TSRA support of Texas Open Carry

[Purplehood]

OC carry will be pursued in 2011, even Charles recognizes this. How will TSRA respond if a legislator asks for their review or opinion on a draft bill?

They won't.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Conagher I always admired the way you approached the OC issue last session. You were always very reasonable, logical and above all respectful to those who had reservations about OC. I must confess that I'm a bit concerned at the approach you are taking now. You claim not to understand Mr. Heath's goal but he has been abundantly clear. He understands that TSRA isn't going to address OC in 2011 and he's offering to assist in creating a Texas organization to promote OC. I think you clearly understand this goal, even though you claim otherwise. You don't like Mr. Heath's plan because you do not want this new organization to take on the task of promoting OC, you want it to put pressure on TSRA to support OC in 2011.

I too have been abundantly clear -- 1) TSRA will not introduce an OC bill in 2011, for the reasons I've stated multiple times; 2) TSRA will not oppose an OC bill introduced by someone else, so long as it does not create unintended consequences; and 3) I cannot and will not offer any advice on an OC bill, beyond what I offered last session.

Item No. 3 does not mean I won't read any OC bill that is filed; you bet I will!! I read every single bill that deals with guns, the use of guns, or is even tangentially related to guns. If I see a problem, and if the OpenCarry.org bill from 2009 is promoted there will be, we will address the problem. My very strong advice is take the approach I suggested last session.

You clearly want TSRA to put OC on its legislative agenda for the 2011 session and that is not going to happen and nothing you say or do is going to change that.

Chas.

[G.A. Heath]

To summarize the results of this thread
1: TSRA is not going to do anything for OC at this time, its not part of their agenda because there is not enough interest in their membership.

How do you know this? How is this being determined? How was this determined for Employeer Parking Lot and SCCC?

2: TSRA will not appose a GOOD OC bill (Last years drafted legislation does not qualify as good), but will appose a bad one.

How will TSRA know if it is a GOOD or BAD OC bill? Charles has stated, and I am assume this to be true for other TSRA staffers, that they cannot and will not review and comment

3: OCDO Has made personal attacks on legislators, TSRA staff, ect. and as a result has hurt their efforts in the future.

O.K.??? Not sure what this has to do with the OP.

4: A Texas based organization is needed because: A: Texans don't want to be told what to do by people from out of state. B: It has more political potential.

This was not true for Employee Parking Lot or SCCC, but please sign me up as member #2! (assuming you are member 1)

5: SCCC may not be a Texas based organization but after the Virginia Tech attack the governor indicated he would support such legislation so it gets a better position than OC along with other reasons).

I believe the governer also indicated his support of OC last year.

6: Its too late to get the TSRA involved in this years OC movement, even if the membership showed major support for it, so we need to quit beating that dead horse.

OC carry will be pursued in 2011, even Charles recognizes this. How will TSRA respond if a legislator asks for their review or opinion on a draft bill?

Thanks and Have a Nice Day!

All my statements regarding the TSRA are based on Mr Cotton's statements in this thread and others. As for Parking lot and SCCC getting TSRA support you have to know that the membership indicated they want those items. As for TSRA not reading a bill, you can sure bet they will read ANYTHING remotely gun related and will appose anything that will have a negative impact on what they have already achieved. As for #3, lets just say that its a lot harder to get someones assistance after you have attacked them as a group or individually. My purpose regarding txopencarry.com is to get the ball rolling on a Texas based group, if anyone wants to help and behaves themselves (none of that ugly business from last session please) I'm willing to work with them. Maybe the governor did indicate support for it, but he voice it very loudly. You want to get a public record of his position out in mass media? Call Tom Gresham's Gun Talk radio show this Sunday and see if you can ask him, or better yet email Tom and see if you can get him to ask Governor Perry about it. I never said OC will not be persued in 2011, I just repeated the fact that TSRA will not be involved in it for 2011.

[Oldgringo]

"unintended consequences"

was a phrase we heard in our wet/dry election last year. We hear that phrase every day by both parties from Washington, TV reporters and we even hear it in the pool hall.

Is there a definition of "unintended consequences"?

FWIW, I'm ambivalent on OC.

[Douva]

I am not sure how to even ask about SCCC since they are not a “Texas-based” organization; but if you think something there is applicable, maybe like how TSRA member feedback was solicited to ensure the majority of members supported this, then possibly this is something we can mimic also.

While I question the point of focusing on SCCC's state of incorporation, I feel obligated to correct Conagher's statement that SCCC is not "Texas-based."

SCCC was started by a student at the University of North Texas. The assumed name "Students for Concealed Carry on Campus" was first registered in Hays County, Texas. SCCC was later registered as a Texas-based LLC. Therefore, it should be noted that SCCC, though a national organization, is technically Texas-based.

More relevant to the topic at hand is the fact that SCCC's efforts in Texas are organized and led by SCCC's Texas leaders. SCCC has a Texas director and, at a number of Texas colleges, campus leaders and organized chapters. The Texas director makes sure that all the campus leaders operate from the same playbook, and the campus leaders make sure that all of their chapter members operate from the same playbook. That way, SCCC operates as a cohesive unit, rather than as a large group of loosely affiliated individuals each approaching the issue (sometimes counter-productively) as he or she sees fit.

It was November 2007 when SCCC first approached the TSRA about the issue of campus carry. Mike Guzman, then SCCC's campus leader at Texas State University, learned from Mike Cox, a Texas CHL instructor and the NRA's election volunteer coordinator in Driftwood, TX, that TSRA Legislative Director Alice Tripp would be hosting a brunch in Driftwood, for Texas State Representative Patrick Rose. Guzman and I attended the event and presented both Mrs. Tripp and Rep. Rose with information packets about SCCC and the issue of campus carry. Mrs. Tripp informed us that TSRA was already looking into the issue of decriminalizing concealed carry on the premises of Texas colleges and suggested that sometime after the holidays we should get together with her and Tara Mica, the NRA's Texas lobbyist, so that they could provide us with insights into the Texas legislative process and advice on lobbying the issue. She also informed us at that time that the Texas Legislature had already scheduled an interim session study into the issue of campus carry and that a question about campus carry had already been prepared for the TSRA's 2008 candidate survey.

[The Annoyed Man]

"unintended consequences"

was a phrase we heard in our wet/dry election last year. We hear that phrase every day by both parties from Washington, TV reporters and we even hear it in the pool hall.

Is there a definition of "unintended consequences"?

FWIW, I'm ambivalent on OC.

"Unintended Consequences," Definition: those consequences of something which were not intended.

The one which comes to mind is the degree to which the overprescription of antibiotics has led to an array of increasingly antibiotic resistant infectious organisms. The intended consequences were the prevention and/or curing of infections. The unintended consequences were the mutations of some of those infections agents into antibiotic resistant organisms.

[SA-TX]

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.

You've noted rightly that lack of support and opposition are two different things. Would 1/2 of the members necessarily be alienated simply because the affirmative support was 50%? There certainly have been more than a few "I don't really care one way or the other" replies here. Additionally there have been some "I support it but not ahead of x, y, z, ... ". Even the opposition here has been what I would classify as tactical: "I don't want more 30.06 signs"; "It isn't worth the risks to other priorities", etc. This implies that should it succeed without the bad stuff, they would not be unhappy but only that they are making risk/reward calculations. There probably have been some examples, but I don't recall many "I oppose OC in principle and will be upset should it come to Texas!" posts. I'm not claiming that this forum is representative of the TSRA membership as a whole -- in fact, my opinion is that it is not; I suspect this group is more activist and more closely follows all things gun-related -- but I do think it demonstrates that OC is an issue that has SOME level of interest beyond de minimus.

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.

Could "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." be related to "it's not on the radar screen of our members"? That is, many TSRA members probably don't know that "OC" stands for "open carry" or perhaps even what "open carry" is. I'll be the first to admit that OC is somewhat of a niche issue. If you don't closely follow events relating to legal gun carry across the nation it isn't a topic you'd likely encounter even for those who are generally pro-2A, sportsman, target shooters, etc.

Has TSRA considered actively measuring the opinion of its members on issues of interest? This is not limited to OC. Does regular polling or focus groups or requests for feedback on selected issues take place? Even though OC's general recognition is still low, there's been more reporting and newsworthy events surrounding it over the last few years. Has TSRA run any stories about it or published any information that fairly lists the pros and cons?

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.

...

Chas.

You've made it perfectly clear that it OC won't be a part of the 2011 agenda. You also said that planning for the next session starts 30 days after this one ends. Assume a perfect world where parking lot, college campus, and the range bill pass and become law. How would TSRA determine what the priorities are for the 2013 session?

SA-TX

[¿Qué?]

It could be good having multiple groups supporting carry out in the open. Reading handog's experience with accidental open carry, I think decriminalizing open carry for licensed citizens (like for off duty cops) is the right thing to do.

[Charles L. Cotton]

You've made it perfectly clear that it OC won't be a part of the 2011 agenda. You also said that planning for the next session starts 30 days after this one ends. Assume a perfect world where parking lot, college campus, and the range bill pass and become law. How would TSRA determine what the priorities are for the 2013 session?

SA-TX

You have listed the three bills I said would absolutely be on the TSRA legislative agenda for 2011. There will be other bills also that don't have the same high profile as those listed and that I'm not willing to publicize Everyone knows the "big 3" are coming, so talking about them isn't telling our opposition anything they don't already know. So don't think for a moment that we have only three bills to work.

We will decide on the 2013 legislative agenda closer to 2013, but work on major bills begins 30 days after the end of a session. What ultimately finds its way on the agenda depends upon circumstances existing at that time, based upon problems that are reported to us by various sources, including our members. We also evaluate opportunities that may arise. Often passing bills opens the door for other opportunities in the same or other areas. Setting a legislative agenda is a very complex process and I don't think most people are aware of this fact.

When I use "OC" I'm using it here as shorthand because most members know what it means. When I'm talking to people, I always use the phrase "open carry." I can assure you that OC is not a little known concept, nor was the OC movement in 2009. The billboards and radio ads purchased by OpenCarry.org, combined with TV news reports and newspaper articles all combined to make the general population in Texas very much aware of OC. OC is appears to be a major issue with only a very small percentage of Texas gun owners.

Chas.

[SA-TX]

When I use "OC" I'm using it here as shorthand because most members know what it means. When I'm talking to people, I always use the phrase "open carry." I can assure you that OC is not a little known concept, nor was the OC movement in 2009. The billboards and radio ads purchased by OpenCarry.org, combined with TV news reports and newspaper articles all combined to make the general population in Texas very much aware of OC. OC is appears to be a major issue with only a very small percentage of Texas gun owners.

Chas.

Given your position to make this evaluation, I trust your analysis. My gut also agrees and that's why I've said it is a niche issue.

Popularity aside, if the forthcoming McDonald decision applies the 2A to the States, shouldn't all Texas gun laws be examined by looking at 1) what is the fundamental right protected from governmental interferece by the 2A and 2) does the given law encroach on that inviolable territory. Unless you meet one of the exemptions, carrying a handgun in this state is a serious criminal offense. Can this be squared with "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? I don't see how a virtual BAN on bearing handguns -- clearly protected arms under Heller -- absent government permission and subject to their restrictions isn't infringing the core right.

Charles please help me understand this: what can the core right of "bearing arms", that is beyond regulation, be if it doesn't involve the most basic act possible -- openly carrying a handgun?

In asking the above question, which I believe is fundamental, I'm not disrespecting CC. I love CC and I think that states like Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona have it right when they allow their residents to exercise their freedom to bear arms in the manner they choose. I'm simply trying to make the constitutional question as simple as possible. For whatever reason most states have decided that concealed carry demands more scrutiny and thus have implemented licensing. Ultimately, those licensing schemes may or may not pass constitutional muster, but since these are more complex questions, I just want to stick to the clearest case.

Because I believe that bearing arms openly -- the simplest case -- is clearly within the core of the protected right, I believe that Texas' current statute is unconstitutional. I would prefer that the Legislature change it rather than the courts. That doesn't mean Texas has to have unfettered open carry. I'm confident that some time/place/manner restrictions would survive, as Heller discussed. Shouldn't the Legislature have the benefit of TSRA's views on this topic of epic importance? If, in fact, a United States Supreme Court ruling strongly implies that a Texas gun law is unconstitutional, shouldn't TSRA be leading the charge to have the Legislature fix this?

SA-TX

[cougartex]

I have no problem with open carry, but I prefer to carry concealed.

[cbunt1]

I have no problem with open carry, but I prefer to carry concealed.

I agree.

And I think Charles is dead on right too--it's a huge issue with a small number of people. Frankly, I don't think most people care one way or the other. Last time I was in a state that allowed open carry, I fully intended to do so...then just didn't bother :)

At the risk of beating a dead horse, or *GASP* making sense, for those who are adamant about openly carrying, would you be satisfied with making a revision to Texas' current CHL -- perhaps make it a "Carry a Handgun License" rather than a "Concealed Handgun License"?

This way, after the background checks and such, you're free to do as you please -- strap on that ol' hogleg for the world to see, or cover it up...your call.

I realize that the legislation of this would be a "bit" more difficult than it sounds...but conceptually? It makes sense to me. I'm sure it's not an original idea, but I don't think I've heard it mentioned in all the discussion of OC/CC...

That being said, if I have to choose between my TSRA working on Parking Lot Carry, and Campus Carry vs. a modification of what we already have...well, I say carry on Charles and Alice.

[Jungle Work]

I was one of the few Chiefs of Police and Sheriffs who supported Concealed Carry in the eighties and early nineties and went to Austin to testify before committies on its impact in Texas. I told Ma Richards in August befor the election in November that she had lost the
election to George W. because of her stand on Concealed Carry. She told me that her advisors told her that Texans didn't want concealed
gun law. I have a nice letter from her telling me that she should have listened to the common Texan instead of her "advisor from Austin".

I support OC, but I'm also smart engouh to know that people have been working on the Parking Lot and Campus Carry Bills for far longer in
TSRA. I, as a member of TSRA am not willing to put Parking Lot and Campus Carry in jepardy to include OC this session. There are other sessions to include this. If it can be included without putting Parking Lot and Campus Carry in jepardy, I'm all for it.

Also, it so nice to be retired from LE.

Jungle Work

[Douva]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, or *GASP* making sense, for those who are adamant about openly carrying, would you be satisfied with making a revision to Texas' current CHL -- perhaps make it a "Carry a Handgun License" rather than a "Concealed Handgun License"?

Despite the fact that OpenCarry.org was pressing for unlicensed open carry, I'm pretty sure the bill Rep. Riddle intended to file in 2009 would have tied open carry to CHLs, as you suggest. Personally, I see two problems with that approach:

1. It doesn't address what seems to be the main argument proffered by OC proponents: "One shouldn't be required to pay a fee or obtain a license to exercise a Constitutionally protected right."

2. It not only fails to address but also exacerbates the main concern of concealed handgun license holders who either oppose open carry or are on the fence about it: "Allowing open carry is likely to have the net effect of reducing the number of places where licensees can carry, by leading to an increase in 30.06 postings."

Charles previously stated that the Texas Legislature is unlikely to create two separate signage requirements, one for concealed carry and one for open carry. Whether or not that's true I'm not experienced enough to say, but it seems pretty obvious to me that if open carry is tied to concealed handgun licenses, the legislature is much more likely to keep 30.06 as the sole signage requirement.

Proponents of open carry frequently argue that open carry is not very common in the states where it's allowed and, therefore, wouldn't--as opponents claim--upset patrons and cause business owners to post 30.06 signs. What that argument fails to consider is the fact that nobody actually has to see an openly carried handgun in order for business owners to become concerned about the safety and peace of mind of their patrons. A well-publicized legislative battle is more than enough to persuade business owners to post no-carry signs. If you don't believe me, look at Ohio or any of the other states where a heated, well-publicized legislative battle recently led to the passage of shall-issue concealed handgun licensing. Before the first licenses had even been issued, "gunbuster" signs started popping up everywhere.

Unless I'm mistaken, there was a similar reaction in Texas in 1996, when Texas's concealed handgun licensing program first went into effect. A few years later, the Texas Legislature passed the the 30.06 signage requirements, and by that time, the hubbub over concealed carry had subsided to the point that few business owners took notice. But now that the 30.06 law is on the books, you can bet that if the legislature were to pass a controversial, highly-publicized bill legalizing open carry and tying it to the 30.06 sign, every newspaper in Texas would run articles on how the law will affect local businesses, complete with quotes from concerned small business owners and including specifications for posting a legal 30.06 sign.

So, while some licensees want the legal protection that legalized open carry would theoretically offer them, it seems to me that tying Open Carry to concealed handgun licenses fails to satisfy the majority on either side of the debate.

[mr surveyor]

very well said