TexasCHLforum.com

harrycallahan wrote:

jmra wrote:

harrycallahan wrote:

jmra wrote:

harrycallahan wrote:In 204 days 17 hours and 32 minutes we will find out.

I doubt we will discover much on Jan 1. It will take some time to figure out how common place OC will become in TX. IMHO after the dust settles the average Joe will rarely see OC. With only about 3% of the population licensed to carry and only about half that number carrying on a regular basis and only a fraction of that number willing to OC it simply isn't going to be that big a deal.
When it's all said and done we will have spent a great amount of political capital on principle with little practical life application.

I can't dispute your math as it relates to OC. However, I believe that Open Carry's importance should not be measured by the methods you've prescribed. To do so actually subscribes to the anti-2A logic, to a point. I agree the percentages are small at this time, but that number will only grow. A powerful, voting group of people that are 800,000 strong is nothing to dismiss. That is nearly a million households, some with children and all with family and friends that are being exposed to lawful citizens exercising their 2A rights. There is no doubt much political capital were spent on this. But on whose side? Why? The anti-2A philosophy understands this and that is why they fought as hard as they did against Open Carry. Make no mistake, the campaign that they mounted against Open Carry was on many fronts and was in the form of in your face attacks, fronts, moles and misinformation. I have my views on Open Carry and so do all of us. But if you want to really know how important something actually is, just take a look at what the opposition is doing. They almost killed it by agreeing with it! I am referring to the Dutton/Huffines amendment. That tactic was genius and it was executed right under our nose.

The flaw in your logic is that all 800,000 supported spending the political capital to pass OC - they didn't.

I did not say that all 800,000 supported OC and it wouldn't be accurate to say anyway. I was only drawing a correlation between those with Texas CHLs and the opposition's willingness to defeat legislation aimed towards that end. I hope that once you've had a chance to think it over, HB 910 that is, that you'll moderate even just a bit. Because when you describe it as a bill "with little practical life application" as you did here, others will read it and think the same. HB 910 doesn't just apply to Open Carry. The reduction in penalties applies to us all and that alone makes this bill worth it. I know it was expensive, but so was everything. This session was painful to watch. Much like watching paint dry, a root canal or listening to a Hilary Clinton speech.

harrycallahan wrote:

jmra wrote:

harrycallahan wrote:In 204 days 17 hours and 32 minutes we will find out.

I doubt we will discover much on Jan 1. It will take some time to figure out how common place OC will become in TX. IMHO after the dust settles the average Joe will rarely see OC. With only about 3% of the population licensed to carry and only about half that number carrying on a regular basis and only a fraction of that number willing to OC it simply isn't going to be that big a deal.
When it's all said and done we will have spent a great amount of political capital on principle with little practical life application.

I can't dispute your math as it relates to OC. However, I believe that Open Carry's importance should not be measured by the methods you've prescribed. To do so actually subscribes to the anti-2A logic, to a point. I agree the percentages are small at this time, but that number will only grow. A powerful, voting group of people that are 800,000 strong is nothing to dismiss. That is nearly a million households, some with children and all with family and friends that are being exposed to lawful citizens exercising their 2A rights. There is no doubt much political capital were spent on this. But on whose side? Why? The anti-2A philosophy understands this and that is why they fought as hard as they did against Open Carry. Make no mistake, the campaign that they mounted against Open Carry was on many fronts and was in the form of in your face attacks, fronts, moles and misinformation. I have my views on Open Carry and so do all of us. But if you want to really know how important something actually is, just take a look at what the opposition is doing. They almost killed it by agreeing with it! I am referring to the Dutton/Huffines amendment. That tactic was genius and it was executed right under our nose.

harrycallahan wrote:In 204 days 17 hours and 32 minutes we will find out.

K.Mooneyham wrote:

dale blanker wrote:I can see open carry during some special events but how many would want to open carry most of the time?
It seems to me that some disadvantages of open carry are:
1. might make lots of folks uncomfortable
2.LEO would probably give more attention if not a license check hassle. As someone noted a reason to stop and check can nearly always be found.
3. might actually make the open carrier more of a target for some low life looking for something value to rip off. It might also give the impression a large sum of money is on hand.

Is it worth it?

Responding to your number 3 item, I will simply ask this: if that is true, why aren't we hearing that sort of thing in the news every day from other states that have open carry? It's a well-known fact that the bulk of the mass news media is anti-firearm and anti-self defense, so if people open carrying handguns were being targeted in other states, you can bet the mass media would have it on blast...except I haven't really seen anything on that. Sorry, but I'm just not buying that one.

rays87turbo wrote:I'm glad they got this passed. It's a shame they had to strip the Dutton-Huffines amendment. It really shouldn't matter, OC should be protected by the 4th like driving, but I suppose someone will have to take a test case to court to prove it now.
https://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/28 ... arry-bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Skiprr wrote:

jmra wrote:

Skiprr wrote:KPRC in Houston just reported the bill has cleared and is headed to the Governor's desk. I have no other confirmation, but my fingers are crossed.

The report is accurate

Just read the note from Alice Tripp describing how it transpired. Well whaddya know?

Skiprr wrote:KPRC in Houston just reported the bill has cleared and is headed to the Governor's desk. I have no other confirmation, but my fingers are crossed.

Skiprr wrote:

jmra wrote:

Xikar wrote:Well, the bill passed the Senate and is heading back to the house.

Oops, what is this? They uncovered a "clerical error" that must be hashed out first (time killer here).

Imagine that. An employee screwed up the wording in the OC paperwork. Again. It's not a coincidence people.

Link?

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/05/ ... the-house/

My take is that there was no new clerical error discovered, but that there was discussion over the Huffines' amendment: some senators were of the opinion that because the amendment was removed and then reinserted, the bill would go directly to Governor Abbott; others felt it would have to go back to the House for concurrence. The general counsel for the Senate (I believe this is Zachary Stephenson) made the decision that the bill did, indeed, have to go back to the House for a concurrence vote.

An inch at a time. I still have my fingers crossed.

Xikar wrote:Well, the bill passed the Senate and is heading back to the house.

Oops, what is this? They uncovered a "clerical error" that must be hashed out first (time killer here).

Imagine that. An employee screwed up the wording in the OC paperwork. Again. It's not a coincidence people.

SewTexas wrote:The Dean needs to stop interrupting Huffines, he's making himself look like a rude bully right now.