Do you support only unlicensed open carry?

[k5dmb]

Anygunanywhere politely holding back his fingers from the keyboard.



Anygunanywhere

Easy now AnygunAnywhere; I'd certainly expect it to be 'Shall Issue' (I can't find tounge-in-check icon)...

Sorry if I offended.

Cheers,

[anygunanywhere]

Anygunanywhere politely holding back his fingers from the keyboard.



Anygunanywhere

Easy now AnygunAnywhere; I'd certainly expect it to be 'Shall Issue' (I can't find tounge-in-check icon)...

Sorry if I offended.

Cheers,

I have issues with this:

just to better control the training.

Anygunanywhere

[k5dmb]

I totally understand... I too am against licensing to exercise our 'rights'. But I know a lot of folks that are 'legal to purchase' but should not be carrying. How do we sort them out or force some training. It would be a lot simpler if we had mandatory military service, but that's another issue.

I'm afraid that too many would spoil what we few have fought hard for.

Thoughts?

[The Annoyed Man]

I'm in a bit of a quandary when it comes to this issue...

I support the unrestricted right to carry - whether concealed or not. But the reality of it is that there are a large number of people who ought not to be carrying at all because they are criminals - concealed or not. That salient fact is what anti-gunners will use as any argument against enlarging the scope of the state's carry laws. For better or for worse, those anti-gunners vote, and they will vote against anything that will facilitate the RKBA - unless those steps are taken incrementally, and there are sufficient statistics to back up the reasonableness of loosening carry restrictions. That's just the political reality of it.

Let's say that you put a bill before the legislature that was sweeping in its scope, brushing aside all the previous restrictions on carry, whether open or concealed, and it was voted down. This could easily happen, and you will have already played your full hand on the opening move. You've had CHL here in Texas for what? 13 years or so? Remember that CHL bills were shot down in 1985, 1987, 1989, 1991, and 1993... ...and this was in a state with a long tradition of gun ownership. Texans have grown comfortable, it seems, with licensed concealed carry.

I think that the approach far more likely to be successful is to start by trying to expand the CHL to include open carry. After the public has gotten used to the idea, then you deregulate open carry, but keep concealed carry with a license. After the public has gotten used to that, then you deregulate concealed carry. I believe that any other approach than the incremental one is politically unrealistic.

OTH, there are some genuine benefits to having licensed concealed carry. One is is that, realistically, it does help to defuse LEO encounters if they can know from your CHL that you are one of the good guys. Not all cops are going to be courteous about it, but most will be so.

Anyway, I would like to see completely unrestricted right to carry, but I don't think it is a politically realistic expectation to get it all at once.

[flintknapper]

Anyway, I would like to see completely unrestricted right to carry, but I don't think it is a politically realistic expectation to get it all at once.

So....I'm guessing it would be a mistake to have someone from the "I want it ALL..and I want it NOW" generation draft the bill?

[sbb]

Anygun, here is your invitation to give your complete opinion.

[thankGod]

I am somewhat neutral on the idea of open carry. Not because I don't have opinions on it, but because I am not able to sort out potential ramifications of it.

To make it short, I do not think the State would pass an unlicensed open carry. We don't even have an unlicensed concealed carry. However, I would support open carry either with or without a license, just to further the cause of RKBA. I cast my vote this way.

I can say that I would personally be alarmed if I saw a lot of yahoo's walking around with an unlicensed open carry. I have been shooting in some form or another since I was six, so for me that's over fifty years of being around guns of some sort. I shot competition in ROTC in high school in the sixties (for those that can remember we could have guns in high school back then). I qualified on M1, M14, M16 and 30 cal courtesy of US Army in '68 at Fort Polk (I was not in the Army). I can truly say, that not everyone who is able to purchase a weapon, should be allowed to be near a weapon. I respect their individual right to have that firearm, but I would prefer to not be around them.

[Hos]

Should be a name change to the Annoyed Genius although I don't have a problem with some reglulations.

I think that the approach far more likely to be successful is to start by trying to expand the CHL to include open carry. After the public has gotten used to the idea, then you deregulate open carry...

OTH, there are some genuine benefits to having licensed concealed carry. One is is that, realistically, it does help to defuse LEO encounters if they can know from your CHL that you are one of the good guys. Not all cops are going to be courteous about it, but most will be so.

"....endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that amoung these are Life, Liberty......"
When we accept the License we give up the Right!

I know the devil's in the details but if you just take that one sentence with "unalienable rights" then there could be no restrictions on anyone, period. I realize that criminals will carry no matter what but why make it easy on them?

[anygunanywhere]

I totally understand... I too am against licensing to exercise our 'rights'. But I know a lot of folks that are 'legal to purchase' but should not be carrying. How do we sort them out or force some training. It would be a lot simpler if we had mandatory military service, but that's another issue.

I'm afraid that too many would spoil what we few have fought hard for.

Thoughts?

Sorting out citizens that enjoy the same rights that you have is really none of our concern. The constitution and BOR does not make any differentiation on rights based on intelligence, skill or experience. You cannot legislate away stupidity and ignorance.

Although most here would admit that stupid, ill-informed voters should not be allowed to vote, or that stupid, ill-informed journalists should not be allowed to publish, but that is not the case.

I have read that many of the individuals currently rushing to buy firearms have never owned a firearm. They are probably not trained in the use and care of the firearms, and will probably not seek the training. Some will, of course, and then possibly those will coach the untrained and unskilled to improve their abilities.

We must foster the proper attitude among new firearm owners lest they develop the nasty irreverant attitudes that often surface from well intentioned individuals.

Freedom can be a dangerous thing in the hands of the untrained, but that is still freeedom. Shackling freedom with training requirements is just another form of "sensible gun laws" and "reasonable restrictions". The antis are chomping at the bit to force that on us. Don't give them any room to expand because it will get US nowhere.

Realistically we can eventually eliminate these training requirements but that should be down the list. Once we are successful at restoring our OC rights and eliminating other roadblocks to where we can carry then we can work on the other issues.


/thread hijack

Anygunanywhere

[k5dmb]

Although most here would admit that stupid, ill-informed voters should not be allowed to vote, or that stupid, ill-informed journalists should not be allowed to publish, but that is not the case.

Ah, but that ill-informed vote or that ill-informed journalist just doesn't scare me as much as ill-informed (read as ill-trained) gun carrier. Maybe the question is does OC require always holstered? I don't think my opionions differ widely from yours, I just have a concern with the level of responsiblilty that some people demonstrate. I know, it should not be my concern, but poorly exercised 1st Amendment rights just doesn't worry me as much as poorly exercised 2nd... I guess the devil's in the details.....

Have a great evening...

[anygunanywhere]

Although most here would admit that stupid, ill-informed voters should not be allowed to vote, or that stupid, ill-informed journalists should not be allowed to publish, but that is not the case.

Ah, but that ill-informed vote or that ill-informed journalist just doesn't scare me as much as ill-informed (read as ill-trained) gun carrier. Maybe the question is does OC require always holstered? I don't think my opionions differ widely from yours, I just have a concern with the level of responsiblilty that some people demonstrate. I know, it should not be my concern, but poorly exercised 1st Amendment rights just doesn't worry me as much as poorly exercised 2nd... I guess the devil's in the details.....

Have a great evening...

Poorly exercised first amendment rights have caused me more harm than poorly exercised second amendment rights. Those poorly exercised first amendment rights helped put lord BO the most merciful in office.

Be careful what you ask for.

Anygunanywhere

[bdickens]

Personally, I'm a lot more worried about ill-informed voters and journalists that ill-informed gun owners!

[OverEasy]

Another thought.
Don't we already have unlicensed open carry for rifles and shotguns? Nobody is training these people or screening them.
I agree that certain people have no business carrying a loaded gun... or driving a car etc. But restricting everybody in order to prevent some possible future problem?
Let's just make everything out of nerf.
OK, back to the topic. We have just any yahoo wandering around with a long gun now. So what is the big deal about open carry of a pistol?
The answer: Irrational Fear!
And if there are more people afraid than not, fear rules.
I would rather see time and money spent to secure a right to have a legaly owned weapon in our vehicle no matter where our vehicle is located.(employer parking lot etc.)
Regards, OE

[KBCraig]

I could not support a bill that required a license to open carry.

Unlicensed, untrained people can openly carry loaded long guns. Unlicensed, untrained people can carry concealed handguns in their cars. What compelling state interest would require those very same people to be licensed before they could openly carry a handgun?

If licensed OC passed, I would welcome the progress, but I fear that it would be the ending point, not a waypoint. I can see moving from "no OC" to "unlicensed OC", but I can't see the law moving from "licensed OC" to "unlicensed OC" unless we reached the point of unlicensed concealed carry (which I would also welcome!)

[k5dmb]

Another thought.
Don't we already have unlicensed open carry for rifles and shotguns? Nobody is training these people or screening them.
I agree that certain people have no business carrying a loaded gun... or driving a car etc. But restricting everybody in order to prevent some possible future problem? ...

I can agree with that...

Be careful what you ask for.

Anygunanywhere

And I know that's right too.... and I agree that it's difficult to get rid of limitations once in place.

I would rather see time and money spent to secure a right to have a legaly owned weapon in our vehicle no matter where our vehicle is located.(employer parking lot etc.)
Regards, OE

And many other restrictions on CC eliminated as well...

Thanks for the discussion,