Agreed. If OC is licensed, then the law will most certainly require that we show our ID and license upon demand. (Similar to what we already have for CHL.) This would allow the police to execute a "Stop-and-ID" (i.e. "Stop-and-Harass") on anyone who's OC'ing. Such a stop would be unconstitutional and contrary to Terry, but do we really want to go to court and fight it? And who's going to volunteer to be our test case? Someone else tried to compare this to the licensing requirement for driving and claimed that since police don't Stop-and-ID motorists, they won't Stop-and-ID OC'ers either. The problem is that police Stop-and-ID drivers all the time and for various reasons - being the wrong race in the wrong part of town, being out at the wrong time of night, fishing expeditions, if the cop has a quota to fill (as they do in Dallas), etc. It already happens to motorists, and it would happen even more to OC'ers given the political nature of the issue. You won't find many cops who oppose our privilege to drive, but there are many who oppose our right to bear arms. Stop-and-Harass will always be an issue with OC, and requiring a license will only make it worse. (Note that this is not a reason to abandon OC altogether. We are still a nation of laws - not a police state. Not yet...)C-dub wrote:Well, the way I figure it, if OC requires a license the police will stop anyone they see open carrying just to check if they have a license. But, if it is unlicensed OC then they have no reason to stop someone unless they are committing a crime. Oh, and I'm not naive enough to think that it still won't happen, but it will cost some departments some money when they do. However, whether a person is violent or not is irrelevant. If they are not committing a crime at that moment then what's the problem whether they OC or CC without a license?Beiruty wrote:In Unlic carrry, can a LEO stop and ask for ID and check if the OCer is not a felon? Or do you allow the violent felons to OC?anygunanywhere wrote:Unlicensed, definitely.
Good point C-dub.
Anygunanywhere
I also think that if and when OC is legal in Texas that a license will be required. Having it be unlicensed is JMHO.
Another reason I oppose licensing OC is because it would tend to blur the line between OC and CC and tie the two rights together. In order to protect our existing rights vis a vie the CHL, I think it's best to keep OC a separate issue. For example, if no license is required to OC, then 30.06 doesn't apply to someone who's OC'ing. I would advocate that banning OC would require a second, equally-hideous sign. However, if one license covers both OC and CC, then it's likely that one sign will cover them both as well. For those that worry about OC affecting our CHL rights, I think the best approach is to make OC legal with no license, end of story, completely separate from the CHL issue.
But the most important reason of all is this - when it comes to 2A rights, any licensing scheme is nothing more than a system of bribes. That includes both OC and CHL. It's no different from a poll tax, and it has its roots in the same insidious racism. Requiring a class and a license places an undue burden on all classes of people and especially serves to disenfranchise the poor - those who need the right most of all. Also, the time required to issue the license thwarts those whose need is most urgent (think domestic abuse). Martin Luther King Jr. stated, "A right delayed is a right denied." I would add to that, "A right which must be purchased is no right at all." In Texas, it is currently illegal to carry a firearm without a mandatory expense and waiting period (aka a CHL). This flies in the face of the Constitution, and licensed OC would do nothing to resolve this abhorrence.