cbunt1 wrote: for those who are adamant about openly carrying, would you be satisfied with making a revision to Texas' current CHL -- perhaps make it a "Carry a Handgun License" rather than a "Concealed Handgun License"?
That being said, if I have to choose between my TSRA working on Parking Lot Carry, and Campus Carry vs. a modification of what we already have...well, I say carry on Charles and Alice.
Yes it would be a good first step. While others might differ, I've said many times that parking lots, campus carry and others issues do deserve a higher priority. I simply want OC to be on the list, not at the top of it.
Jungle Work wrote:I was one of the few Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs who supported Concealed Carry in the eighties and early nineties and went to Austin to testify before committies on its impact in Texas. I told Ma Richards in August befor the election in November that she had lost the
election to George W. because of her stand on Concealed Carry. She told me that her advisors told her that Texans didn't want concealed
gun law. I have a nice letter from her telling me that she should have listened to the common Texan instead of her "advisor from Austin".
I support OC, but I'm also smart engouh to know that people have been working on the Parking Lot and Campus Carry Bills for far longer in
TSRA. I, as a member of TSRA am not willing to put Parking Lot and Campus Carry in jepardy to include OC this session. There are other sessions to include this. If it can be included without putting Parking Lot and Campus Carry in jepardy, I'm all for it.
Also, it so nice to be retired from LE.
Jungle Work
Thank you for your trust in the citizenry of Texas. We owe you a debt that is best repaid by continuing to demonstrate that your choice was a wise one.
I've said repeatedly that OC should not be ahead of those other bills nor threaten them.
What concerns me is our collective reluctance to take even the most minimal of steps. No planning. No drafting of a bill that would try to address all reasonable concerns. No discussion with legislators. If we don't have a bill introduced, we may be the ONLY non-OC shall-issue state not to have done so. I accept correction if proved otherwise but I believe that SC and FL had bills introduced last year and we know AR had a committee vote and OK passes a bill.
I can't speak for others but I'd like to not conclude so early that OC isn't possible in TX this session without hurting other pro-2A bills. If we HAVE to choose, I completely understand it being deferred but why is it DOA so early? Legislative sessions with generally favorable members & a pro-gun governor are too precious to waste.
Its not that anyone is saying that promoting OC will hurt other pro-gun bills, its that TSRA will not support OC with its limited political capital at this time because the membership doesn't indicate that they want it on the agenda. If the TSRA is shown a significant amount of interest in OC by its membership then they will consider it for the 2013 session. As it stands they want to concentrate the majority of their political capital on Campus Carry and the parking lot bill. My advice is draft a GOOD bill that will not hurt concealed carry and get someone to support it. If OCDO wants to make progress then they need to be polite, friendly, and go back to the politicians they burned last session in order to apologize. I am willing to work towards OC myself, but I will not be involved in any name calling or political flame wars. The whole point of our current situation is that OC is currently not on the TSRA agenda but they will fight a bad bill so any legislation that is proposed needs to be good or neutral towards their efforts. My instincts are to listen to what Mr Cotton says because he has played this game a lot longer than we have and he knows what he's doing.
How do you explain a dog named Sauer without first telling the story of a Puppy named Sig?
R.I.P. Sig, 08/21/2019 - 11/18/2019
Maybe it's best if TSRA stays neutral on open carry. That way it's not their bargaining chip to give up in exchange for infringements on the "at will" employment laws in Texas.
In addition to a full open carry bill, I'd like to see an open carry bill that reduces the failure to conceal offense to the level of a traffic ticket. That way nobody has to worry about getting their license yanked by overeager cops. They can pay the fine and move on with their life. I think I'll write my rep this weekend and propose that.
I live in Arizona where we have always had open carry, and it is a mixed blessing.
Before we had concealed carry (1994) open carry was the only option (ever since statehood in 1912), and it is off-putting to say the least in many situations, a deterrent on the right to keep and bear. You must be constantly wary of a snatch attempt. Many people see open carry and find it threatening and intimidating. It stands out in social circles, attracts unwanted attention, removes tactical advantage in a confrontation, makes you more of a target than you might want to be, prohibits carry where being discreet is the norm (back when concealment was not an option).
On the other hand, open carry provides "the inoculation effect," accustomizing people to seeing their fellow citizens bearing arms at the bakery, bank or strolling peacefully around town. It prevents the abuse Texans currently face for a gun merely visible, or "printing" through clothing. We enjoy periodic open-carry lunches, dinners and banquets, with dozens and even hundreds of people openly armed and enjoying meals and camaraderie. Buffet restaurants are particularly nice, because participants get a lot of exposure, and management likes the business we provide. Civil rights groups hold meetings with an invitation that says, "Tasteful open carry appreciated," motivating people to get nicely matching leather and mag carriers.
More important than open carry though, in my opinion, is Constitutional Carry. Texans own guns in any quantity and of any type legally available with virtually no government interference. But possession in public requires a government-issued permission slip, with applications, paperwork, approvals, classes, testing, fingerprints, photographs, entry into criminal-database lists, taxes called "fees," waiting and expiration dates -- expiration dates on your rights! And this is proudly known as "right to carry." So-called "right to carry" got us a long way forward from where we were. But all those requirements and hoops are humiliating from a constitutional perspective.
True Freedom To Carry means you can possess your private property, anywhere you can legally be, without bowing and scraping for permission from the king. In Arizona it's called Constitutional Carry, and we are now the 5th state to have it in some form. Texas beat us to it with the Motorist Protection Act in 2007, but basically only to, from and in vehicles (and a little more). If you step out of your vehicle you must forfeit your rights until you get back in (unless you have an unexpired plastic-coated permission slip, which 97% of Texans do not).
You know motorist carry is working, without classes and the rest of the people controls, despite the old tired dire lamestream-media claims of blood in the streets when it passed. It seems to me a person in Texas should be able to get out of the car, go have a burger and a malted with a gun safely tucked under a shirt, and not be subject to arrest, as we currently are. The freedom that would provide vastly outweighs (and would be far less polarizing) than the also important ability to have a gun visible and not create a firestorm of legal trouble for an innocent individual exercising basic human rights.
alankorwin wrote:I live in Arizona where we have always had open carry, and it is a mixed blessing.
Before we had concealed carry (1994) open carry was the only option (ever since statehood in 1912), and it is off-putting to say the least in many situations, a deterrent on the right to keep and bear. You must be constantly wary of a snatch attempt. Many people see open carry and find it threatening and intimidating. It stands out in social circles, attracts unwanted attention, removes tactical advantage in a confrontation, makes you more of a target than you might want to be, prohibits carry where being discreet is the norm (back when concealment was not an option).
On the other hand, open carry provides "the inoculation effect," accustomizing people to seeing their fellow citizens bearing arms at the bakery, bank or strolling peacefully around town. It prevents the abuse Texans currently face for a gun merely visible, or "printing" through clothing. We enjoy periodic open-carry lunches, dinners and banquets, with dozens and even hundreds of people openly armed and enjoying meals and camaraderie. Buffet restaurants are particularly nice, because participants get a lot of exposure, and management likes the business we provide. Civil rights groups hold meetings with an invitation that says, "Tasteful open carry appreciated," motivating people to get nicely matching leather and mag carriers.
More important than open carry though, in my opinion, is Constitutional Carry. Texans own guns in any quantity and of any type legally available with virtually no government interference. But possession in public requires a government-issued permission slip, with applications, paperwork, approvals, classes, testing, fingerprints, photographs, entry into criminal-database lists, taxes called "fees," waiting and expiration dates -- expiration dates on your rights! And this is proudly known as "right to carry." So-called "right to carry" got us a long way forward from where we were. But all those requirements and hoops are humiliating from a constitutional perspective.
True Freedom To Carry means you can possess your private property, anywhere you can legally be, without bowing and scraping for permission from the king. In Arizona it's called Constitutional Carry, and we are now the 5th state to have it in some form. Texas beat us to it with the Motorist Protection Act in 2007, but basically only to, from and in vehicles (and a little more). If you step out of your vehicle you must forfeit your rights until you get back in (unless you have an unexpired plastic-coated permission slip, which 97% of Texans do not).
You know motorist carry is working, without classes and the rest of the people controls, despite the old tired dire lamestream-media claims of blood in the streets when it passed. It seems to me a person in Texas should be able to get out of the car, go have a burger and a malted with a gun safely tucked under a shirt, and not be subject to arrest, as we currently are. The freedom that would provide vastly outweighs (and would be far less polarizing) than the also important ability to have a gun visible and not create a firestorm of legal trouble for an innocent individual exercising basic human rights.
Alan Korwin
Alan,
I gotta ask. If you live in AZ why are you co-authoring a book on Texas Gun Owner's?
Life NRA
USMC 76-93
USAR 99-07 (Retired)
OEF 06-07
Alan Korwin wrote:. . . government-issued permission slip, . . . entry into criminal-database lists, taxes called "fees," . . . expiration dates on your rights!
Inflammatory rhetoric has never helped us pass anything and it won't in the future. BTW, the Texas CHL background check does not get you entered on any "criminal-database lists."
Your rendition of Arizona open-carry history is irrelevant in light of Texas citizen-carry history from 1995 to 1997.
Dear Purplehood,
I've written books on Arizona, California, Florida, Texas and Virginia, plus two unabridged national guides (Gun Laws of America (federal law) and Supreme Court Gun Cases. Obviously I can't move to every place I write about. Finished the book on Texas back in 1995, when CHL first passed, now in its 7th edition. Sorry if that's somehow not proper, don't know how else to handle it. Alan.
Not trying to be inflammatory, but also don't want to be complacent as government massages our "rights" into privileges and permissions. "government-issued permission slip, . . . entry into criminal-database lists, taxes called "fees," . . . expiration dates on your rights!" as you quote me -- I believe these are accurate though perhaps not mild-mannered diplomatic statements of what we endure. It's the whole "shall not be infringed" thing stuck in my craw.
I can certainly agree that in pursuing new laws, depending on who you're dealing with, you'd want to use more sugar and less vitriol, but it makes my blood boil to see an expiration date on our rights, it just does. I know many Texans who rightly feel the same way.
As far as criminal databases, part of the reason CHL/reciprocity/NICS-free retail sales works is that the program meets federal requirements that the validity of a licensee can be checked by authorities from basically any location. Perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to those databases as certified-innocent citizen lists, but I've never heard them referred to that way. Please correct me -- what is the universally accessible CHL database properly called? And it is, if I understand correctly, linked to the "criminal database" (by whatever name), so a person indicted or convicted can be flagged for suspension or revocation, correct?
Please don't take my outspoken tone to diminish the value of my experience-based observations about open carry, or the value of perhaps expanding Motorist Protection into Freedom To Carry in Texas. Next time you're in AZ, let's openly arm ourselves and go to lunch or dinner, and compare experiences. It will be illuminating, no doubt.
Not sure what you refer to with "Texas citizen-carry history from 1995 to 1997"; those first two years of CHL in Texas were new and somewhat confusing but seemed to work fairly well. Texas has not had open carry to any real degree for generations, the Arizona comparison should be germane at least for comparison. What do you envision when Texans can legally strap on a sidearm and walk around town? We haven't even begun to look at how the media will handle it -- and photograph it. It's a can of worms my friend.
As far as criminal databases, part of the reason CHL/reciprocity/NICS-free retail sales works is that the program meets federal requirements that the validity of a licensee can be checked by authorities from basically any location. Perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to those databases as certified-innocent citizen lists, but I've never heard them referred to that way. Please correct me -- what is the universally accessible CHL database properly called? And it is, if I understand correctly, linked to the "criminal database" (by whatever name), so a person indicted or convicted can be flagged for suspension or revocation, correct?
A NICS-exempt CHL is just that. The holder does not undergo a Brady check when buying a firearm from an FFL. Their name is not stored in a database.
alankorwin wrote:Not sure what you refer to with "Texas citizen-carry history from 1995 to 1997"; those first two years of CHL in Texas were new and somewhat confusing but seemed to work fairly well.
I'm talking about the extreme backlash against citizens carrying handguns and the prolific posting of generic "no guns" signs all over the State. It was so bad, we had to pass HB2909 in 1997 to establish TPC §30.06 and create the "big, ugly sign." This is far more relevant as to what response we can expect to see in Texas if open-carry passes, than Arizona's experience.
There appears to be some momentum for open carry this year. I think last year it sprang upon us before many of us could digest it and decide what we wanted.
I would like to see TSRA endorse it, whether they choose to invest the political capital for not. If it looks close to passing and they are able to push it over the top, then I'd expect them to do so.
Yes, I am a TSRA member.
-----------
“Sometimes there is no alternative to uncertainty except to await the arrival of more and better data.” C. Wunsch
I'd like to know what the open carry advocates have been doing for the last year since the legislature adjourned on June 1. Why have they waited until 6 months before the elections to attempt to get this on the TSRA agenda?
KC5AV wrote:I'd like to know what the open carry advocates have been doing for the last year since the legislature adjourned on June 1. Why have they waited until 6 months before the elections to attempt to get this on the TSRA agenda?
IMHO, that is opening up a whole new can of worms. Very good point. The implication to me is that there really is not as much fervent support for OC as some posters might like there to be.
My own list has it under the category of "Basic Rights that need to be reclaimed from overreaching governments", but not on my Priority List of "Realistic things that need to be done".
Life NRA
USMC 76-93
USAR 99-07 (Retired)
OEF 06-07
We should make an effort to arrive at a correct common answer to this:
You wrote: "A NICS-exempt CHL is just that. The holder does not undergo a Brady check when buying a firearm from an FFL. Their name is not stored in a database."
1. Texas DPS maintains a database of every valid CHL, no?
2. How does an FFL know that a CHL shown for a NICS-exempt sale is valid? Because DPS cross references its CHL-list to indictments and convictions and suspends or revokes CHLs based on those legal actions, correct? This means, in theory at least, a person carrying a CHL has a valid one. When you go into a store, merely showing the license is sufficient to close the sale (the lists and checking go on transparently in the background without direct involvement).
3. Federal law, 18 USC 922(s) & (t) specifically allows a NICS-exempt sale for anyone with a valid CHL, hence the system described above.
The reason NICS-exempt sales work is because CHLs are in effect permanently monitored as being non-prohibited possessors. Everyone else has to be checked out each time through NICS to make sure they're not on any of the prohibited possessor lists.
If this is incorrect, please point out where.
As far as possible negative reactions to an open carry law in Texas, I think we're in complete agreement. The 1995-1997 reaction to invisible CHL carry makes the case. Driven by "news" media hysteria, people posted signs and wrung their hands at the idea that decent citizens might be exercising their human rights under the Second Amendment -- and they couldn't even see the firearms that caused the controversy.
In Texas, where open carry is unknown, I'd expect the backlash to OC to be enormous and hopelessly undesirable from the standpoint of protecting RKBA. My point about Arizona is that here, even with a near century of tradition, many common ignorant media-deluded people on the street are horrified by the sight of a sidearm on an average citizen. Yes, many people have come to accept it, and in towns like Prescott upstate it's routine enough that even the California transplants have grown a little accustomed to it. And there is a positive side to it, the inoculation effect I mentioned among others. But I believe in Texas, where it is totally unknown to see civilians at lunch or in banks wearing sidearms, the effect would not do justice to our cause.
That's why I favor, instead of an uphill battle to get OC with all its unwanted baggage, an expansion of Motorist Protection into Freedom To Carry, so you can discreetly step out of your vehicle and take care of your daily business without fear of arrest for an unobtrusively carried firearm. Plus, this Constitutional Carry brings us into compliance with the Constitution and its shall-not-be-infringed clause, a very good thing.
Constitutional Carry has another tremendous asset because, exactly like the Motorist Protection Act, Texans get to exercise the right to keep and bear arms privately without being permanently monitored, and that alone is enough to swing the tide in that direction. The left would like us to forget that we can exercise our rights in private. Government has no legitimate power to "allow" us to carry, or issue permission slips (a carefully chosen phrase to properly denigrate the practice government has adopted). RKBA is a freedom that should be above reproach.
I think the end result that everyone wants to see is constitutional carry for Texas in the AZ and AK style (no license required but one is available if you want to go out of state). In the end I would like to constitutional carry nation wide without any kind of baggage. Now for those who remember the whole media backlash against concealed carry I would like to point out that the public went against the media and demanded concealed carry and it was a key issue in the governors race back then which put "W." into the governor's seat.
I'm not saying OC can or will repeat this I'm just saying that the media backlash can have little or no meaning.
How do you explain a dog named Sauer without first telling the story of a Puppy named Sig?
R.I.P. Sig, 08/21/2019 - 11/18/2019
