TexasCHLforum.com

mr1337

treadlightly wrote:If only my banker had half that kind of horse sense. Dratted 30.06 signs...

Time to find a new bank.

mr1337

Little change of subject.

I was reading through HB308 and found something a little surprising. It reverts to the older "intentionally fails to conceal" that was fixed last session. I know the guys at the capitol are smart cookies. But Charles, do you think they'll catch and amend that before to the current TPC verbiage it goes out?

mr1337

LDB415 wrote:I suspect a significant number of people would find any carry of any firearm in a person's hand as threatening. For that matter the same would apply to fixed blade knives and many other items probably.

If you want to carry your AR pistol I'd suggest a sling as a less threatening alternative.

I am not advocating any form of restriction but sadly there isn't enough common sense in the general public to avoid some form of restriction now and then.

My point is the restriction should be that it cannot be carried in a manner calculated to cause alarm.

mr1337

RoyGBiv wrote:
Teamless wrote:
RoyGBiv wrote:handgun carried upon the person in a shoulder or belt holster that
is wholly or partially visible.
Yes, but you are thinking as a law abiding person
What about the thugs who don't use holsters?

So should be
handgun carried upon the person that
is wholly or partially visible.
I believe I understand your intent to allow "Mexican Carry", but your version would also allow the handgun to be in your hand. Probably a non-starter.
Requiring a generic "holster" is not much of an impediment. "Mexican carry" should be avoided for safety reasons anyway.

I believe we'd agree that "shoulder or belt" is too restrictive. People carry in many different ways. It's a whole industry now.

I think the word holster is too restrictive.

I'm not saying I would want to do this, but what if I did want to openly carry my AR-15 pistol? Surely there's no holster that could hold it.

LDB415 wrote:Carried on or about one's person, not in one's hand?

Same scenario. Openly carrying an AR-15 pistol and I want to carry it resting on my shoulder, barrel pointing up. Still non-threatening, not in a holster, but now in my hand.

I don't want to get into the politics of openly carrying such a weapon in public, because I know it can be destructive to our cause. I'm more concerned about crafting the verbiage to allow the least restrictive method of carrying as possible. As long as you are not carrying it in a threatening manner, I don't think there should be a problem.

mr1337

DUST FOOT wrote:I really hope the TSRA gets behind one of these open carry bills and for the reasons of making it easier for law makers to get on board, taking the wind out of the OC show boaters sails, and common sense I would like to see any open carry bill have these amendments.
1: no openly carried firearm larger than .45 cal unless on your own property, hunting, or any other shooting activity. There is just no need to walk around with a S&W 500 hand cannon strapped to your leg for self defense.
2: no more than one openly carried handgun at a time on your person. We don't need people walking around like Hoot Gibson with 2 six shooters on their hips.
3:can carry no more than one extra clip or speed loader on your person while open carrying in the general public. we don't need people walking around with bullet belts across their chest just trying to show off or looking like the Lone Ranger

I would even be OK with having to openly display your state issued handgun license if you open carry a handgun ( on a lanyard around your neck, clipped on your pocket, or someway like that ) so that any person or LEO can see that you have passed a state and federal background check, been finger printed, and have met all other state requirements.

I know that I will get hammered on pretty hard about this, but I am not against anybody's freedoms it is just that open carry is my biggest wish from law makers in 2015 and I feel that these amendments could make it an easier pill to swallow for the ones that are still on the fence about open carry. We can always tweek the law later let's just get open carry passed first. This is the first time I have ever posted my opinion on this forum so please go easy but let the hammering begin.

Robert M.

I think you have 2015 confused with 1815. This isn't the wild west. No one is the Lone Ranger or Hoot Gibson. We're not going to have duels at high noon. And no one is going to be shooting up saloons.

I am not against anybody's freedoms

It seems like you're against a lot of freedoms. Your definition of the ideal open carry bill is one that caters to you, and only to you. Who is the government to say how many firearms can be openly carried, and how many magazines you're allowed to have? What's the difference between me open carrying a Glock 26 with 5 spare 10-round magazines, or the same Glock 26 with two 33-round magazines? It's roughly the same round count, but under your preference, the former would not be allowed.

We can't allow any of these types of changes to make it into legislature. Look at Colorado. 15 round limit for magazines. Even worse in NY and CA. Not saying that's going to be happening any time soon for Texas, but that's the type of stuff you get when you allow these seemingly trivial restrictions into our laws. Don't let it be limited because YOU don't like it, or you would prefer not to see people with more than one gun or magazine. This is as much about freedom and personal liberty as it is about the 2nd Amendment.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 5 matches

Re: General 2015 Legislative Session Discussion

Re: General 2015 Legislative Session Discussion

Re: General 2015 Legislative Session Discussion

Re: General 2015 Legislative Session Discussion

Re: 2015 Bill Status Report