TSRA support of Texas Open Carry

[Dragonfighter]

Texas OC proponents needs a Texas-based, Texas-run organization run by someone who knows what they are doing to promote OC. I said this last year and apparently no such organization was established.
Chas.

Good idea Charles, I elect you as the first president!

[AJ80]

I would really like to see more exceptions to 46.035(a) than just being justified in the use of deadly force.
I may be reading wrong or missing something, but to me it reads that it is illegal to unconceal my handgun anywhere at all since I am a license holder.

I know there is 46.02 which makes no mention of concealed except for in a motor vehicle. But, to me, it looks like a person can open carry on their own property legally until they become a license holder at which point they are now violating 46.035(a) and are now meeting both criteria to be in violation of that law, carrying under authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411 and intentionally failing to conceal, no matter where they are.

So with the way I'm reading it, I could be arrested for intentionally unconcealing my handgun in my own house. I know realistically that is unlikely to happen, but I'd feel a lot better about going to a friends property to shoot or just generally anything with a handgun if they write at least a few exceptions to 46.035(a) into the law, if not completely remove it.

Anyway, I'm well aware that I may be misreading it or missing something, but until someone shows me where it says 46.035 does not apply in my own house, I'll feel like I'm technically breaking the letter of the law every time I take my gun off when I get home.

[TexasGal]

I am a TSRA member and I am most interested in protecting the gains that have been made in the concealed carry laws. I would like to see concealed carry made legal everywhere; COE land, Colleges, etc. with the exception of a private land owner's right to say no thanks with a 30.06 sign. It would be great if we could get some of the failure to conceal rules relaxed a bit, as stated above, but If general open carry were adopted, I would only want it as an option. I would never want it to be required. I want my gun concealed a majority of the time.

We have made great strides forward in recent years and more citizens are licensed than ever before. If this continues, then the majority of Texans will become familiar enough with CHL'ers as being non threatening that an option to open carry may be received in a positive way. I just don't feel that time is here quite yet. Most people outside our circles would still view someone open carrying as some redneck and a possible danger especially near their children. That is the real world we live in for now and we would just add supporters to the Brady Bunch to push this in the faces of non-gunners.

It is sad to see anything divide the community of gun owners. I hope the reports of persons promoting open carry as having offended lawmakers do not continue. This will serve no one at all except those who would see the RKBA taken away from us.
This is just my opinion. I have no wish to offend anyone who feels differently.

[chabouk]

However, I still believe you are making an invalid assumption that the Open Carry Kool-Aid will not be served to our legislators and the electorate without TSRA involvement. This was not true last session, and it will not be true this session.

I think you're right. It'll be the same group that alienated every staff member and Representative in the Capitol and managed to taint the entire issue.

*sigh*

This is a claim often repeated, that OC advocates burned bridges, alienated legislators, destroyed good will, threatened other pro-gun legislation, "poisoned the well", etc., etc., ad infinitum.

I've yet to see any clear claim of any group or individual causing any of the above in regards to any individual legislator or groups of legislators, or any legislator making any statement that they wouldn't support the TSRA on campus carry, parking lot bill, etc., etc., because non-TSRA people lobbied for open carry.

If there are names to name, please name them: both the offended, and the offenders.

I'm equally sure they will again blast TSRA and claim that we oppose OC equating TSRA's lack of involvement as opposition.

I've followed the issue from both sides, and in both major forums that discuss the matter. I don't think anyone equated TSRA choosing not to get involved as "opposition". I think the "opposition" sentiment comes mostly from the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus effort to disavow OC and throw any such bills under the bus, to gain traction for their own.

Was SCCC a standalone group? Did they have the assistance of TSRA, opposition, or enjoy neutrality?

( ... )The only time the subject was broached was during the 2009 TSRA Annual Meetings when Howard Nimrov informally talked with several members to get their opinions. They seem to be fairly evenly split on supporting and opposing OC. ( ... )

So it's fine to talk about OC and whether or not TSRA's involvement is beneficial or necessary, but the reality is that we respond to the needs and wishes of our members.

If the members are evenly split, isn't it okay for TSRA to make a statement that they (we) "Have not made this a legislative priority during this session, but offer best wishes to any effort to expand the right of Texans to keep and bear arms." Isn't it?

Texas OC proponents needs a Texas-based, Texas-run organization run by someone who knows what they are doing to promote OC. I said this last year and apparently no such organization was established.
Chas.

Why can't TSRA be that organization? The issue was certainly on TSRA's radar. As you said, it was brought up at the 2009 annual meeting (supported by roughly half the members), and it was certainly a topic of discussion in the 2009 legislative session.

It is really not a fringe topic, despite the attempts of some to portray it that way (please note I am not pointing fingers at anyone here!). A goodly number of TSRA members, and especially potential TSRA members, feel that "absolute RKBA" just isn't very welcome here (not unlike actual and potential NRA members).

I do not bear any ill will towards TSRA. I think it's unfortunate that the official organization spokespersons are the clearinghouse through which all successful gun legislation must pass, but I recognize that reality; any resentment there is rightly directed at the legislators, not TSRA.

C.

[Douva]

I've followed the issue from both sides, and in both major forums that discuss the matter. I don't think anyone equated TSRA choosing not to get involved as "opposition". I think the "opposition" sentiment comes mostly from the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus effort to disavow OC and throw any such bills under the bus, to gain traction for their own.

Before the 2009 Texas Legislature convened in Austin, SCCC's leaders asked the leaders of OpenCarry.org (the Virginia-based organization that spearheaded the 2009 fight for open carry in Texas) to help make it clear to the media that OpenCarry.org was pushing to legalize open carry in the places where concealed carry was already allowed and that there was no effort being made by either OpenCarry.org or SCCC to push for open carry on college campuses. The OpenCarry.org supporters initially agreed but, upon announcing this agreement on the OpenCarry.org message board, caught so much flack from their members that they backpedaled and adopted a position that can best be summed up as "You do your thing, and let us do our thing, and don't ask us to limit our thing to help your thing."

After countless incidents of the media confusing the two issues and reporting on them as if open carry and campus carry were part of the same fight, and after the publication of editorials suggesting that the passage of both bills would lead to openly carried firearms on college campuses, and after numerous reports that OpenCarry.org members were making political threats against campus carry's supporters in the legislature who were reluctant to support open carry, SCCC President Mike Guzman (Mike has since retired, and SCCC has since abolished the position of president), made a poor public relations move. In response to a reporter's question about how an open carry bill might affect the campus carry bill, Mike, exasperated at having OpenCarry.org's efforts attached like a lead weight to his own organization's efforts, responded by stating what most of SCCC's Texas leaders were feeling but, until that point, had been smart enough not to say: He said that the concealed carry on campus movement would be better off if the open carry bill died in committee.

At that time, I was no longer on the SCCC board of directors, but I was still acting as an adviser to the group. In earlier discussions about how OpenCarry.org's scorched earth tactics might adversely affect SCCC's efforts, I'd advised Mike to avoid saying anything that might alienate open carry supporters. But after Mike's comments were published, leading to some dissent and consternation on SCCC's own message boards, I felt that the best course of action was to explain that Mike's comments were meant as a condemnation of OpenCarry.org's tactics, not a condemnation of open carry.

My message board response ticked off a few SCCC board members who wanted sweep the whole mess under the rug by portraying it as a case of a biased journalist misquoting Mike in an attempt to create tension between gun rights groups. But even though my response might have alienated a few people who'd chosen to support both SCCC and OpenCarry.org, it accurately summed up the feeling among SCCC's Texas leaders.

In short, Mike's comments were unfortunate but not inaccurate. Had OpenCarry.org agreed, from the beginning, to help SCCC avoid media confusion over the two issues, and had OpenCarry.org adopted lobbying tactics that didn't reflect negatively on the gun rights community as a whole, it's likely that no conflict between the two organizations would have materialized.

The whole unfortunate incident should serve as a lesson to everyone involved in the fight for gun rights.

[Conagher]

I think you're right. It'll be the same group that alienated every staff member and Representative in the Capitol and managed to taint the entire issue. I'm equally sure they will again blast TSRA and claim that we oppose OC equating TSRA's lack of involvement as opposition.

Thanks Charles. I appreciate that you recognize the risk. How would you propose we mitigate this risk?

So it's fine to talk about OC and whether or not TSRA's involvement is beneficial or necessary, but the reality is that we respond to the needs and wishes of our members.

I understand and agree. The purpose of the post was to stimulate member response to TSRA for those in favor of pursuing Texas Open Carry. I also very much like SA-TX suggestion to include a write-up and ask for feedback in the TSRA newsletter. There has been quite a bit of activities surrounding OC nationally, internationally and of course with a neighboring State and I believe it would be very much germane to TSRA’s 2A mission. Would you support this write-up in the newsletter?

Texas OC proponents needs a Texas-based, Texas-run organization run by someone who knows what they are doing to promote OC. I said this last year and apparently no such organization was established.
Chas.

Charles, I need a little help understanding this. My thought is TSRA is that Texas-based organization. Do you think we need an entirely new organization separate from TSRA to promote OC in Texas? Or is your suggestion to create a working group under TSRA to promote OC? Obviously I am not the “someone who knows what they are doing” are I would probably already know the answer. But I’m willing to help where I can. Does the Employer Parking Lot item have a separate organization or working group with someone in the know that could help us get started with this new organization?

Thanks and Have a Nice Day!

[Purplehood]

Speaking strictly for myself, I interpret Charles stance as being that the TSRA will not be the organization to promote OC until and unless its voters ask it to do so. If this is correct, I agree.

[stevie_d_64]

Speaking strictly for myself, I interpret Charles stance as being that the TSRA will not be the organization to promote OC until and unless its voters ask it to do so. If this is correct, I agree.

Si!

But will you bring the refreshments???

I like Grape...

Maybe we need to poll this...

[chabouk]

I've followed the issue from both sides, and in both major forums that discuss the matter. I don't think anyone equated TSRA choosing not to get involved as "opposition". I think the "opposition" sentiment comes mostly from the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus effort to disavow OC and throw any such bills under the bus, to gain traction for their own.

Before the 2009 Texas Legislature convened in Austin, SCCC's leaders asked the leaders of OpenCarry.org (the Virginia-based organization that spearheaded the 2009 fight for open carry in Texas) to help make it clear to the media that OpenCarry.org was pushing to legalize open carry in the places where concealed carry was already allowed and that there was no effort being made by either OpenCarry.org or SCCC to push for open carry on college campuses. The OpenCarry.org supporters initially agreed but, upon announcing this agreement on the OpenCarry.org message board, caught so much flack from their members that they backpedaled and adopted a position that can best be summed up as "You do your thing, and let us do our thing, and don't ask us to limit our thing to help your thing."

I really appreciate your insight, given your position at the time.

However, can we clarify one thing? OpenCarry.org is not an organization. There is no membership, system of dues, charter, bylaws, board, or office (either elected or appointed). OCDO doesn't "have" a message board, it is a message board, and nothing more. It is an online community of individuals, each of whom acts alone.

As an "organization", OpenCarry.org consists of exactly two people: Mike Stollenwerk and John Pierce.

At that time, I was no longer on the SCCC board of directors, but I was still acting as an adviser to the group. In earlier discussions about how OpenCarry.org's scorched earth tactics might adversely affect SCCC's efforts...

Can you clarify what it was that constituted a scorched earth tactic, and who it was that applied such tactics? Remember, OpenCarry.org isn't an organization, so you have to talk about a specific person.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Speaking strictly for myself, I interpret Charles stance as being that the TSRA will not be the organization to promote OC until and unless its voters ask it to do so. If this is correct, I agree.

Absolutely correct. We answer to our members who carry the financial burden of this organization and who volunteer to help our programs.

Chas.

[gigag04]

However, can we clarify one thing? OpenCarry.org is not an organization.

Can you explain this quote that is enlarged and prominently displayed on the front page of their website - which incidentally has 6 links...only one to the forum.

"There's even an organization whose raison d'etre is promotion of open carry
. . . OpenCarry.org. These are the shock troops of the gun lobby. And, they are not going away."
Ceasefire NJ Director Brian Miller, NJ.com, August 20, 2009

Not nit-picking...just calling a spade a spade. OC may have started as a forum but it has definitely evolved past there.


Here is a link to the full article...it's written by an anti.
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bryan_miller/200 ... l_dir.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Charles L. Cotton]

However, I still believe you are making an invalid assumption that the Open Carry Kool-Aid will not be served to our legislators and the electorate without TSRA involvement. This was not true last session, and it will not be true this session.

I think you're right. It'll be the same group that alienated every staff member and Representative in the Capitol and managed to taint the entire issue.

*sigh*

This is a claim often repeated, that OC advocates burned bridges, alienated legislators, destroyed good will, threatened other pro-gun legislation, "poisoned the well", etc., etc., ad infinitum.

I've yet to see any clear claim of any group or individual causing any of the above in regards to any individual legislator or groups of legislators, or any legislator making any statement that they wouldn't support the TSRA on campus carry, parking lot bill, etc., etc., because non-TSRA people lobbied for open carry.

That's not what I said or meant. I have repeatedly stated that the tactics used by OpenCarry.org supporters have tainted the OC issue. I've never said that their ill-advised tactics hurt TSRA or any of TSRA's bills. The legislators' staff know that it was not "TSRA people" calling and emailing nasty, sometimes threatening messages.

I'm equally sure they will again blast TSRA and claim that we oppose OC equating TSRA's lack of involvement as opposition.

I've followed the issue from both sides, and in both major forums that discuss the matter. I don't think anyone equated TSRA choosing not to get involved as "opposition". I think the "opposition" sentiment comes mostly from the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus effort to disavow OC and throw any such bills under the bus, to gain traction for their own.

Do a search on the topic and you will find several posts/threads on this issue. Many on OpenCarry.org blatantly said TSRA actively opposed the OC effort and this claim is absolutely false.

Was SCCC a standalone group? Did they have the assistance of TSRA, opposition, or enjoy neutrality?

I don't understand your question, beyond asking if SCCC is a "standalone" group. I don't know their organizational structure, but they are a entity or unincorporated association unrelated to TSRA and/or NRA.

( ... )The only time the subject was broached was during the 2009 TSRA Annual Meetings when Howard Nimrov informally talked with several members to get their opinions. They seem to be fairly evenly split on supporting and opposing OC. ( ... )

So it's fine to talk about OC and whether or not TSRA's involvement is beneficial or necessary, but the reality is that we respond to the needs and wishes of our members.

If the members are evenly split, isn't it okay for TSRA to make a statement that they (we) "Have not made this a legislative priority during this session, but offer best wishes to any effort to expand the right of Texans to keep and bear arms." Isn't it?

First, I didn't say the entire 40,000 membership is evenly split. I said the "several members" with whom Howard Nimrov spoke were evenly split. Based upon the lack of calls or emails by our members, there is no reason to believe that OC is an issue to any significant portion of our membership. Even if the entire membership were evenly split, your suggestion would alienate 1/2 of our members by supporting the OC effort. How would you feel if we took the opposite approach and said something tending to oppose OC? I suspect you would be more than a little upset.

Texas OC proponents needs a Texas-based, Texas-run organization run by someone who knows what they are doing to promote OC. I said this last year and apparently no such organization was established.
Chas.

Why can't TSRA be that organization? The issue was certainly on TSRA's radar. As you said, it was brought up at the 2009 annual meeting (supported by roughly half the members), and it was certainly a topic of discussion in the 2009 legislative session.

As noted above, the members to whom Howard spoke at the 2009 annual meeting were evenly split. While he talked to several members, he didn't talk to all of the members present and certainly nowhere near our 40,000 members. Yes, TSRA knew of the OC movement so it was on our radar screen, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not on the radar screen of our members.

My point is that Virginia-based OpenCarry.org was not well received in Austin and to start building goodwill in the Capitol and to have any realistic chance of passing OC, I believe the work must be done by an organization that is Texas-based and run by people who know how to pass legislation in Texas. TSRA could be an organization such as I described and undoubtedly would be, if a significant majority of our members supported OC and wanted us to spend a lot of political capital on OC.

I do not bear any ill will towards TSRA. I think it's unfortunate that the official organization spokespersons are the clearinghouse through which all successful gun legislation must pass, but I recognize that reality; any resentment there is rightly directed at the legislators, not TSRA.

I wish Alice or I had that much power in Austin! TSRA doesn't own the Second Amendment and gun bills can pass without our involvement. Admittedly, the higher the profile of a bill the more likely it is that legislators will look to see if the NRA or TSRA are behind the bill, but that's not our fault. It's simply a function of many years of work cultivating working relationships and political support of pro-gun legislators, as well as the efforts of the TSRA PAC during elections.

Chas.

[Douva]

I've followed the issue from both sides, and in both major forums that discuss the matter. I don't think anyone equated TSRA choosing not to get involved as "opposition". I think the "opposition" sentiment comes mostly from the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus effort to disavow OC and throw any such bills under the bus, to gain traction for their own.

Before the 2009 Texas Legislature convened in Austin, SCCC's leaders asked the leaders of OpenCarry.org (the Virginia-based organization that spearheaded the 2009 fight for open carry in Texas) to help make it clear to the media that OpenCarry.org was pushing to legalize open carry in the places where concealed carry was already allowed and that there was no effort being made by either OpenCarry.org or SCCC to push for open carry on college campuses. The OpenCarry.org supporters initially agreed but, upon announcing this agreement on the OpenCarry.org message board, caught so much flack from their members that they backpedaled and adopted a position that can best be summed up as "You do your thing, and let us do our thing, and don't ask us to limit our thing to help your thing."

I really appreciate your insight, given your position at the time.

However, can we clarify one thing? OpenCarry.org is not an organization. There is no membership, system of dues, charter, bylaws, board, or office (either elected or appointed). OCDO doesn't "have" a message board, it is a message board, and nothing more. It is an online community of individuals, each of whom acts alone.

As an "organization", OpenCarry.org consists of exactly two people: Mike Stollenwerk and John Pierce.

At that time, I was no longer on the SCCC board of directors, but I was still acting as an adviser to the group. In earlier discussions about how OpenCarry.org's scorched earth tactics might adversely affect SCCC's efforts...

Can you clarify what it was that constituted a scorched earth tactic, and who it was that applied such tactics? Remember, OpenCarry.org isn't an organization, so you have to talk about a specific person.

Though lacking a formal organizational structure, OpenCarry.org does organize rallies, circulate petitions, draft and push legislation, etc. Therefore, I don't think it's a stretch to refer to it as an organization. At the time of Mike Guzman's statement to the reporter, many OpenCarry.org members (or supporters or whatever you want to call them) were using a "support us or start packing your desk" approach with Texas legislators, including many long-time gun rights supporters. Some of those long-time gun rights supporters were spearheading the push for campus carry, and some were still on the fence about campus carry. SCCC didn't appreciate seeing another gun rights group threaten the legislators who were in the process of authoring the campus carry bill. We also didn't appreciate that legislators who were still on the fence about campus carry were getting borderline-belligerent phone calls and emails from open carry supporters, as we felt that those phone calls and emails might create a backlash against any and all gun rights legislation in the 2009 session. Not helping matters was the fact that some open carry proponents were also voicing their support for campus carry in those belligerent phone calls and emails, potentially creating the impression that SCCC had adopted similar tactics.

Whereas SCCC was leading a campaign focused on educating legislators, OpenCarry.org members were trying to use their 50,000-signature petition as a club to beat legislators into submission. OpenCarry.org members were also encouraging people to withhold financial support from the TSRA unless the TSRA, which sets its legislative agenda two years in advance, agreed to support open carry, an issue nobody had even discussed until four months before the start of the session.

Perhaps the problem is that the open carry movement doesn't have a legitimate organization behind it. If it did, the organization might be able to provide members with a little guidance and prevent the type of lobbying free-for-all we saw in 2009.

[G.A. Heath]

Due to computer issues I have not had much time for this since Saturday. I am willing to step up and do something, not because I want to open carry (because I don't) but because I feel it is important.

One thing I am reading Charles as saying is that we need a Texas based group/organization to get involved, I personally doubt we will see anything this session as time is running out, but in order to facilitate a Texas organization I registered a domain and setup some forums. I was wanting to wait and get things cleaned up and a logo of some sort in place but I will go public with it now. Should a Texas based organization form and prove themselves organized I will transfer the domain to them. I will even host it as long as I can afford to. Now who else is willing to step up to the plate and do something besides demand someone else do something? The website is http://txopencarry.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In fact if someone drafts a GOOD bill I will even contact my legislators and politely ask them to support it after thanking them for the work they have done so far.

[LaserTex]

I will let my representative talk the talk and walk the walk...since he knows a hell-of-a-lot more than me on this subject. Would recommend others take ques from him...and quit making it difficult. Or not... Your choice.

D

However, I still believe you are making an invalid assumption that the Open Carry Kool-Aid will not be served to our legislators and the electorate without TSRA involvement. This was not true last session, and it will not be true this session.

I think you're right. It'll be the same group that alienated every staff member and Representative in the Capitol and managed to taint the entire issue. I'm equally sure they will again blast TSRA and claim that we oppose OC equating TSRA's lack of involvement as opposition.

As I've said many many times, TSRA responds to the wishes of our members and they have not indicated they want TSRA to promote open-carry. The only time the subject was broached was during the 2009 TSRA Annual Meetings when Howard Nimrov informally talked with several members to get their opinions. They seem to be fairly evenly split on supporting and opposing OC. With 40,000 members, a relative handful of new members joining to demand OC isn't going to represent the will of the majority of TSRA members. Plus, as I've said several times, we work on a 2 year cycle that begins 30 days after a legislative session ends.

So it's fine to talk about OC and whether or not TSRA's involvement is beneficial or necessary, but the reality is that we respond to the needs and wishes of our members.

Texas OC proponents needs a Texas-based, Texas-run organization run by someone who knows what they are doing to promote OC. I said this last year and apparently no such organization was established.
Chas.