Open Carry?

[chabouk]

I think the worry about OC causing new signs to go up is overblown, for the simple reason that there's been a big public shift in opinion about guns since 1996. Most people at least know someone who carries regularly, even if only unlicensed car carry.

If OC were legalized, 30.06 as currently written wouldn't apply, because it specifies "concealed handgun". Gunbusters signs might apply to a non-CHL, if they were deemed to be "sufficient notice". Non-CHLs would run the same risk of missing a small "no guns" sign and being charged with criminal trespass while armed, which is a Class A misdemeanor, that CHLs faced the first two years of the program.

30.06 could be modified to include OC (which wouldn't be good for CHLs carrying concealed), or it could be left alone and a new trespass notice created for OC.

My preference (aside from completely deleting PC Chapter 46): Change 46.02 to specify that it's an offense to carry a concealed handgun without a license; and, modify 30.05 so that trespass while armed is not an enhanced penalty. (Since there's nothing lower than Class C misdemeanor, perhaps specify a maximum penalty of a $25 fine.)

[casingpoint]

Yes, Coastie, they're all gone according to yahoo! yellow pages-Youngbloods, Martins BBQ, Ralphs Pizza, Kountry Kitchen. Replaced, no doubt, by the likes of Chilis, Outback, Dominos, Burger King, ad nauseum. There's still some doubt left, however. Doubt about the food. Back in the day, you knew where the beef was.

[57Coastie]

Yes, Coastie, they're all gone according to yahoo! yellow pages-Youngbloods, Martins BBQ, Ralphs Pizza, Kountry Kitchen. Replaced, no doubt, by the likes of Chilis, Outback, Dominos, Burger King, ad nauseum. There's still some doubt left, however. Doubt about the food. Back in the day, you knew where the beef was.

I think it may be a mark of the times, casingpoint. When my 3 sons were Aggies, back in the '80s, the students drove pick-em-ups to get a Shiner Bock at the Chicken. Today they drive BMWs to get their latte at Starbucks.

Jim

[frazzled]

I think the worry about OC causing new signs to go up is overblown, for the simple reason that there's been a big public shift in opinion about guns since 1996. Most people at least know someone who carries regularly, even if only unlicensed car carry.

Frankly I don't believe that. I think every Tom, Dick, and Harry store would put up a "no guns" sign and my ability to carry would be substantiallymore limited than now.

[RPB]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wouldn't "open carry" intentionally for tactical/security reasons, but I'd like "open carry" passed just in case I get a box of cereal from the top shelf at a grocery store and discover that "my slip is showing"

[Keith B]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wouldn't "open carry" intentionally for tactical/security reasons, but I'd like "open carry" passed just in case I get a box of cereal from the top shelf at a grocery store and discover that "my slip is showing"

That is not illegal. It must be an intentional unconcelament to deem you were in violation of the law.

And as others have said, it will lead to a very real awareness of handgun carry and businesses restricting carry.

[Oldgringo]

"Keith B"

And as others have said, it will lead to a very real awareness of handgun carry and businesses restricting carry

Gentlefolk,

In our experience as CH licensees and our RV travels across the country the past four summers and fall, people don't OC where it's legal that we've seen...for various reasons. By the same token, we've not seen a whole lot of "gunbuster" or other "no-gun" notices in these OC states either.

I'm not sayin' OC is not good or evil, I'm just sayin'...I dunno'.

[Keith B]

"Keith B"

And as others have said, it will lead to a very real awareness of handgun carry and businesses restricting carry

Gentlefolk,

In our experience as CH licensees and our RV travels across the country the past four summers and fall, people don't OC where it's legal that we've seen...for various reasons. By the same token, we've not seen a whole lot of "gunbuster" or other "no-gun" notices in these OC states either.

I'm not sayin' OC is not good or evil, I'm just sayin'...I dunno'.

The difference is the places where open carry is currently legal have ALWAYS been legal (unless outlawed by municipal ordinances.) I came from Missouri where it is like this. So, since it has always been legal and no one carries,

What would happen in reversing the law here would be the media will splash it all over and everyone would start scrambling to prevent this from happening. I also would see the no-preemption clause being removed and the state would allow municipalities to outlaw open carry if they deemed necessary, so most places would jump on the band wagon and put it in their ordinances. In a metropolitan area like Dallas, you wouldn't know who had and hadn't banned in locally, so you could literally drive from say Allen into Plano and become illegal if you were open carrying.

Now, the only time I open carried in Missouri in my 38 years there (without a LEO badge displayed) was if I was on my own or other family property out of sight of the general public, or out in the country if I was target practicing, but that is legal here in Texas if you are practicing.

[Oldgringo]

"Keith B"

And as others have said, it will lead to a very real awareness of handgun carry and businesses restricting carry

Gentlefolk,

In our experience as CH licensees and our RV travels across the country the past four summers and fall, people don't OC where it's legal that we've seen...for various reasons. By the same token, we've not seen a whole lot of "gunbuster" or other "no-gun" notices in these OC states either.

I'm not sayin' OC is not good or evil, I'm just sayin'...I dunno'.

The difference is the places where open carry is currently legal have ALWAYS been legal (unless outlawed by municipal ordinances.) I came from Missouri where it is like this. So, since it has always been legal and no one carries,

What would happen in reversing the law here would be the media will splash it all over and everyone would start scrambling to prevent this from happening. I also would see the no-preemption clause being removed and the state would allow municipalities to outlaw open carry if they deemed necessary, so most places would jump on the band wagon and put it in their ordinances. In a metropolitan area like Dallas, you wouldn't know who had and hadn't banned in locally, so you could literally drive from say Allen into Plano and become illegal if you were open carrying.

Now, the only time I open carried in Missouri in my 38 years there (without a LEO badge displayed) was if I was on my own or other family property out of sight of the general public, or out in the country if I was target practicing, but that is legal here in Texas if you are practicing.

If I can speak for Keith, we're both saying, 'be careful what you wish for, you just might get it' and then it will be .

[57Coastie]

SNIP If I can speak for Keith, we're both saying, 'be careful what you wish for, you just might get it' and then it will be .

You are speaking for me too, Oldgringo. That's it in a nutshell.

Jim

[Conagher]

Interesting and thoughtful discussions by all. In reviewing the posts a couple thoughts come to mind I would like to express for your consideration.

How often in our travels, and places we have or do live, have we experienced the practicing of Santeria, voodoo or other forms of extreme religions? I suspect some of the rites and ceremonies would also draw notice from the general public, if not outright shock. It is never my intent to practice any of these extreme religions, but they are legal and protected by our Bill of Rights. Valid examples of free speech could also be given; there are certainly elements of this right that we are not exposed to on a daily basis and not considered common, thank goodness, but it is still legal and protected by our Bill of Rights. The point is commonality does not and should not equate to legality. Nor should it be justification for civil rights violations.

Your immediate reaction to this second item may be defensive but it is not intended to be an attack. So please don’t take it as such.

In regards to businesses posting 30-06 signs in response to any legalization of open carry; could the issue really be with the current 30-06 law? Please hear me out. I believe there is little questioning that the current 30-06 law is consider a major victory and has proven an effective solution for the issue it was intended to solve. However, we have a new issue now that may require a different solution. If you research the science and/or art (depending on your viewpoint) of decision making it is not uncommon for a past solution to become part of a future issue. I think this may be where we find ourselves today in regards to open carry vs. 30-06 law. We should not view it as an insurmountable obstacle, but rather as an opportunity for continuous improvement. And just so we are under no illusions; whatever solution is found for the current issue (and I believe we can in fact find one), could very well be part of another issue in the future.

Thanks and have a nice day.

[frazzled]

Interesting and thoughtful discussions by all. In reviewing the posts a couple thoughts come to mind I would like to express for your consideration.

How often in our travels, and places we have or do live, have we experienced the practicing of Santeria, voodoo or other forms of extreme religions? I suspect some of the rites and ceremonies would also draw notice from the general public, if not outright shock. It is never my intent to practice any of these extreme religions, but they are legal and protected by our Bill of Rights. Valid examples of free speech could also be given; there are certainly elements of this right that we are not exposed to on a daily basis and not considered common, thank goodness, but it is still legal and protected by our Bill of Rights. The point is commonality does not and should not equate to legality. Nor should it be justification for civil rights violations.

Your immediate reaction to this second item may be defensive but it is not intended to be an attack. So please don’t take it as such.

In regards to businesses posting 30-06 signs in response to any legalization of open carry; could the issue really be with the current 30-06 law? Please hear me out. I believe there is little questioning that the current 30-06 law is consider a major victory and has proven an effective solution for the issue it was intended to solve. However, we have a new issue now that may require a different solution. If you research the science and/or art (depending on your viewpoint) of decision making it is not uncommon for a past solution to become part of a future issue. I think this may be where we find ourselves today in regards to open carry vs. 30-06 law. We should not view it as an insurmountable obstacle, but rather as an opportunity for continuous improvement. And just so we are under no illusions; whatever solution is found for the current issue (and I believe we can in fact find one), could very well be part of another issue in the future.

Thanks and have a nice day.

Not sure what your argument is here. If a grocery store owner doesn't want you sacrificing a chicken to the voodoo spirits on aisle 13 then they can forbid that as well.

[casingpoint]

There certainly was a lot of info in that link posted by joe817.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/haltex.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Buried in a footnote was a link to interesting language about concealed weaponry. It echoes my bone of contention for a long time that obtaining a concealed carry license is too expensive for some penurious individuals and thereby deprives them of the right and means to self defense, making the law unconstitutional on it face. It was interesting to see it already hashed out, and so long ago. How did it all go so wrong?


Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859).

It is contended, that article 610 of the penal code, is in violation both of the state and federal constitution, which contain substantially the same provision, securing the citizen from any infringement on the right to keep and bear arms. 1st. It is asserted that any law prohibiting a citizen from keeping or bearing any knife, which is intended to be worn upon the person, which is capable of inflicting death, and not commonly known as a pocket-knife, would be unconstitutional. To prohibit absolutely the keeping and having of an ordinary weapon, is certainly to infringe on the right of keeping and bearing arms. A bowie-knife or dagger, as defined in the code, is an ordinary weapon, one of the cheapest character, accessible even to the poorest citizen. A common butcher-knife, which costs not more than half a dollar, comes (p.396)within the description given of a bowie-knife or dagger, being very frequently worn on the person. To prohibit such a weapon, is substantially to take away the right of bearing arms, from him who has not money enough to buy a gun or a pistol.

It has been held, that even a law prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons, is unconstitutional. Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Litt. 90. The court there say, that whatever restrains the full and complete exercise of the right, is in violation of the constitution. Such laws have, however, been sustained in other states. See State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612; State v. Mitchell, 3 Blackf. 229; Nunn v. State, 1 Kelly, 243. The attention of the court is particularly called to the case of Nunn v. State, as bearing more directly on the proposition above asserted. The legislature of Georgia had passed a law, prohibiting the keeping, sale, or carrying of certain kind of knives or pistols. Judge Lumpkin held it to be unconstitutional, in so far as it prohibited the carrying of a pistol (or other weapon) openly. It is held, also, in that case, that the provision in the constitution of the United States, is applicable to state legislation.

2d. If the last proposition be conceded, it follows, that it is equally unconstitutional to prohibit the use of such a weapon in a proper case. The right to keep and bear, implies the right, on a proper emergency, to use. In the case of State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612 (above cited), it is said, that a statute requiring arms to be worn in such a manner as to render them wholly useless, for the purpose of self-defense, would be clearly unconstitutional. Were the legislature to pass a law, inflicting a penalty for the use of a bowie-knife or dagger, in self-defense, it is believed that it would be unconstitutional, because of its infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, and on the inalienable right of self-defense.

3d. It is contended that article 610 of the penal code, is an attempt, indirectly, to prohibit the keeping, bearing, or use of a bowie-knife, or dagger, and is, therefore, unconstitutional. What other object could the law have in view, but to prohibit this weapon? Upon what other principle can its enactment be (p.397)justified, than that the use of a bowie-knife is in itself wrong, and that it is a weapon to be prohibited? What is it, in effect, but an effort, indirectly, to prohibit the keeping, bearing, or use of such knives? It is believed, that there is no difference in principle, between a law, making the use of a bowie-knife criminal, and a law discriminating against the use of a bowie-knife, by affixing a higher penalty to its use, than to the same act committed with any other deadly weapon. Substantially, this is to affix a penalty to the use of that weapon. This discrimination is but a form of prohibition. The right to discriminate against, implies the right to prohibit. Both rights are based on the unconstitutional ground, that the legislature can control the keeping, bearing, and use of this weapon. But the legislature cannot do indirectly, that which it has no power to do directly. See Thomas v. State, 9 Tex. 324.
http://www.guncite.com/court/state/24tx394.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Conagher]

Interesting and thoughtful discussions by all. In reviewing the posts a couple thoughts come to mind I would like to express for your consideration.

How often in our travels, and places we have or do live, have we experienced the practicing of Santeria, voodoo or other forms of extreme religions? I suspect some of the rites and ceremonies would also draw notice from the general public, if not outright shock. It is never my intent to practice any of these extreme religions, but they are legal and protected by our Bill of Rights. Valid examples of free speech could also be given; there are certainly elements of this right that we are not exposed to on a daily basis and not considered common, thank goodness, but it is still legal and protected by our Bill of Rights. The point is commonality does not and should not equate to legality. Nor should it be justification for civil rights violations.

Your immediate reaction to this second item may be defensive but it is not intended to be an attack. So please don’t take it as such.

In regards to businesses posting 30-06 signs in response to any legalization of open carry; could the issue really be with the current 30-06 law? Please hear me out. I believe there is little questioning that the current 30-06 law is consider a major victory and has proven an effective solution for the issue it was intended to solve. However, we have a new issue now that may require a different solution. If you research the science and/or art (depending on your viewpoint) of decision making it is not uncommon for a past solution to become part of a future issue. I think this may be where we find ourselves today in regards to open carry vs. 30-06 law. We should not view it as an insurmountable obstacle, but rather as an opportunity for continuous improvement. And just so we are under no illusions; whatever solution is found for the current issue (and I believe we can in fact find one), could very well be part of another issue in the future.

Thanks and have a nice day.

Not sure what your argument is here. If a grocery store owner doesn't want you sacrificing a chicken to the voodoo spirits on aisle 13 then they can forbid that as well.

Hello frazzled. Thank you for your response. Please allow me to clarify.

The religious ritual of sacrificing a chicken is not illegal. I would not be arrested and prosecuted for exercising the civil right of religious freedom. I understand the actual means of sacrificing could be an issue, but then the charge would be something other than my civil right of religious freedom. The same cannot be said for your civil right to bare arms; referring specifically to an open carry handgun in Texas. I could in fact carry my AR-15 into this supermarket without violating any laws.

As for practicing this religious freedom in a supermarket, you have now infused private property rights vs. civil liberties into the scenario. However, I believe we have historically produced effective means to address these type issues as well – please refer to the current 30-06 law as an example of this that addresses a specific 2A right.

Thanks and have a nice day.

[chabouk]

This past summer, it became legal in Arizona to CC where alcohol is served. Reports are that "no guns" signs are going up all over the state at restaurants that serve alcohol. Should the gun rights groups in Arizona have fought against this law, since it means signs are going up? Of course not.

Just like with other states, those Arizona signs will fade away through education and experience. And Texas (despite how many Texans feel about it) is not some unique place where what works elsewhere can't possibly work here.

I hope no one takes this personally, because I intend it as constructive criticism, but the attitude of "We've got it how I like it, so don't mess with things!" sounds selfish. It reminds me of the Fudds who are willing to give up everyone else's gun rights just so long as their hunting guns are safe.