HB 2756 Open Carry bill reported favorably

[tacticool]

HB2756 is overly complicated. I think a better approach is to strike 46.035(a) from the penal code. After all, 46.035(b) already says "regardless of whether the handgun is concealed" so the rest of the law would cover licensed open carry with no changes. I prefer repealing all of 46.035 because it's proven to be unnecessary but some people prefer baby steps, so strike (a) first and then strike (b) the next session and then strike the rest.

[srothstein]

What tactical or political advantage is there to open carry?

I was a police officer for many years. I obviously carried my weapon int he open then. I also trained for using the weapon from an open carry position. And one thing we do know is that in a stress situation, you will react how you have trained. My hand will go to where my weapon would be on my duty belt first. This means that if I were allowed to open carry, and I really needed the weapon, it could save me a second or so in getting it out. This could be a vital tactical advantage to me.

In my specific case, open carry might provide a tactical advantage. I have no reason to think I am the only person who might have a reason for carrying openly. I truly do not know if I would carry openly or not, but I don't think I would. But, I would really appreciate having the opportunity to make that choice for myself. And, I assume others would like to have that choice. As a libertarian, I do not like to make choices for others. Thus, I support open carry as a goal to work for.

I am willing to make it a lower priority than some other issues, for tactical political reasons. But, we should have it in our minds as a goal we are working for. Open or concealed, licensed or unlicensed, carry on any public property and any private property where the owner does not object is my overall goal. I do not mind your (or anyone's) suggesting we put it as a lower priority right now while we work on the issues, but this should always be part of our goal and should not be opposed, even if you would never want to carry openly.

[SA-TX]

What is the need for citizens to open carry when they can have the advantage of concealed carry if confronted with a perp who wants to do them harm? Is there really research that shows that open carry deters crime? If so, I'd like to be pointed to it.

There may or may not be tactical advantages. SRothstein addresses that from the perspective of a long-time LEO in his post. For me, that is irrelavent. Each Texan should be able to make up his or her own mind. It isn't about "need' but rather about liberty. At least that's the philosophical part of my answer.

The practical part is that it is HOT in Texas and there are times where covering up -- or fully covering up to the standards of CC -- are inconvenient or uncomfortable. Numerous times I've faced this situation: I'm going to take the bike for a spin. It is summer in Texas and I'm already going to be hot in my armored jacket which is too tight to allow for a shoulder rig. IBW is uncomfortable but doable IF I don't take my prefered side arm (an XD .40 micro, so not a hand cannon). My regular strong-side holster isn't covered by the tight jacket so I'll need some other cover garment. Do I: a) take a smaller pistol and go IBW, b) find another way to cover my usual hoster and gun and accept the additional heat & hassle, c) buy new stuff to aleviate some of these issues, or d) don't carry.

Will it really cause mass panic if someone happens to distinguish my black and stainless pistol from my black and silver jacket and black bike? I'm licensed and trusted by Texas to carry a handgun so is this behavior so egregious or threatening or scary that it needs to be illegal? I really believe that it is simply a case of government shielding a segment of the citizenry from something that MIGHT be upset them. I know that it was done for the benefit of the CHLer, to reduce opposition for initial passage and to keep things quIet since, and I appreciate that. Nevertheless, I think we can do with a little less protection.

In an ideal world, where freedom and individual autonomy is the ultimate goal, no public policy maker would care that a some, perhaps even many, would find an openly carried sidearm to be worrisome. The reply would be "Tough. Freedom isn't easy. I'm sure the OCer doesn't like everything that you do either, but that's not a sufficient reason to criminalize any action." This isn't a perfect world so it is a legitimate concern. We need to steadily move towards expanded freedom but do it in thoughtful measured way that doesn't cause unnecessary drama. Charles's new organization will greatly assist in this effort.

Like most who support making OC legal, I'm not advocating that everyone OC. I'm not debating the relative merits of OC vs. CC. I've said many times that I would only OC under certain conditions and am a strong advocate for all 2A rights. If we must be allowed only one or the other, I'll take CC. My view is that we need not limit ourselves that that choice.

OC can be, and almost everywhere in the USA is, legal but rarely seen. That's a great combination. OCing does occur, but most people never spot it, notice it, remember it, or get offended by it thus there's no clamor in OC states to outlaw it. We can have our cake and eat it too. There may be a yahoo or two that intentionally OCs in crowded, urban places just to assert their rights just like those who wear a provacative t-shirt or body decorations. Those few may indeed cause a small commotion from time to time. Freedom is messy (neo-Nazis marching in Skokie, black armbands, KKK rallys, etc.). Nevertheless, those are situations are rare and we should not let the statistical outliers keep everyone else from having the legal protection to exercise a constitutional right in a responsible way whether they ever choose to do so or not. I've never picketed or been part of a public demonstration but that doesn't mean I don't value that 1st Amendment right. Same for the 5th when under arrest, etc.

SA-TX

[hirundo82]

Is there really research that shows that open carry deters crime? If so, I'd like to be pointed to it.

There's no research that shows that open carry deters crime that I am aware of. For that matter, there's no research that shows concealed carry deters crime either.

The closest I'm aware of was a survey of incarcerated violent felons who said they were less likely to choose a certain victim if that person was known to carry a gun--mostly referring to other criminals, but I don't see why it wouldn't apply to the legally armed citizen as well. Of course, they won't know if you're armed when they're evaluating you as a victim if your weapon is concealed.

[Ameer]

There is research that shows both the US and Texas constitutions don't discriminate between open and concealed.

[PhillRoath]

There's no research that shows that open carry deters crime that I am aware of. For that matter, there's no research that shows concealed carry deters crime either.

Look for the book "More Guns Less Crime" by John Lott (1998?) where he shows crime has decreased where concealed carry is allowed.

Phill

[GEM-Texas]

Just for info's sake, the criminologists have had a lot to say about Lott's original claims. Even progun criminologists think it is a controversial claim.

One can use Google scholar to see the current debate. Being very pro-gun, I mention this as if you just use Lott as evidence, you can get in scholarly trouble. You need to know the newer stuff.

That area is mess - you need to understand complex regression statistics to have a handle on it.

A heads up. Kleck is seen as a better source.

[Hoi Polloi]

One can use Google scholar...

What is this? Tell me more!

[Skiprr]

One can use Google scholar...

What is this? Tell me more!

http://scholar.google.com/

Or, specifically, you can start with this.

It's really much the same as books.google.com, save that it indexes specific types of repositories and includes some court opinions, patents, theses, and the like.

[chasfm11]

One can use Google scholar...

What is this? Tell me more!

My curiosity was raised when I saw this, too. A quick search turned up the entry panel but I fear that it will take me some time (that I don't have at the moment and probably for the rest of this week) to figure out how to use it effectively.

Any guidance from other users is gratefully accepted. Sorry for the "topical diversion"

[Hoi Polloi]

One can use Google scholar...

What is this? Tell me more!

http://scholar.google.com/

Or, specifically, you can start with this.

It's really much the same as books.google.com, save that it indexes specific types of repositories and includes some court opinions, patents, theses, and the like.

My life just got so much neater!

[b322da]

My life just got so much neater!

Oh no! To touch briefly on another thread, Hoi, my good buddy, I just looked up "culture."

Elmo

[Hoi Polloi]

My life just got so much neater!

Oh no! To touch briefly on another thread, Hoi, my good buddy, I just looked up "culture."

Elmo

Score!

OK: challenge. Best google scholar reference to the intersection of culture and weapons ownership. We have until Friday morning at 9 to post it in the barbarian thread. Do you accept?

[b322da]

My life just got so much neater!

Oh no! To touch briefly on another thread, Hoi, my good buddy, I just looked up "culture."

Elmo

Score!

OK: challenge. Best google scholar reference to the intersection of culture and weapons ownership. We have until Friday morning at 9 to post it in the barbarian thread. Do you accept?

NO, NO, NO! I are too much of a gentleman to take you on again, Hoi.

(The fact that I would lose the debate has nothing to do with my declination).

Elmo

[Hoi Polloi]

My life just got so much neater!

Oh no! To touch briefly on another thread, Hoi, my good buddy, I just looked up "culture."

Elmo

Score!

OK: challenge. Best google scholar reference to the intersection of culture and weapons ownership. We have until Friday morning at 9 to post it in the barbarian thread. Do you accept?

NO, NO, NO! I are too much of a gentleman to take you on again, Hoi.

(The fact that I would lose the debate has nothing to do with my declination).

Elmo

No way! You give yourself far too little credit and me far too much!
No debate; just a link.