OpenCarry.org supporters turn on A+ Senator

[Charles L. Cotton]

If the Senator Wentworth post was the only negative post about elected officials, then I wouldn't have commented on it. I wouldn't have liked it, but I would have viewed it as an isolated incident. Unfortunately, it wasn't an isolated incident. As I noted in another thread, some on OpenCarry.org were calling for the 50,000+ signers of the online petition to let Senators and House Members know that they would oppose them in the next election, if they don't support open-carry. I have no idea if that idea would catch on, but it is dangerous even to suggest such an irresponsible act.

If you keep up with OpenCarry.org, you can sense the frustration and even a hint of desperation caused by not having an open-carry bill filed. My concern is that emotions are going to control over reason and that gun owners are going to suffer. For example, one of the posters on the Senator Wentworth thread hinted that open-carry supports should withhold support of Senator Wentworth's coming campus-carry bill, when he posted "...but this man would appreciate our support on HIS bill, no doubt..." Just this past Saturday, another poster had this to say, ". . . prehaps [sic] Sen.Wentworth should stop and think about the next election while I'm sure all 55thousand don't come from his district alone I'm sure a lot do. How much was his margin last time?"

Such attacks on Senator Wentworth and other proven friends of gun owners and the Second Amendment are grossly irresponsible! These open-carry supporters are ultimately going to achieve only one thing, alienating themselves from the very people they need to support their cause, both in Austin and elsewhere throughout the State. I don't know if this is born of arrogance or ignorance of how the system really works, or a combination of both.

It took, years to get concealed carry passed and many of the people who finally voted for it had been opposed in prior sessions. Many of the people who demanded the inclusion of unnecessary "safety" provisions in order to support SB60 were among those who later voted with us on "clean-up" bills to remove many of those unnecessary provisions. Many long-term supporters of gun owners' rights as recently as six years ago were not inclined to support unlicensed car-carry, yet they voted with us on HB1815 in 2007. Why? Because we didn't threaten them, we didn't beat our chest and cry treason! We worked with them and convinced them the time had come to remove a prohibition that had existed for over 125 years. An important part of that work was getting supporters to contact their elected officials and request their support in a non-threatening manner.

I wish these folks would give more serious thought to the end result of what they advocate. OpenCarry.org likes to claim that a majority of gun owners support open-carry, but I do not believe that to be the case. In my discussions with many gun owners at matches and other events, I have found that significantly less than 50% claim to support open-carry. Those that do tend to want licensed open-carry. This is far from a scientific study and I don't claim it represents the majority of gun owners in Texas. Even here on TexasCHLforum we have many people opposed to open-carry and the population here probably represents a more informed group, when it comes to carrying handguns, whether openly or concealed. So misguided attacks on pro-gun Senators and House Members will alienate not only our friends in Austin, it runs the very real risk of generating opposition from the general gun-owing population. None of us need that.

Finally, while I understand that open-carry supporters don't like the "wild west" reference, I seriously doubt that was anything more than an off-the-cuff remark. You also need to look at it in context. He didn't say it would result in widespread violence, he was talking about seeing people openly carrying firearms, as was the case in the 1800's. Again, I understand that the "wild west" comment has become a term-of-art among Second Amendment activists, but we have to consider the source of such a comment. When Sarah Brady uses it, it's always intended to imply violence, but coming from Senator Wentworth in the context he used it, I believe he was only referencing a time in history when guns were openly worn. (BTW, that apparently was not the case "in town.")

To quote a simple yet profound line from Fred Thompson in The Hunt for Red October, This is going to get out of hand . . ..

Chas.

[Owens]

Charles,

As much as I would like to see legislation passed providing for the option of open carry, I believe there are some things that need to be accomplished - removal of restrictions on places for concealed carry, campus carry, etc. As you have pointed out in other posts, Texas' legislative system has a few quirks in it, and therefore any open carry legislation must be enacted in a 'proper' fashion.

So here is the question - What can we do to help negate the negative impact that OCDO has caused?

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles,

As much as I would like to see legislation passed providing for the option of open carry, I believe there are some things that need to be accomplished - removal of restrictions on places for concealed carry, campus carry, etc. As you have pointed out in other posts, Texas' legislative system has a few quirks in it, and therefore any open carry legislation must be enacted in a 'proper' fashion.

So here is the question - What can we do to help negate the negative impact that OCDO has caused?

At this point, I think the only damage is to the open-carry movement itself, not all gun owners and certainly not NRA, TSRA or their members. Even that negative impact may be minimal, as long as thousands of people don't head the minority's call to make re-election threats, or sending belligerent email, faxes. If they do, then I believe the NRA and TSRA will be forced to publicly let everyone know "that wasn't us."

I have never seen Mike Stollenwerk encourage such irresponsible action, but I haven't seen him counsel against it either. Since he is viewed as the leader of the OpenCarry.org, a word of caution from him would be helpful. One must wonder why it hasn't been forthcoming.

Chas.

[Frost]

I hate politics.

[DKSuddeth]

I hate politics.

So do I.

Sen. Wentworth isn't my senator, so I don't really have a dog in his hunt for a seat next election cycle, but I do have serious issue with his remarks. It seems that the lessons of history never get learned, as it always remains the same atmosphere when it comes to changing anything in texas laws....except when it comes to ramrodding special interests down the throats and wallets of its people and in to law.

I predicted last year that any opencarry initiative would be met with resistance from TSRA, and it's my belief that we were undermined by them in the political field.
We at opencarry didn't go the 'texas method' of lobbying, or work with TSRA, or do ANY of the normal and accepted practices of working gun legislation through it's system. We were, and are, rogues to the machine and therefore should be ignored, admonished, or thrown under the bus as radicals. It's not like we didn't approach your group. Some of asked, it wasn't important to you at that time. That's fine. We could understand that you had your own member issues that you wanted to deal with. What we didn't expect, most of us anyway, was to be actively opposed and undermined.

I'm no longer mystified as to why most of the entire nation looks at Texas as the red headed step child or black sheep of the nation. Y'all take great pride in being different it seems, even though that difference isn't a positive thing. I'm now on that side of the fence that looks at TX as being full of idiots. Much like the polar opposite of Illinois. Maybe those of us at OpenCarry.org can make wild and radical changes next election cycle. I hope so. If you want to look at it as endangering supposedly A+ rated politicians.....I don't really care, because any true A+ rated gun rights politician would not be making the moronic statements that Wentworth did and portray himself as someone that supports limits, excuse me, 'reasonable' limits on gun rights. IMO, he deserves to lose his seat, but I know that will probably never happen since he has the backing of the TSRA.

I'd say, depending upon how fired up those of us at OC.org get, you'll see another major gun rights group in the state. I hope TSRA can deal with it, or at least not throw us under the bus again.

I also expect that we'll see changes in the legislative bodies over the next several cycles. Get used to it. We are not going away.

[KC5AV]

We at opencarry didn't go the 'texas method' of lobbying, or work with TSRA, or do ANY of the normal and accepted practices of working gun legislation through it's system. We were, and are, rogues to the machine and therefore should be ignored, admonished, or thrown under the bus as radicals.

I wonder if that might not be part of the problem. Just because someone has different priorities than you do doesn't automatically make them idiots. It just means that they have different priorities. They might even have the same priorities that you do, just in a different order.

Feel free to disapprove of what Sen. Wentworth said, but don't do things to alienate one of the most pro-gun legislators we have in this state. Things like that have a way of coming back to bite you.

[DKSuddeth]

We at opencarry didn't go the 'texas method' of lobbying, or work with TSRA, or do ANY of the normal and accepted practices of working gun legislation through it's system. We were, and are, rogues to the machine and therefore should be ignored, admonished, or thrown under the bus as radicals.

I wonder if that might not be part of the problem. Just because someone has different priorities than you do doesn't automatically make them idiots. It just means that they have different priorities. They might even have the same priorities that you do, just in a different order.

Feel free to disapprove of what Sen. Wentworth said, but don't do things to alienate one of the most pro-gun legislators we have in this state. Things like that have a way of coming back to bite you.

hearkens back to the wild west days......how 'pro gun' is he?

[bdickens]

Well, if you tee off the very people you must have on your side in order to get what you want, you can forget it. Unless opencarry.org changes it's tune real quick and starts cozying up to the people they've been teeing off I think open carry is dead this legislaive session.

Maybe in two years they can come back and be nice the next time.

[KC5AV]

We at opencarry didn't go the 'texas method' of lobbying, or work with TSRA, or do ANY of the normal and accepted practices of working gun legislation through it's system. We were, and are, rogues to the machine and therefore should be ignored, admonished, or thrown under the bus as radicals.

I wonder if that might not be part of the problem. Just because someone has different priorities than you do doesn't automatically make them idiots. It just means that they have different priorities. They might even have the same priorities that you do, just in a different order.

Feel free to disapprove of what Sen. Wentworth said, but don't do things to alienate one of the most pro-gun legislators we have in this state. Things like that have a way of coming back to bite you.

hearkens back to the wild west days......how 'pro gun' is he?

I'd be willing to bet he's pretty friendly to the 2nd amendment crowd. They don't hand out A+ ratings to just anyone. I believe he's the guy who carried the bill for the Castle doctrine in 2007. Isn't he also working on the bill for campus carry? I'm sure Charles could give us quite a bit more information about Sen. Wentworth. The thing is you don't care what he's already done. He said something to hurt your (collective) feelings, and he isn't gung-ho for your pet project. In your mind, that makes him the enemy. With that kind of attitude, I'll be shocked to see OC ever pass in Texas.

[srothstein]

I predicted last year that any opencarry initiative would be met with resistance from TSRA, and it's my belief that we were undermined by them in the political field.
We at opencarry didn't go the 'texas method' of lobbying, or work with TSRA, or do ANY of the normal and accepted practices of working gun legislation through it's system. We were, and are, rogues to the machine and therefore should be ignored, admonished, or thrown under the bus as radicals. It's not like we didn't approach your group. Some of asked, it wasn't important to you at that time. That's fine. We could understand that you had your own member issues that you wanted to deal with. What we didn't expect, most of us anyway, was to be actively opposed and undermined.

DKSuddeth,

I am a strong supporter of the NRA and the TSRA. I am also a strong supporter of the individual's right to freedom. Nothing would please me more than to see Chapter 46 of the Texas Penal Code repealed in its entirety.

I do support the movement to allow open carry of firearms. I do NOT support the bill proposed on the opencarry.org web site. It has too many changes and makes the law more confusing than ever. It addresses issues that were never needed to be addressed for what you were proposing. A simple proposal for open carry would have been to just insert the word concealed in the unlawfully carrying section. But your organization did not take the simple approach.

I do not think you were thrown under the bus or openly fought because of your ideals or goal. If I thought that TSRA did not support open carry as a goal, I would no longer be a member. But, as you pointed out, you did not take the normal approach to politics in Texas. You came in and wanted to do things your own way. You certainly have that right. I have bucked the system in the past myself, and I stand ready to buck the system again. I also realize that very rarely do you get anything but trouble when you go against the normal way of doing things.

You also need to understand that the way things are normally done is the result of years (more than a hundred) of working out a system for politics in Texas. These rules became the rules because they worked. If you want a goal, it is usually much better to work with the known system that has a proven record than try a new way of doing things.

You also need to realize that you do not exist in a vacuum. Your goal is not the only goal, or even the only gun related goal, being worked on in the legislature this year. When you go against the established way of doing things, and there are people working on similar goals using the established way, your actions might place their goals in jeopardy. When you place another person's goals in jeopardy, it is only reasonable to for them to fight you to defend their own goals.

I do not believe your organization was thrown under the bus or fought nearly as much as it was just left to stand on its own. I am sure the TSRA did not support you and maybe even distanced itself from your actions. The lack of support could have the same effect as fighting against you, but is different in my opinion. But, if you want to do things differently, you take those chances.

My suggestion would be to look at how things went down this year. Then go study and think before you start planning for another attack next session. You might find that it is better to work with other groups that have similar goals and work in the proven fashion to achieve your own goals. This is why I do not agitate for repeal of Chapter 46 now. I have learned that the incremental approach works (it worked against us, didn't it?) and that TSRA and the NRA understand the proven methods and have a success rate that is enviable. So, I support them in their efforts, offer them as much help as I can on mutual goals, and distance myself from the goals I do not support (though I do not work against them, I just don't offer support). This allows the presentation of a much more united front and is the most successful method. It does mean my goals may not be seen this year, but I have confidence we will get them eventually.

[Keith B]

I predicted last year that any opencarry initiative would be met with resistance from TSRA, and it's my belief that we were undermined by them in the political field.
We at opencarry didn't go the 'texas method' of lobbying, or work with TSRA, or do ANY of the normal and accepted practices of working gun legislation through it's system. We were, and are, rogues to the machine and therefore should be ignored, admonished, or thrown under the bus as radicals. It's not like we didn't approach your group. Some of asked, it wasn't important to you at that time. That's fine. We could understand that you had your own member issues that you wanted to deal with. What we didn't expect, most of us anyway, was to be actively opposed and undermined.

DKSuddeth,

I am a strong supporter of the NRA and the TSRA. I am also a strong supporter of the individual's right to freedom. Nothing would please me more than to see Chapter 46 of the Texas Penal Code repealed in its entirety.

I do support the movement to allow open carry of firearms. I do NOT support the bill proposed on the opencarry.org web site. It has too many changes and makes the law more confusing than ever. It addresses issues that were never needed to be addressed for what you were proposing. A simple proposal for open carry would have been to just insert the word concealed in the unlawfully carrying section. But your organization did not take the simple approach.

I do not think you were thrown under the bus or openly fought because of your ideals or goal. If I thought that TSRA did not support open carry as a goal, I would no longer be a member. But, as you pointed out, you did not take the normal approach to politics in Texas. You came in and wanted to do things your own way. You certainly have that right. I have bucked the system in the past myself, and I stand ready to buck the system again. I also realize that very rarely do you get anything but trouble when you go against the normal way of doing things.

You also need to understand that the way things are normally done is the result of years (more than a hundred) of working out a system for politics in Texas. These rules became the rules because they worked. If you want a goal, it is usually much better to work with the known system that has a proven record than try a new way of doing things.

You also need to realize that you do not exist in a vacuum. Your goal is not the only goal, or even the only gun related goal, being worked on in the legislature this year. When you go against the established way of doing things, and there are people working on similar goals using the established way, your actions might place their goals in jeopardy. When you place another person's goals in jeopardy, it is only reasonable to for them to fight you to defend their own goals.

I do not believe your organization was thrown under the bus or fought nearly as much as it was just left to stand on its own. I am sure the TSRA did not support you and maybe even distanced itself from your actions. The lack of support could have the same effect as fighting against you, but is different in my opinion. But, if you want to do things differently, you take those chances.

My suggestion would be to look at how things went down this year. Then go study and think before you start planning for another attack next session. You might find that it is better to work with other groups that have similar goals and work in the proven fashion to achieve your own goals. This is why I do not agitate for repeal of Chapter 46 now. I have learned that the incremental approach works (it worked against us, didn't it?) and that TSRA and the NRA understand the proven methods and have a success rate that is enviable. So, I support them in their efforts, offer them as much help as I can on mutual goals, and distance myself from the goals I do not support (though I do not work against them, I just don't offer support). This allows the presentation of a much more united front and is the most successful method. It does mean my goals may not be seen this year, but I have confidence we will get them eventually.

Very well written Steve.

[roberts]

If you won't work with the TSRA then don't expect them to work with you. Cooperation is a two way street.

[Charles L. Cotton]

. . . I predicted last year that any opencarry initiative would be met with resistance from TSRA, and it's my belief that we were undermined by them in the political field.

Based upon what evidence? This is classic. OpenCarry.org, by your own admission, hasn't followed any of the "normal and accepted [and successful] practices of working gun legislation through it's system" and now you want to blame TSRA for a failure of your own making.

It's not like we didn't approach your group. Some of asked, it wasn't important to you at that time. That's fine. We could understand that you had your own member issues that you wanted to deal with. What we didn't expect, most of us anyway, was to be actively opposed and undermined.

Again, what active opposition and undermining? What shred of evidence do you have to back up that political slander? When you say TSRA in this context, you are talking about either me or Alice Tripp. Who are you saying "actively opposed or undermined" OpenCarry.org and/or the open-carry movement? How widespread is this opinion within OpenCarry.org?

I'm no longer mystified as to why most of the entire nation looks at Texas as the red headed step child or black sheep of the nation. Y'all take great pride in being different it seems, even though that difference isn't a positive thing. I'm now on that side of the fence that looks at TX as being full of idiots.

Are you from Texas, not that it matters, but I'm curious. If we had taken your attitude after failing to pass CHL the first time, we certainly wouldn't have it now. Do you really think TSRA or NRA could ever work with a person, organization or movement that takes this attitude?

If you want to look at it as endangering supposedly A+ rated politicians.....I don't really care

Yet more proof of your political naivete.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

hearkens back to the wild west days......how 'pro gun' is he?

A heck of a lot more than you! What have you done for Texas gun owners?

What did Senator Wentworth mean by "wild west days?"

Chas.

[Liberty]

hearkens back to the wild west days......how 'pro gun' is he?

A heck of a lot more than you! What have you done for Texas gun owners?

What did Senator Wentworth mean by "wild west days?"

Chas.

While none of might really know, I think we are all in agreement that we wish he hadn't used that phrase. I'm hoping he regrets the phrasing also.