TexasCHLforum.com

Just because you see someone driving a car, that doesn't mean that that driver is licensed and insured. The same goes for OC.

IMO, OC, licensed or otherwise, is much ado about not much. In our travels where OC is legal, we just haven't seen any civilian OC in either the rural areas and certainly not in the metro areas. Any 2A RKBA arguments notwithstanding, OC is not necessary and if passed, OC won't be widely seen after the new wears off. What, in all liklihood, will be seen is more 30.06 and/or "gunbuster" signs. Again, JMO.

anygunanywhere wrote:

stash wrote:I support OC if for no other reason the problem with printing/unintentional failure to conceal problem that we have seen here in the past. I assume OC would eliminate these possible problems.

Oops - I think CHL should be required for OC as opposed to no license.

Neither printing nor unintentional faillure to conceal are offenses under state law. How can they be a problem if they are not illegal?

Anygunanywhere

You reckon that the problem might lie in convincing the LEO AND the judge that the exposures weren't intentional?

C-dub wrote:For me this was a difficult choice. Initially, I thought "licensed carry" and would prevent just anyone from doing it. However, I think that if we had "unlicensed carry" we might better be able to keep it separate from our CHL.

One uniform class and license to carry. The licensee has the CHOICE of OC or CC.

I'm cool with my CHL. No one needs to know whether I'm carryin' until they need to know.

While I probably wouldn't practice it, I'm okay with OC by those who have accepted the requirements, responsibilities and consequences of firearm usage in the public arena.

Our Constitution notwithstanding, there are folk who shouldn't be around guns, allowed to vote or to breed. Perhaps an OC license would weed out some of those who shouldn't be around guns?