Open Carry In The News

[mr.72]

well I know I do.

And particularly, if OC is eventually allowed in TX, I think I will have to get a gun that does not draw sneers as frequently as does my Sigma.

[boomerang]

Just trying to save some folks valuable internet discussion hours.

We need to double the number of open carry discussions to have a shot at catching up to the ones about Heller.

[stevie_d_64]

Just trying to save some folks valuable internet discussion hours.

We need to double the number of open carry discussions to have a shot at catching up to the ones about Heller.

[G36Packer]

I am supporting open carry. I may never actually OC but I would rather have the option than not.

[Owens]

I've had a few things to say regarding my opinion of OC before. No need to rehash.

Could it happen some day? Yes. Would I make use of it? Maybe. Here's the thing. I believe there are other things that need fixed and just may make an inroad to OC.

1. The 'parking lot' law. This needs to get fixed. As an example, there are colleges that having a firearm on campus is not a problem. How? Having the firearm in a vehicle is not considered having it on campus. On campus begins at the door of a building. The campuses are considered 'open with public access'. How is this ANY different from a parking lot of the XYZ Company?

After it is seen that allowing them (firearms) in employee's vehicles WILL NOT create any problems, it is just one more brick out of the wall. Now the president of the XYZ Company may not see it that way, but I believe statistics will make him a liar.

2. carry restrictions. Governor Perry, not long after the Virginia Tech incident, made the statement that CHL folks should be able to carry anywhere they wanted. As we all know, a CHL'd person is not the problem. Basically, a CHL person should be able to carry anywhere a LEO does.

I read on this forum somewhere, there was proposal for the 2009 legislative session being worked on that would take care of some (or all?) of
these concerns.

Of course, #2 on my list will pretty much take care of #1. Either or both of these get passed, and we are a bit closer to OC further down the road. I don't have a problem with OC, I just don't want to see it bring about any further restrictions before some other things are handled that will bring about greater benefit first.

/flameshield on

[HerbM]

I've had a few things to say regarding my opinion of OC before. No need to rehash.

Could it happen some day? Yes. Would I make use of it? Maybe. Here's the thing. I believe there are other things that need fixed and just may make an inroad to OC.

1. The 'parking lot' law. This needs to get fixed. As an example, there are colleges that having a firearm on campus is not a problem. How? Having the firearm in a vehicle is not considered having it on campus. On campus begins at the door of a building. The campuses are considered 'open with public access'. How is this ANY different from a parking lot of the XYZ Company?
...
2. carry restrictions. Governor Perry, not long after the Virginia Tech incident, made the statement that CHL folks should be able to carry anywhere they wanted. As we all know, a CHL'd person is not the problem. Basically, a CHL person should be able to carry anywhere a LEO does.
...
/flameshield on

Why a flame shield? There is a giant difference between arguing for gun control and prioritizing your own desires for what should be fixed.

Parking lots are actually much more controversial -- an interesting number of CHL holders believe that "property rights" (of the business) trump your rights to self-defense and to keep and bear arms. (I disagree, and do so on both property right AND self-defense AND RKBA grounds 3 to 1). Your car you rights. If the business doesn't want to allow firearms in the parking lot then don't allow private vehicles.

Once you allow my vehicle you accept the lawful contents of it.

And I do thank everyone for signing the petition for open carry.

ALL gun control laws should be repealed. Every single one of them.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Why a flame shield? There is a giant difference between arguing for gun control and prioritizing your own desires for what should be fixed.

Two people have recently been banned because of their incessant argumentative, condescending and inflammatory statements towards other members. In fact, you sound so much like one of them, I suspect you are. I'm sick of you labeling any position you disagree with as "gun control." Knock it off.

Chas.

[HerbM]

Why a flame shield? There is a giant difference between arguing for gun control and prioritizing your own desires for what should be fixed.

Two people have recently been banned because of their incessant argumentative, condescending and inflammatory statements towards other members. In fact, you sound so much like one of them, I suspect you are. I'm sick of you labeling any position you disagree with as "gun control." Knock it off.

Chas.

I am not any of those people, and I was agreeing with him -- he wasn't using any gun control arguments long exposed as fallacious, but was rather expressing a preference for which order things should be done.

Please check your facts and get them correct before threatening to ban someone.

[bayouhazard]

1. The 'parking lot' law. This needs to get fixed. As an example, there are colleges that having a firearm on campus is not a problem. How? Having the firearm in a vehicle is not considered having it on campus. On campus begins at the door of a building. The campuses are considered 'open with public access'. How is this ANY different from a parking lot of the XYZ Company?

After it is seen that allowing them (firearms) in employee's vehicles WILL NOT create any problems, it is just one more brick out of the wall. Now the president of the XYZ Company may not see it that way, but I believe statistics will make him a liar.

A private university can post their parking lot or the entire campus in the same manner a private company can post their parking lot or their entire property. I think they're misguided but as private entities they have private property rights. My objection to 30.06 is the penalty. Carrying on 30.06 posted private property should have the same penalty as bringing a candy bar or breath mints into a movie theater with a sign prohibiting outside food and drinks.

[stevie_d_64]

Once you allow my vehicle you accept the lawful contents of it.

Actually, this is an interesting angle/point...

[maximus2161]

My question is how likely is the real possibility of Texas allowing open carry? And if something like that happened would Texas be either open carry only or concealed carry only?

Personally I would love the option to have both.

[agbullet2k1]

My question is how likely is the real possibility of Texas allowing open carry? And if something like that happened would Texas be either open carry only or concealed carry only?

Personally I would love the option to have both.

Allow me to answer a question with a question: How likely was it to have concealed carry over 15 years ago?

As for your second question, given the pension for politicians to overlook everything that might be good for us, I'm wary of their *allowing* OC at the expense of CC, and I wouldn't really support anything that got rid of CC for any reason.

[HerbM]

My question is how likely is the real possibility of Texas allowing open carry? And if something like that happened would Texas be either open carry only or concealed carry only?

Personally I would love the option to have both.

We must not lose CHL unless it is merely to remove the licensing portion of concealed carry.

The VA model seems right as a good start: OC unlicensed and CHL licensed even though the license is unconstitutional for a natural right (as declared in Heller) since they cannot show any value over unlicensed concealed carry.

Keep what we have -- get back the rest of our rights.

It should never be about "which is better" -- that is for each person to decide, and to alter as circumstance indicate.

[KBCraig]

My objection to 30.06 is the penalty. Carrying on 30.06 posted private property should have the same penalty as bringing a candy bar or breath mints into a movie theater with a sign prohibiting outside food and drinks.

Thank you, that's an excellent analogy!

I've been trying to tell people that when it comes to 30.06 and parking lot bills, etc., we must continue to respect private property rights, but the problem is the onerous enhanced penalty for trespass while armed. Your analogy is spot-on!

[stevie_d_64]

Ok,

I think it is well established my opinion on the issue, and seeings how I see a lot of nervousness and walking on eggshells concerning any risk to what we are "allowed" to do in this state at this time...

When the rubber hits the road and someone carries a bill that somehow opens the door on open carry in this state...And somehow it puts at risk (if passed and signed) our current abilities...I will oppose it...Plain and simple...

What I find ironic, is that the very people who oppose this at all costs (and I do understand their point of view and knowledge) are the same people who just loved to death the "parking lot" bill last session...With all the notification to private entities (like your employer) to be allowed to do this at one point...

I opposed any notification or revelation to anyone our CHL info or weapon types or any other information to be given to anyone as a concession to getting that bill passed...

But most of the people who had no concerns about that part of the bill are some of the same people who are opposed to the open carry concept...

But hey, at least we give this issue a lot of time and effort in discussions that for the most part are pretty darn good from both sides...

Thats just what I've seen in all of this...