Open-Carry: Pro/Con - Split from "Still No Open Carry Bill

[Douva]

AEA...you said it so perfect and made it so simple. I agree with that logic totally. Just wish everyone else did too.

History's most horrific mistakes and egregious injustices have been perpetuated by those who sought and those who offered simple solutions to complex problems. The questions surrounding right-to-carry are complex. To propose less-than-complex answers to those questions is dangerous.

[CHLSteve]

History's most horrific mistakes and egregious injustices have been perpetuated by those who sought and those who offered simple solutions to complex problems. The questions surrounding right-to-carry are complex. To propose less-than-complex answers to those questions is dangerous.

OK, not that's just off the wall. You are taking his "simple" comment out of context because the poster was only conveying that Chas had a way of making a complex problem easier to understand, NOT that Chas had a simple solution.

Secondly, if you are really saying that the failure to pass OC will somehow result in one of history's "most horrific mistakes and egregious injustices" then that's just hogwash. OC is a Bad Idea(tm) and Chas has outlined some very real reasons on why. Unfortunately, the OC crowd fails to see the forest for the trees. If they get their way, I think it will end up spoiling it for the rest of us. The only bright side in all this is that no one seems to be taking them seriously this session.

[Douva]

History's most horrific mistakes and egregious injustices have been perpetuated by those who sought and those who offered simple solutions to complex problems. The questions surrounding right-to-carry are complex. To propose less-than-complex answers to those questions is dangerous.

OK, not that's just off the wall. You are taking his "simple" comment out of context because the poster was only conveying that Chas had a way of making a complex problem easier to understand, NOT that Chas had a simple solution.

Secondly, if you are really saying that the failure to pass OC will somehow result in one of history's "most horrific mistakes and egregious injustices" then that's just hogwash. OC is a Bad Idea(tm) and Chas has outlined some very real reasons on why. Unfortunately, the OC crowd fails to see the forest for the trees. If they get their way, I think it will end up spoiling it for the rest of us. The only bright side in all this is that no one seems to be taking them seriously this session.

I did not take his comment out of context. He was not responding to Chas; he was responding to AEA, who said:

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.......

Your interpretation of my comment is what is "off the wall." I suggested a historical argument for not succumbing to the temptation to look for simple solutions to this complex problem, and you interpreted that as a suggestion that "the failure to pass OC will somehow result in one of history's 'most horrific mistakes and egregious injustices.'"

Perhaps I should have known better than to make a philosophical argument on an Internet message board, but I'm typically not inclined to dumb down my statements, even when I know they may be a bit over the heads of some in my target audience.

[CHLSteve]

Yes, you should have known better. Leave us simpletons to our misery.

You know, I did say "if". You can simply say, "No, that's not what I meant" instead of adopting a condescending attitude and writing anyone off who doesn't interpret your post how you intended it. That's part of posting on a forum where we can't have a face to face conversation.

(PS--can I use a rolleyes here?)

[Douva]

Yes, you should have known better. Leave us simpletons to our misery.

You know, I did say "if". You can simply say, "No, that's not what I meant" instead of adopting a condescending attitude and writing anyone off who doesn't interpret your post how you intended it. That's part of posting on a forum where we can't have a face to face conversation.

(PS--can I use a rolleyes here?)

I apologize for taking such a condescending tone in my response. You are correct that it is very easy to misinterpret things on an Internet message board.

[CHLSteve]

Apology accepted! I apologize for misunderstanding your post. Let's move back to the topic at hand.

[Right2Carry]

I find the following very encouraging.

Gov. Rick Perry supports, at least in concept, both the open carry and the campus gun proposals but is awaiting details, spokesman Mark Miner said.

Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, who as a state senator sponsored the concealed handgun law in 1995, said he also supports the two proposals.

"Is an openly carried gun more dangerous than a concealed one? I don't think so," Patterson said.

"Whether it's a shopping mall, a college campus or just on the street, if a person is 21 and licensed (to carry a firearm), what difference does it make?" he asked.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/edi ... 94141.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Charles L. Cotton]

Thanks for the link to the Houston Chronicle article. I think Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson's comment is indicative of my belief that the vast majority of people do not realize OpenCarry.org is seeking unlicensed open-carry. Look at both of Commissioner Patterson's statements about open-carry:

"Is an openly carried gun more dangerous than a concealed one? I don't think so," Patterson said.

"Whether it's a shopping mall, a college campus or just on the street, if a person is 21 and licensed (to carry a firearm), what difference does it make?" he asked.

Whenever one is campaigning for something, it is critical that the message be clear. If people supporting open-carry are doing so believing the goal is merely to repeal the requirement that a CHL conceal his/her handgun, they are going to be very surprised and upset when called upon to vote for unlicensed open-carry. The message must be more clear to both the public and the Legislature. We have a lot of new people in Austin this session and we're going to have a new Speaker of the House. All to often, every person and every organization supporting pro-gun legislation are lumped together as "the gun lobby" as though it is a single entity. The last thing we need is for them to get the feeling that "the bun lobby" are trying to pull a fast one on open-carry, and then distrust everything else that's related to guns.

Chas.

[Captain Matt]

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.

[DONT TREAD ON ME]

I dont agree with licensing to carry I believe it takes away from the 2A. However its what we have and I am not gonna complain about it. It could be worse. I think it would be great that if you took the CHL course and you had a CHL that you would be able to CHOOSE your carry method. Be it concealed or open.

[SA-TX]

The last thing we need is for them to get the feeling that "the bun lobby" (sic) are trying to pull a fast one on open-carry, and then distrust everything else that's related to guns.

Chas.

Charles, I agree that supporters of open carry and OpenCarry.org -- of which I am both -- need to be clear about our objectives. Unlicensed open carry is the ideal, but nearly all supporters will compromise to licensed open carry if that is all that we can get. The point it to not compromise unless and until we have to. You've been such a successful legislative advocate exactly because you start strong (verbal AND written notice, for example) and then bargain downward.

As for the historical differences that you pointed to earlier in the thread, I must say that I doubt that the experiences in Pennsylvania or Virginia are much different than Texas. It is true that it has always been legal to open carry there, but as you point out, it is not at all common. Most urban residents in those states have rarely or never seen anyone open carrying. Most rural residents probably haven't seen it much either, but they are comfortable with the concept of guns and are more used to seeing long guns due to hunting. Both of these seem to hold true for Texans.

As you say, let's use history as a guide. I predict that if we get open carry (licensed or not), very few will practice it. It will still be VERY unusual and most folks won't have any cause to freak out and call their legislator demanding change. Much like the blood not running in the streets when the CHL bill was passed, after the news stories about the novelty of it are done, soccer moms are not very likely to encounter an open carrier in their local mall.

The experiences in open carry states also show that even when someone DOES open carry, few notice. From lethermen, to cell phones, to fanny packs, to belt buckles, so many items are now adorning our waist area that a gun just doesn't stick out. This combined with people being on their cell phone or otherwise not too aware about things in their immediate environment mean not many MWAG calls. Further, those that DO see the gun are likely to think you are an LEO. In summary, open carry just doesn't cause many problems and the news coverage of the soccer mom incident in PA demonstrates that by its news-worthiness. According to Ms. Hain, she carries her G26 openly EVERYWHERE and has for some time but only now has there been an incident.

Your posts about the tactics of the legislative process, germaneness, and not wanting to jeopardize what we have with 30.06 carry great weight with me. Thus, I hope you will provide whatever assistance you can to those leading the effort to ensure that such concerns are dealt with.

For example, regarding 30.06 signs and open carry, could a section 30.07 be added (so as to not open up 30.06 to amendment) that says a business owner wishing to keep out those carrying handguns concealed or openly may adopt the following sign which encorporates the elements of 30.06 but with language added. Thus, no changes to 30.06 nor any references to 30.06 need to be changed.

Regarding your view about legislation changing several sections rather than just simply adding "concealed" in TPC 46.02 seems to lead to different off-limits places for unlicensed open carry. All of the preemption wouldn't apply unless the open carrier also had a CHL. It is imperative that CC and OC have an equal footing -- either you can carry somewhere or you cannot. The Virginia situation of open-carry only in places that serve alcohol, for example, is definitely to be avoided. This is the reason for the complex legislation.

Setting aside open carry for a minute, are there other resticted places that may get opened up in 2009 besides college campuses? The "court office" item along with "building or part of a building" has been abused and I know that you, more than anyone else, would like to get that rectified. What about polling places? Sporting events?

Thanks, SA-TX

[Douva]

As for the historical differences that you pointed to earlier in the thread, I must say that I doubt that the experiences in Pennsylvania or Virginia are much different than Texas. It is true that it has always been legal to open carry there, but as you point out, it is not at all common. Most urban residents in those states have rarely or never seen anyone open carrying. Most rural residents probably haven't seen it much either, but they are comfortable with the concept of guns and are more used to seeing long guns due to hunting. Both of these seem to hold true for Texans.

The big difference is that Pennsylvania and Virginia have, to the best of my knowledge, never had a lengthy, heated, well-publicized legislative battle over the merits and pitfalls of open carry. Pennsylvania and Virginia haven't had the issue brought to the public's attention by every local and state news agency (and most likely, a few national news agencies) simultaneously.

The experiences in open carry states also show that even when someone DOES open carry, few notice. From lethermen, to cell phones, to fanny packs, to belt buckles, so many items are now adorning our waist area that a gun just doesn't stick out. This combined with people being on their cell phone or otherwise not too aware about things in their immediate environment mean not many MWAG calls. Further, those that DO see the gun are likely to think you are an LEO. In summary, open carry just doesn't cause many problems and the news coverage of the soccer mom incident in PA demonstrates that by its news-worthiness. According to Ms. Hain, she carries her G26 openly EVERYWHERE and has for some time but only now has there been an incident.

"Few" is a relative term. Whatever the number of people who notice open carry, it will be exponentially higher than the number of people who notice concealed carry. Run a Google search for stories of police being called in response to legal open carry; then run a Google search for stories of people being called in response to legal concealed carry. Considering how many more individuals carry concealed, open carry's track record for not upsetting the general public is relatively poor, compared to that of concealed carry.

And personally, I don't think that relying on the "people will just think you're a cop" mentality is a smart strategy, especially since plain-clothes police officers are not allowed to open carry in the state of Texas (it's not something people are used to seeing).

For example, regarding 30.06 signs and open carry, could a section 30.07 be added (so as to not open up 30.06 to amendment) that says a business owner wishing to keep out those carrying handguns concealed or openly may adopt the following sign which encorporates the elements of 30.06 but with language added. Thus, no changes to 30.06 nor any references to 30.06 need to be changed.

Charles has already explained why the Texas Legislature is unlikely to pass a provision for dual signage.

[jimlongley]

The experiences in open carry states also show that even when someone DOES open carry, few notice. From lethermen, to cell phones, to fanny packs, to belt buckles, so many items are now adorning our waist area that a gun just doesn't stick out. This combined with people being on their cell phone or otherwise not too aware about things in their immediate environment mean not many MWAG calls. Further, those that DO see the gun are likely to think you are an LEO. In summary, open carry just doesn't cause many problems and the news coverage of the soccer mom incident in PA demonstrates that by its news-worthiness. According to Ms. Hain, she carries her G26 openly EVERYWHERE and has for some time but only now has there been an incident.

"Few" is a relative term. Whatever the number of people who notice open carry, it will be exponentially higher than the number of people who notice concealed carry. Run a Google search for stories of police being called in response to legal open carry; then run a Google search for stories of people being called in response to legal concealed carry. Considering how many more individuals carry concealed, open carry's track record for not upsetting the general public is relatively poor, compared to that of concealed carry.

And personally, I don't think that relying on the "people will just think you're a cop" mentality is a smart strategy, especially since plain-clothes police officers are not allowed to open carry in the state of Texas (it's not something people are used to seeing).

For example, regarding 30.06 signs and open carry, could a section 30.07 be added (so as to not open up 30.06 to amendment) that says a business owner wishing to keep out those carrying handguns concealed or openly may adopt the following sign which encorporates the elements of 30.06 but with language added. Thus, no changes to 30.06 nor any references to 30.06 need to be changed.

Charles has already explained why the Texas Legislature is unlikely to pass a provision for dual signage.

My nephew used to call me "Batman" for all the stuff I carried on my belt, and you're right that a lot of people do carry a confusing array that might obfuscate the presence of a gun, but there are enough of us who search for guns that it will be noticed.

I was not aware that OC is not allowed for plain clothes cops, and someone must have forgotten to tell those that I see on an almost daily basis, have you got a citation for this?

[Liberty]

And personally, I don't think that relying on the "people will just think you're a cop" mentality is a smart strategy, especially since plain-clothes police officers are not allowed to open carry in the state of Texas (it's not something people are used to seeing).

Douva, I don't remember if you are in Texas or not. But I regularly see lots of LEO types in plain clothes who open carry. Some might be those elected as Contables, Sheriffs, also fire marshalls tend not to wear uniforms. I work in Baytown, they have a good sized acadamy, and I am always seeing students open carrying in civilian clothes, when I go out to lunch. No one ever seems to get alarmed, Of course most LEOs that I see are typically 40+ dressed business casual, clean cut and not behaving suspiciously.

[gmckinl]

I too have seen several plain-clothes LEOs openly carrying. A month or so ago, one was at the next table to me munching on his lunch while I was concealed and chowing down on mine.