TexasCHLforum.com

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.

I cannot understand why Grisham continues to try and incite discention between groupes.

You certainly know more about CJ and his antics than I do, but I have to say some of the bills they support look ok. 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. The beauty of this if you are a (proper) concealed carrier you would never receive oral notification. If you were an open carrier you have the potential to be asked to leave.

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. We haven't seen blood in the streets in those states, and I would think Texas would fair about the same:

Sec. 30.06.
(b) For purposes of this section, a person receives notice if the owner of the property or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner provides notice to the person by oral and [or](<-or is struck through in the bill) written communication, or by oral communication alone.

I for one have no issue with 30.06 applying to both open carry and concealed carry, as long as the requirement for oral notification is added This is now way takes rights away from property owners, it just make it so they would have to ask you to leave before you could be charged with trespass.

Most gun owners consider guns a tool. I respect the fact that some property owners may not like the tool I have brought on their property, whether it be an ax, a chainsaw, or in this case a gun. I just don't think we should have signs the make carrying any of these tools illegal.

I am in the Midland/Odessa area and that story was run yesterday (1-29-2015). I will provide a link, although CJ Grisham's interview was cut short to the point that no comments of his outside of holster type was mentioned. The more extreme OC activists have long held the goal of destroying 30.06 however I will not go on because I feel that Charles hit the nail on the head. For the record OCT (read CJ Grisham) has taken an official support position on West's Gun Control bill #SB124 while opposing pro-gun measures that are supported by real pro-gun organizations.

Video: http://www.newswest9.com/story/27978384 ... carry-laws" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
OCT positions: http://www.opencarrytexas.org/bill-tracking-1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

His all or nothing attitude will surely gather nothing. I dont understand what he does not understand about that. I personally like the fact they would have to post 2 signs to keep out firearms. I still dont understand why this whole process is so difficult, almost every other state in the union has open carry.

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.

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.

I'm convinced these guys are anti-gun...

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.

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?

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.

The time would be now. If you are a member of either group, you need to start working from within to unseat the respective leader(s). Both CJ and Kory are doing more to advance an antigun agenda than the former nanny mayor. As long as either one are still involved, any form of open carry will be a monumental uphill (Everest) battle at best.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

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.

Isn't it a sad irony that those that profess to be the strongest advocates of pro-2A freedom are incapable of using the incremental tactics that have been shown to work in this context and others?

SA-TX

Now that I finally "get' the 30.06 situation, I think I know where these pro-unlicensed carry people are coming from.

A few years ago the federal government stuck it's nose in a private medical family matter and the "pro intervention' people screamed about a fictitious murder plot, and how the government was trying to save this woman's life, and on and on. They were so fixated on getting their way, they didn't realize that inviting the same forces that would "save" her, could be perverted and now intrude our lives daily. They rail on about how the current WH occupant is "trashing" the Constitution, when back then, a State Supreme Court voted unanimously that the Executive branch of that state was acting outside the law. Then the Supreme Court told the Feds to butt-out, it's none of your business. How many stories have we seen about privacy and the lack of it these days? Meanwhile, between Facebook, Twitter, and who knows how many other 'social' media programs, everything is out there for the world to see!

These guys that think the 2A is their license to carry, They are trying to get their way so bad, they are failing to see the damage they are doing to all 2A supporters -- licensed, concealed, or no.

I'm far from confident any serious pro 2A legislation will get passed this session. Charles is already looking two years down the road. Well, how many more two year sessions do we have left? We have arguably the most conservative legislature in Texas history, and it's all about to be tossed away because the die-hard open carriers are acting foolishly.

Seriously? You want to throw away good legislation over the difference between a belt holster and an ankle holster? By the way, good luck getting to that ankle holster when precious seconds count and your weapon is down at your feet.

I have read the bill. Let me ask a stupid question:

How can a drop leg holster that hangs off of a belt not be encompassed as a "Belt Holster"?

Could we request a amendment to include other types of holsters? Or just say "Carried in a holster"?

Being that neither holster mentioned is defined, then it leaves a lot to interpret.

If not, I would gladly be the test case on this one. My Safariland drop leg is so high up that one of Safariland's 1.5" drop low ride belt holsters would be lower.