![rlol "rlol"](./images/smilies/rlol.gif)
![leaving :leaving](./images/smilies/leaving.gif)
Moderator: carlson1
double sigh...anygunanywhere wrote:**sigh**Nachos Libres wrote:That is dumb. But if I was her I would have concealed instead of open-carry as I'd hate for someone to know I had a gun and be able to grab it or make me their first target.
![]()
![]()
---------------------------------------
My comment on the original post is that the sheriff should be run out of town. He is obviously one of those who thinks free rational individuals of sound character and no criminal history should not be allowed to exeercise their God given right to keep and bear arms.
He should have told the panty wetters to mind their own business.
Anygunanywhere
Almost nearly as bad as naming your son, "Sue"...Oldgringo wrote:Nigel Foundling is his name?No wonder he's mad at everybody.
OK, you get a big noogie for causing OJ to spew forth from my nostrils...pbwalker wrote:It's listed on Fark. If you've got 15 minutes to kill and want to read 'some' comical arguing on this article, check it out.
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comment ... nk=3898683" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
So basically, this is why we can't have nice things?Charles L. Cotton wrote:The sheriff was wrong, the judge followed the law, albeit begrudgingly, and I'm glad she got her concealed weapon permit back.
However, we should note that the reaction of the non-carrying people at this public event is exactly what I fear would happen in Texas. The fact that open-carry is technically legal in 44 states, doesn't meant that carrying openly doesn't cause the gun owner problems. I acknowledge that my concern about Texans' reaction to open-carry may prove to be unfounded. It's unfortunate that supporters of open-carry won't admit that the claim that it's legal in 44 states and "doesn't cause any problems" is misleading at best.
Chas.
What, impotent fuming by the other side, while the actual law is followed?Charles L. Cotton wrote:However, we should note that the reaction of the non-carrying people at this public event is exactly what I fear would happen in Texas.
I agree, Charles, this is what concerns me about OC is the reaction of the public that has been educated by the media that guns are evil and people that carry them are evil. I am all for our rights, but I fear this will be a set back for all of us. I just can not see how this would serve to further our cause with CHL carry. We have came a long way, however, we still have a long ways to go. I just do not see the logic of OC at all.Charles L. Cotton wrote:The sheriff was wrong, the judge followed the law, albeit begrudgingly, and I'm glad she got her concealed weapon permit back.
However, we should note that the reaction of the non-carrying people at this public event is exactly what I fear would happen in Texas. The fact that open-carry is technically legal in 44 states, doesn't meant that carrying openly doesn't cause the gun owner problems. I acknowledge that my concern about Texans' reaction to open-carry may prove to be unfounded. It's unfortunate that supporters of open-carry won't admit that the claim that it's legal in 44 states and "doesn't cause any problems" is misleading at best.
Chas.
This one incident happened in a public area and involved a sheriff who overstepped his authority. The end result was correct, because it involved solely a question of law.KBCraig wrote:What, impotent fuming by the other side, while the actual law is followed?Charles L. Cotton wrote:However, we should note that the reaction of the non-carrying people at this public event is exactly what I fear would happen in Texas.
The gun culture in Texas and Pennsylvania are pretty similar. Both are mostly rural states with a strong heritage of hunting and firearms ownership. Both have some metropolitan areas that believe they should be above state law, but they are kept in check by strong preemption and court rulings (PA has actually strengthened their preemption in recent years).Charles L. Cotton wrote:This one incident happened in a public area and involved a sheriff who overstepped his authority. The end result was correct, because it involved solely a question of law.KBCraig wrote:What, impotent fuming by the other side, while the actual law is followed?Charles L. Cotton wrote:However, we should note that the reaction of the non-carrying people at this public event is exactly what I fear would happen in Texas.
I've made it clear in other posts that I don't believe reaction to open-carry in Texas would result in significant changes to our laws. (That opinion may change in November if the Democrats make significant inroads in the Texas Legislature.)
I believe your concern is excessive. Why would Texas businesses react differently from those in other states? In the case of Home Depot and other major chains, almost all follow the Wal-Mart model: their policy is to follow the laws of the state in which the store is located. If open carry causes undue concern in a particular store, the customer may be asked to conceal (if legal), or leave. They don't ban all carry just because someone openly carries there.My concern lies with the likely response from the business community. If this incident happened in a Texas Home Depot, the parents who objected to the lady in PA carrying at a ball park would also complain to the Home Depot Manager. I am very concerned that this manager would choose to post 30.06 signs, rather than risk his store's profitability and his compensation. This would apply equally to any business whether or not they are part of a major chain. Remember, Texas CHLs make up less than 3% of the population. This means a business owner can ban guns and risk alienating 3% of the population, or he can refuse to respond to customer complaints and risk alienating the 97% of Texans who are not CHLs.