How should Open Carry be approached next time?

[SA-TX]

This may be moot and no longer correct to post in this section, but I have a go at it and Charles can correct me if appropriate.

We know there will be no open carry bill offered during this session so there is no realistic chance for any open carry -- aside from the handicapped "cannot conceal" bill -- to pass this year. The more important issue now is how to deal with it next time? I'm sure there is a wide range of opinions from "forget about it/not needed/not wanted/never gonna happen" to "I want Alaska/Vermont style no-license, carry anyway I want to".

How about this modest proposal: keep the CHL just as it is but offer an optional, additional fee and perhaps training, endorsement that would provide for open carry. For example, the legislation could provide for an additional $100 fee to be accepted and an additional two hours of training on weapon retention holsters and situational awareness. With the additional training and fee, the endorsement creates an exception to 46.035(a).

Advantages to this approach are:

1) There will be only a very limited number of legal open carriers. Even the vast majority of CHL-holders probably won't opt for it.
2) The Legislature needs money and this would be a way to raise some. It might not be much, but it would be something.
3) There is additional training around weapon retention and situational awareness.
4) It isn't a new license, or a name change to all licenses, or 2nd set of rules (like unlicensed open carry). It is still a CHL, reciprocity shouldn't be impacted, etc.
5) Since there is no name change, signage, materials, etc. would still be the same. No change to 30.06. If it is validly posted, you can't carry under the authority of your CHL, endorsement or not.

Thoughts?

SA-TX

[shootthesheet]

The problem is that if OC is associated with CHL, in any way, we will see increased negative opinions being voiced in the media and possibly a movement will grow among the general population that are ignorant about the issue. Also, I don't see any real benefit to anyone but those rich enough to buy a CHL and then pay more to be able to OC. Along with that, those that buy the "special privileges" may be hassled a lot because people may call and report "Man with a gun". With no open display of authority to carry that way, a LEO will have to check their license for that identifying information. I don't think it would happen every day because most people don't think twice about seeing an OC gun by law enforcement. But, it will and I know I would get tired of constantly having to prove I was legal.

The only way I see OC working is if it is presented to be like the car carry bill. Only completely unrestricted by government for anyone who can buy a firearm from an FFL with the background check. A return of that Second Amendment right by our wise and caring state government. The way I see it the media and a small minority of the general public are going to be vocal about anything we do. Our biggest problem is both local and state officials who have no faith in the people of this state. That is their flaw because the fact is that the law abiding are always cautious because they fear doing something wrong that will cause them to lose everything they have worked so hard for. That will cause them to seek the information they need to know about the law. And yes, the media will point out every mistake every unlicensed OC person makes. The will do the same thing if the government decides to sell this too. The cities leaders will moan and convulse about criminals carrying their guns in the open and there being nothing law enforcement about it. Same with licensed OC because no one will know if it will be successful or not. Then 10 years later, when the stats are gathered and read we will see the hype was no different than it was before CHL was proven to be successful. Besides, how many people are willing to carry a handgun openly on their person? Not many at all. Social norms prevent it for most people.

What is the greatest issue with those who do not want unlicensed OC? The best I can tell is that it is either the fear that the public will revolt or that the "wild west" will return. Well, the Wild West was never the Wild West. Neither has it been that way in other states that have unlicensed OC. Maybe, for some gun owners, it is simply fear of change or of those "extremist" that want to go too far too fast in their opinion.

What is the greatest issue with those who want unlicensed OC? Some are victims of their own righteous cause. That is they know what they are pushing is the right way and let the frustration of being bound by unconstitutional laws make them seem arrogant and unwilling to bend. I don't know if that can be changed because any compromise that lets the state have any control is more of the same. They want a right every law abiding person can practice without government control other than laws against restricted persons that already exist. That is my opinion and I would like to read more from others.

[stroo]

I won't comment on any specific proposal but instead suggest that you follow Charles advice. I have been intimately involved in several legislative efforts although not relating to carry or gun issues. In each case, it takes the kind of background work that Charles advises. It also takes time. Typically even good legislation takes 3-5 legislative cycles to pass, if it passes at all. You have to work with legislators behind the scenes to convince them of the value of your legislation, you may have to schmooze them some and it doesn't hurt to target campaign contributions. (BTW petitions generally have much less impact on legislators than campaign contributions. Sad but true.) You also have to work with the other players in the arena, like the TSRA, to at least make sure you are not stepping on their issues and thereby creating enemies. If you can convince the other player to help you, all the better.

All that said, there are hundreds of ways to kill legislation and very few ways to pass it, all of which include getting it passed by both Houses and the Governor. So stay persistent, play the game, work it smart and keep at it.

[phoneguy]

Right on to the last 2 posts

[lrb111]

How about this modest proposal: keep the CHL just as it is but offer an optional, additional fee and perhaps training, endorsement that would provide for open carry. For example, the legislation could provide for an additional $100 fee to be accepted and an additional two hours of training on weapon retention holsters and situational awareness. With the additional training and fee, the endorsement creates an exception to 46.035(a).

1. As I understand the typical OC advocate, having a fee, a background cheeck, or a class is deal killer. It's generally one or more of those three that keeps them from qualifying for a CHL. (Printing is an invalid argument in Texas.)

2. Ok, as an instructor let's say I have 8 people in a class. Two want enhanced licenses. As most instructors I have to travel to a range after classroom activities. So, I take all 8 to the range.
Travel time does not count in instruction time. So, 30 minutes to the range, 30 minutes back to the classroom for the last two hours. That just added 3 hours to what was a 11 hour day.
So, good luck on getting instructors to go along.

3. As a chl holder 30.06 is my poison. However, in all this open carry talk not once I have ever seen an OC advocate say, " Look out, if you have a CHL and you open carry. Because if you open carry and the punk in charge at the local 7-11 says, "You can't carry that in here." You Are Done... It will be criminal trespass for you to carry openly or concealed from now on in there."
Plus the smart aleck will remember you and tell everyone he knows how he dissed you.

In a nutshell trying to mix open with CHLs, is going to get met with heavy resistance from those that can foresee unintended consequences.

[roberts]

I'm starting to think it's easier to move to a pro gun state where open carry doesn't face this kind of hysteria.

[Keith B]

I'm starting to think it's easier to move to a pro gun state where open carry doesn't face this kind of hysteria.

You would have to choose very carefully. As stated many times, while open carry is legal in many states it is NOT practiced in populated areas. You may occasionally see one in a rural farming area, and MAYBE one in a small town periodically, but if you wander into a store with it on your side, you will more than likely have the police called on you. The hysteria WOULD be there if you carry in a populated region packing your 1911 on your hip.

There has NOT been another state where it was illegal and they made it legal. Current open carry states have always been legal or at least listed as illegal in the state statutes. And, in some states, cities can enact local ordinances preempting state law to make it illegal. I know it is that way in Missouri for one, but think there are others that are that way. So, I don't think you would be much happier unless you moved to a remote area in another state.

[roberts]

I don't know about other people but I don't plan to open carry downtown in Houston or Dallas or any other megacity. I want to be able to open carry when I'm hiking or whatever out in the boonies. I want to be able to open carry on a friend's property with his permission. I want to be able to intentionally remove my jacket when it's hot. I want to be able to open carry in my car sometimes.

I open carried in other states with no drama and no cop problems so I know there are places in America where they don't panick over the sight of a gun. The biggest cities were Prescott and Raleigh. Maybe they're not overrun by herds of sheeple in those places. Like I said, maybe it's easier to move to a pro gun state where open carry doesn't face that kind of hysteria.

[jimlongley]

While I probably not carry open in some places, I'm with roberts on being able to take off my jacket in a restaurant or other places when I get warm, to be able to drive with my gun out in the open, to go get the mail and be able to walk across the cul-de-sac and chat with a neighbor without having to scurry inside and grab some concealment, and the list goes on.

But I find OC as a condition of my CHL to be distasteful.

Maybe if it is the first increment in getting our true Second Amendment rights back, it might be mildly acceptable, but I think we should shoot for a full open carry similar to car carry, anyone who is able to meet the four requirements other than concealment as in car carry, is "permitted" to carry openly.

Bargain some of that away if necessary to gain the concessions necessary to achieve some sort of OC, but don't use CHL as a qualifier.

[lrb111]

It may have sounded as if I am against OC, I'm not.
It maybe an idea to key off of our motorist protection act, an extend it. But as others have noted, it will take several legislative cycles.
I just wish we were not having to back our way into it. It should have always been a given. Trying to institute it now brings up many hurdles.

[SA-TX]

I should note that the $ and additional training, if any, are merely items to start the discussion. I'm not set on any specific amount of money or training. My thinking was "how can we entice the legislature to pass a bill by overcoming the objections of the opponents?" As someone said above, money usually helps. Any change to the CHL processing that doesn't include $ will probably end up with a fiscal note due to the change in the license itself. The prosecutor/judge CHLs took a looong time to get issued due to the lead time that the vendor required. Additionally, it would require changes in the DPS computer system, a new form to be created, etc. Similarly, the additional training, if any, is designed to overcome the predictable "what if someone takes that gun away from you" argument.

I agree with the post about how this would affect CHL trainers. This is something that needs to be further thought about and discussed. I hope folks won't focus on the specifics of the proposal as much as the general intent. Please post your ideas on "how we get there from here". I have no pride in authorship and if a better suggestion is put forth, I'll be the first to sign on to it.

As far as working with Charles and TSRA, I assure you that I intend to do exactly that. Parking lot carry passing the Senate unanimously was a fantastic display of how their hard work pays off. When even Sen. West doesn't vote against it, I'm impressed. Anyone with wanting a change in gun law in Texas would be a fool to not work with the TSRA. For those who don't know, I'm a Life Member and will be making my views known but also offering my services to help the organization in any way that I can. At the risk of speaking prematurely, I LOVE the fact that we will be getting parking lot carry and campus carry and simply want us to beging to think about how to make some form of open carry one of them in the future. As one poster said, why can't we get to a point in this state where someone can take their jacket off in a restaurant? Is that really asking too much?

SA-TX

[Purplehood]

How about this modest proposal: keep the CHL just as it is but offer an optional, additional fee and perhaps training, endorsement that would provide for open carry. For example, the legislation could provide for an additional $100 fee to be accepted and an additional two hours of training on weapon retention holsters and situational awareness. With the additional training and fee, the endorsement creates an exception to 46.035(a).

1. As I understand the typical OC advocate, having a fee, a background cheeck, or a class is deal killer. It's generally one or more of those three that keeps them from qualifying for a CHL. (Printing is an invalid argument in Texas.)

2. Ok, as an instructor let's say I have 8 people in a class. Two want enhanced licenses. As most instructors I have to travel to a range after classroom activities. So, I take all 8 to the range.
Travel time does not count in instruction time. So, 30 minutes to the range, 30 minutes back to the classroom for the last two hours. That just added 3 hours to what was a 11 hour day.
So, good luck on getting instructors to go along.

3. As a chl holder 30.06 is my poison. However, in all this open carry talk not once I have ever seen an OC advocate say, " Look out, if you have a CHL and you open carry. Because if you open carry and the punk in charge at the local 7-11 says, "You can't carry that in here." You Are Done... It will be criminal trespass for you to carry openly or concealed from now on in there."
Plus the smart aleck will remember you and tell everyone he knows how he dissed you.

In a nutshell trying to mix open with CHLs, is going to get met with heavy resistance from those that can foresee unintended consequences.

Item 1: If you consider the thought of taking baby-steps to eventually get to where you want to be as acceptable, this is a rather good idea. As another poster mentioned there appear to be no states that have changed from no open-carry to open-carry.

Item 2: I don't understand this one at all. You still have to take your shooters to the range. Take a class where the range is at if it is all that big of a problem. Adjust/adapt.

Item 3: I would probably never consider open-carry into a 7-11 for soooo many reasons.

Overall, the idea of paying extra for an option to open-carry against a CHL seems like a good idea. (Yes, that was an about-face).

[Charles L. Cotton]

Okay, I'm going to break my self-imposed exile from this topic, but only this once before the end of this legislative session.

I admire the fact that you are planning how to reach your goal SA-TX, but let me offer this advice. Don't add anything extra to the licensing process; not money, not training, absolutely nothing. It's not necessary and it will only lead to more demands from opponents. Just try to get the concealment requirement found in TPC §46.035(a) repealed and try (but you will fail) to keep TPC §30.06 as applicable only to handguns carried concealed and change TPC §30.05 so that it will apply to someone openly carrying a handgun. (This results in the two sign scheme the legislature will not impose on property owners.)

If you require additional training for open-carry, then you are acknowledging that open-carry is a safety hazard and you won't like the result. You don't even want to think about weapon retention training; many CHLs could never master those techniques and we may see that incorporated into CHL training and a lot of current CHLs will fail! I have a lot of elderly people in my classes and they are not going to be able to pass a weapon retentions segment in a course, especially women.

A Texas-based, Texas-only organization must focus on PR work from now until through the 2011 session. This needs to be directed toward elected officials and the general public. This takes members and money, all the Internet banter and good intentions won't help one bit. 60,000 "signatures" on an Internet petition and a $25,000 ad campaign couldn't even get a bill introduced, much less passed. All it did was generate a lot of dissension among gun owners, false hope in those signed the petition and ultimately nasty calls to Rep. Riddle's office. I'm not trying to be negative, just realistic. If you want to do this, start the organization now and see how many members you get and how much money you can collect. If you get too little of either, then don't waste your time.

Chas.

Edited to add: Don't think that parking lots or, especially, campus-carry are done deals. Watch the hearing today in the House Public Safety Committee and want the show. http://www.house.state.tx.us/media/welcome.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[MBGuy]

I'm going to agree with Charles on the keep-it-simple idea. The more complex it is, the more snags there are for the anti-gunners to pull on.

One thing that, IIRC, was mentioned a while back was that the TSRA does what it's members want it to do. If the TSRA is already politically saavy in Austin, what if all of us pro-OC'ers join the TSRA then tell them that we want to have OC legalized, and let them use their expertise in Austin to get it done? They're effective, they've done a great job, and they're accessible, what more do we want?

[The Annoyed Man]

Maybe they're not overrun by herds of sheeple in those places.

I understand the belief that large numbers of people tend to react mindlessly to the presence of firearms in their midst, and you are correct on that point, but if I could offer one little bit of advice. . . .

. . . .stop using the word "sheeple." I'm not offended; I'm a sheepdog, myself. But sooner or later you have to confront - and sway - people who disagree with you on this issue. Your goal should be to persuade them, not to alienate them. "Sheeple" is a term of condescension, and if you want to get people to see things your way, condescending to them is not a very good way to go about it.

Just my 2¢. . . . .

Other than that, my advice to OC advocates would be to recommend patience. As someone wrote above, the legislative process is never about instant and perfect gratification. It can take years. Even the current state of CHL law today was arrived at incrementally; and it continues to change incrementally. For whatever limited value my opinion holds, it is apparent to me that the current state of CHL law was arrived at, and continues to be improved upon, by wise heads who fully understand the legislative process as it exists in Texas, and not some other state. The main thing that firebrands are useful for is starting fires and burning things down. They can ruin years of good work by refusing to understand and cooperate with the process, and they just wind up ticking a lot of people off whose support is necessary to the cause. Nobody likes a bully, and OC supporters should understand that they are not going to gain support by trying to bully people who have been at this game longer than they have.

That being said, I hope we do eventually get open carry here. For me personally, it's not so much that I want to carry in the open, but that open carry would simplify my life for some of the reasons others have stated above. BUT. . . . I don't care about OC enough to put the rights I already have at risk in order to obtain it. That is why I cannot support OC advocates who are willing to burn things down and destroy the good work of others in order to obtain a short-sighted and pyrrhic victory.