And with those two still in charge, OC is going to be too hot to really do anything with.

I've asked that questions and the answer seems to be - that we've had lots of time to try it "the other way" and nothing has been accomplished, which isn't entirely true. It's also hard to measure objectively - so you can "discuss" it - but it's hard to objectively show that their methods aren't working. Active debate doesn't seem to work. The nature of their leadership and nature of the movement doesn't lend itself to strong "in line" organization.

OCT didn't come into existence until after the 2013 Texas Legislative Session, so they didn't try "the other way;" they weren't around. Their predecessors LSCDL and OpenCarry.org/Texas Section didn't try "the other way" either; they were bomb-throwers also. From day one, OCT has adopted an in-your-face approach and the only thing that changed was the increasingly inflammatory rhetoric. (See The History of Open-Carry Efforts in Texas for a detailed chronology.)

As to the success or failure of their tactics, it should be noted that the only open-carry bill to be heard this week is the NRA-backed SB346, a Bill that OCT soundly opposes. "Their" SB343 is not set for hearing. That doesn't mean it won't be later, but the NRA bill is on the fast track. I fully realize that OCT supporters will not accept this statement, but those who have a finger on the pulse in Austin do have objective proof of the damage OCT, OCTC, Grisham and Watkins have caused.

Like it or not, accept it or not, only NRA and TSRA can pass open-carry in Texas. We represent hundreds of thousands of voters and donors, OCT represents a tiny fraction of that number and they are perceived by the general public and elected officials in a negative light. That is truly a shame, because I am confident that the vast majority of people who joined OCT had no idea the direction it would take and the tactics it would employ. We are still being asked, "those aren't your people, are they." That speaks volumes.

Chas.

canvasbck wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Jim Beaux wrote:As a constitutional carry proponent, I find OCT an embarrassment. Its behavior has alienated many and I view this group as being a burden to advancing our 2A interests.

I dont know how much longer we should continue to be silent regarding these ill mannered extremists.

This must be the season for limb-climbing for me so I'll go out on another one. I believe we would have had at least a 50/50 chance of passing unlicensed open-carry in 2017, if licensed open-carry were to pass this session, were it not for counterproductive tactics. Two years of people getting used to seeing others carrying handguns and being normal, responsible citizens would have gone a long way toward easing fears. Unfortunately, the vivid pictures in the minds of the general public are not of "normal, responsible citizens." There is no estimation how far back unlicensed open-carry has been set and it will get worse when HB195/SB342 go down in flames.

Chas.

Any chance of hb164 getting to a floor vote before they realize that their pet bills are dead?

HB910/SB346 are the open-carry bills that are most likely to pass. There's nothing wrong with HB164, but the other two are backed by the NRA and TSRA and we have worked with those authors.

Chas.

Jim Beaux wrote:As a constitutional carry proponent, I find OCT an embarrassment. Its behavior has alienated many and I view this group as being a burden to advancing our 2A interests.

I dont know how much longer we should continue to be silent regarding these ill mannered extremists.

This must be the season for limb-climbing for me so I'll go out on another one. I believe we would have had at least a 50/50 chance of passing unlicensed open-carry in 2017, if licensed open-carry were to pass this session, were it not for counterproductive tactics. Two years of people getting used to seeing others carrying handguns and being normal, responsible citizens would have gone a long way toward easing fears. Unfortunately, the vivid pictures in the minds of the general public are not of "normal, responsible citizens." There is no estimation how far back unlicensed open-carry has been set and it will get worse when HB195/SB342 go down in flames.

Chas.

steveincowtown wrote:Take Huffines SB342 which essentially makes 30.06 apply to both Open and Concealed carry, but changes the law to require a signs be posted AND oral notification, or just oral notification alone.

This was tried in 1997 when TPC §30.06 was created with HB2909 and we failed. (See the as-filed and the engrossed versions of HB2909 below.) The legislature will never require a property owner to tell people that "no guns are allowed" in order to prohibit armed persons from entering. It is most enlightening that C.J. Grisham would argue that posting two signs is a burden on businesses, but having to tell every single person entering their store that "no guns are allowed" is not a burden.

steveincowtown wrote:IANAL, but it seems this would essentially keep 30.06 signs from having statutory force of law without oral notice. This would be in line with the many, many other states where signs have no force of law by themselves.

Again, it's been tried and it didn't work. In fact, it would have less chance of passage now in light of far stronger private property rights sentiment. No one is more pro-gun than am I, but I would never support such an approach both because it's unfair to property owners and because it would fuel more "repeal TPC §30.06" arguments.

Chas.

My attention was called to a post made by C.J. Grisham on the Open Carry Texas Facebook Group. As you can see, Mr. Grisham and OCT want to gut the protections Tex. Penal Code §30.06 has provided to Texas CHLs by making it apply to both open-carry and concealed-carry. His excuse is that requiring a business to post two signs would be a burden. In truth, amending §30.06 to apply to both open-carry and concealed-carry rather than creating a new §30.07 as done in HB910 strips business owners of the ability to decide who can carry handguns on their property and in what manner they can be carried.

Mr. Grisham/OCT do not want business owners to have that flexibility and the reason is obvious. OCT wants to force a business to either allow open-carry or prohibit all carrying of self-defense handguns. This is an absurd position hurting even people who want to carry openly. Undoubtedly, people who want to carry their handgun openly would appreciate the option to conceal their handgun and walk into a business that allows concealed-carry but not open-carry, but OCT would deny them this option. Of course, everyone knows why Mr. Grisham doesn't want CHLs to be able to carry where he cannot.

Does anyone really think OCT or Mr. Grisham actually wants to advance all Second Amendment rights?

Chas.