TexasCHLforum.com

G.A. Heath wrote:NAGR and OCT are cut from the same cloth. After demanding unlicensed carry or nothing OCT suddenly started claiming credit for getting licensed OC to the point that it's at now and suddenly I am hearing that they are going back to attacking licensed carry again. I am already hearing some weird rumors getting started about licensed OC as well, here are four of the most laughable:

Rumor 1: If licensed OC passes and you have a concealed carry license from your state while your state has unlicensed open carry then you can only concealed carry in Texas if your state has reciprocity with Texas.

Rumor 2: Existing CHLs will not be allowed to open carry, they will have to surrender their license and wait 30/60/90 days before starting the process to get a new license.

Rumor 3: Licensed OC will destroy reciprocity.

Rumor 4: Licensed OC will be the only way anyone can carry in Texas if SB17/HB910 pass.

I am willing to bet most, if not all of these are started by unlicensed carry or nothing supporters trying to kill licensed carry because they feel that will give unlicensed carry a chance.

AJSully421 wrote:

Roger Howard wrote:

casp625 wrote:So when the new 30.06 & 30.07 laws take effect, will all the old signs be invalid? What if businesses don't post new signs?

30.06 will not change. 30.07 will cover open carry. If the law passes as written at this point, it would become effective January 1, 2016

You are right, the "rules" of 30.06 will not change, but if you read the current language of SB17, the required wording on the sign / document does change. This makes every single current 30.06 sign non-compliant and unenforceable on 1/1/16. The property owner who wishes to exclude the most law abiding adult group in Texas will have to rub two brain cells together, and get a compliant sign installed for both CC and OC. This will take up lots of space. Most will only pick one sign. My bet is that it will be 30.07. Or, I am wrong and they will post 30.06 and will verbally notify OCers.

By the way, I have run in to a few of the old signs that reference the old section before it was 30.06... maybe section 29ee? I love seeing those old, unenforceable, signs as I walk right past them.

Strat9mm wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Strat9mm wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Pb_shutr wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I hope that a lot of OCT/OCTC/CATI folks are watching this debate. If anyone watching thinks that unlicensed open-carry had any chance of passage, then they are unwilling to to fact political reality.

Chas.

Mr. Cotton,
Can you enlighten me what the useful purpose of "licensed" open carry is supposed to achieve? It is my concern that each and every LEO will feel obligated to enforce "licensed" open carry by approaching every open carry individual to check that person's compliance with said law and asking for proof of approval to open carry. Why would I subject myself to this forced interaction by each LEO, maybe even several times just on one particular outing. In addition, I think these LEO's are going to on very heightened alert. At this time I can carry concealed standing shoulder to should with an LEO and he/she never knows I'm carrying and has no concern with me. Now, I do understand if I encounter a bad guy and need my firearm, I do have to draw from concealment.
Thanks,
Mike

I see absolutely no utility to open-carry whatsoever. Some people want it for various reasons, none of which I've heard have anything to do with utility. The testimony today that open-carry reduces crime is utterly without any support or evidence. The testimony that someone carrying concealed would not have time to respond to a deadly attach whereas one carrying openly would be able to respond was laughable! My cover garment adds less than 1/2 second to my draw, if that.

I'm supporting it because I'm a good soldier and the decision was made to promote open-carry.
Chas.

Open carry is easier and you just admitted it's faster, and it is.

I don't care if I have an INFIDEL cap on, and a shoot me first shirt on as well. If I decide to open carry because though it SHOULD be constitutionally allowed, but because it's finally at least legally allowed, I should be able to do it, and not have to wait around if I'm not required to take more training, just because others WILL be required to take modified training to become licensed and that training has not been prepared yet. Frankly, that's not my problem.

You need to read my response again; I did not say open-carry was faster. I said the testimony was laughable. I heard that bogus claim for the first time today during the hearing.

Chas.

You wrote "My cover garment adds less than 1/2 second to my draw, if that."

Perhaps I misunderstood and that quote was from testimony.

If open-carry does not require a level-2 or level-3 holster, and a speed-draw comp holster can be worn, I can guarantee that draw will be faster than anyone who is carrying concealed. Nevermind the increased requirements for weapons-retention training. That's a separate topic.

Strat9mm wrote:

jmra wrote:

Strat9mm wrote:Respectfully, I'm not angry, I'm just confused.

I could answer by hypothetically asking, well, exactly how much is a saved human life worth if it's lost because someone could have carried openly, sooner, but didn't?

But the real question is, what does preparing updated training for -future- licensee's have to do with those of us who are already licensed, and would presumably be able to open carry immediately without any further required training.

Given how much the training and renewal requirements have already been cut, are we going to have to go through more training when we aren't even up for renewal? Perhaps I missed something.

Lost life because you can't OC? Really?
The rest is spilt milk. Fortunately the glass is still half full.

I posed a hypothetical question.

Are you really going to deny it's an impossible scenario even though it was already implied as being highly improbable?

Why bother replying?

Strat9mm wrote:Respectfully, I'm not angry, I'm just confused.

I could answer by hypothetically asking, well, exactly how much is a saved human life worth if it's lost because someone could have carried openly, sooner, but didn't?

But the real question is, what does preparing updated training for -future- licensee's have to do with those of us who are already licensed, and would presumably be able to open carry immediately without any further required training.

Given how much the training and renewal requirements have already been cut, are we going to have to go through more training when we aren't even up for renewal? Perhaps I missed something.

Strat9mm wrote:With the minimal class time required now, I really don't see the point.

30 days should be more than enough.

Slow-tracking those who are already licensed is just that, slow-tracking those who are already licensed.

Strat9mm wrote:Why would anyone want to approve an amendment to delay an open carry law from taking effect until the beginning of 2016?

That was one of the amendments that passed.

I'm curious as to why anyone would vote for it since obviously, many just did.