TX rep to author OC

[Beiruty]

I understand that but exemption means felons == no guns
That is it !

[Heartland Patriot]

I think some have made this statement before but here goes: I would like to see the Concealed Carry License simply be a Carry License...you choose how to carry based on the circumstances. That would remove that whole "intentional failure to conceal" bull manure and you wouldn't have to worry about what the definition of "openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person" meant to an LEO or a lawyer...I would still cover it up as that is the wise and dare I say "tactical" thing to do...but then I and all the rest of you wouldn't have to be concerned about a situation where Sally Soccermom from the "Keep Austin Weird" crew, or a Mall-Ninja-type security guard, from calling the cops and them wasting both your and the taxpayers' money over NOTHING, not to mention possibly putting you in potential lethal situation involving LEOs like one forum member had happen not so long ago. Others have said it cannot work but Alaska and Arizona beg to differ...no bloodbaths that I have heard of and you KNOW the media would have made a stink if they could...and for the record, Phoenix is a pretty big town AND a lot of Californians have moved to that state, as well...all that said, if all we can get is Campus Carry and "The Parking Lot Protection Act" passed, I'll consider that a win...just not a blowout victory. Alright, stepping off the soapbox now...

[lrb111]

I don't know if my opinions are read much here, or just skipped over, but I'm going to try to express an opinion on this subject again, with a new challenge for those of you that think open carry will have no effect on concealed carry as we now know it.

Go to 10 businesses with the generic gunbusters sign popsted in your home town (not mine, we don't have 30.06 signs around that I know of) and ask to speak to the owner or general manager. Not people you already know, but total strangers. Tell them you are doing a simple public opinion poll regarding passage of an open carry law in Texas and ask if they would be against their patrons openly carrying handguns in their place of business. Then report back on the number of them that point to the gunbuster sign they have hanging up with the response they don't allow guns in their shop anyway. You then have the option of biting your tongue and hoping they don't find out that they are not giving effective notice to all the chl holders that may carry past their threshold every day, or spill the beans and inform them of the intricascies of proper notice under 30.06. You can bet that when the first open carried handgun shows up in their shop, or their friend's shop down the road, they will all be posting the proper signage to prohibit all licensed carry. I own and operate a small business, and know several of the business owners in town. Many of those folks that I personally know probably have absolutely no idea what the current "proper signage" is, and think "no guns means NO guns. Wait until something wakes them up.

As long as we still have a state that respects private property rights (generally speaking), business owners will have the right to refuse service under legal guidelines.

surv

in addition, a sign is not required to stop a CHL. The scenario that is all too easy is for a clerk at the store (only one working) to tell an open carrying CHL holder "You can't wear that in here."
That is "effective notice", and the CHL holder is done carrying in that store.

[The Annoyed Man]

I think some have made this statement before but here goes: I would like to see the Concealed Carry License simply be a Carry License...you choose how to carry based on the circumstances. That would remove that whole "intentional failure to conceal" bull manure and you wouldn't have to worry about what the definition of "openly discernible to the ordinary observation of a reasonable person" meant to an LEO or a lawyer...I would still cover it up as that is the wise and dare I say "tactical" thing to do...but then I and all the rest of you wouldn't have to be concerned about a situation where Sally Soccermom from the "Keep Austin Weird" crew, or a Mall-Ninja-type security guard, from calling the cops and them wasting both your and the taxpayers' money over NOTHING, not to mention possibly putting you in potential lethal situation involving LEOs like one forum member had happen not so long ago. Others have said it cannot work but Alaska and Arizona beg to differ...no bloodbaths that I have heard of and you KNOW the media would have made a stink if they could...and for the record, Phoenix is a pretty big town AND a lot of Californians have moved to that state, as well...all that said, if all we can get is Campus Carry and "The Parking Lot Protection Act" passed, I'll consider that a win...just not a blowout victory. Alright, stepping off the soapbox now...

Again, what happens in Alaska and Arizona is irrelevant because they have always had open carry. So there was no legal, legislative, or social inertia to overcome. They never had to reverse existing laws to gain OC. I agree that Campus Carry and a Parking Lot Exception would be victories, but unlike you, I do think those would be huge victories. Why? Because if we can get those passed in 2011, then in 2013 or 2015, when the public has had time to realize that there was no explosion in violent gun-related bloodbaths, then passing OC becomes much more easy.

That's why I can't stand bomb-throwers. They will derail the whole process and we lose everything by their continuing to insist on making enemies in the legislative community, and they ultimately kill the the very goal they claim to support. There is much MUCH lack of wisdom in that approach.

[TexasRedneck]

A few comments, then I'll sit back an' toss on the kevlar an' nomex....

There are sure to be some that would post anti-carry signage that currently don't. It will then be up to us to "educate" these establishments with our vote of "No Carry = No $$$" as we walk away. I was among the first CHL classes/licensees, and can remember the proliferation of 30.06 signage. I walked out of a number of stores after going in (unarmed) and having as polite and informative discussion possible with the owner/manager. LOTS of calls to various Corporate offices, letters, faxes, etc. As folks became more educated that those of us carrying were thoroughly vetted, and large numbers of those licensed expressed their own reaction to the signage, they rapidly started coming back down.

Now, one of my other hobbies is motorcycle riding. It's challenging enough to select good protective riding gear without ALSO having to buy it based on its' ability to cover a weapon. I generally wear IWB or a shoulder rig - the IWB is generally okay, but the shoulder rig can be a challenge if it turns hot and you want to stop in for a soda or a bite to eat, but can't remove the jacket. On the hot Texas days, an IWB carry results in a thoroughly sweat-soaked weapon - which is almost impossible to keep the rust off of if you're on the road. There's also the consideration of "accidental" exposure. There is always going to be the potential of harrassment by LEO's over that issue, until OC is possible.

OCDO is a bit too "in your face" IMO - and I'm generally not considered too PC. There is a new group in Texas putting together a lobbying effort towards OC, and I'm hoping to see it succeed. I'll deal w/the discrimination by the store owners again - because as I saw the first time around, once it's actually "out there" the furor soon dies down and folks really don't even notice any longer because it becomes commonplace.

[flintknapper]

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Again, what happens in Alaska and Arizona is irrelevant because they have always had open carry. So there was no legal, legislative, or social inertia to overcome. They never had to reverse existing laws to gain OC.

I disagree. Alaska, Arizona and the many other States that allow OC can reasonably be pointed to as examples of what to expect from public "acceptance" of Open Carry. It's not always about "what you grew up with".

Texas at one time (though a short period) did have OC. That "right" was lost back in the 1870's if memory serves correctly. The PROPER way to think of efforts to see OC become law again is:

We are not seeking to introduce a NEW right, but to RESTORE and old one.

In that respect...it would be helpful to have the support of the NRA and the TSRA, both of whom remain timidly neutral on the subject.

I agree that Campus Carry and a Parking Lot Exception would be victories, but unlike you, I do think those would be huge victories.

Those would certainly be long overdue victories, since this will be the FOURTH attempt on at least one of those issues.

I won't hold my breath, but continue to hold out hope.

Why? Because if we can get those passed in 2011, then in 2013 or 2015, when the public has had time to realize that there was no explosion in violent gun-related bloodbaths, then passing OC becomes much more easy.

I don't follow the logic here. If Campus Carry becomes law....then a small (very small) percentage of the public will be allowed to carry ONE more place than before. How would this significantly increase the chance of having a "bloodbath" committed by a CHL?

If the Parking Lot Bill became Law, it only results in the weapon being in a locked vehicle. Again......no effect.

And neither of these cases has anything to do with OC (IMO), since we are only talking about a "mode of carry". Whether I carry my weapon concealed or openly...doesn't make me anymore a "threat" to the public (of which I am none).

Yes....there will be the occassional "Soccer Mom" type that will grab up her children and run screaming to her car, but it will subside.

Honestly, all this worry about OC and how the public (and businesses) will react is nonsense. Less than 2% of the population even have a CHL, of those....fewer carry (everyday,everywhere), even fewer would elect to OC.

I submit that if Texas ever has OC....it would remain a relatively rare thing to see (after some initial application). It just doesn't make sense that the public (most whom would never notice)....are going to get the "Willies" over seeing someone OCing.

That's why I can't stand bomb-throwers. They will derail the whole process and we lose everything by their continuing to insist on making enemies in the legislative community, and they ultimately kill the the very goal they claim to support. There is much MUCH lack of wisdom in that approach.

Here we agree. Much harm can be done if things are not done "properly" and with a level of respect.

Then again, sometimes the "legislature" need a fire lit under their butts to get things done.

[jsimmons]

This argument isn't about "gun rights". It's about *constitutional rights*. I think with very very few exceptions, anyone 18 and over has the god-given right to keep/bear arms - even felons. Passing a law saying that felons cannot legally own a gun is absurd, due mostly to the nature of being a criminal. Further, - anad once again, with very few exceptions - they should be allow to wear their guns anywhere they go. I personally think that if a business wants to conduct business in Texas, they shouldn't be allowed to infringe any of our constitutional rights.

The REAL answer is *constitutional carry*, like they have in Arizona, where we can carry openly OR concealed without permission from the state. That way, everyone is happy. Those that want (or need) to conceal carry can, and those that want to (or can) open carry can do so, and we don't have to change the signs. What's so hard about that?

[Charles L. Cotton]

A few comments, then I'll sit back an' toss on the kevlar an' nomex....

There are sure to be some that would post anti-carry signage that currently don't. It will then be up to us to "educate" these establishments with our vote of "No Carry = No $$$" as we walk away. I was among the first CHL classes/licensees, and can remember the proliferation of 30.06 signage. I walked out of a number of stores after going in (unarmed) and having as polite and informative discussion possible with the owner/manager. LOTS of calls to various Corporate offices, letters, faxes, etc. As folks became more educated that those of us carrying were thoroughly vetted, and large numbers of those licensed expressed their own reaction to the signage, they rapidly started coming back down.

Now, one of my other hobbies is motorcycle riding. It's challenging enough to select good protective riding gear without ALSO having to buy it based on its' ability to cover a weapon. I generally wear IWB or a shoulder rig - the IWB is generally okay, but the shoulder rig can be a challenge if it turns hot and you want to stop in for a soda or a bite to eat, but can't remove the jacket. On the hot Texas days, an IWB carry results in a thoroughly sweat-soaked weapon - which is almost impossible to keep the rust off of if you're on the road. There's also the consideration of "accidental" exposure. There is always going to be the potential of harrassment by LEO's over that issue, until OC is possible.

OCDO is a bit too "in your face" IMO - and I'm generally not considered too PC. There is a new group in Texas putting together a lobbying effort towards OC, and I'm hoping to see it succeed. I'll deal w/the discrimination by the store owners again - because as I saw the first time around, once it's actually "out there" the furor soon dies down and folks really don't even notice any longer because it becomes commonplace.

When SB60 passed in 1995 and we finally had our CHL statute, there was no TPC §30.06. Any "no guns" signs or decals would be sufficient to keep armed CHl's off of the property. TPC §30.06 was enacted in 1997 (HB2909) to deal with the epidemic of ghostbuster "no gun" decals. TPC §30.06 brought with it the requirement to post what was and is known as "the big ugly sign." Very few "big ugly sings" were posted and even fewer are still posted. The public, especially business owners and/or managers, weren't educated at all; they simply didn't want to post "the big ugly sign." (This was precisely our goal and why the sign was given its size requirements.) No signs came down, the ghostbuster "no guns" decals simply were not effective to prevent CHL's from entering the property.

As for "carriers" having a negative impact on business, we can forget it. About 1.8 percent of the Texas population have a CHL, so 92.2 percent do not. We are far outnumbered and business owners/managers will protect their businesses by doing what the 92.2 percent of their customers want them to do.

There are two primary reasons armed citizens are not an issue now; 1) our great 15 year track record of being law-abiding citizens; and 2) no one sees us walking around with our guns -- the "out of sight, out of mind" effect.

I can no more guarantee the public's reaction to open-carry would be a repeat of its 1995 reaction to concealed-carry anymore than OC supporters can guarantee we would not.

As I have said before, open carry could pass in Texas and possibly be successfully implemented vis-a-vis public acceptance, but not by bully tactics, or even being polite during a legislative session. It's amazing to me that the most ardent of OC supporters (not you, the OCDC types) won't take a reasoned approach during the off season and do nothing more than put on shoulder pads and helmets a few weeks before the legislative session begins. The thing that frustrates me is that most OC supporters will not even acknowledge that there is a risk of public backlash against OC that would impact concealed-carry. They point to other states that have always allowed open-carry (at least technically) and ignore what actually did occur in Texas. If one will not admit that a risk exists, then they certainly won't take steps to prevent the risk from occurring. Open-carry can pass in Texas, but not as it's being approached. Without proper ground work the risk remains too high.

Chas.

[dicion]

This argument isn't about "gun rights". It's about *constitutional rights*. I think with very very few exceptions, anyone 18 and over has the god-given right to keep/bear arms - even felons. Passing a law saying that felons cannot legally own a gun is absurd, due mostly to the nature of being a criminal. Further, - anad once again, with very few exceptions - they should be allow to wear their guns anywhere they go. I personally think that if a business wants to conduct business in Texas, they shouldn't be allowed to infringe any of our constitutional rights.

The REAL answer is *constitutional carry*, like they have in Arizona, where we can carry openly OR concealed without permission from the state. That way, everyone is happy. Those that want (or need) to conceal carry can, and those that want to (or can) open carry can do so, and we don't have to change the signs. What's so hard about that?

And it's statements like this that make the general public cringe.

I don't disagree with you, however, the public in general does. Decades of 'guns are bad, mmmkay' indoctrination by newspapers, tv, movies, and all other media is not going to be undone in months.

If you were running for public office, and I was your opponent, you just sank yourself. The ad I would run against you would be something like "J Simmons wants convicted murders, rapists, child molesters, and gang members to be allowed to carry a gun as soon as they step outside the prison gate, do you really want someone who has no concern for your safety running for <insert position here>? Vote for me."

Why, you ask? Because the general public already thinks there's gun 'registration', and for some reason, they think that they're hard for criminals to get (except, apparently at gun shows)...
The general public is ignorant, unaware, and blissful in being so. Anything you do to shake up their serene bubble of 'nothing can happen to me', is going to result in negative consequences.

Like it or not, we're in the situation we are now because of politics, and pandering. We won't get out of it without more politics, and more pandering. You have to play the game if you want to win, and keep it won.

[TexasRedneck]

Charley, you missed (or chose to ignore) my point - that there were LOTS of signs precluding CC immediately after passage, which faded away quickly as folks realized their fears were groundless. The 30.06 signage requirements further reduced the places you couldn't carry - but again, it was because of acceptance and education. And if you never talk about it, you'll never gain acceptance.

And if a minority of folks want something, they can have no effect? Really? How many times over the years have vocal minorities changed laws/business models? It happens regularly. Again, reasoned discussion on BOTH sides is required.

As to "risk of backlash"......there's a risk ANY time you change something. Does that mean we shouldn't attempt it? More and more folks are becoming more open-minded about the carrying of firearms, thanks in part to the issues in Mexico, and the growing public realization that Police organizations can't (and aren't required to) protect us individually. There's something to be said for "striking when the iron is hot" as well, isn't there?

You decry the OCDC attitude, and I agree to a large extent - but I'll also point out that without some pretty strident efforts, CC would likely have never come to pass, either. One of the things that the new organization coming together to push for OC in Texas is working VERY hard toward is to ensure that the goals of other Pro-2nd organizations are not hurt by their efforts, and to find ways of effectively working together.

[flintknapper]

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

As for "carriers" having a negative impact on business, we can forget it. About 1.8 percent of the Texas population have a CHL, so 92.2 percent do not. We are far outnumbered and business owners/managers will protect their businesses by doing what the 92.2 percent of their customers want them to do.

Even in Austin (the San Francisco of Texas) 92.2 % of the population is not oppossed to self defense and carry of a weapon (no matter the mode). It also wasn't true for Concealed Carry which did eventually pass (with your help).

I feel this figure is incorrect.

Open-carry can pass in Texas, but not as it's being approached. Without proper ground work the risk remains too high.

Ground work is essential, no doubt. So where is it?

Some amount of support has come from grassroots factions, none from organizations like the NRA or TSRA.

We are basically talking about "educating" the public and rebutting the claims of a liberal media which has the upper hand at getting out their message.

That is the core reason we (Gun owners, NRA/TSRA and others) have been largely ineffective the last 6 years in advancing the rights of gun owners in Texas.

50-65,000 signatures on a petition...in Austin means nothing really. Such paltry numbers are scoffed at in political circles. But if the NRA and TSRA would get behind the idea of OC...those numbers might be tenfold.

Instead they seem to be "waiting" for the grassroots level (or membership) to tell them to move ahead with a progressive gun rights agenda.

I'm glad my financial planner isn't in that same group.

Charles you know how much I appreciate all that you do for gunowners and CHL's.

I recogize also...there is a "political" aspect and process to get bills moved through. (a "time" for everything).

But if "groundwork" is not already being laid out....then I want to know why. That is what my contributions to the NRA and TSRA are for (in part).

If educating the public (and elected officials) is the problem....then lets get started. If we have already "started" then lets double up....because its not working very well.

Just my .02

Thank you for your hard work and support.

Flint.

[Bart]

As long as we still have a state that respects private property rights (generally speaking), business owners will have the right to refuse service under legal guidelines.

You just made the best argument against the parking lot bill.

Business owners should continue to have the right to ban guns on company property, including parking lots. Denying them that property right is far more invasive than requiring an extra sign if they're too shy to give oral notice.

[jsimmons]

This argument isn't about "gun rights". It's about *constitutional rights*. I think with very very few exceptions, anyone 18 and over has the god-given right to keep/bear arms - even felons. Passing a law saying that felons cannot legally own a gun is absurd, due mostly to the nature of being a criminal. Further, - and once again, with very few exceptions - they should be allow to wear their guns anywhere they go. I personally think that if a business wants to conduct business in Texas, they shouldn't be allowed to infringe any of our constitutional rights.

The REAL answer is *constitutional carry*, like they have in Arizona, where we can carry openly OR concealed without permission from the state. That way, everyone is happy. Those that want (or need) to conceal carry can, and those that want to (or can) open carry can do so, and we don't have to change the signs. What's so hard about that?

And it's statements like this that make the general public cringe.

I don't disagree with you, however, the public in general does. Decades of 'guns are bad, mmmkay' indoctrination by newspapers, tv, movies, and all other media is not going to be undone in months.

If you were running for public office, and I was your opponent, you just sank yourself. The ad I would run against you would be something like "J Simmons wants convicted murders, rapists, child molesters, and gang members to be allowed to carry a gun as soon as they step outside the prison gate, do you really want someone who has no concern for your safety running for <insert position here>? Vote for me."

Why, you ask? Because the general public already thinks there's gun 'registration', and for some reason, they think that they're hard for criminals to get (except, apparently at gun shows)...
The general public is ignorant, unaware, and blissful in being so. Anything you do to shake up their serene bubble of 'nothing can happen to me', is going to result in negative consequences.

Like it or not, we're in the situation we are now because of politics, and pandering. We won't get out of it without more politics, and more pandering. You have to play the game if you want to win, and keep it won.

I'm not saying that we should hand them firearms as they're leaving prison. I'm saying it'd POINTLESS to make laws that the people those laws are targeted at won't follow to begin with, and to further saddle law-abiding citizens with laws that don't apply to them. If they added a section that specifically spelled out what group is prohibited from keeping/bearing arms instead of just saying "it can't be done because we're trying to prevent crime", everything would be fine. The best part is that this wouldn't even require licensing because when a cop stops someone and they show up on the computer as being in the prohibited group (all the criminals you made note of above), they can take the gun and arrest the person.

[Heartland Patriot]

@Bart:

The issue that I have with your claim that the Parking Lot Bill would violate property rights is that it IS violating property rights...MINE! The vehicle that I drive into the parking lot is MY PROPERTY. If I step out of the vehicle, then I have left my property and gone onto theirs...If a business owner that employs me doesn't want me walking around in their facilities with a concealed weapon, well that is their prerogative and right...but they shouldn't be able to tell me I can't leave it SECURED in my LOCKED vehicle. Not taking it to work and simply leaving it in the car at that point disadvantages me not only at that single location, but at any point getting there and leaving each day I go to work. If the argument is about people going out to the car, getting it and using it during a workplace dispute of some sort, well what stops them NOW from doing that? NOTHING, unless every car is thoroughly searched as it comes through a checkpoint at every business that prohibits firearms in vehicles in their parking lot...and you know that doesn't happen...once again, only the "law-abiding citizen" is put at a disadvantage trying to do what the law says and to keep their job.

[Heartland Patriot]

@TAM:

I did not mean to seem like a "bomb-thrower" in regards to Open Carry...I understand that is a sore subject around these parts considering the events during the last legislative session. I DO understand it is a gradual process and the other two bills would be most excellent to have pass this time. I don't know about that other website you folks keep talking about or their tactics except what I have read on here. Like I said, though, I want it mostly so that the language stuff that leaves gray areas for overzealous and/or inexperienced LEOs would be null and void...if they could just reword things so that it said you have to blatantly and with reckless abandon be strapping a hog-leg on and and yelling at folks to "Look at my gun" or you didn't "intentionally fail to conceal" then I would be fine with that. I know I'm way over-exaggerating but I'm not a lawyer, just a mechanic; but I do know that the current language leaves wiggle room for the "Keep Austin Weird" crew to call a cop on you for accidental exposure...and I don't have cash for lawyers just to have it get to a judge and him throw it out as the bull it would be...my apologies for the ramble. I hope this makes sense. Once again, I do appreciate the information and experience I gain at this forum.