Soccer mom loses PA permit

[CompVest]

I believe your concern is excessive. Why would Texas businesses react differently from those in other states? In the case of Home Depot and other major chains, almost all follow the Wal-Mart model: their policy is to follow the laws of the state in which the store is located. If open carry causes undue concern in a particular store, the customer may be asked to conceal (if legal), or leave. They don't ban all carry just because someone openly carries there.

I sure hope you are right, but I intend to vote and stay active in promoting our gun rights. I will pick my battles carefully so as to expand my rights and not fight battles that even if won might backfire. I have seen conservative States go way liberal in almost a blink of the eye because of complacency.

[txflyer]

This would apply equally to any business whether or not they are part of a major chain. Remember, Texas CHLs make up less than 3% of the population. This means a business owner can ban guns and risk alienating 3% of the population, or he can refuse to respond to customer complaints and risk alienating the 97% of Texans who are not CHLs. I fear this would be an easy business decision for the owner or manager and almost 300,000 CHLs will no longer be able to carry their defensive handguns in many businesses.

I don't think the 3% number is relevant. What is more relevant is that the 3% may be 10% of a business owners customer base. At that point a business owner is hard pressed to want to alienate that much business. What is missing is the demographics of the CHL holder regarding disposable income, homeowner, movie goer, etc.

Perhaps the TSRA should do some research in that area to give us a stronger position to argue from when we inform business owners of what they will be missing by alienating CHL holders.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The gun culture in Texas and Pennsylvania are pretty similar. Both are mostly rural states with a strong heritage of hunting and firearms ownership. Both have some metropolitan areas that believe they should be above state law, but they are kept in check by strong preemption and court rulings (PA has actually strengthened their preemption in recent years).

There is a huge distinction that many people ignore; open-carry has been legal in PA for many years. In fact, I don't believe open-carry has ever been illegal in PA. Open-carry in Texas would be a huge change, unlike PA. But even in PA, a state cited by open-carry proponents, this woman had a problem! She had to go to court to get her license back.

Also, can anyone point to a state that passed legislation in the last 20, 30, or 40 years legalizing open-carry?

My concern lies with the likely response from the business community. If this incident happened in a Texas Home Depot, the parents who objected to the lady in PA carrying at a ball park would also complain to the Home Depot Manager. I am very concerned that this manager would choose to post 30.06 signs, rather than risk his store's profitability and his compensation. This would apply equally to any business whether or not they are part of a major chain. Remember, Texas CHLs make up less than 3% of the population. This means a business owner can ban guns and risk alienating 3% of the population, or he can refuse to respond to customer complaints and risk alienating the 97% of Texans who are not CHLs.

I believe your concern is excessive. Why would Texas businesses react differently from those in other states?

Again, I acknowledge that my fears may be unfounded, but I would like to see open-carry supporters also admit that they may be wrong. The business community may react more strongly than they anticipate. It's the "it'll never happen here" attitude I find troubling. Rather than engaging in a rational and candid risk analysis, they ignore the risk altogether. Then they equate those who have legitimate concerns with the "blood in the streets" anti-gunners. That's unfounded, unfair and counterproductive. The pro-gun community should be able to discuss issues of importance to us without making accusations that tend to alienate one another. (You are not doing this Kevin. You and I disagree on this issue, but our discussions have always been respectful toward one another. However, a review of opencarry.org makes it clear that many open-carry supporters don't merely disagree with opponents, they scoff and mock our concerns and belittle those who don't share their confidence.)

In the case of Home Depot and other major chains, almost all follow the Wal-Mart model: their policy is to follow the laws of the state in which the store is located. If open carry causes undue concern in a particular store, the customer may be asked to conceal (if legal), or leave. They don't ban all carry just because someone openly carries there.

Home Depot was just an example; the likelihood of an anti-CHL response is greater the smaller the business. That said, I'd be very interested in a link to documentation that Home Depot, Wal-Mart, or any other major corporation has an official corporate policy of following the gun laws of the states in which the stores are located. This is a very significant decision and one that would be made at the Board of Directors level and properly documented. If such official policies exist, they should be easy to document and very useful in the future, if open-carry were to pass in Texas.

To borrow an analogy about overstated fears, I really don't worry that the streets will be flowing with 30.06 notices if legal open carry passes in Texas.

My concern isn't theoretical, it based upon what happened right here in Texas in 1995 when CHL first passed. Ghostbuster "no gun" signs and decals were everywhere! (Our own experience is much more enlightening than anecdotal stories by open-carry supporters about other states.)

SB 60 was signed by then-Governor Bush on May 26, 1995, it went into effect on Sept. 1, 1995, but no CHL was effective until January 1, 1996. During the six months between passage of SB60 and the January 1, 1996 effective date of actual CHLs, business were in near panic mode. Major law firms in Texas were advising all of their business clients to post "no-gun" signs or face certain liability. TV newscasts warned that Texans would be carrying guns in six months and then interviewed business owners who were posting their businesses "to do everything we can to protect our customers." These newscasts even told people how to use Texas' trespass law (TPC §30.05) to keep "gun toaters" off of their property. As bad as it was, only the BOMA conference in Houston in 1995 prevented the situation from being much worse; i.e. having virtually all major office buildings in Texas posting "no-gun" signs.

The situation had gotten so bad by the 1997 legislative session that it was necessary to enact TPC §30.06 with it's notice requirements and minimum sign requirements to stem the growing tide of "no-gun" signs on businesses of all sizes. TPC §30.06 had the desired effect, because it was a big ugly sign that businesses didn't want defacing their storefronts. As time passed, CHL became a non-issue for two reasons. First, the predicted blood-baths never occurred. More importantly, the 97% of Texans who didn't have CHLs never realized they were standing next to an armed citizen because they didn't see their guns. The out-of-sight-out-of-mind element had a significant calming effect.

Now we have 12 years of experience with CHL and an excellent track record. Those facts are on our side. However, if we start carrying handguns openly, we've lost the out-of-sight-out-of-mind effect and people who never give CHL a second thought are going to react to what they perceive as an "in your face" situation. This is not theoretical, it's not at all analogous with the "blood in the streets" arguments CHL opponents used against us. It's based upon recent experience in Texas. What is uncertain is how widespread, how strong, and how committed the opposition will be. This is why I acknowledge that my fears may ultimately be unfounded. It's also why open-carry supporters should be equally honest and admit that there is a risk. You can no more guarantee that businesses will not react by posting 30.06 signs than I can guarantee they will. In my view, based upon past experience in Texas, the risk is simply too high.


Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

This would apply equally to any business whether or not they are part of a major chain. Remember, Texas CHLs make up less than 3% of the population. This means a business owner can ban guns and risk alienating 3% of the population, or he can refuse to respond to customer complaints and risk alienating the 97% of Texans who are not CHLs. I fear this would be an easy business decision for the owner or manager and almost 300,000 CHLs will no longer be able to carry their defensive handguns in many businesses.

I don't think the 3% number is relevant. What is more relevant is that the 3% may be 10% of a business owners customer base. At that point a business owner is hard pressed to want to alienate that much business.

It's highly relevant; it gives business owners a clear picture of the customer population that may be alienated by an anti-CHL/anti-gun business policy. There is no basis for saying that 3% of the Texas population comprises 10% of a businesses customer base, but even using those numbers, it's still an easy business decision. Does a prudent businessman risk alienating 10% of his customer base, or 90%?

What is missing is the demographics of the CHL holder regarding disposable income, homeowner, movie goer, etc.

Perhaps the TSRA should do some research in that area to give us a stronger position to argue from when we inform business owners of what they will be missing by alienating CHL holders.

I don't see any possible way to research this issue, since CHL records are confidential. I think the best that could be done is estimate income levels by zip code and then do some very very rough calculations based upon the DPS demographic information published on their website. Such open-ended guessing and unscientific method would not likely be impressive to businesses. But what good would it do anyway? Whatever percentage that would come out of such research, even if it were possible to conduct, would be only a fraction of the potential business loss if the business owner alienated a significant portion of the remaining 90% of the population. We have to remember, we CHLs are out numbered 62 to 1! Only the 300 Spartans had worse odds. (Based upon 2006 population age 21 and older and approx. 256,000 CHLs. (See Allison's Research.)

Chas.

[GrillKing]

Now we have 12 years of experience with CHL and an excellent track record. Those facts are on our side. However, if we start carrying handguns openly, we've lost the out-of-sight-out-of-mind effect and people who never give CHL a second thought are going to react to what they perceive as an "in your face" situation. This is not theoretical, it's not at all analogous with the "blood in the streets" arguments CHL opponents used against us. It's based upon recent experience in Texas. What is uncertain is how widespread, how strong, and how committed the opposition will be. This is why I acknowledge that my fears may ultimately be unfounded. It's also why open-carry supporters should be equally honest and admit that there is a risk. You can no more guarantee that businesses will not react by posting 30.06 signs than I can guarantee they will. In my view, based upon past experience in Texas, the risk is simply too high.


Chas.

I Agree!!!

[stevie_d_64]

Again, I acknowledge that my fears may be unfounded, but I would like to see open-carry supporters also admit that they may be wrong.

Yes, I may be wrong...seriously...

But when the day is done, and we have the "choice" to do so...We may be better off with that choice, because the only other alternative, is to remove it...And I do not know of any legislator who wants to be on that side of the equation...

Because the great Barack "Barry Hussien" Obama has spoken!!! "Its not that he wants to punish your success, he just believes that everyone behind those that are suceeding in the American dream, needs to have their "success" (taxed) and that wealth spread around...Our country seems to be better off that way."

So once they get their fingers around more of what we make, what makes anyone think that our empowering, inalienable right to keep and bear arms any less of a target???

Sorry for the political slant, but this mentality seems to be the template for a lot of "plans" these liberal/socialists seems to have in store for us in the near future...

Might as well pad our side of the equation...

But that is just my opinion...

[txflyer]

I don't think the 3% number is relevant. What is more relevant is that the 3% may be 10% of a business owners customer base. At that point a business owner is hard pressed to want to alienate that much business.

It's highly relevant; it gives business owners a clear picture of the customer population that may be alienated by an anti-CHL/anti-gun business policy. There is no basis for saying that 3% of the Texas population comprises 10% of a businesses customer base, but even using those numbers, it's still an easy business decision. Does a prudent businessman risk alienating 10% of his customer base, or 90%?

What is missing is the demographics of the CHL holder regarding disposable income, homeowner, movie goer, etc.

Perhaps the TSRA should do some research in that area to give us a stronger position to argue from when we inform business owners of what they will be missing by alienating CHL holders.

I don't see any possible way to research this issue, since CHL records are confidential. I think the best that could be done is estimate income levels by zip code and then do some very very rough calculations based upon the DPS demographic information published on their website. Such open-ended guessing and unscientific method would not likely be impressive to businesses. But what good would it do anyway? Whatever percentage that would come out of such research, even if it were possible to conduct, would be only a fraction of the potential business loss if the business owner alienated a significant portion of the remaining 90% of the population. We have to remember, we CHLs are out numbered 62 to 1! Only the 300 Spartans had worse odds. (Based upon 2006 population age 21 and older and approx. 256,000 CHLs. (See Allison's Research.)

Chas.

What I was trying to say is that businesses may look at the 3% and find it acceptable. But if we can provide evidence to a business owner that their customer base is actually higher than 3%, then the business owner has a much tougher time accepting the possible loss. IMHO, the number of CHLs out there is not nearly as important as the purchasing power of the CHLs. After all money talks.

My gut tells me the purchasing power of the CHL is more than 3% of the Texas purchasing capability given the expense and time expended by holders of a CHL.

I agree the task may not be easy, but I placed it out there as food for thought hoping others may have an idea of how to legitimately bump our visibility and keep business owners from wanting to post 30.06 signs.

[Liberty]

3% can mean the difference of profit or loss to a lot of businesses

[GrillKing]

The reality probably is that the number is far less than 3%. I would guess that a large percentage of CHL holders are not as active / proactive in support of their 2nd amendment protected rights as those on this board. Most probably don't carry very often and aren't as concerned on a day to day basis as to where they can and cannot carry. A business would likely alienate a much smaller number than 3%. I have nothing to back this up, only a hunch.

However, I think basing a strategy on the economics of CHL holders is not a strong strategy.

[KBCraig]

Again, I acknowledge that my fears may be unfounded, but I would like to see open-carry supporters also admit that they may be wrong. The business community may react more strongly than they anticipate. It's the "it'll never happen here" attitude I find troubling.

I gladly admit that I might be wrong, but "wrong" depends on what OC statute gets passed, if any actually does. Depending on the statute, the "business community" reaction might be irrelevant.

I don't believe any OC supporters have claimed "it'll never happen here". I, and others, have pointed out that "it" (widespread bans of concealed carry) hasn't happened anywhere else in response to legal open carry. Why do opponents believe Texas businesses owner and/or voters are more influential than in other states?

The argument that none of the active OC states have passed legislation allowing legal OC in the last few years, is a bit misleading. Many of those states have only passed "must issue" CC after Florida and Texas, but OC, despite being legal, was uncommon, as you point out. In some cases, particularly Virginia and Pennsylvania, OC increased in popularity after concealed carry passed, and after statewide preemption took effect. The only reaction in Virginia from businesses and the legislature was a bill (vetoed by the governor) that would allow concealed carry in restaurants that serve alcohol. (A quirk in VA law only bans concealed carry there, leading to the "Virginia tuck", because open carry is legal in those restaurants.)

[flb_78]

Im sure we all know by now that Melania Hain had her permit returned to her.

Here's an debate with her, some pro gun guy and 2 antigun guys from New Jersey.

http://www.lildobe.net/gallery2/v/PAFOA ... e.flv.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Oldgringo]

The gun culture in Texas and Pennsylvania are pretty similar. Both are mostly rural states with a strong heritage of hunting and firearms ownership. Both have some metropolitan areas that believe they should be above state law, but they are kept in check by strong preemption and court rulings (PA has actually strengthened their preemption in recent years).

There is a huge distinction that many people ignore; open-carry has been legal in PA for many years. In fact, I don't believe open-carry has ever been illegal in PA. Open-carry in Texas would be a huge change, unlike PA. But even in PA, a state cited by open-carry proponents, this woman had a problem! She had to go to court to get her license back.

Also, can anyone point to a state that passed legislation in the last 20, 30, or 40 years legalizing open-carry?

My concern lies with the likely response from the business community. If this incident happened in a Texas Home Depot, the parents who objected to the lady in PA carrying at a ball park would also complain to the Home Depot Manager. I am very concerned that this manager would choose to post 30.06 signs, rather than risk his store's profitability and his compensation. This would apply equally to any business whether or not they are part of a major chain. Remember, Texas CHLs make up less than 3% of the population. This means a business owner can ban guns and risk alienating 3% of the population, or he can refuse to respond to customer complaints and risk alienating the 97% of Texans who are not CHLs.

I believe your concern is excessive. Why would Texas businesses react differently from those in other states?

Again, I acknowledge that my fears may be unfounded, but I would like to see open-carry supporters also admit that they may be wrong. The business community may react more strongly than they anticipate. It's the "it'll never happen here" attitude I find troubling. Rather than engaging in a rational and candid risk analysis, they ignore the risk altogether. Then they equate those who have legitimate concerns with the "blood in the streets" anti-gunners. That's unfounded, unfair and counterproductive. The pro-gun community should be able to discuss issues of importance to us without making accusations that tend to alienate one another. (You are not doing this Kevin. You and I disagree on this issue, but our discussions have always been respectful toward one another. However, a review of opencarry.org makes it clear that many open-carry supporters don't merely disagree with opponents, they scoff and mock our concerns and belittle those who don't share their confidence.)

In the case of Home Depot and other major chains, almost all follow the Wal-Mart model: their policy is to follow the laws of the state in which the store is located. If open carry causes undue concern in a particular store, the customer may be asked to conceal (if legal), or leave. They don't ban all carry just because someone openly carries there.

Home Depot was just an example; the likelihood of an anti-CHL response is greater the smaller the business. That said, I'd be very interested in a link to documentation that Home Depot, Wal-Mart, or any other major corporation has an official corporate policy of following the gun laws of the states in which the stores are located. This is a very significant decision and one that would be made at the Board of Directors level and properly documented. If such official policies exist, they should be easy to document and very useful in the future, if open-carry were to pass in Texas.

To borrow an analogy about overstated fears, I really don't worry that the streets will be flowing with 30.06 notices if legal open carry passes in Texas.

My concern isn't theoretical, it based upon what happened right here in Texas in 1995 when CHL first passed. Ghostbuster "no gun" signs and decals were everywhere! (Our own experience is much more enlightening than anecdotal stories by open-carry supporters about other states.)

SB 60 was signed by then-Governor Bush on May 26, 1995, it went into effect on Sept. 1, 1995, but no CHL was effective until January 1, 1996. During the six months between passage of SB60 and the January 1, 1996 effective date of actual CHLs, business were in near panic mode. Major law firms in Texas were advising all of their business clients to post "no-gun" signs or face certain liability. TV newscasts warned that Texans would be carrying guns in six months and then interviewed business owners who were posting their businesses "to do everything we can to protect our customers." These newscasts even told people how to use Texas' trespass law (TPC §30.05) to keep "gun toaters" off of their property. As bad as it was, only the BOMA conference in Houston in 1995 prevented the situation from being much worse; i.e. having virtually all major office buildings in Texas posting "no-gun" signs.

The situation had gotten so bad by the 1997 legislative session that it was necessary to enact TPC §30.06 with it's notice requirements and minimum sign requirements to stem the growing tide of "no-gun" signs on businesses of all sizes. TPC §30.06 had the desired effect, because it was a big ugly sign that businesses didn't want defacing their storefronts. As time passed, CHL became a non-issue for two reasons. First, the predicted blood-baths never occurred. More importantly, the 97% of Texans who didn't have CHLs never realized they were standing next to an armed citizen because they didn't see their guns. The out-of-sight-out-of-mind element had a significant calming effect.

Now we have 12 years of experience with CHL and an excellent track record. Those facts are on our side. However, if we start carrying handguns openly, we've lost the out-of-sight-out-of-mind effect and people who never give CHL a second thought are going to react to what they perceive as an "in your face" situation. This is not theoretical, it's not at all analogous with the "blood in the streets" arguments CHL opponents used against us. It's based upon recent experience in Texas. What is uncertain is how widespread, how strong, and how committed the opposition will be. This is why I acknowledge that my fears may ultimately be unfounded. It's also why open-carry supporters should be equally honest and admit that there is a risk. You can no more guarantee that businesses will not react by posting 30.06 signs than I can guarantee they will. In my view, based upon past experience in Texas, the risk is simply too high.


Chas.

, and you know what; Chas. is right if y'all will THINK about it!

[bridge]

Im sure we all know by now that Melania Hain had her permit returned to her.

Here's an debate with her, some pro gun guy and 2 antigun guys from New Jersey.

http://www.lildobe.net/gallery2/v/PAFOA ... e.flv.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I watched all 45 minutes of this and all I can say is Wow. The tongue and cheek stats being thrown out by the anti's was interesting. In the last 15 minutes of the show a woman called in to share her story of avoiding assault by using her concealed weapon and the anti-gun panel member all but called her a liar. He said she never should have pulled her weapon and should have just screamed and shouted. Unbelievable.

[KBCraig]

http://www.lildobe.net/gallery2/v/PAFOA ... e.flv.html

I watched all 45 minutes of this and all I can say is Wow. The tongue and cheek stats being thrown out by the anti's was interesting. In the last 15 minutes of the show a woman called in to share her story of avoiding assault by using her concealed weapon and the anti-gun panel member all but called her a liar. He said she never should have pulled her weapon and should have just screamed and shouted. Unbelievable.

He was from Ceasefire New Jersey. I think what he actually said, when asked whether he supported the right the woman confront in the ladies room to defend herself, was, "I support her right to scream for help."

I can't stand shows in that format, which is why I had to watch that broken up into segments of just a few minutes, over a period of three days. I finally finished it Saturday, right after my son's U6 soccer game.

Concealed carry only, though, since this is Texas, plus it was 48 degrees with winds of 15-25mph.

[bridge]

I can't stand shows in that format, which is why I had to watch that broken up into segments of just a few minutes, over a period of three days.

Understandable...I found myself talking to my computer screen more than once. That Ceasefire guy has no persuasive ability in his commentary style. If there was some place I could send money to make sure he becomes the lead public anti-gun lobbyist I would. He got his lunch eaten by a Housewife with three kids.