TSRA and open carry - Split from NRA and open carry

[SA-TX]

My point is that just because no one has been convicted does not mean we have nothing to worry about. Getting arrested, having to make bail, and having to hire an attorney is plenty enough of a loss of freedom to be very very worried about, even if there is no conviction.

But you cannot document CHLs being "arrested, having to make bail, and having to hire an attorney." What you have admitted is that people who are carrying openly in states were it is legal are "being arrested and harassed[!]" So you tell us to support open-carry that, by your own admission, has resulted in "arrest[s] and harass[ment]" to avoid the threat of being arrested for "unintentional failure to conceal," a risk you have repeatedly failed to document.

Now there's a plan!

Chas.

The "failure to conceal" argument is weak when framed this way. IMHO, there are two strong arguments for open carry one of which is philosophical and one of which is practical.

The philosophical one is that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to "keep and bear arms". Charles has pointed out many times that Heller was a "keep" case which is true. He and others have also noted that the opinion did mention that the Court assumed without deciding that restrictions on concealed carry were presumptively permissible. I'm not a lawyer, but if the regulation of carrying concealed is a permissible restriction on the base right, what is the base right itself? That is, what ability to "bear arms" is the irreducible minimum beyond which government cannot regulate? Perhaps the SCOTUS will find that all carry can be regulated to some degree without "infringment" but perhaps it will find that open carry is what the founder's sought to protect. Regardless of what the Court may untimately do, many people believe that 2A protects some form of gun carry in public, that the 2A should be incorporated against the states, and that we should be able to exercise the liberty that was assured to us and our posterity. In short, those that support the 2A should do so in a way that places the minimum number of restrictions on liberty while maintaining law and order and since open carry hasn't been shown the endanger the peace, it should be allowed.

The practical issue is that it is hot in Texas for much of the year and it would be more convenient not be legally required to conceal our handgun. This is the simple, winning argument that should be trumpeted. AZ, CA, NV, NM, LA, AL, MS, GA are all generally warm-weather states. They all allow some form of open carry. In fact, the only southern border states that do NOT allow open carry are Texas and Florida. Why would we have wild-west mayhem if it isn't occurring there? Notice that this argument looks to LOGIC not EMOTION. Examine the EVIDANCE. Open carry simply doesn't cause unlawful activity and I challenge the opponants to document where it has. Only from the comfort perspective should printing/accidental revealing be discussed. Regarless of the state of the law now, open carry would allow the exercise of 2A rights with a greater degree of comfort that is enjoyed today. Why should Texans suffer under restrictions that give no benefit but add considerable a considerable burden?

As to the reports of open carriers being hassled/detained/arrested in states where open carry is legal, this shouldn't be a criticism of open carry or the law abiding citizen but of the police and prosecutors who were ignorant or dismissive of the laws they are sworn to uphold. Yes, open carry creates the potential for man-with-a-gun calls. In our society today, people call 911 when their hamburger isn't made to their specification. They use it as an outlet to complain about all sorts of non-criminal activity. There are remedies, however. For those that abuse the system, there are criminal charges. For man-with-a-gun calls in states where it is legal, 911 operators could be trained to ask important questions, as they do in medical emergencies. Such as "Where is gun? What is the person doing?" If the answers are "In a holster on his hip" and "Shopping in the same grocery store I'm in" the operator should inform the person that nothing illegal is going on and to call back if the situation changes. Legal activity is legal activity.

Charles, I do not want to rob Peter to pay Paul. I want it all. I want the minimum number of restrictions necessary given that this is a fundamental right. I would love to see the 2A evaluated like the 1A: you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre but the government must convincingly justify the limitations. Restrictions are only allowed to the extent that they advance a compelling government interest, are narrowly tailored, etc. There is a ton of case law that has defined the scrutiny levels over the years so it shouldn't need to be fully relitigated. Sure, it won't happen this way, but why shouldn't it? Flag burning and nude dancing can't be banned but open (or concealed) carry can be?

SA-TX

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles, I do not want to rob Peter to pay Paul. I want it all. I want the minimum number of restrictions necessary given that this is a fundamental right. I would love to see the 2A evaluated like the 1A: you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre but the government must convincingly justify the limitations. Restrictions are only allowed to the extent that they advance a compelling government interest, are narrowly tailored, etc. There is a ton of case law that has defined the scrutiny levels over the years so it shouldn't need to be fully relitigated. Sure, it won't happen this way, but why shouldn't it? Flag burning and nude dancing can't be banned but open (or concealed) carry can be?

SA-TX

I know I'm starting to sound like I have more reasons for being opposed to open-carry, but that's not the case. My opposition is based solely on the backlash and increased 30.06 signs I believe we will see. None of the other issues related to open-carry matter to me, since it would be a matter of personal choice.

I'm just growing weary of the unfounded scare tactics some people are using. The real irony is that doing so hurts credibility of the open-carry movement.

Chas.

[HGWC]

It has nothing to do with "unintentional failure to conceal." It's a story, if true, of a LEO and a prosecutor who didn't know the statutory definition of "premises" as it applies to school grounds. This is no more relevant to "unintentional failure to conceal" than a warrant raid against the wrong house, an unfounded arrest for drug possession, or any other mistake a LEO can make.

Both of those stories demonstrate that LEO's and DAs are just as likely to not know or care about the statutory definition of "intentional" any more than they know or care about the definition of "premises." These stories demonstrate the fact that some LEOs and DAs are inclined to arrest and charge any man with a gun. This law just gives them one more excuse to do so. No, deleting this one law won't stop them, but it's one step in the right direction.

With 55,000 "signatures" on the OpenCarry.org petition, radio ads, billboards, TV, radio and newspaper interviews and thousands of posts on Internet forums, not one person claiming to have been wrongfully arrested has come forward or identified. This speaks volumes, whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not.

Not one person has come forward and made you aware? Therefore, it hasn't happened? Therefore it can't happen? Therefore we have nothing to worry about? It doesn't follow. It's a non-sequitur. I don't have to prove the negative to demonstrate that.

[Keith B]

Not one person has come forward and made you aware? Therefore, it hasn't happened? Therefore it can't happen? Therefore we have nothing to worry about? It doesn't follow. It's a non-sequitur. I don't have to prove the negative to demonstrate that.

So if you claim that little green men are going to come down from Mars and take everyone back to their planet for scientific experiments I am supposed to believe you because you say it could happen? Not buying it. Paranoia is something that needs to not be heeded.

We have real accounts of people accidentally exposing their weapons in front of police officers and NOT being harassed or arrested. Those accounts are here in the forum. I am from the Show-Me state; until you can show me ones that HAVE been harassed or arrested, I don't believe it is gonna happen.

[HGWC]

So if you claim that little green men are going to come down from Mars and take everyone back to their planet for scientific experiments I am supposed to believe you because you say it could happen? Not buying it. Paranoia is something that needs to not be heeded.

I suppose if one fallacy doesn't succeed, try try again. Poisoning the well and strawman doesn't really help your case any more than non-sequitor. Here's a statement I received in email from Opencarry.org recently.

"Open carry also helps to protect CHL holders from wrongful arrest if their firearm becomes exposed."

This is a bit closer to my point of view than your little green martian strawman. Note that it doesn't claim anywhere that there's a mass of wrongful arrests and convictions. It doesn't claim that there have been any arrests or convictions. It points out that there is a risk of wrongful arrest. It doesn't claim that there's a great risk of arrest, just that there is a risk. It also doesn't claim to eliminate that same risk under other gun control laws. I don't need to prove that there has been a single arrest against this particular law to demonstrate that there is a risk. I don't need to demonstrate a single case of false arrest against the homicide laws to demonstrate that there is a risk of false arrest with that law. The difference is that the homicide laws are necessary and our jeopardy to false arrest under that law is a necessary evil if we want to outlaw homicide. The gun control laws are not necessary, and our jeopardy to false arrest is unjustified regardless of probability. On that basis, I support any effort to lobby the legislature to repeal this law.

We have real accounts of people accidentally exposing their weapons in front of police officers and NOT being harassed or arrested. Those accounts are here in the forum. I am from the Show-Me state; until you can show me ones that HAVE been harassed or arrested, I don't believe it is gonna happen.

This on the other hand is a hard claim you and Charles are making. You're claiming that:

1 because of your interpretation of the law
2 because of you being unaware of any false arrests, harassment, or convictions
3 because of a hasty generalization about some LEOs reaction

We have nothing to worry about. There is no risk.

That's a non-sequitor. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

[Keith B]

I suppose if one fallacy doesn't succeed, try try again. Poisoning the well and strawman doesn't really help your case any more than non-sequitor. Here's a statement I received in email from Opencarry.org recently.

"Open carry also helps to protect CHL holders from wrongful arrest if their firearm becomes exposed."

This is a bit closer to my point of view than your little green martian strawman. Note that it doesn't claim anywhere that there's a mass of wrongful arrests and convictions. It doesn't claim that there have been any arrests or convictions. It points out that there is a risk of wrongful arrest. It doesn't claim that there's a great risk of arrest, just that there is a risk. It also doesn't claim to eliminate that same risk under other gun control laws. I don't need to prove that there has been a single arrest against this particular law to demonstrate that there is a risk. I don't need to demonstrate a single case of false arrest against the homicide laws to demonstrate that there is a risk of false arrest with that law. The difference is that the homicide laws are necessary and our jeopardy to false arrest under that law is a necessary evil if we want to outlaw homicide. The gun control laws are not necessary, and our jeopardy to false arrest is unjustified regardless of probability. On that basis, I support any effort to lobby the legislature to repeal this law.

We have real accounts of people accidentally exposing their weapons in front of police officers and NOT being harassed or arrested. Those accounts are here in the forum. I am from the Show-Me state; until you can show me ones that HAVE been harassed or arrested, I don't believe it is gonna happen.

This on the other hand is a hard claim you and Charles are making. You're claiming that:

1 because of your interpretation of the law
2 because of you being unaware of any false arrests, harassment, or convictions
3 because of a hasty generalization about some LEOs reaction

We have nothing to worry about. There is no risk.

That's a non-sequitor. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

Which you have now circled right back around to my previous post here Subject: TSRA and open carry - Split from NRA and open carry

Open carry will NOT protect someone from being arrested for exposing a handgun. I think it will actually make it worse by opening the other potentials of being more readily charged with 'brandishing' or 'displaying a weapon in a threatening manner'.

Several years ago I was a LEO in Missouri where open carry has always been legal unless restricted by municipal ordinances. While I was part of the department, I personally am aware of two instances where open carrying started legally, but got the individuals arrested for displaying a weapon in a threatening manner when they got into verbal arguments with another individual. Neither one ever threatened to use the handgun, but just the presence of it in view during the altercation was enough to charge them legally.

There is also a very recent case (within the last year and a half) where the individual was in a grocery store, and a man with a gun call was placed BY THE STORE. The police arrived and asked him to leave because he was disturbing the other patrons. He started moving away from them saying 'It's my gun, you can't have it'. They ended up casing him all over the store. While he had not been breaking any laws, the store wanted him out. The officers finally convinced him to leave and not come back or they would arrest him for criminal trespass.

So, bottom line, while I will submit it is possible for false arrest to happen for ANYTHING, the mere fact that open carry will help is, IMO, a complete fallacy.

[Conagher]

Charles, I do not want to rob Peter to pay Paul. I want it all. I want the minimum number of restrictions necessary given that this is a fundamental right. I would love to see the 2A evaluated like the 1A: you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre but the government must convincingly justify the limitations. Restrictions are only allowed to the extent that they advance a compelling government interest, are narrowly tailored, etc. There is a ton of case law that has defined the scrutiny levels over the years so it shouldn't need to be fully relitigated. Sure, it won't happen this way, but why shouldn't it? Flag burning and nude dancing can't be banned but open (or concealed) carry can be?

SA-TX

I know I'm starting to sound like I have more reasons for being opposed to open-carry, but that's not the case. My opposition is based solely on the backlash and increased 30.06 signs I believe we will see. None of the other issues related to open-carry matter to me, since it would be a matter of personal choice.

I'm just growing weary of the unfounded scare tactics some people are using. The real irony is that doing so hurts credibility of the open-carry movement.

Chas.

Chas.

With all due respect, and in the vein of fairness could one also consider "backlash and increased 30.06 signs" an "unfounded scare tactic"?

Thanks and have a nice day!

[Skiprr]

With all due respect, and in the vein of fairness could one also consider "backlash and increased 30.06 signs" an "unfounded scare tactic"?

That right there is funny. I don't care who you are.

Charles clearly stated a singular, personal opinion. He said:

My opposition is based solely on the backlash and increased 30.06 signs I believe we will see.

I agree with him.

Charles denotes when a stated opinion is his alone. He stands up to what he says.

As for why his opinion might be pertinent, have any of you guys visited the Project One Million Texas link that appears under many Forum members' signatures? The self-effacing bio he posts there only scratches the surface of his work for 2A advocacy.

You're pickin' on one of maybe a half-dozen people who have done the most for Texas RKBA, year in and year out, for almost 30 years.

To support my right to carry in Texas, you can give me one Charles Cotton, or you can give me 55,000 OCDO petitioners.

I'll go with Charles Cotton.


And HGWC: Sorry, but this one is positively killin'. It's the purist in me.

It isn't "non-sequitor," it is "non sequitur." No hyphen needed in any usage, and it's a "u," not an "o." It's Latin, pure and simple.

Gettin' it correct helps people respect your message.

[HGWC]

So, bottom line, while I will submit it is possible for false arrest to happen for ANYTHING, the mere fact that open carry will help is, IMO, a complete fallacy.

That's true. Changing this one law won't eliminate the risk of being harassed and falsely arrested for possessing a handgun in public. It will make it less likely to be falsely arrested and charged under this particular law. It's one more infringement off the books. That's all the reason I need.

[Purplehood]

I don't need to prove that there has been a single arrest against this particular law to demonstrate that there is a risk.

There is a risk of my pistol growing daisies out of the chamber and levitating, but I am not highly concerned about it.

[HGWC]

The philosophical one is that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the right to "keep and bear arms".

Let's not forget that our right to keep and bear arms is protected by our state constitution. Our constitution was amended in 1876 to repeal the power given to the legislature in 1868 to prohibit bearing of arms in public. They were restricted to regulating the wearing of arms not the prohibition of bearing whole classes of the most popular weapons for self defense.

[HGWC]

There is a risk of my pistol growing daisies out of the chamber and levitating, but I am not highly concerned about it.

Many people feel the risk of carrying a concealed handgun, regardless of any laws, has about as low a risk as that. Should we then just drop all this?

[Keith B]

So, bottom line, while I will submit it is possible for false arrest to happen for ANYTHING, the mere fact that open carry will help is, IMO, a complete fallacy.

That's true. Changing this one law won't eliminate the risk of being harassed and falsely arrested for possessing a handgun in public. It will make it less likely to be falsely arrested and charged under this particular law. It's one more infringement off the books. That's all the reason I need.

One more off the books, and at least one more for the books. I am almost sure 'Brandishing' or 'Displaying a weapon in a threatening manner 'will be added as a charge. Most open carry states I am aware of have this law.

However, I really think we are arguing a moot point since it is very doubtful that open carry will pass if even if filed.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Not one person has come forward and made you aware? Therefore, it hasn't happened? Therefore it can't happen? Therefore we have nothing to worry about? It doesn't follow. It's a non-sequitur. I don't have to prove the negative to demonstrate that.

I've been asking you to identify one for all of us and you haven't done so because you can't. Your claim is bogus and I sincerely hope you keep saying it. You are destroying the credibility of your open-carry position. Constantly crying wolf like Sarah Brady does will do more to scuttle your open-carry campaign than will any outside opposition.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles, I do not want to rob Peter to pay Paul. I want it all. I want the minimum number of restrictions necessary given that this is a fundamental right. I would love to see the 2A evaluated like the 1A: you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre but the government must convincingly justify the limitations. Restrictions are only allowed to the extent that they advance a compelling government interest, are narrowly tailored, etc. There is a ton of case law that has defined the scrutiny levels over the years so it shouldn't need to be fully relitigated. Sure, it won't happen this way, but why shouldn't it? Flag burning and nude dancing can't be banned but open (or concealed) carry can be?

SA-TX

I know I'm starting to sound like I have more reasons for being opposed to open-carry, but that's not the case. My opposition is based solely on the backlash and increased 30.06 signs I believe we will see. None of the other issues related to open-carry matter to me, since it would be a matter of personal choice.

I'm just growing weary of the unfounded scare tactics some people are using. The real irony is that doing so hurts credibility of the open-carry movement.

Chas.

Chas.

With all due respect, and in the vein of fairness could one also consider "backlash and increased 30.06 signs" an "unfounded scare tactic"?

Thanks and have a nice day!

Not in view of what happened in Texas from 1995 until 1997 when TPC §30.06 was passed. For three years, the media-induced fear and panic resulted in small "no gun" signs and decals popping up on stores and businesses all over the state. This forced us to change the law in 1997 to establish TPC §30.06. The now famous 30.06 sign was intentionally specified to be a "big ugly sign" that few people would want to post. It has proven to be just that.

So there is concrete proof that a backlash to citizen-carry in Texas has occurred as recently as the 1995-1997 time frame. This is a reasonable predictor as to how the non-carrying public is going to respond if they see people openly-carrying handguns. But HGWC has not been able to identify one single CHL arrested and/or charged with unintentionally failing to conceal in the 14 years since CHL passed in Texas. Even you have admitted that the "unintentional failure to conceal" is a very weak argument.

Chas.

Here is one of my posts in response to yours in this earlier thread on open-carry http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... 1997+30.06" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The history I feel is of value is Texas history, not the history of other states that OpenCarry.org wants to use as an indication of the response in Texas. Even without seeing a single gun, there was a near panic when CHL passed in 1995. It was so bad that clear "no guns" decals were popping up everywhere and we had to pass a bill in 1997 establishing the "big ugly sign" (30.06 signs) to stem the tide. Does this mean a similar response to open-carry will occur? Of course not. But I believe it is a better predictor than the reaction of people in rural PA or AZ.