TSRA and open carry - Split from NRA and open carry

[evilmercer]

I am trying not to hijack the nra thread.

Mr. Cotton -- a tangential question.

You wrote above:

"The two top priority bills this session are employer parking lots and campus-carry."

+1 to both of those (or is that +2?). However, will there be any movement on eliminating some or all of the other "no-go" zones for CHL holders? I have been waiting to see what popped up in the legislative part of this site, figuring it is a bit early yet, but since you identified the two priority bills, I thought I'd go ahead an ask...?

The discussion about the TSRA focusing on chl related things and not open carry actually made me kind of happy. Right now everyone is all up over open carry, which would be a good thing, but I would rather see the tsra focus on things like ELB was talking about. Even if open carry is passed we would then get to openly carry but would still have some of the same major restrictions on places we are allowed to go. In my mind for the right to self defense I have not won anything. To me I can go to the same places but just tell people I have a gun take me out first. I would rather see focus on expanding our rights of places to go as a chl holder and to me that would be more of a gain on my ability to protect myself because I can now go more places.

Being someone who is affected by the employer parking lot current situation and a student at a college, I see open carry as distraction from some major legislation that needs to be passed to allow us more rights. I want to protect myself in more places not show off my guns.

I am wondering if I am alone in thinking this could end up being more of a distraction, especially if there is a lot of effort and it does not pass but neither does anything else on the 2009 wish list.

[ninjamedic2293]

+1 I will be fired if I were found to have a firearm in my vehicle at work leaving me in a quandary over the decision to protect myself with a weapon or protect my family financially. I also am going back to community college to complete my core requirements for the bachelors degree I never pursued and its the same thing. These are the two most important issues we could fix this session. Ultimately my responsibilities to my family, to keep them and myself, safe, clothed and fed, far outweigh my personal belief that I should be able to openly carry twin grenade launchers in thigh-holsters if I wish.

[bdickens]

I am in a similar quandry myself. Because of my employer's assinine policy, I have to remain unarmed for my entire 40 mile (one way) commute. If I have to run any errands after work on the way home or during lunch, I am unarmed.

[SA-TX]

The discussion about the TSRA focusing on chl related things and not open carry actually made me kind of happy. Right now everyone is all up over open carry, which would be a good thing, but I would rather see the tsra focus on things like ELB was talking about. Even if open carry is passed we would then get to openly carry but would still have some of the same major restrictions on places we are allowed to go. In my mind for the right to self defense I have not won anything. To me I can go to the same places but just tell people I have a gun take me out first. I would rather see focus on expanding our rights of places to go as a chl holder and to me that would be more of a gain on my ability to protect myself because I can now go more places.

Being someone who is affected by the employer parking lot current situation and a student at a college, I see open carry as distraction from some major legislation that needs to be passed to allow us more rights. I want to protect myself in more places not show off my guns.

I am wondering if I am alone in thinking this could end up being more of a distraction, especially if there is a lot of effort and it does not pass but neither does anything else on the 2009 wish list.

I think many who support open carry, as you apparently do ("which would be a good thing"), agree that it may not be the top legislative priority. My own opinion is exactly that: reducing the places that I cannot carry comes first. That said, there is no reason why we cannot get both. The topic has been brought up, 50,000 Texans have signed a petition for it -- when is the last time that's happened? -- and we have the governor, among others, on the record supporting it. We need to keep the ball moving forward.

As for "showing off my guns", I think we differ about the intent behind open carry. Speaking strictly in a physical sense, yes, the gun would be shown but "hey look at me" typically isn't the intention of the carrier. For me it means not having to worry that my gun MIGHT show. It means that, depending on what I'm wearing when it is 105 degrees, I'm not making the carry/no carry decision. The bottom line for me is that open carry makes carry in Texas easier. It is a about practicality, not ego.

I intend to work with Charles and TSRA to pass ALL pro-2A measures on their agenda and I hope they will, in whatever way possible, lend assistance to the open carry bill. If we don't do it now, it may never happen. What makes us think that it will be easier to get done next session as opposed to this one? I would suggest that the landscape could be getting worse for gun owners, even in Texas, not better.

[Purplehood]

I may have overlooked the answer to this in similar posts, but I have a question:

What happens, if anything, to Concealed Carry if Open Carry becomes legal?

[Kalrog]

What happens, if anything, to Concealed Carry if Open Carry becomes legal?

It depends on the way the law is written. It could be that you need a CHL in order to open carry. It could be that anyone can now open carry but that you still need a CHL to carry concealed. It could be that we go the Alaska route and everyone can carry without any form of a CHL, but you can still get a CHL for reciprocity reasons.

[gmckinl]

For me it means not having to worry that my gun MIGHT show.

Dude, it's been pointed out countless times on here that this point you are worrying about is a NON-ISSUE. It is NOT ILLEGAL. Accidents happen, no one gets hurt.

[Douva]

I may have overlooked the answer to this in similar posts, but I have a question:

What happens, if anything, to Concealed Carry if Open Carry becomes legal?

One of the concerns that's been voiced several times is that open carry will be tied to 30.06 signs (with appropriate amendments to TX PC 30.06), leading to an increase in 30.06 posting by business owners who either aren't comfortable seeing people openly carrying firearms or who get complaints from customers who aren't comfortable seeing people openly carrying firearms.

That would, in turn, increase the number of places where licensed concealed carry is prohibited.

[SA-TX]

For me it means not having to worry that my gun MIGHT show.

Dude, it's been pointed out countless times on here that this point you are worrying about is a NON-ISSUE. It is NOT ILLEGAL. Accidents happen, no one gets hurt.

Yes I'm fully aware that the non-concealment must be intentional for it to be illegal. Sadly, not all police officers are. Sure, I'll win in court but the arrest, seizure of my weapon, court costs, attorneys fees, etc. are hassles I'd prefer to avoid. Beyond that, what's the logic in mandating strict concealment? If I'm a vetted good guy, why does it matter whether or not there is a layer of clothing over my pistol? Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Louisiana, and Tennessee (just to name a few close neighbors) don't seem to have any problem letting their folks carry as they choose. If the "intimidation" and guns-being-taken-from-the-carrier was such a problem, you'd think their legislators would respond and ban the practice.

You may disagree, but I truly believe that open carry would help the CHL holder more than the "hey look at me" guy. If his attitude is all about what a bad ass he is, it won't be long before he commits a crime and pays that price. Sure, open carry isn't illegal, but disorderly conduct is. So is deadly conduct. So is assualt with a deadly weapon. Bottom line, the attitude guys will do themselves in. The CHL-holder can now carry without worry, all times of the year, in all circumstances. If something peeks out, oh well. If something flips up, so what. You don't have to rely on the cop on the street knowing the technical definition surrounding failure to conceal. When a "Concealed Handgun License" becomes a "Texas Handgun License" or a "Handgun Carry License", he won't be so easily led down the wrong path.

BTW, if we do get licensed open carry in Texas, I propose that the license say on it "Licensee is hereby authorized to carry a handgun of the prescribed category concealed, partially concealed, or openly." This would assist in everyone understanding the law.

SA-TX

[Locksmith]

No longer valid

[Keith B]

Open carry will not eliminate the issue of a person complaining that you have a gun. If they want to make false accusations that you threatened them, there will be methods for them to do this. It comes in the form of 'displayed a weapon in a threatening manner' or 'brandishing'. Open carry states have those laws too.

I grew up in Missouri. Open carry is not illegal in that state unless prohibited by local ordinance (hard to tell where it is and isn't this way.) Even in an area where it is not illegal, if you place a weapon on the dashboard of your vehicle or it is hanging on your belt and get in an argument with someone, you have just displayed your weapon in a threatening manner. If you are openly carrying and a person decides you gave them an evil look, it could be construed you threatened them. If they can't see the weapon, and they never know you have it, they will probably go on about their business; with the weapon displayed, they will be more likely to call the police. These are REAL situations I am familiar with, not theorized 'what if's'.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Unintentional failure to conceal is a smoke screen, not a real threat. In the 14 years since CHL passed in 1995, there are only two reported cases dealing with violation of TPC §46.035(a) intentional failure to conceal. Open-carry supporters claim that those of use who worry about a backlash to open-carry are not presenting realistic concerns, yet they repeatedly argue that inadvertent failure to conceal is a problem. They argue this in spite of the express language of the statute and in spite of the fact that only there are only two reported cases in 14 years. (As for the backlash, all we have to do is look at Texas between 1995 and 1997.)

Support open-carry if you will, but don't base it upon unfounded claims that a high wind will land you in jail.

Chas.

[evilmercer]

This was by no means supposed to be "anti open carry" it was more of a statement of preferred priority of legislation. I would love to see all the wish list passed including open carry. I was just saying that if I had to choose one over the other open carry would not be on the top of the list, which is why I was glad to see it not on the top of the list for the tsra either.

Senator Hegar made my day

[HGWC]

Unintentional failure to conceal is a smoke screen, not a real threat. In the 14 years since CHL passed in 1995, there are only two reported cases dealing with violation of TPC §46.035(a) intentional failure to conceal. Open-carry supporters claim that those of use who worry about a backlash to open-carry are not presenting realistic concerns, yet they repeatedly argue that inadvertent failure to conceal is a problem. They argue this in spite of the express language of the statute and in spite of the fact that only there are only two reported cases in 14 years. (As for the backlash, all we have to do is look at Texas between 1995 and 1997.)

Support open-carry if you will, but don't base it upon unfounded claims that a high wind will land you in jail.

Chas.

I understand your position on open carry. You've made some good points about this bill, how it's being pursued this year, and on open carry in general. However on this point, it's a non-sequitur to conclude that because there have been only two convictions, CHL holders have nothing to worry about with this failure to conceal law. It just doesn't follow. How many people have beaten the rap, but took the ride anyway or dealt with a direct threat of the ride? I've asked you that before, and you had no answer. Obviously, despite the language of the law, many CHL holders are fearful of taking that ride. That there have only been two convictions doesn't make the case that CHL holders have nothing to fear from this failure to conceal law. Although I agree that it's not a strong case for open carry, legalized open carry would give added protection to CHL holders. This one law is a small case out of the bigger case that because of legalized unrestricted open carry, many restrictive regulations on CHL, including this one on failure to conceal, could be repealed more easily as moot issues.

I believe in the two cases you've mentioned, you said they were actually cases of threatening someone with a gun. That's already illegal whether it's a knife, a gun, a crowbar or just a threat of assault. Failure to conceal a gun, in particular, shouldn't be illegal. The legislature can only regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. The 1871 gun ban, in my opinion, has always been unconstitutional after 1876. I've read that the 1876 amendment was intended to prevent the legislature from banning public possession of firearms, regulating keep and bear at their whim, and to repeal the 1871 gun ban where they did just that. All of these laws have resulted from our modifying the constitution in 1868 and 1876, and our failure to hold the legislature to even our current constitution. That's all the justification we need to repeal these restrictive infringements on one of our most fundamental rights.

Granted, it may not be realistic for a complete win in today's political environment. However, until we get back to the constitution of 1845, we have every reason to lobby the legislature to repeal these laws, to refrain from regulating our rights unconstitutionally, and even to restore our original state constitutional guarantee.

Texas:
1836: "Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power." Declaration of Rights, cl. 14.
1845: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defence of himself or the State." Art. I, § 13.
1868: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe." Art. I, § 13.
1876: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime." Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876).

It's our right to keep and bear arms, no buts about it. Call me naive and idealistic if you like!

[Charles L. Cotton]

Unintentional failure to conceal is a smoke screen, not a real threat. In the 14 years since CHL passed in 1995, there are only two reported cases dealing with violation of TPC §46.035(a) intentional failure to conceal. Open-carry supporters claim that those of use who worry about a backlash to open-carry are not presenting realistic concerns, yet they repeatedly argue that inadvertent failure to conceal is a problem. They argue this in spite of the express language of the statute and in spite of the fact that only there are only two reported cases in 14 years. (As for the backlash, all we have to do is look at Texas between 1995 and 1997.)

Support open-carry if you will, but don't base it upon unfounded claims that a high wind will land you in jail.

Chas.

. . . However on this point, it's a non-sequitur to conclude that because there have been only two convictions, CHL holders have nothing to worry about with this failure to conceal law. It just doesn't follow.

First, I'm not saying there are only two convictions, I'm saying there are only two reported cases. A trial court conviction in a Texas State court doesn't get reported. That only happens when the someone appeals a conviction. However, if someone was actually convicted of unintentionally failing to conceal their handgun, I cannot imagine they wouldn't have appealed the conviction.

How many people have beaten the rap, but took the ride anyway or dealt with a direct threat of the ride? I've asked you that before, and you had no answer.

I don't recall you asking, but the answer is that I don't know of a single one. More importantly, if open-carry supporters are going to claim that CHLs have been arrested for unintentional failure to conceal but have "beaten the rap," then it is incumbent on those supporters to come forward with specific examples (names, dates, etc.) of such arrests. The truth is they can't.

Before any bill goes to the floor, it is discussed in a public hearing, both in the House and in the Senate. If an open-carry supporter mentions unintentional failure to conceal as a reason to support open-carry, I promise you one of the Senators or Representatives on the committee is going to ask 1) how many CHLs have been arrested, charged and/or convicted and 2) what are their names. If the answers are 1) "I don't know;" and 2) "some guy in west Texas," then the committee isn't going to be impressed with that contention.

Obviously, despite the language of the law, many CHL holders are fearful of taking that ride. That there have only been two convictions doesn't make the case that CHL holders have nothing to fear from this failure to conceal law.

Open-carry supporters are largely responsible for some percentage of CHLs worrying about unintentional failure to conceal. OpenCarry.org has a number of posts claiming this is a problem. This issue was very rarely raised prior to the open-carry movement targeting Texas for it's legislation.

I believe in the two cases you've mentioned, you said they were actually cases of threatening someone with a gun.

Neither person threatened anyone. In the McDermott case, the defendant put his pistol on the dash of his Suburban to scare a woman away from his vehicle. He never said a word to her and he never pointed the gun at her. He was only convicted of intentionally failing to conceal, not assault.

In the second case, the complaining witnesses said the CHL pulled a gun on them, but the CHL said he never took his gun out of his pocket. The jury convicted him of "intentional failure to conceal" not assault. (I attached copies of the opinions in those two cases to one of my posts, but I don't have time to look for them now.)

The bottom line is that OpenCarry.org and some open-carry supporters have repeatedly claimed that unintentional failure to conceal can "get a CHL in trouble." As long as this claim has been made, I have not seen one single incident documented, not that one or only a few incidents would justify open-carry. The fact is, OpenCarry.org's claim is not true. Why is it acceptable for OpenCarry.org to make false claims about risks, but it is reprehensible when the Brady Campaign does precisely the same thing?

Again, people should support open-carry if they feel it is appropriate, but they should leave the boogeyman scare tactics out of the debate.

Chas.