TexasCHLforum.com

HB 195 amends Sect. 411.207 Subsection (A) to add
The mere possession or carrying of a firearm, openly or concealed, with or without a Concealed Handgun License, shall not constitute probable cause for a peace officer to disarm or detain an otherwise law-abiding person.

If all this really happens, this HAS to be part of it. It would be bitterly disappointing to finally get open carry legislation, then not be able to carry because you're afraid of being harrassed and persecuted, maybe even cuffed and taken to jail, by overzealous police officers. Check the Youtube videos sometime; some are really extreme, with people calmly and legally carrying and suddenly being surrounded by 5 police cars and guns pointed at them. If I open carried, I would probably print out a copy of this and carry it with me.

I fear that the unlicensed open or concealed carry of handguns could well be a deal breaker for the whole concept of concealed carry. The practice receives wide support now because the general populace with an interest can point to the background checks as reason for permitting concealed carry. In my personal experience, some of the open carry folks are certifiable flakes and likely non-candidates for a license in any form. To allow them to carry concealed or open a handgun is simply asking for trouble. We shouldn't be supporting actions that play into the hands of the mad mothers and crazy Tarrant County folks.

I do agree with you that the concept of licensed OC is more palatable, especially when we can point to Oklahoma when some of the dooms-day scenarios are brought up.

I absolutely think this amendment is a MUST. And if I recall right, Oklahoma has similar legal verbiage. Without it, OC of a firearm is essentially trading the right to carry that firearm in exchange for your 4th amendment rights. This is already well documented and proven in Texas. Any sort of OC law, without this verbiage, isn't every effective... At least until we have a few test cases that get upheld before a judge.

I don't really care if OC is licensed or unlicensed. I care very much that this verbiage is there.

The fact that you have some basic training, background checks, and more importantly the track record of CHL holders since the program started will be critical advantages a licensed OC bill will have over an unlicensed one. HB195 has some major flaws, but OC supporters write them off as minor issues or claim that they are fabrications aimed at sabotaging the bill.

Flaw 1: Language that could be used by morally challenged persons to claim that 30.06 applies to licensed and unlicensed carry.
Flaw 2: Language from motorist protection act will apply to everyone, so that even a class C misdemeanor could result in an unlawful carry charge.
Flaw 3: (Reported, not verified) A listener to my podcast just emailed me saying he thinks that a case could be made for someone who has alcohol in their system to have all their weapons confiscated thanks to HB195. He initially saw this on a forum somewhere but hasn't directed me to the forum or thread yet, I just asked him to.

I generally support the concept of OC if the individual is licensed to do so concealed.Anything short of that will generate huge backwash from the anti activists. If OC is passed, I agree that verbage specifying that the OC folks not be hastled by police. I don't know how this would flow though. If an officer 'feels' a problem, he would need to check for licensing anyway. I would suggest that an officer could simply ask to see the license if needed and then be done with it. Finally, the 30.06 signage should stand untouched, and perhaps a 30.07 sign of similar values mandated for the OC folks.

With proper respect to those who feel otherwise, I object to the idea that OC folks can carry without a license while concealed carry folks do need a license to do so. As noted elsewhere, it isn't a matter of respecting our rights under the Bill of Rights. It bears on the reality that some people just shouldn't be carrying, and if we are honest with ourselves, we know who these folks are. The licensing process acts as a filter to limit the dim witted, short tempered, wife beating guys who wave the constitution to cover their personal shortcomings.

gdanaher wrote:I generally support the concept of OC if the individual is licensed to do so concealed.Anything short of that will generate huge backwash from the anti activists. If OC is passed, I agree that verbage specifying that the OC folks not be hastled by police. I don't know how this would flow though. If an officer 'feels' a problem, he would need to check for licensing anyway. I would suggest that an officer could simply ask to see the license if needed and then be done with it. Finally, the 30.06 signage should stand untouched, and perhaps a 30.07 sign of similar values mandated for the OC folks.

With proper respect to those who feel otherwise, I object to the idea that OC folks can carry without a license while concealed carry folks do need a license to do so. As noted elsewhere, it isn't a matter of respecting our rights under the Bill of Rights. It bears on the reality that some people just shouldn't be carrying, and if we are honest with ourselves, we know who these folks are. The licensing process acts as a filter to limit the dim witted, short tempered, wife beating guys who wave the constitution to cover their personal shortcomings.

Well put gdanaher! Thank you. You have put into words what I have been wanting to express for several months now. IMHO there are just to many people out there who would not(or could not) exercise the self discipline and self control required to carry openly and unlicensed open carry responsibly.

gdanaher wrote:.... I agree that verbage specifying that the OC folks not be hastled by police. I don't know how this would flow though. If an officer 'feels' a problem, he would need to check for licensing anyway.

The difference is huge. I looked at Oklahoma's law and it doesn't actually prohibit law enforcement, but it does specify when asking for a license is allowed. It's an inclusionary list - that is, if it's not listed, it's not legal. And it's normal stuff, "...during the course of any arrest, detainment, or routine traffic stop" asking for the license is allowed. It makes sense. Other OC states have similar verbiage, some of them are exclusionary - IE - you LEOs can't stop and detain just due to the presence of a firearm.

Any officer can ask for anything he wants at any time, that's true... But we're talking about compelling the production of identification. That shouldn't be allowed if you're doing something that's legal.

Look at the 30.06 law. We all know that these signs are unenforceable on city/county property, but we see them there frequently. Why? Because there is no "you can't do that" section in the law. They're posting them because they often have a misunderstanding or an agenda and there simply isn't any penalty for doing so.

Without this language, it's a gray area and would need to be worked out through case law. Based on what I see with long guns - Texas society is tolerant of stops based solely on possession of a legal firearm. Grisham is a horrible example, but largely he was stopped simply because he was carrying. I'm not willing to trade more 2nd amendment for more 4th amendment, personally.

joe817 wrote:

gdanaher wrote:I generally support the concept of OC if the individual is licensed to do so concealed.Anything short of that will generate huge backwash from the anti activists. If OC is passed, I agree that verbage specifying that the OC folks not be hastled by police. I don't know how this would flow though. If an officer 'feels' a problem, he would need to check for licensing anyway. I would suggest that an officer could simply ask to see the license if needed and then be done with it. Finally, the 30.06 signage should stand untouched, and perhaps a 30.07 sign of similar values mandated for the OC folks.

With proper respect to those who feel otherwise, I object to the idea that OC folks can carry without a license while concealed carry folks do need a license to do so. As noted elsewhere, it isn't a matter of respecting our rights under the Bill of Rights. It bears on the reality that some people just shouldn't be carrying, and if we are honest with ourselves, we know who these folks are. The licensing process acts as a filter to limit the dim witted, short tempered, wife beating guys who wave the constitution to cover their personal shortcomings.

Well put gdanaher! Thank you. You have put into words what I have been wanting to express for several months now. IMHO there are just to many people out there who would not(or could not) exercise the self discipline and self control required to carry openly and unlicensed open carry responsibly.

At some point that can begin to border on something like the Minority Report. Who gets to say which "dim witted, short tempered" don't get to carry because they might do something wrong? I was a little bit of a hot-head until I got my CHL. Should I have been restricted from carrying because I might lose my temper?

KC5AV wrote:

joe817 wrote:Well put gdanaher! Thank you. You have put into words what I have been wanting to express for several months now. IMHO there are just to many people out there who would not(or could not) exercise the self discipline and self control required to carry openly and unlicensed open carry responsibly.

At some point that can begin to border on something like the Minority Report. Who gets to say which "dim witted, short tempered" don't get to carry because they might do something wrong? I was a little bit of a hot-head until I got my CHL. Should I have been restricted from carrying because I might lose my temper?

You misinterpret my post. To answer your question, of course not. The fact that you did get your CHL says a lot, as it does for all CHL licensees. I guess I should have said " I support licensed open carry", due to the antics of OCT & OCTC. I am greatly concerned of the OC movement for the same reasons that many forum members have expressed.

You ask "Who gets to say...."? The answer: The same folks who issued you and I and most of the forum members their CHL.
'Nuff said.

Before we get too wound up on how responsible CHL holders are, and how irresponsible people without CHLs are, let's not forget that this law will affect visitors to our state as well. It may not be viable for someone from a state that does not have reciprocity to get a non-resident CHL. They might have unlicensed concealed carry in their state. They might have unlicensed open carry in their state. They may live in a state where it's neigh impossible to get a license to carry. Do they not deserve the right of self defense when they are here? As long as they're not a felon, they should be able to lawfully carry. Openly or concealed - at least give them a choice.

Also, Texas has one of the most expensive concealed licensing in the country. You're out over $200 by the time you mail your materials in. I can see some people who equally deserve the right of self defense not being able to afford that right away. Could you imagine paying $200 for a license to vote?

I fail to understand how people who believe in the 2nd Amendment accept conditions that severely infringe on some people's right to bear arms. And I certainly don't think that a Constitutional right needs to be turned into a licensed activity. At least, if it is, give an option where one can practice those rights without a licencing requirement. Licensing creates barriers for legitimate, law-abiding citizens, and there's no denial of that.

mr1337 wrote:Before we get too wound up on how responsible CHL holders are, and how irresponsible people without CHLs are, let's not forget that this law will affect visitors to our state as well. It may not be viable for someone from a state that does not have reciprocity to get a non-resident CHL. They might have unlicensed concealed carry in their state. They might have unlicensed open carry in their state. They may live in a state where it's neigh impossible to get a license to carry. Do they not deserve the right of self defense when they are here? As long as they're not a felon, they should be able to lawfully carry. Openly or concealed - at least give them a choice.

Also, Texas has one of the most expensive concealed licensing in the country. You're out over $200 by the time you mail your materials in. I can see some people who equally deserve the right of self defense not being able to afford that right away. Could you imagine paying $200 for a license to vote?

I fail to understand how people who believe in the 2nd Amendment accept conditions that severely infringe on some people's right to bear arms. And I certainly don't think that a Constitutional right needs to be turned into a licensed activity. At least, if it is, give an option where one can practice those rights without a licencing requirement. Licensing creates barriers for legitimate, law-abiding citizens, and there's no denial of that.

Not a fan of the bill for the fact that more businesses will probably put up 30.06 signs because of open carrying. Ive got nothing against open carrying, its just something that may happen.

Javier730 wrote:Not a fan of the bill for the fact that more businesses will probably put up 30.06 signs because of open carrying. Ive got nothing against open carrying, its just something that may happen.

I think it's a given that there will be a certain amount of "freaking out" if noticeable numbers of people open carry. I was with my wife recently shopping at The Domain, an upscale semi-outdoor Austin shopping center, where we were surrounded by upper-middle-class, politically correct, California yuppie housewives pushing $800 baby carriages. I can only imagine the eyeball-popping that would occur if they saw somebody walking towards them with a g.... g.... g.... GUN on his belt. No way those businesses would tolerate that.

mr1337 wrote:I fail to understand how people who believe in the 2nd Amendment accept conditions that severely infringe on some people's right to bear arms.

What makes you think anyone "accepts conditions . . . [?]"

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mr1337 wrote:I fail to understand how people who believe in the 2nd Amendment accept conditions that severely infringe on some people's right to bear arms.

What makes you think anyone "accepts conditions . . . [?]"

Chas.

Accepting while disagreeing with and wanting overturned.

Or, to put it another way, I "accept" the requirement that I obtain a CHL in order to conceal-carry, while being adamantly opposed to any license, registration, permission slip, or any other requirement that infringes upon my or anyone else's Constitutional right.

Yes, this includes any and all CHL requirements. I firmly believe that ANY requirement, other than "not convicted and in jail," is a Constitutional violation. However, I have had a CHL of one state or another since I turned 21, because I'm not "Threeper" enough to try "fighting the man" all on my lonesome, and I'm not willing to make a valiant, yet failed, solo stand.

As for all the fuss and worry over how OC should be licensed, so as to not "worry" people or "freak out" businesses, I think I may just go openly carrying tomorrow around town. It's New Mexico, hardly a bastion of conservative thought in comparison to Texas, with far more dedicated dyed-in-the-wool liberals. Yet, I can carry a gun all day, in plain view, and with one solitary exception, I am pretty well welcome in any store in town. No one freaks out.