DMN on Open Carry 11/25/12

[Moby]

Beieve it or not I am unsure how I feel about this.
I have a license to carry a concealed handgun.
Right now I go most anywhere I want and no one knows I have a gun.
I also have no legal obligation to act if I see a crime with a weapon against another. (though I probably would)
I can choose to defend someone else or just protect myself and my family.
Any business can post a 30.06 sign and i cannot enter with my hundgun.

Should people in Texas start carrying openly (we are one of only 6 states in America where you cannot) then more business owners may put up that sign due to complaints from liberals and the uneducated. Then there is actually more restrictions rather than less.
It could also make a carrier a target should criminals enter an estabolishment and spot the firearm.
This could give the criminal another weapon or get someone shot.

While I like the idea of open carry, I don't think I would.
I do not like Texas being one of six states not allowing open carry.
I know, it's a conflicted thought.

with the potential negative points you brought out and for one, don't see a whole lot of positive aspects to outweigh them.

What about the aspect of "Shall NOT be infringed"?

AEA I fully agree. That's where I'm conflicked. I also didn't think about the 30.06 sign being for CCW only.
I'd love to see an addition to that law that actually forbids refusing service. So rights really will not be infringed. Then maybe cops won't freak out either.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Well, we have open carry in Va. If you can own it you can carry it openly. There are a few places with the no gun signs, but most of the time it is not that big of a deal. I OC from time to time. I have a CHL for the times discretion is desirable. We don't usually have problems with LEOs as they know the drill. We don't have problems in our community because if they call in a MWAG the operators are trained to handle it on the phone and not involve the LEO if is just an OC.

I have been going to Fairfax and Arlington Virginia 6 to 8 times a year since 2001 and I've never seen one person carrying openly. I'm not saying it isn't done, but I am saying I've seen many tens of thousands of Virginians and not one has been carrying openly.

Chas.

[mamabearCali]

Well, we have open carry in Va. If you can own it you can carry it openly. There are a few places with the no gun signs, but most of the time it is not that big of a deal. I OC from time to time. I have a CHL for the times discretion is desirable. We don't usually have problems with LEOs as they know the drill. We don't have problems in our community because if they call in a MWAG the operators are trained to handle it on the phone and not involve the LEO if is just an OC.

I have been going to Fairfax and Arlington Virginia 6 to 8 times a year since 2001 and I've never seen one person carrying openly. I'm not saying it isn't done, but I am saying I've seen many tens of thousands of Virginians and not one has been carrying openly.

Chas.

Respectfully, that is because you are in Fairfax and Arlington. Come down on down to Richmond, or western VA, then you will have a much better chance of seeing OC. I probably see (outside of OC dinners) a person OC once a month or so. Always a pleasant surprise.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I need to clarify something. I cannot say that passing open-carry requires amending TPC §30.06 to include open-carry. In fact, I'm saying quite the opposite. If the open-carry bill amends TPC §30.06 to include open-carry, it will generate tremendous opposition!

Perhaps the confusion on my position came from other discussions of last session's open-carry promoters (not Rep. Lavender) demanding that either 1) a separate "big ugly sign" be created to cover open-carry only; or 2) 30.06 be amended to cover both open-carry and concealed-carry. (OC promoters don't want generic signs to apply to OC.) The legislature will never pass a bill that effectively requires a property owner to post two "big ugly signs" to cover both open and concealed carry. It will be difficult enough to maintain the status quo; that is, 30.06 signs are required to ban concealed-carry and any "no guns" sign would cover open-carry.

Chas.

[Jumping Frog]

An average-looking guy — obviously not a cop — walks in on a hot summer day. He doesn’t seem to be in a good mood. Over his tan golf shirt, he’s wearing a shiny chrome Colt .45 snapped into a brown leather shoulder holster.

An employee disappears into a back room and calls police.

Steve Stribley, a Dallas police officer with 23 years on the job, picks up the scenario from there.

“If you see a gun, you have to make sure the person has it legally,” he said. “You cannot give a pass to anyone.

.... Matthew Guard, ...“There aren’t enough cops to check everyone,” he said.

This raises a key point, but in a way that most people have not stopped to think through.

If we require a license to open carry, then that means unlicensed open carry is a crime.

Thus, every police officer has legitimate reasonable suspicion to detain and require identification from any person open carrying. This has been upheld in court in states that have licensed open carry.

However, if any law-abiding citizen can open carry regardless of license -- the very essence of constitutional carry -- than that changes the equation. Now a person open carrying is committing a lawful act, and thus there is no reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory detention or require identification.

I have personally been in one situation where I was open carrying while grocery shopping and had a "concerned citizen" raise the whole MWAG concern with a local police officer in the front of the grocery. The LEO correctly explained to the citizen that open carry was protected by the state constitution (different state) and I had every right to do so. I chatted with him afterwards, in a friendly fashion, and he never requested ID nor did he detain me.

Meanwhile, another citizen became aware that open carry was their right as well. I know a half dozen people who open carry regularly that started doing so only after they saw other people open carrying and became aware it was their right to do so. The people I know who open carry are ordinary middle-aged Americans going about their daily life and work. These are not the kind of people looking to find trouble, video it, and start a ruckus on Youtube.

[apostate]

If we require a license to open carry, then that means unlicensed open carry is a crime.

Thus, every police officer has legitimate reasonable suspicion to detain and require identification from any person open carrying. This has been upheld in court in states that have licensed open carry.

By remarkably similar reasoning, driving a motor vehicle is reasonable suspicion to detain and check drivers license & proof of financial responsibility, as those are required to legally operate a motor vehicle on public roads and highways in Texas. It's not a perfect parallel. The main difference, of course, is the US Constitution has no amendment saying the right to operate motor vehicles shall not be infringed.

[gdanaher]

I doubt that I would open carry on any regular basis, but it might loosen up the wardrobe a bit, so that if the concealed gun became exposed, I would be less likely to have an issue. A friend near OKC tells me that he hasn't seen anyone oc yet, but it is still early.

[jdhz28]

The one thing I liked about my time in PA. You can carry open anywhere, and there is no signage that can legally prevent you from doing so. I was surprised when the State Trooper told me this, but I thought it was interesting, given the town I was in and their more liberal leanings.

[The Annoyed Man]

I need to clarify something. I cannot say that passing open-carry requires amending TPC §30.06 to include open-carry. In fact, I'm saying quite the opposite. If the open-carry bill amends TPC §30.06 to include open-carry, it will generate tremendous opposition!

Perhaps the confusion on my position came from other discussions of last session's open-carry promoters (not Rep. Lavender) demanding that either 1) a separate "big ugly sign" be created to cover open-carry only; or 2) 30.06 be amended to cover both open-carry and concealed-carry. (OC promoters don't want generic signs to apply to OC.) The legislature will never pass a bill that effectively requires a property owner to post two "big ugly signs" to cover both open and concealed carry. It will be difficult enough to maintain the status quo; that is, 30.06 signs are required to ban concealed-carry and any "no guns" sign would cover open-carry.

Chas.

Charles, thanks for the clarification. How do you like the odds for OC?

[JeepGuy79]

I haven't OC'd even though I frequent VA which allows it. I can carry concealed there so I rather keep my piece under my clothes. i don't like everyone around me to know I am always armed.

[Jaguar]

I need to clarify something. I cannot say that passing open-carry requires amending TPC §30.06 to include open-carry. In fact, I'm saying quite the opposite. If the open-carry bill amends TPC §30.06 to include open-carry, it will generate tremendous opposition!

Perhaps the confusion on my position came from other discussions of last session's open-carry promoters (not Rep. Lavender) demanding that either 1) a separate "big ugly sign" be created to cover open-carry only; or 2) 30.06 be amended to cover both open-carry and concealed-carry. (OC promoters don't want generic signs to apply to OC.) The legislature will never pass a bill that effectively requires a property owner to post two "big ugly signs" to cover both open and concealed carry. It will be difficult enough to maintain the status quo; that is, 30.06 signs are required to ban concealed-carry and any "no guns" sign would cover open-carry.

Chas.

I wouldn't call myself an "OC promoter", but I would like to see OC pass in Texas. That said, I would rather generic "no guns" signs apply to OC, and keep the 30.06 signs for CC, but I would also like to see the penality for violating either be a request to leave at the least, and tresspassing at the most.

JMHO, IANAL, ETC.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I need to clarify something. I cannot say that passing open-carry requires amending TPC §30.06 to include open-carry. In fact, I'm saying quite the opposite. If the open-carry bill amends TPC §30.06 to include open-carry, it will generate tremendous opposition!

Perhaps the confusion on my position came from other discussions of last session's open-carry promoters (not Rep. Lavender) demanding that either 1) a separate "big ugly sign" be created to cover open-carry only; or 2) 30.06 be amended to cover both open-carry and concealed-carry. (OC promoters don't want generic signs to apply to OC.) The legislature will never pass a bill that effectively requires a property owner to post two "big ugly signs" to cover both open and concealed carry. It will be difficult enough to maintain the status quo; that is, 30.06 signs are required to ban concealed-carry and any "no guns" sign would cover open-carry.

Chas.

Charles, thanks for the clarification. How do you like the odds for OC?

It all depends on 1) how the bill is written; and 2) who is Chairman of the House Homeland Security & Public Safety Committee; and 3) the wishes of the Speaker of the House. Unfortunately, I don't know any of that information yet. (Chairman Sid Miller lost his bid for reelection.)

Chas.

[The Annoyed Man]

I need to clarify something. I cannot say that passing open-carry requires amending TPC §30.06 to include open-carry. In fact, I'm saying quite the opposite. If the open-carry bill amends TPC §30.06 to include open-carry, it will generate tremendous opposition!

Perhaps the confusion on my position came from other discussions of last session's open-carry promoters (not Rep. Lavender) demanding that either 1) a separate "big ugly sign" be created to cover open-carry only; or 2) 30.06 be amended to cover both open-carry and concealed-carry. (OC promoters don't want generic signs to apply to OC.) The legislature will never pass a bill that effectively requires a property owner to post two "big ugly signs" to cover both open and concealed carry. It will be difficult enough to maintain the status quo; that is, 30.06 signs are required to ban concealed-carry and any "no guns" sign would cover open-carry.

Chas.

Charles, thanks for the clarification. How do you like the odds for OC?

It all depends on 1) how the bill is written; and 2) who is Chairman of the House Homeland Security & Public Safety Committee; and 3) the wishes of the Speaker of the House. Unfortunately, I don't know any of that information yet. (Chairman Sid Miller lost his bid for reelection.)

Chas.

Do you think Warren Chisum can defeat Joe Strauss?

[TexasCajun]

Personally, I'd rather see the political capital expended on removing concealed carry prohibitions instead of introducing open carry. As is stated on the TSRA response cards for 30.06, CHL holders are generally the more law-abiding, responsible, and upstanding citizens. So why would there be an automatic prohibition against this cream of the crop carrying practically everywhere??? But that discussion would drive this thread off-topic.

I don't see the legislature stepping on the rights of property owners by repealling 30.06 (or enacting true constitutional carry for that matter). And I also don't envision them working to change 30.06 to include open carry without making it easier to prohibit concealed carry. Passing open carry would surely lead to gun-buster signs becoming legally enforceable.

[KC5AV]

I need to clarify something. I cannot say that passing open-carry requires amending TPC §30.06 to include open-carry. In fact, I'm saying quite the opposite. If the open-carry bill amends TPC §30.06 to include open-carry, it will generate tremendous opposition!

Perhaps the confusion on my position came from other discussions of last session's open-carry promoters (not Rep. Lavender) demanding that either 1) a separate "big ugly sign" be created to cover open-carry only; or 2) 30.06 be amended to cover both open-carry and concealed-carry. (OC promoters don't want generic signs to apply to OC.) The legislature will never pass a bill that effectively requires a property owner to post two "big ugly signs" to cover both open and concealed carry. It will be difficult enough to maintain the status quo; that is, 30.06 signs are required to ban concealed-carry and any "no guns" sign would cover open-carry.

Chas.

Charles, thanks for the clarification. How do you like the odds for OC?

It all depends on 1) how the bill is written; and 2) who is Chairman of the House Homeland Security & Public Safety Committee; and 3) the wishes of the Speaker of the House. Unfortunately, I don't know any of that information yet. (Chairman Sid Miller lost his bid for reelection.)

Chas.

Do you think Warren Chisum can defeat Joe Strauss?

Or Bryan Hughes? I wonder how many others will step forward to challenge him.