Unlicensed open carry in Texas: a proposal

[Liko81]

I'm a lot more concerned with making it easy for criminals to blend in with LAC's while carrying guns in public...

We've already been through this. You can CC right now. Concealed means concealed. If nobody notices that a criminal is carrying concealed, not only has he blended in with law-abiding carriers, he's blended into the population at large.

OC would be no different. Actually it would; it would make the police take a closer look at anyone OCing even if they couldn't detain someone for OCing. The last thing any criminal wants is to have attention paid to him. If OC became legal, I doubt you would see anyone intent on criminal activity OCing, except in the very rare circumstance that he's planning on mowing down anyone who looks at him twice (and other random people along the way). If that ever happened in my immediate vicinity I'd want my handgun as ready as it could be, and not to have to dig through my clothing to get to it.

It comes down to the fact that, despite any difference in the amount of training, licensing, or tactical experience/knowledge, there is no legal difference between a shot fired by a licensed CHL and a shot fired by an unlicensed OCer. You as a gun owner are responsible for every projectile that comes out of the business end of your firearm, and it does not matter one iota how that firearm is situated on your person. Thus, required or not, any lawful gun owner choosing to carry will have done his homework and spent considerable time at the range. To assume otherwise is not only elitist, but a simple mistake; to follow that reasoning you would assume anyone with a gun but without a CHL doesn't know how and when to use it; that is a VERY dangerous assumption to make, I assure you.

[Liko81]

If we had unlicensed open carry, previously convicted criminals and other disqualified persons could openly carry guns and, since no license was needed, the fact that they did not have one would not trigger an arrest in the case of an incidental contact with LE. When a cop runs your license he will get info on any open wants or warrants, but he will not get info on what closed convictions a person might have.

Horse hockey. Any convicted criminal is in the system as such, at the very least for the state in which he was convicted. Where do you think NICS comes from? If you have a rap sheet, they'll know about it, especially if you're on parole but even if not.

In any case it's nonsensical; if you are carrying a weapon, you are assumed to be doing so lawfully. It's part of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing that makes our judicial system so great. That holds whether the carry is concealed or open. In fact, I fail to see how you would think OC puts a criminal at LESS risk of being caught. When carrying concealed and being subjected to "incidental LE contact" (whatever that means), the LEO has to first DISCOVER the person is carrying. They then must assume that the person is carrying legally if they are doing nothing else wrong. It's only if there is sufficient articulable reason to detain (and simply carrying is not sufficient articulable reason) that the LEO can then ask for credentials and the criminal is in trouble. With OC, the risk of a criminal being caught is greater if they OC, if for no other reason than the LEO doesn't have to look real hard to spot an OCer's sidearm. They do still have to assume legality, but if a criminal who is OCing is detained by an LEO for articulable reason, the first thing that happens is that the LEO asks for ID, and calls it in asking for the subject's arrest record. If there is a single black mark on the subject's record they can sort it out at the station.

[flintknapper]

If we had unlicensed open carry, previously convicted criminals and other disqualified persons could openly carry guns and, since no license was needed, the fact that they did not have one would not trigger an arrest in the case of an incidental contact with LE. When a cop runs your license he will get info on any open wants or warrants, but he will not get info on what closed convictions a person might have.

Horse hockey. Any convicted criminal is in the system as such, at the very least for the state in which he was convicted. Where do you think NICS comes from? If you have a rap sheet, they'll know about it, especially if you're on parole but even if not.

In any case it's nonsensical; if you are carrying a weapon, you are assumed to be doing so lawfully. It's part of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing that makes our judicial system so great. That holds whether the carry is concealed or open. In fact, I fail to see how you would think OC puts a criminal at LESS risk of being caught. When carrying concealed and being subjected to "incidental LE contact" (whatever that means), the LEO has to first DISCOVER the person is carrying. They then must assume that the person is carrying legally if they are doing nothing else wrong. It's only if there is sufficient articulable reason to detain (and simply carrying is not sufficient articulable reason) that the LEO can then ask for credentials and the criminal is in trouble. With OC, the risk of a criminal being caught is greater if they OC, if for no other reason than the LEO doesn't have to look real hard to spot an OCer's sidearm. They do still have to assume legality, but if a criminal who is OCing is detained by an LEO for articulable reason, the first thing that happens is that the LEO asks for ID, and calls it in asking for the subject's arrest record. If there is a single black mark on the subject's record they can sort it out at the station.

Well.....now you've done it!

Did no one tell you that interjecting common sense into this thread would not be tolerated?

[kauboy]

EDIT: Dangit Liko, you stole ma thunder!!! Maybe next time I'll read the whole thing before hitting "reply":mrgreen:


Honestly frankie, how do you find time to do anything else in life when you're constantly defending yourself here??

Anyways, to refute your "the bad guys will blend in" idea, consider this:
Person A is an upstanding citizen. He pays his taxes, follows the rules, and is a genuine, all around, good guy.
Person B is a thug. Has been in jail before and not afraid to go back. Doesn't care about society in general so long as he gets his.
Assuming licensed open carry were implemented:
Person A carries a gun on his hip, exposed for the world to see.
Person B carries a gun on his hip, exposed for the world to see.

You, a police officer, see A and B walking down the same street.
Do you stop them both and ask for their license to carry?
Do you stop only one of them?
Do you have the authority to stop either of them?
No, you don't. You have no reason to do so. Just as you can't pull over a car, at random, to check for a DL, you can't stop a random person, legally carrying a gun, and ask for proof that they aren't a felon.
Unless an officer is investigating a crime, they have no reason, nor authority, to ask for ID.
Person B has effectively "blended in", right?

Ok, now. Throw a jacket on both persons. The firearms are now concealed. Person A has a CHL. Person B obviously does not.
Same street, same officer, same questions as above.
SAME ANSWERS AS ABOVE!

The BG will blend in REGARDLESS of the environment.
So, you are not keeping a criminal from doing anything when you say you would only want "licensed" open carry.
An officer can't ask to see such license without cause.
Remember, criminals don't care about the law. That's why we call them law-breakers.

In effect, you have only limited the law-abiding citizen. In the same manor that CHL currently limits those with class B and A misd. for 5 years. What if they need to protect themselves from the mugger they will meet tomorrow? Tough cookies, huh?
And you think that's ok?

[frankie_the_yankee]

Horse hockey. Any convicted criminal is in the system as such, at the very least for the state in which he was convicted. Where do you think NICS comes from? If you have a rap sheet, they'll know about it, especially if you're on parole but even if not.

When a cop runs your license, he is not running a NICS check. If you don't have any open wants or warrants, the cop won't know anything about your priors.

They do still have to assume legality, but if a criminal who is OCing is detained by an LEO for articulable reason, the first thing that happens is that the LEO asks for ID, and calls it in asking for the subject's arrest record. If there is a single black mark on the subject's record they can sort it out at the station.

Not true. What they call in for is the status of your license and registration, and any open wants or warrants. If you have a CHL, that comes up too. Prior convictions do not come up.

[frankie_the_yankee]

If OC became legal, I doubt you would see anyone intent on criminal activity OCing, except in the very rare circumstance that he's planning on mowing down anyone who looks at him twice (and other random people along the way).

Feel free to doubt it all you want.

[frankie_the_yankee]

The BG will blend in REGARDLESS of the environment.

Nope.

It's what happens when the person commits some kind of violation that matters. This could be rolling through a stop sign, going a few MPH over the limit, etc. These are relatively minor offenses that many otherwise LAC's commit every day.

So when the cop "contacts" a person for one of these minor reasons, if the person is OCing without a license they will probably find themselves in big trouble pretty quickly.

On the other hand, if they have a license, all they are looking at is a minor traffic ticket.

Now if they don't NEED a license, they get to blend right in. The cop has no way of knowing that they have 5 priors or whatever. So all they are looking at is a traffic ticket, just like the LAC.

So, you are not keeping a criminal from doing anything when you say you would only want "licensed" open carry. An officer can't ask to see such license without cause.

In TX, you are required to declare if you are carrying and show your license. The cop doesn't have to ask.

And the idea is not that you're necessarily going to "keep the criminal from doing anything". It's that you are going to raise the risks to him of doing it. Then you simply count on human nature to operate the way it always does - where if something is riskier or has a higher cost associated with it, fewer people will do it.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Honestly frankie, how do you find time to do anything else in life when you're constantly defending yourself here??

When people make arguments that are full of holes, I tell them so.

You know, it's one thing to propose changes to public policy that are "on the fringe" in a 2A friendly forum like this. But if you want to get a line on serious thinking on the subject, go try to make these arguments in the legislature and see how far you get.

I mean, people have argued here for the rights of private citizens to purchase and possess nuclear weapons. Anybody want to put that on the table for 2009? Pantex is right up the road in Amarillo, isn't it? It might be good for their business.

Or for another illustration of serious thinking, read the Pro-Heller briefs. See how many of them are arguing for unlicensed OC. Or for the right to carry any gun anywhere at any time.

I know it's tempting to dive off the dock straight into Fantasyland. I do it myself, when I'm watching "Outlaw Josey Wales" for the 100th time.

But I also like to have intelligent discussions about 2A rights.

[carlson1]

I am an OPEN CARRY advocate. I have come to conclusion from the numerous debates on just this forum it would be virtually impossible to prove the 2A to legislatures when the people who are supposed to agree can't agree. The 2A is not just about squirrel hunting and concealed carry.

[Tajovo]

Horse hockey. Any convicted criminal is in the system as such, at the very least for the state in which he was convicted. Where do you think NICS comes from? If you have a rap sheet, they'll know about it, especially if you're on parole but even if not.

When a cop runs your license, he is not running a NICS check. If you don't have any open wants or warrants, the cop won't know anything about your priors.

Frankie, there is nothing to stop an officer from requesting your CCH while he was you detained. Most (if not all) agencies with MDTs have access to additional databases with prior history information.

They do still have to assume legality, but if a criminal who is OCing is detained by an LEO for articulable reason, the first thing that happens is that the LEO asks for ID, and calls it in asking for the subject's arrest record. If there is a single black mark on the subject's record they can sort it out at the station.

Not true. What they call in for is the status of your license and registration, and any open wants or warrants. If you have a CHL, that comes up too. Prior convictions do not come up.

Don't assume that all an officer will confirm is the status of your license and registration. There are many more tools available to an officer for informational purposes than just TLETS/NLETS.

[carlson1]

[quote=]When a cop runs your license, he is not running a NICS check. If you don't have any open wants or warrants, the cop won't know anything about your priors.[/quote]

In Texas he can run a Criminal History Check in just a matter of seconds. Most officers I know when the run the DL then run a Criminal History. It has ALL ARREST even if you were not convicted.

[frankie_the_yankee]

When a cop runs your license, he is not running a NICS check. If you don't have any open wants or warrants, the cop won't know anything about your priors.

In Texas he can run a Criminal History Check in just a matter of seconds. Most officers I know when the run the DL then run a Criminal History. It has ALL ARREST even if you were not convicted.

I cannot respond fully to this without putting personal info out on the net that should (and must) remain private.

But I will say that I have some direct (i.e. 1st hand) knowledge of my own as to standard procedures, what info cops get when they run you, etc.

And criminal history data isn't normally on the menu.

Not only that, but arrest data by itself, without info as to the final disposition, can be problematic. All arrests are not necessarily for good reason. Some people arrested turn out to be innocent. A CHL could be arrested for murder, for instance, and them later on no billed as the shooting in question was determined by the GJ to have been justified.

Then there's also the fact that there is info that might be avaliable from NICS such as data from other states, mental data, etc. that won't show up on a TX criminal history check.

What a cop can get on the roadside isn't anywhere near the equivalent to the background check we go through to get our CHL's.

[Longtooths]

You mean that "if you are going to start shooting, shoot me first" sign on your hip?

This question is ridiculous brain washed anti crap! I'm sorry but it is the equivalent to not buying anything nice cause it makes you a target. No car, jewelery, clothes, shoes etc. This response is limp wristed it makes me wanna spit. How about the inverse, bad guy sees gun and decides it is not worth it. Or bad guy sees 20 people with guns and decides he doesn't wanna die today.

I live in the United States of America and I have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. My state government has decided to say that I have to have it concealed and I have to pay money for my RIGHT. I say there should be no licenses and we should be allowed to carry on our hip, in the open, concealed, whatever.


/rant off

[carlson1]

When a cop runs your license, he is not running a NICS check. If you don't have any open wants or warrants, the cop won't know anything about your priors.

In Texas he can run a Criminal History Check in just a matter of seconds. Most officers I know when the run the DL then run a Criminal History. It has ALL ARREST even if you were not convicted.

I cannot respond fully to this without putting personal info out on the net that should (and must) remain private.

But I will say that I have some direct (i.e. 1st hand) knowledge of my own as to standard procedures, what info cops get when they run you, etc.

And criminal history data isn't normally on the menu.

Not only that, but arrest data by itself, without info as to the final disposition, can be problematic. All arrests are not necessarily for good reason. Some people arrested turn out to be innocent. A CHL could be arrested for murder, for instance, and them later on no billed as the shooting in question was determined by the GJ to have been justified.

Then there's also the fact that there is info that might be avaliable from NICS such as data from other states, mental data, etc. that won't show up on a TX criminal history check.

What a cop can get on the roadside isn't anywhere near the equivalent to the background check we go through to get our CHL's.

I am not for sure what you know the average criminal does not already know, but all an officer has to do is pick up his microphone and say, "I need a 10-43 and white male John Doe birthday 01-24-54." And with minutes it is given to them. In many circumstances when they are working something that appears to be ongoing they can have that information placed in their boxes for later pick up. Again, the CCH has EVERYTHING on it including "bad" arrest.

[aardwolf]

The BG will blend in REGARDLESS of the environment.

Nope.

It's what happens when the person commits some kind of violation that matters. This could be rolling through a stop sign, going a few MPH over the limit, etc. These are relatively minor offenses that many otherwise LAC's commit every day.

So when the cop "contacts" a person for one of these minor reasons, if the person is OCing without a license they will probably find themselves in big trouble pretty quickly.

On the other hand, if they have a license, all they are looking at is a minor traffic ticket.

Now if they don't NEED a license, they get to blend right in. The cop has no way of knowing that they have 5 priors or whatever. So all they are looking at is a traffic ticket, just like the LAC.

They don't need a license to carry concealed in a car.

Let me repeat that. In Texas they DON"T NEED A LICENSE to carry concealed inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle that is owned by the person or under the person's control.

So much for that strawman.