TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:Shouldn't each person be able to carry as they see fit? I have a strong feeling most people that open vary will do it in a manner that shouldn't cause alarm. For example, most crooks, thugs and criminals will not carry openly and will probably will not do it in a proper holster.

I think the hysteria resulting possibly seeing someone open carrying many mention is unfounded. Look at the states where there is open vary already. No mad hysteria and seldom, if ever, do I hear of a bad guy shooting an open carrier first.

I see your point. In my opinion,the Second Amendment allows any kind of carry of any kind of firearm.
However,we live in a time in which PC,anti-gun nuts have considerable power,and many people are
afraid of and dislike guns. I'm not sure that the notions of anti-gun hysteria and BGs shooting OCs first are
really unfounded.That said,I'm certainly not opposed to OC. I wouldn't want to,but I wouldn't say that you
can't. The real meat of my argument is that passing bills allowing unlicensed CC might be easier than passing
bills allowing OC. However,IF you could pass a bill allowing constitutional carry(open or concealed,your choice),
that would be the best solution.But i worry that politicians won't pass OC as readily as CC.

There are other states that have open carry. To what extent have they had the issues you mentioned? It just hasn't been a huge deal.

mojo84 wrote:There are other states that have open carry. To what extent have they had the issues you mentioned? It just hasn't been a huge deal.

Hey bud,if we can get constitutional carry(open or concealed,your choice),I'm all for it! But I'd rather have unlicensed
CC than licensed CC or OC. I understand that you don't agree,but we are generally on the same side of this issue.

[video][/video]

WCDUB wrote:

mojo84 wrote:There are other states that have open carry. To what extent have they had the issues you mentioned? It just hasn't been a huge deal.

Hey bud,if we can get constitutional carry(open or concealed,your choice),I'm all for it! But I'd rather have unlicensed
CC than licensed CC or OC. I understand that you don't agree,but we are generally on the same side of this issue.

You would rather have something that seems to have no chance of passing than what we already have? Sounds like a non-starter to me.

WCDUB wrote:

mojo84 wrote:There are other states that have open carry. To what extent have they had the issues you mentioned? It just hasn't been a huge deal.

Hey bud,if we can get constitutional carry(open or concealed,your choice),I'm all for it! But I'd rather have unlicensed
CC than licensed CC or OC. I understand that you don't agree,but we are generally on the same side of this issue.

The only thing I am challenging you on is your reasoning, open carriers being shot first and causing concern among the public. When I did, you then you switched to what is easier to get passed.

I am all for no restrictions on how, where and when we can carry. I just don't believe we should argue against one form of carry using unfounded arguments.

By the way, please don't take my comments as a personal attack. I am just challenging the reasoning behind the argument. Yes, it appears we do agree for the most part.

WCDUB wrote:anti-gun nuts have considerable power

I'm actually going to disagree with you there. They have a foothold in certain parts of the country, but as a whole, gun rights are making strides, while anti-gun organizations are tip-toeing along.

In CA we have Peruta v. San Diego.

In DC we have Palmer v. District of Columbia

I'm pretty sure there's an ongoing lawsuit for NY's SAFE Act.

Even in the most oppressed areas such as these, the anti-gun crowd is struggling to keep their hold.

I'd rather have licensed CC and unlicensed OC. If someone OCs you know they're carrying. You can see it. If someone CCs, you don't know they're carrying. All the BGs CC, so requiring a license for CC makes it a violation of the law for them to CC, which is what I would want.

Then we open the whole can of worms that your unlicensed OC firearm wasn't flashy enough or got concealed behind your jacket...

baldeagle wrote:I'd rather have licensed CC and unlicensed OC. If someone OCs you know they're carrying. You can see it. If someone CCs, you don't know they're carrying. All the BGs CC, so requiring a license for CC makes it a violation of the law for them to CC, which is what I would want.

It's already a crime to use a firearm in the commission of a crime.

It's already a crime for a felon to be in possession of a firearm.

Whey do we need to make it extra illegal?

It hurts law-abiding citizens. For instance, let's say someone from another state comes to visit, and they have a permit where they live, but Texas doesn't recognize the permit. If we had unlicensed OC and licensed CC, they would have to OC everywhere to stay within the law. And, they would risk getting kicked out of businesses that don't want weapons out in the open.

Now the criminal is going to carry concealed regardless. He doesn't care about licenses. Sure, it will be another bullet on the criminal's rap sheet, but the criminal doesn't care. It's not stopping him from doing it. However, it is stopping the good guy from doing it.

It's kinda like the 51% law. I know their intention. Their intention is to keep people from carrying while drinking. But the thing is, it's already a crime to carry while intoxicated. There's no need to make it extra illegal. What if you're the DD and don't drink an ounce of alcohol? What if you're going somewhere else after? Do you not deserve the same right of self-protection?

My point is, we're attacking the wrong thing. If we just want harsher penalties on criminals using guns, let's do that. Let's increase the penalties for felons possessing weapons and for weapons being used in the commission of a crime. Let's not reduce the rights of the law-abiding, restricting their ability to defend themselves.

It's perhaps valuable because it's one of those things that typically gets discovered "incident" to contact... That is, it can be discovered in the process of investigating a situation where perhaps no other crime has occurred. It's also valuable because the permissibility of "Terry" stops - it's a pretty low bar that allows a search for weapons. It'd pretty much create a crime that you could discover without probable cause.

That's why it's different. That's not to say that I support it.. :-)


If you're more curious - check out the state laws of Michigan. In Michigan it's legal to open carry.. That is, there are no laws that make the open carry of firearms illegal. However, it IS illegal to concealed carry a firearm without a license. One oddity of the MI laws is that you can OC, but you can't OC in a car.. You've got to box it up or get the MI equivalent of a CHL.

LOL! It was not my intention to start a ruckus. I just wanted to state my preference:carrying concealed,no permit required. Anyone with a different preference,go 'head on!

mojo84 wrote:

WCDUB wrote:

mojo84 wrote:There are other states that have open carry. To what extent have they had the issues you mentioned? It just hasn't been a huge deal.

Hey bud,if we can get constitutional carry(open or concealed,your choice),I'm all for it! But I'd rather have unlicensed
CC than licensed CC or OC. I understand that you don't agree,but we are generally on the same side of this issue.

The only thing I am challenging you on is your reasoning, open carriers being shot first and causing concern among the public. When I did, you then you switched to what is easier to get passed.

I am all for no restrictions on how, where and when we can carry. I just don't believe we should argue against one form of carry using unfounded arguments.

By the way, please don't take my comments as a personal attack. I am just challenging the reasoning behind the argument. Yes, it appears we do agree for the most part.

I should have been more clear.I want to carry concealed without need of a permit. If you prefer OC,it's alright with me.

mr1337 wrote:

WCDUB wrote:anti-gun nuts have considerable power

I'm actually going to disagree with you there. They have a foothold in certain parts of the country, but as a whole, gun rights are making strides, while anti-gun organizations are tip-toeing along.

In CA we have Peruta v. San Diego.

In DC we have Palmer v. District of Columbia

I'm pretty sure there's an ongoing lawsuit for NY's SAFE Act.

Even in the most oppressed areas such as these, the anti-gun crowd is struggling to keep their hold.

Ok,but never underestimate your enemy.

baldeagle wrote:I'd rather have licensed CC and unlicensed OC. If someone OCs you know they're carrying. You can see it. If someone CCs, you don't know they're carrying. All the BGs CC, so requiring a license for CC makes it a violation of the law for them to CC, which is what I would want.

That would be my choice as well, and I agree with you on the points you're making.

Personally, I have no desire to OC, other than I want to be totally allowed to arm and disarm without feeling I need to hide as I'm doing so.