TexasCHLforum.com

Am I the only one that is getting all excited to see the process really beginning on OC in Texas? I want it but it is more that it is actually being considered and, I am sure, discussed around the Austin types. Makes me feel we have some really positive issues to consider among ourselves with such negatives coming for us nationally. Thanks to all those who search their hearts and minds on why OC would be proper or not for the people of this state and how to go about getting things done.

I would definitely like to see the open carry bill worded so that businesses and property owners would be able to prohibit open carry on their property by posting a simple "gunbuster" sign. I'd hate to see a public backlash against open carry lead to an increase in 30.06 posting.

That's my main concern, along with the possibility of more places being put off-limits.

We actually have it pretty good here, all things considered. Georgia has concealed carry - supposedly - but there are so many places off-limits that what's the use.

I don't have any problem with unlicensed carry to any great degree... but I suppose I'd prefer licensed carry and no change to concealed carry. But wow, I just spent a bunch of time reading over there and MY knee got sore from watching the knee-jerking reactions to stuff.

Let's just make it easier for us and for the Public (business owners).

CHL Holders authorized to carry openly or concealed anywhere a LEO is.
Pretty simple.......

srothstein wrote:I think the main problem is the goal of opencarry.org is unlicensed carry and they don't know how to draftbills, as Chalres has pointed out.

They're also not terribly well-read on the current laws. One of their organizers had to eat a little crow after swearing up and down that it's illegal to carry concealed in state buildings. I've seen several examples of that type of misinformation on the opencarry.org forum. It seems to me that the individuals leading the fight to change the law should know the current law forward and backward.

Steve,

What I thought of when you wrote that about only CHL carry was that we would no only be "outed" as a CHL holder but also receive a sort of harassment from LEOs when people called 911 or they check to make sure we are legal. I am not completely against licensing, as a start, but I think it should be very broad and much less restrictive than CHL. That said, no matter what they pass will have to be improved just as CHL still needs to be improved as long as it remains in the control of the state.

We all have our own idea of what is best but it all comes down to the practical application of a law lifting the restriction on OC, a separate set of laws for OC, or the state relinquishing its ability to control the wearing of arms. As it looks and very unfortunate in my mind, is that far too many people are looking at this from the standpoint of what privileges the state will allow us. We should be looking at building a bridge toward restoring the right of the people of this state to exercise their true 2A rights. That means that the state has no part in that right other than to protect it. Will it take the 14TH Amendment to the COTUS being applied to the states in order for the State of Texas to be forced to move beyond failed attempts to control criminals by punishing the innocent?

I think the laws concerning all carrying of any firearm, by the law abiding, should be stricken from the books and those who commit crime should be punished for that crime no matter what tool they used. I think that is the reality of the 21st century. We have a SCOTUS recognized, 2A reflected, God given right to keep and BEAR arms. We should embrace that attitude. How far do we go? I don't know because I do not want to scare so many of the urbanites that seem to have lost all touch with reality. So, let's work on building a foundation of true freedom that will last this round and then go from there. I happen to be ignorant of how to do that to even comment on the "HOW". Small steps are fine except when we stay on the same repressive path of privileges over rights. That is my opinion.

Douva wrote:I would definitely like to see the open carry bill worded so that businesses and property owners would be able to prohibit open carry on their property by posting a simple "gunbuster" sign. I'd hate to see a public backlash against open carry lead to an increase in 30.06 posting.

What? Unless 30.06 was rewritten, it wouldn't apply to open carriers. But a sign wouldn't be necessary. It's open carry. If whoever is in charge of the property sees someone carrying a gun, then they can tell the carrier to leave, just like if they didn't want someone on their property who wasn't wearing a shirt/shoes, etc.

CleverNickname wrote:

Douva wrote:I would definitely like to see the open carry bill worded so that businesses and property owners would be able to prohibit open carry on their property by posting a simple "gunbuster" sign. I'd hate to see a public backlash against open carry lead to an increase in 30.06 posting.

What? Unless 30.06 was rewritten, it wouldn't apply to open carriers. But a sign wouldn't be necessary. It's open carry. If whoever is in charge of the property sees someone carrying a gun, then they can tell the carrier to leave, just like if they didn't want someone on their property who wasn't wearing a shirt/shoes, etc.

If the visible nature of open carry negates the need for a sign to prohibit it, why do we still see "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs? Most business owners don't want to see people walking into their establishments shirtless and/or shoeless. And judging from popular public perception, it's safe to assume that many business owners wouldn't want to see people walking into their establishments openly carrying handguns.

You're correct that the current 30.06 sign wouldn't apply to open carry; however, anyone who thinks the Texas Legislature will pass an open carry bill--whether licensed or unlicensed--that doesn't provide a means for property owners to prohibit open carry on their property clearly doesn't know much about Texas politics. I'd prefer that business owners have an option (preferably an easier option) for prohibiting open carry that doesn't also prohibit concealed carry.

Concealed carry is allowed in most establishments throughout Texas, even in "liberal" cities like Austin, because it is out of sight and out of mind. CHL holders don't disturb anybody, so most business owners don't see the merit of posting large, ugly 30.06 signs. But if business owners start getting nervous about individuals walking into their establishments openly carrying firearms, or if customers start complaining about individuals seen openly carrying firearms, those business owners are likely to take steps to prohibit open carry on their property.

We've all seen the news stories from other states, in which an uninformed citizen sees an individual or group of individuals legally carrying openly and calls the police to report a "man with a gun" or an "armed gang," leading to a very visible police response. How many of those types of news stories--especially in the aftermath of a heated public debate over open carry--do you think it would take to cause a backlash from Texas business owners? Open carry proponents need to be careful not to lose the forest for the trees. Based on the number of signatures acquired by OpenCarry.org, and based on the posts and poll responses I've seen on this forum, I think it's fair to surmise that most CHL holders aren't interested in seeing open carry legalized at the cost of rendering their concealed handgun licenses virtually useless.

After hanging out in a PA forum and listening to what they have to say about open carry I think I kind of like it. Up there, there is nothing saying it is legal. At the same time there is nothing saying it is illegal. Therefore you cannot be "breaking the law" if there is no law addressing the issue.

However, I still prefer concealed carry but I have to think it would be nice to not have to worry about being prosecuted for accidentally brandishing your weapon. (Yeah I know in TX "accidental" doesn't count but having to not worry about proving it was intentional or not might be nice)

atxgun wrote:After hanging out in a PA forum and listening to what they have to say about open carry I think I kind of like it. Up there, there is nothing saying it is legal. At the same time there is nothing saying it is illegal. Therefore you cannot be "breaking the law" if there is no law addressing the issue.

However, I still prefer concealed carry but I have to think it would be nice to not have to worry about being prosecuted for accidentally brandishing your weapon. (Yeah I know in TX "accidental" doesn't count but having to not worry about proving it was intentional or not might be nice)

There is a law, it might not specifically legalize open carry but they do have PA Supreme Court rulings that affirm the legality of carrying a firearm w/o a license openly so long as it is not in a vehicle and not in a city of the 1st class (i.e. Philadelphia)

IMO... it's ENTIRELY possible that open carry would lead to LESS 30.06 postings. Follow the logic... There isn't any legal sign requirement for a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign. They can be ANYTHING.

So a business that doesn't want open carry would likely go the easy route... either buy a simple ghostbuster sign and figure they're covered, or put up an 8 1/2 x 11 sign on their door and figure they're covered, rather than go to the trouble to find out what is required to keep the CHL's out.

Just a thought.

I guess they are different groups of people, but I find it ironic that on one hand there are CHL'ers who are desperate to keep their CHL status private--just check the four page thread, and then there are those who want to open carry for all the world to know.

AEA wrote:Let's just make it easier for us and for the Public (business owners).

CHL Holders authorized to carry openly or concealed anywhere a LEO is.
Pretty simple.......

If an open-carry bills gets introduced and passed, you can be certain of two things: 1) the Legislature isn't going to leave property owners without a way to keep armed citizens off their property; and 2) the Legislature isn't going to create a dual standard for "no trespass" signs, thus forcing property owners to post two signs instead of one, if they want to bar all armed citizens. So this means either TPC §30.06 will be amended to apply to open and concealed carry, or TPC §30.06 will be repealed and we return to the pre-1997 "ghost buster" signs and decals. I don't really think §30.06 would be repealed; I think it would be amended to apply to open and concealed carry.

Chas.