Open-Carry Discussions

[joelamosobadiah]

A couple quotes from Senator Lavender's Facebook page:

The NRA has been very supportive and has been working with us to get a clean bill that will be good for everyone. I have not had any conversations with the TSRA.

I think we have a better than 50% chance. I think it is much better. We will just wait and see how it shakes out with TSRA. I would be happy to have their support, but if not, we will survive. The Senate Is my biggest concern.

Sounds like his approach is much more sound than last session.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Why not look to Oklahoma for OC examples? They have had it for a year. My thoughts are this.

1. Keep the 30.06 sign for concealed carry.
2. Have a seperate sign similar to OK for open carry that basically say's "No open carry in this store"

Charles has repeatedly pointed out that this will NEVER pass the Texas legislature.

So, we should just hang up ever having open carry in Texas? Everything I've ever read from Charles he hasn't said that he has just said it won't happen in the way's it's been written in the past. Maybe I'm wrong.

Also, no disrespect to Charles in fact I have all the respect for him in the world and I know he's very connected but there are a lot more people in Texas than just him. He also might be in a better position to know but I seriously doubt he would make a blanketed statement such as that.

Baldeagle's comments and my position are directed at the idea of the legislature creating two different "big ugly signs," one for concealed-carry and one for open-carry. That is what will never pass. I've never said open-carry will never pass.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Why not look to Oklahoma for OC examples? They have had it for a year. My thoughts are this.

1. Keep the 30.06 sign for concealed carry.
2. Have a seperate sign similar to OK for open carry that basically say's "No open carry in this store"

Charles has repeatedly pointed out that this will NEVER pass the Texas legislature.

It has already passed the Texas Legislature.

The 30.06 law explicitly applies only to concealed handguns. (And only to some of those.) It does not apply to, and a different sign or signs would be needed to prohibit:
Open carry of handguns by security guards
Open carry of handguns by travelers
Open carry of rifles
Open carry of shotguns
Open carry of subguns
Open carry of 5" hunting knives
Open carry of any of these revolvers
Et cetera

While TPC §30.06 applies only to CHL's and TPC §30.05 applies to non-CHL's with guns, this is not what is being discussed. The proposal is to create a separate sign for open-carry that is "similar" to 30.06 signs for concealed-carry. That means a "big ugly sign" with language specific to open-carry. Current law does not require any special sign or verbiage in order to apply to the people and guns you have listed, if they are not CHL's.

My position is that the best we can hope for is to maintain the status quo in terms of signage. Based upon earlier posts about Rep. Lavender's website, it appears he fully understands that it is critical not to amend TPC §30.06. I am very encouraged by his comments and I hope he would not only oppose the inevitable amendments that will be offered in committee or on the floor, but that he would kill his own bill before allowing such an amendment. It takes a lot of courage to "pull" your own bill, but it is sometimes necessary to protect the broader interest of gun owners.

Chas.

[canvasbck]

I was the person who posted the 30.06 question to him on facebook. I too am very encouraged by his response.

IF he does as he says in his response and leaves 30.06 alone, and does not (as he says) "jeopardize the progress that we have made in regards to concealed carry" then I believe we could see a bill that all pro 2a constituants could support. I know that it's a big "IF" because, as Charles stated, there will be amendments that will appear to be pro gun, but will actually kill the bill by puting private property rights against individuall 2a rights.

[TexasCajun]

If all of the 'ifs" become reality then, count me as 100% behind open carry!!!

[Charles L. Cotton]

If TPC §30.06 is not amended to include open-carry, then passage of open-carry is much more likely. Since it would go into effect on Sept. 1st, that would give several months to carry out an "educational" program for the public and hopefully allay the fears some will have about seeing people openly carrying handguns. The general public is not aware of the tremendous track record CHL's have garnered, so publicizing it should have a strong impact and go a long way to reducing the fear factor.

Chas.

[safety1]

What can us everyday folks out here do to help??? I would really like to see an open carry bill pass!

[pcgizzmo]

If TPC §30.06 is not amended to include open-carry, then passage of open-carry is much more likely. Since it would go into effect on Sept. 1st, that would give several months to carry out an "educational" program for the public and hopefully allay the fears some will have about seeing people openly carrying handguns. The general public is not aware of the tremendous track record CHL's have garnered, so publicizing it should have a strong impact and go a long way to reducing the fear factor.

Chas.

Oh, don't worry. If open carry passes the news media will do a wonderful job of educating the public. (You know I'm joking right?)

[pcgizzmo]

What can us everyday folks out here do to help??? I would really like to see an open carry bill pass!

I'd say we need to wait till we see how the actual new bill is worded and then contact your representative and ask for their support once the time is right.

[fickman]

If I understand your proposal correctly, i.e. property owners would be able to prohibit open-carry but not concealed-carry, then no, that would never pass. The legislature would never deprive private property owners of the ability to exclude armed CHL's from their own property.

I believe you, but I think this is one of the saddest things about our current climate.

The only way to absolutely prevent CHL carry should be metal detectors. If the property owner can't see the firearm and can't detect the firearm, it's none of his/her business. It's a simplistic analogy, but to me, it's like having a policy against customers wearing green underwear. Unless a business has the means and the will to search every customer, there shouldn't be a trespass law against customers who disregard the store's wishes.

. . . Also, the legislature would never pass a bill that made no-gun signs ineffective and requiring property owners to ask people to leave before they are subject to a trespass charge. Although this is the way many LEO agencies handle trespass calls, the legislature would never make this statutorily required.

Once again, I believe you, although I might ask you to change from "the legislature" to "this legislature". . . or change "never" to something slightly less than absolute (even if it's a 99.9% chance of not happening).

We can always change our the composure of the legislature. I know, it's a long, slow process, and it's unlikely to move significantly in our direction any time soon. Still, I personally won't stop pressuring my local representatives for these types of scenarios. I know it's probably futile, but these types of measure have passed in other states with strong property-rights sensibilities.

It will be a challenge to keep TPC §30.06 applicable only to concealed-carry and let any generic "no-guns" signs apply only to open-carry.

This goes a long way towards protecting concealed carry but would effectively reduce open carry to a right to be exercised only on public streets. The "gun busters" signs are pretty much ubiquitous at retail and restaurant establishments. . . at least the chains in the suburbs and cities.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you. . . I just wish we were truly a conservative state like our neighbor to the north. If the reputation of Texas among the other states were even marginally true, we wouldn't be all be exerting so much effort in these battles for mere inches at a time.

Thanks again for the work you've done in the fight, Charles.

[canvasbck]

I have a question for Charles. (OK, multiple questions)

I know that you have stated that the best way to get open carry passed is to start with repeal of 46.035(a)/(h), then introduce a clean up bill next session to remove the word concealed from everything except 30.06. Given the bill that Rep Lavender introduced last time, along with his pledge this time to leave 30.06 alone. I believe that we may see him try to do the 46.035 a/h repeal and the "clean up" with one bill (basically last session's bill without the 30.06 part). Do you believe that this is biting off too much? Is there a danger in trying to get it all done at the same time?

If your suggestion were followed and 46.035 a/h were repealled this session and a clean up bill went through next session, would open carry be "kind of" legal in between the two sessions? I'm not trying to be obtuse, I'm trying to understand our process better and what effect repealing the criminal part of open carry would have without getting rid of the word concealed every where else during the two year period we would be waiting on the clean up bill. I'm also trying to get a handle on why there is an advantage to waiting for the clean up part.

[77346]

Oh, don't worry. If open carry passes the news media will do a wonderful job of educating the public. (You know I'm joking right?)

Imagine that, Bob Costas could be hired as the spoke person for OC in Texas!

[C-dub]

What I don't understand is why won't requiring a business to ask an open carrier to leave if they don't want them in their store won't pass. It seems to be working okay in other states. What is so different about this here in Texas? Based on what Charles and others have said won't pass here it seems that getting OC passed is impossible here in Texas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

What I don't understand is why won't requiring a business to ask an open carrier to leave if they don't want them in their store won't pass. It seems to be working okay in other states. What is so different about this here in Texas? Based on what Charles and others have said won't pass here it seems that getting OC passed is impossible here in Texas.

It's wrong to require a property owner to let someone enter the property so they will be forced to confront them and tell them to leave.

Chas.

[baldeagle]

What I don't understand is why won't requiring a business to ask an open carrier to leave if they don't want them in their store won't pass. It seems to be working okay in other states. What is so different about this here in Texas? Based on what Charles and others have said won't pass here it seems that getting OC passed is impossible here in Texas.

It's wrong to require a property owner to let someone enter the property so they will be forced to confront them and tell them to leave.

Chas.

Just as it's wrong to tell a property owner they must serve people they don't want to, but we lost that battle in the sixties. (And no, I'm not in favor of segregation.) Property owners have precious few rights left in the US of Amerika.