Open Carry?

[Charles L. Cotton]

This past summer, it became legal in Arizona to CC where alcohol is served. Reports are that "no guns" signs are going up all over the state at restaurants that serve alcohol. Should the gun rights groups in Arizona have fought against this law, since it means signs are going up? Of course not.

Your comparison of restaurant-carry in Arizona with open-carry in Texas is fatally flawed. Arizona CHL's didn't loose anything when the restaurant ban was lifted, because they were already off-limits. Posting of those locations by their owners merely maintained the status quo If open-carry were to pass in Texas, and if businesses start posting TPC §30.06 signs, then 350,000+ CHL's will no longer be able to carry in locations that have been open to them for almost 15 years.

I hope no one takes this personally, because I intend it as constructive criticism, but the attitude of "We've got it how I like it, so don't mess with things!" sounds selfish. It reminds me of the Fudds who are willing to give up everyone else's gun rights just so long as their hunting guns are safe.

I won't go so far as to say that open-carry supporters are selfish, nor do I feel that way, but the fact is a relatively small group of people are willing to risk the creation of a lot of new off-limits businesses (via TPC §30.06 signs) just to have the option to openly-carry. When I say "relatively small group" I am making the assumption that, if open-carry ever passes, it will be licensed open-carry. Unlicensed open-carry has absolutely no chance of passing any time soon, and if it ever does, it will come only after successfully passing licensed open-carry.

Chas.

[Keith B]

This past summer, it became legal in Arizona to CC where alcohol is served. Reports are that "no guns" signs are going up all over the state at restaurants that serve alcohol.

The same thing happened in Tennessee this year when they overrode the Governors veto and passed concealed carry in restaurants that served alcohol under 51% of their revenue. At the time it was passed, there was a big lobby of restaurant owners putting the word out and getting every business they could to post signage preventing carry. Apparently the lobbying worked and a lot of restaurants posted signs.

However, the law just got overturned http://www.ammoland.com/2009/11/29/tenn ... itutional/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and you once again can't carry in non-51% restaurants.

[frazzled]

This past summer, it became legal in Arizona to CC where alcohol is served. Reports are that "no guns" signs are going up all over the state at restaurants that serve alcohol. Should the gun rights groups in Arizona have fought against this law, since it means signs are going up? Of course not.

Just like with other states, those Arizona signs will fade away through education and experience. And Texas (despite how many Texans feel about it) is not some unique place where what works elsewhere can't possibly work here.

I hope no one takes this personally, because I intend it as constructive criticism, but the attitude of "We've got it how I like it, so don't mess with things!" sounds selfish. It reminds me of the Fudds who are willing to give up everyone else's gun rights just so long as their hunting guns are safe.

Why do you think those signs will fade away?

[SA-TX]

I won't go so far as to say that open-carry supporters are selfish, nor do I feel that way, but the fact is a relatively small group of people are willing to risk the creation of a lot of new off-limits businesses (via TPC §30.06 signs) just to have the option to openly-carry. When I say "relatively small group" I am making the assumption that, if open-carry ever passes, it will be licensed open-carry. Unlicensed open-carry has absolutely no chance of passing any time soon, and if it ever does, it will come only after successfully passing licensed open-carry.

Chas.

Charles, I think you are making a couple of other assumptions:

1) TPC 30.06 would be updated to apply to licensed open carry. Depending on how the CHL law was changed to allow licensed open carry, that may or may not happen. Why not? It seems to me that one of the reasons a sign is necessary for the protection of property rights is that, by definition, the owner cannot see a concealed handgun. Thus, the sign communicates his wishes. This isn't a problem with open carry.

2) That a 30.06 sign is the way to keep someone from open carrying and thus is going to be the action taken. If the owner doesn't like your exposed sidearm, he can ask you to leave. The verbal request is just as binding and is an immediate response to unwelcome open carry. Additionally, as noted in 1) above, it might be the ONLY recourse if the wording of 30.06 isn't updated.

I'm less concerned about wide-spread 30.06 postings in response to open carry (either licensed or unlicensed) because:

a) It seems to me that the trend over time has been fewer postings, not more.

b) The media has written/broadcast CHL stories that contain 30.06 information before (probably every time a CHL bill get traction in the Legislature) but their impact is short-lasting and ultimately minimal (see above).

c) Open carry would be practiced by so few that it is unlikely spawn mass postings.

d) Anti-carry business owners probably ALREADY have their businesses posted.

I'm willing to take the risk, because I evaluate the probability of many new postings as highly unlikely. My weighing of the cost versus benefits is that legal open carry is desirable for both practical and philosophical reasons and I believe it can be had with few, if any, disadvantages.

Just so I'm not misunderstood, I want to say that open carry is not my top CHL-related priority. I believe that parking lot carry and campus carry are both more beneficial to the CHL population as a whole. I strongly supported them last session and will continue to do so. I also would like to see a reduction in off-limits places (whole buildings because of a court or court office, voting places on election day, professional sports events, etc.).

Respectfully, SA-TX

[Purplehood]

I won't go so far as to say that open-carry supporters are selfish, nor do I feel that way, but the fact is a relatively small group of people are willing to risk the creation of a lot of new off-limits businesses (via TPC §30.06 signs) just to have the option to openly-carry. When I say "relatively small group" I am making the assumption that, if open-carry ever passes, it will be licensed open-carry. Unlicensed open-carry has absolutely no chance of passing any time soon, and if it ever does, it will come only after successfully passing licensed open-carry.

Chas.

Charles, I think you are making a couple of other assumptions:

1) TPC 30.06 would be updated to apply to licensed open carry. Depending on how the CHL law was changed to allow licensed open carry, that may or may not happen. Why not? It seems to me that one of the reasons a sign is necessary for the protection of property rights is that, by definition, the owner cannot see a concealed handgun. Thus, the sign communicates his wishes. This isn't a problem with open carry.

2) That a 30.06 sign is the way to keep someone from open carrying and thus is going to be the action taken. If the owner doesn't like your exposed sidearm, he can ask you to leave. The verbal request is just as binding and is an immediate response to unwelcome open carry. Additionally, as noted in 1) above, it might be the ONLY recourse if the wording of 30.06 isn't updated.

I'm less concerned about wide-spread 30.06 postings in response to open carry (either licensed or unlicensed) because:

a) It seems to me that the trend over time has been fewer postings, not more.

b) The media has written/broadcast CHL stories that contain 30.06 information before (probably every time a CHL bill get traction in the Legislature) but their impact is short-lasting and ultimately minimal (see above).

c) Open carry would be practiced by so few that it is unlikely spawn mass postings.

d) Anti-carry business owners probably ALREADY have their businesses posted.

I'm willing to take the risk, because I evaluate the probability of many new postings as highly unlikely. My weighing of the cost versus benefits is that legal open carry is desirable for both practical and philosophical reasons and I believe it can be had with few, if any, disadvantages.

Just so I'm not misunderstood, I want to say that open carry is not my top CHL-related priority. I believe that parking lot carry and campus carry are both more beneficial to the CHL population as a whole. I strongly supported them last session and will continue to do so. I also would like to see a reduction in off-limits places (whole buildings because of a court or court office, voting places on election day, professional sports events, etc.).

Respectfully, SA-TX

I would dispute the assertion that open-carry would generate only a few new 30.06 postings. I believe that the old saying, "Out of sight, out of mind" would apply. It is my belief that If business owners saw armed people entering their store they would most certainly consider doing a little research to make sure that the practice did not continue.

[Dragonfighter]

Man, I'm walking a narrow line here. As an advocate of a republican government (not republicans but a constitutional government) I have an overwhelming aversion to anything that erodes the rights of the citizens. Property rights in particular, are sickening when violated (imminent domain, no smoking in private businesses). I also believe someone that owns a business has the right to expel anyone they want to, but there are "protected" classes that force the owner to allow anyone from a "protected" class in their establishment. If they want them out, they had better find a reason far removed from race, religion, sex, etc.

But I see a massive difference between a private home, private club or exclusive association and an establishment meant for public consumption. If I were running a store I could not see how I should be able to restrict someone access for a particular reason that is otherwise legal, especially when it does not affect anyone else. "I hate yellow shirts, get out!"

In my perfect world, a proprietor of a public business can not restrict someone who is legally doing anything from entering. If you do not want concealed carry in your store, you should be liable for the patron should something happen and they could not defend themselves. I believe the basis of a republic is that every one is a sovereign and our rights end where the other person's nose begins. Concealed carry does not infringe on someone's rights where as it can be argued that smoking does.

I've already said I would be good with open carry being allowed as long as my ability to carry concealed was left intact. I am not one that likes the BG's knowing if I am armed or not. But if you cater to the public and allow public access you should not be allowed to restrict entry by those that are exercising their rights, especially when it does not extend to others (sacrificing chickens in the toilet paper aisle). But the law allows this, we should be fighting to change that. I also do not believe we should "fear" an act like OC being passed based on what we believe will happen in the business world. Any move toward a more constitutional government is a good thing.

Let me be clear, I believe an owner of a property can restrict access to anyone they want. They can make it so no one is allowed access; but if you are going to allow public access how can you justify restricting those that are otherwise acting lawfully. Your either public or you're not.

A bunch of rambling I kn ow, but it's been eating me throughout this thread.

[Oldgringo]

Dragonfighter wrote:

If you do not want concealed carry in your store, you should be liable for the patron should something happen and they could not defend themselves

Conversely,if one of the Kroger bank robbery savers (previous post) were to open fire and hit another customer, should the store owner be liable for allowing guns to be carried in his/her store?

I'm all for CHL and maybe some sort of OC, I'm just sayin'....

[Charles L. Cotton]

I won't go so far as to say that open-carry supporters are selfish, nor do I feel that way, but the fact is a relatively small group of people are willing to risk the creation of a lot of new off-limits businesses (via TPC §30.06 signs) just to have the option to openly-carry. When I say "relatively small group" I am making the assumption that, if open-carry ever passes, it will be licensed open-carry. Unlicensed open-carry has absolutely no chance of passing any time soon, and if it ever does, it will come only after successfully passing licensed open-carry.

Chas.

Charles, I think you are making a couple of other assumptions:

1) TPC 30.06 would be updated to apply to licensed open carry. Depending on how the CHL law was changed to allow licensed open carry, that may or may not happen. Why not? It seems to me that one of the reasons a sign is necessary for the protection of property rights is that, by definition, the owner cannot see a concealed handgun. Thus, the sign communicates his wishes. This isn't a problem with open carry.

2) That a 30.06 sign is the way to keep someone from open carrying and thus is going to be the action taken. If the owner doesn't like your exposed sidearm, he can ask you to leave. The verbal request is just as binding and is an immediate response to unwelcome open carry. Additionally, as noted in 1) above, it might be the ONLY recourse if the wording of 30.06 isn't updated.

I'm less concerned about wide-spread 30.06 postings in response to open carry (either licensed or unlicensed) because:

a) It seems to me that the trend over time has been fewer postings, not more.

b) The media has written/broadcast CHL stories that contain 30.06 information before (probably every time a CHL bill get traction in the Legislature) but their impact is short-lasting and ultimately minimal (see above).

c) Open carry would be practiced by so few that it is unlikely spawn mass postings.

d) Anti-carry business owners probably ALREADY have their businesses posted.

I'm willing to take the risk, because I evaluate the probability of many new postings as highly unlikely. My weighing of the cost versus benefits is that legal open carry is desirable for both practical and philosophical reasons and I believe it can be had with few, if any, disadvantages.

Just so I'm not misunderstood, I want to say that open carry is not my top CHL-related priority. I believe that parking lot carry and campus carry are both more beneficial make teh entance to the CHL population as a whole. I strongly supported them last session and will continue to do so. I also would like to see a reduction in off-limits places (whole buildings because of a court or court office, voting places on election day, professional sports events, etc.).

Respectfully, SA-TX

I understand and respect your opinion. You know mine is different.

If open-carry were to pass, the legislature absolutely would adopt a single sign to prohibit carrying of handguns, either openly or concealed. The legislature would never agree to a two-sign requirement forcing a property/business owner to post one sign to bar open-carry and another one to bar concealed-carry. It simply will not happen because the opposition argument would be that it's too costly, too confusing and would require a business owner to post two ugly signs.

If a business owner doesn't want people open-carrying, I seriously doubt they will refrain from posting a sign and opt to walk around asking people to leave if they have a gun. If they make the decision to bar open-carry, it will probably be in response to customer complaints and posting a sign is the most expedient option.

I agree with you that truly anti-gun businesses are probably already posted, but it's not them I'm not worried about those businesses. I'm concerned about business owners or managers who aren't anti-gun or who are actually pro-gun, but who will post their property in response to customer complaints.

Has the non-gun-owning/non-carrying public become accustomed to concealed-carry? I think that's possible, but the out-of-sight-out-of-mind element is still a factor that weighs heavily in our favor. My concerns are based upon the response we saw to passage of the CHL statute in 1995 until the creation of TPC §30.06 in 1997. Fears of the public's reaction may prove unfounded, or they may prove to be very accurate. One thing is certain, we won't know until/unless open-carry passes and if I'm right, we won't be able to close Pandora box.

Chas.

[Dragonfighter]

Dragonfighter wrote:

If you do not want concealed carry in your store, you should be liable for the patron should something happen and they could not defend themselves

Conversely,if one of the Kroger bank robbery savers (previous post) were to open fire and hit another customer, should the store owner be liable for allowing guns to be carried in his/her store?

I'm all for CHL and maybe some sort of OC, I'm just sayin'....

Interesting question. Are they liable for my being injured or injuring somebody else in a fist fight? I was there legally and engaged another party that was there legally, but the store allowed me in. Is the state of Texas liable if I am on the street and hit someone else while engaging (firing on) a BG? I was there legally, carrying legally and hopefully justified, but failed to maintain a clean target picture and control of the fire arm.

No, the shooter(s) are responsible for where the fired round ends up. However, if I am legally allowed to carry a CHL, and I am otherwise legally allowed to be in the store, but as a good law abiding citizen am disarmed due to a 30.06 posting...they have opted to make anyone who wants (needs) to do business with them vulnerable. They have made it suddenly "wrong" for me to be able to defend myself and I would think, have taken on some of the liability for my safety.

They are held liable when they fail to make their store safe by cleaning the aisles (slip and fall), why shouldn't they be held liable for making the store less safe by prohibiting my lawful ability to defend myself and others?

[SA-TX]

If open-carry were to pass, the legislature absolutely would adopt a single sign to prohibit carrying of handguns, either openly or concealed. The legislature would never agree to a two-sign requirement forcing a property/business owner to post one sign to bar open-carry and another one to bar concealed-carry. It simply will not happen because the opposition argument would be that it's too costly, too confusing and would require a business owner to post two ugly signs.

I agree with you that a two sign solution wouldn't pass and is silly. I think pro-open carry folks shouldn't propose such a thing. My position would be that the Legislature should leave 30.06 alone and keep the sign to just concealed carry. No sign is needed to prohibit open carry as owners already have sufficient means of enforcing their wishes on that. Additionally, if the the legal wording is changed and the requirement is still that the sign be "identical", a strict reading would imply that all existing 30.06 signs would be invalid forcing all owners to change or leave them unenforcable. Finally, recalling your argument regarding opening up a section to unfavorable amendments, NOT changing PC 30.06 when adding open carry shields it from mischief.

If a business owner doesn't want people open-carrying, I seriously doubt they will refrain from posting a sign and opt to walk around asking people to leave if they have a gun. If they make the decision to bar open-carry, it will probably be in response to customer complaints and posting a sign is the most expedient option.

I agree with you that truly anti-gun businesses are probably already posted, but it's not them I'm not worried about those businesses. I'm concerned about business owners or managers who aren't anti-gun or who are actually pro-gun, but who will post their property in response to customer complaints.

True, but two things make me predict that this would happen very rarely: a) open carry itself will be very rare, even when legal, thus creating few opportunities to create opposition and b) business owners are generally pretty focused on running their business and it would take a pretty bad encounter or many complaints to make them go to the trouble to post legally. Additionally, they run the risk of losing business either way. Open carriers are pretty adament about not patronizing businesses that don't feel the same way that they do. Acceeding to the request of the anti, will almost certainly drive away the OCer. Again, I think that the extremely small amount of open carrying will make this a near non-issue.

Has the non-gun-owning/non-carrying public become accustomed to concealed-carry? I think that's possible, but the out-of-sight-out-of-mind element is still a factor that weighs heavily in our favor. My concerns are based upon the response we saw to passage of the CHL statute in 1995 until the creation of TPC §30.06 in 1997. Fears of the public's reaction may prove unfounded, or they may prove to be very accurate. One thing is certain, we won't know until/unless open-carry passes and if I'm right, we won't be able to close Pandora box.

Out-of-sight-out-of-mind could be another way of describing conditioning. It was once outrageous to see someone with a facial piercing, but now it is commonplace. For good or for ill, we adapt to our environment. Things that used to be rare, shocking, and noteworthy lose their provocativeness when the exposure becomes broad enough. In 1995, concealed carry was scary because it was new and controversial. I don't know what the polling was on CC support then, but I'll bet it is much higher now. Why? People have adjusted and the nightmare scenarios didn't come true. I predict the same with open carry. Like then, it will get news coverage the when the bill passes and when the law takes effect, and then there will be a lots of silence.

Additionally, we might as well get out ahead of this. What will happen if the SCOTUS applies the 2nd Amendment to the states at the end of this term, as predicted? We know that restrictions/licensing for concealment probably isn't the "bear arms" part that is beyond infringement because Heller said that most 19th century courts to consider the issue said so. While Heller and the follow on cases have so far dealt only with the "keep" portion, eventually the "bear" portion will be tested. When it is, what could core of that right be? Certainly 19th history says that open carry was the accepted form and highwaymen and card cheats carried concealed. Taken together, my best guess is that open carry is the protected right.

What's wrong with Texas joining the vast majority of the US in allowing legal open carry? Heck, it is an embarrasment that we are lagging behind. Our neighbors in Louisiana and New Mexico aren't having problems and I'm confident that Texans are as trustworthy, if not more so. Given your well-deserved reputation, if I and others can't convince you & TSRA, we stand no chance with the Legislature as a whole. Therefore, I have to keep working.

SA-TX

[frazzled]

Why on earth would I care about what Louisiana and New Mexico do? This is Texas. We go our own way.

[Pete92FS]

a) open carry itself will be very rare, even when legal, thus creating few opportunities to create opposition :
SA-TX

I don't know about New Mexico but in my travels through Louisiana and Georgia I have yet to see anyone open carry and I personally don't open carry when I'm in those states. I seriously doubt if I would open carry in Texas if it became legal but that's just a personal preferance.

[SA-TX]

Why on earth would I care about what Louisiana and New Mexico do? This is Texas. We go our own way.

True and I'm proud that we do, most of the time. In this case when we needlessly restrict Texans' rights without good reason, I think we need to reconsider.

My point is that they have roughly the same climates that Texas does (Louisiana's for the Eastern 1/2 of the state and New Mexico's for the Western). It is HOT (and in some parts of the state humid), yet we have to cover our sidearms. Does it REALLY make sense that the difference between legal and illegal is a bit of material? If we all agree that CHL's are very law abiding, why would that change when the clothing is different? I think most agree that it wouldn't change the CHLer's behavior but it could frighten those around. In that case my question becomes, don't we as Texans believe in individual liberty meaning that we let others do as they wish even if we don't like it. In other words, we don't use government as a busy-body to enforce our preferences and we let people choose for themselves.

In short, what I am asking for is this: a logical defense for taking the drastic step of depriving Texans of something -- especially given our climate -- that most other states allow and that hasn't proven to be an inducement to crime.

SA-TX

[frazzled]

Why on earth would I care about what Louisiana and New Mexico do? This is Texas. We go our own way.

True and I'm proud that we do, most of the time. In this case when we needlessly restrict Texans' rights without good reason, I think we need to reconsider.

My point is that they have roughly the same climates that Texas does (Louisiana's for the Eastern 1/2 of the state and New Mexico's for the Western). It is HOT (and in some parts of the state humid), yet we have to cover our sidearms. Does it REALLY make sense that the difference between legal and illegal is a bit of material? If we all agree that CHL's are very law abiding, why would that change when the clothing is different? I think most agree that it wouldn't change the CHLer's behavior but it could frighten those around. In that case my question becomes, don't we as Texans believe in individual liberty meaning that we let others do as they wish even if we don't like it. In other words, we don't use government as a busy-body to enforce our preferences and we let people choose for themselves.

In short, what I am asking for is this: a logical defense for taking the drastic step of depriving Texans of something -- especially given our climate -- that most other states allow and that hasn't proven to be an inducement to crime.

SA-TX

We also outnumber them by about 8 gazillion to one. Whats New Mexico's largest city? Is it even comparable to a burb of Houston or DFW? Same to same for Louisiana. I have nothing against either state but comparing Texas to then, and what we should do, is like comparing New York to South Dakota.

[SA-TX]

We also outnumber them by about 8 gazillion to one. Whats New Mexico's largest city? Is it even comparable to a burb of Houston or DFW? Same to same for Louisiana. I have nothing against either state but comparing Texas to then, and what we should do, is like comparing New York to South Dakota.

I'm not sure that the constitutional right to self-defense should depend on population. Even if it does, one could make the argument that you need that protection and the possible deterance of OC -- or at least the option -- even more. Where are the stories of people in Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Virginia, etc. having their OC gun taken from them? Finally, while Texas has several large urban and suburban areas, it also has many, many rural areas. Our current law keeps us from OCing there, too. Why?

You raise a fair issue however and let's examine that in more detail. Here are a couple of tables showing a) the number of states with approximately 10 million or more population and b) the top 15 overall (going down to about 5 million) and their open carry status taken from the census bureau at (http://www.census.gov/population/www/pr ... gesex.html).

So of the top population states, they are split 4 and 4. For the top 15, 10 allow OC 5 do not.

States with 10 million or more population:
Census 2000 State 2000 Census Population Open Carry status
United States 281,421,906
California 33,871,648 Unlicensed OC in unincorporated areas; unloaded open carry legal elsewhere
Texas 20,851,820 Illegal
New York 18,976,457 Illegal
Florida 15,982,378 Illegal
Illinois 12,419,293 Illegal
Pennsylvania 12,281,054 Unlicensed OC legal except Philly where a license is needed
Ohio 11,353,140 Unlicensed OC statewide
Michigan 9,938,444 Unlicensed OC statewide

Top 15 states:
Census 2000 State 2000 Census Population
United States 281,421,906
California 33,871,648
Texas 20,851,820
New York 18,976,457
Florida 15,982,378
Illinois 12,419,293
Pennsylvania 12,281,054
Ohio 11,353,140
Michigan 9,938,444
New Jersey 8,414,350 Illegal
Georgia 8,186,453 Licensed OC
North Carolina 8,049,313 Unlicensed OC
Virginia 7,078,515 Unlicensed OC
Massachusetts 6,349,097 Licensed OC legal
Indiana 6,080,485 Unlicensed OC
Washington 5,894,121 Unlicensed OC