TexasCHLforum.com

CoffeeNut wrote:

Bullitt wrote:

switch wrote:Maybe your employer is too stupid to work for. :)

Oh wow! That was a profoundly useful comeback.

Here's the deal Bozos: Those of us opposed to open carry stated that it would bring too much attention to the issue, and we were right. You "concept men" in your high-perched intellectual righteous indignation thought otherwise. Y'all screwed the pooch on this. Open carry has accomplished nothing but to shut down concealed carry.

You aren't doing anyone any good by continually calling people names because they support something that you do not. Claiming that open carry is shutting down concealed carry because your employer is now posted is quite a reach considering most people are only encountering a very small number of new 30.06 signs.

Can you not see that he is reacting in anger because this has impacted him personally? Cut the guy some slack. On the OC side you have guys celebrating because they can now OC. But for some, it has stripped them of their ability to protect themselves, and they were somewhat blindsided by it.

If you can't be understanding of that, then I don't know what to say. I had to disarm every day when I went to work. It was extremely frustrating, because I knew that if something bad happened, I would have to run and hide like a coward rather than defend myself. So I completely understand how frustrated those who have been impacted by the change are at this point.

To those whom this has impacted, please get a GOOD safe for your car. Lock your firearm and magazines in the safe before you get out of the car, and then rearm before you start the car. Please do not let this loss lull you into never carrying. Carry wherever you can.

I wish people would stop defending OC as they were being personally attacked. When someone says "OC did this to me" they are no referring to you. They are not referring to OC supporters. They are referring to the very real impact that its passage has had on them personally. Those who are angry are so because they have lost the ability to defend themselves. Surely you can understand that? Instead of reacting with defensive responses, how about trying to sympathize with someone who has been hurt by its passage? Surely you have it within you to be the bigger person?

Ruark wrote:Good point, Stinger. My comment was, perhaps erroneously so, based on my own self-protection. My wife has often said that if a business has an 06 sign and we go in unarmed and are killed/injured by a shooter, she will sue the snot out of them for denying us the right to self protection. You're looking at it from a broader perspective: "We are not a security team ... to protect stores." That's a little different, but is still a good point.

Any lawyer worth his salt would destroy that suit in five minutes. Mrs. Ruark, did you see the 30.06 sign in the window? Isn't that the reason that your husband disarmed? Didn't he know it was illegal to enter the store with his weapon? Yet, didn't you enter the store anyway, knowing that you were disarmed and that you might be in danger?

I'm not even a lawyer and I can see that.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

VoiceofReason wrote:Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. If I am on someone’s property at their invitation or lawfully otherwise, they have the right to tell me what I can or cannot do. They also have the responsibility to ensure my safety and security.

completely with this part of your post.

I think we are getting too detailed when we talk about requiring metal detectors, etc. If the law simply said that a business posting a 30.06 and 30.07 sign is responsible for ensuring the safety of their forcibly unarmed customers, that should be enough.

It would be up to the business to determine how they go about providing safety to their customers. One way would be by installing metal detectors. Another would be by hiring armed guards. If something bad happens and a customer is the victim of a violent crime, a jury could decide whether the business took all reasonable precautions or whether the business was negligent in their duty.

Of course, the business could avoid this increased responsibility by taking down their signs....

So if a business didn't post 30.06 you would absolve them of all responsibility for the safety and security of their customers? Probably not, so now you have to write a law that anticipates every possibility. For example, what if a bad guy walks in to a store with a gun to rob it, a chl responds and shoots the bad guy but also hits a bystander? Does the store have any responsibility? Can they be sued for allowing carry which led to the shooting? Can they be held responsible for allowing the bad guy in the store that led to the shooting?

It quickly becomes extremely complicated to write a law that does the simple thing you claim to want to do - "persuade" store owners to allow you to carry in their store.

Charles, I've been fighting hard for several days to make the truth known. There are some that either don't want to hear it or obstinately insist it's not true. I don't think any amount of evidence will change their minds. One guy even said, about numerous links I posted proving the OCT was like a bull in a china shop, that it proved nothing. Even the panic buttons on legislators' offices don't change their opinion. You can't reason with people like that. You just have to tolerate them.

ScottDLS wrote:

Tell that to the guys that can no longer carry at work. To the guys that now have to change their shopping routines, because the stores they've gone to for years are no longer available to them. The tradeoff might seem worthwhile to you, because it's had no impact on you personally. It might seem a lot less worthwhile to someone who has now had to disarm.

There were companies that allowed their employees to carry at work, that then changed their minds and posted 30.06/30.07 because of open carry, AND prohibited their employees from carrying? Maybe there's ONE guy on this board where that happened, but even that's hard to believe. I'm still waiting to see how many places that had 30.06 posted failed to update the language for 2016.

The stores they've gone to for years...we have Half Price Books and unconfirmed reports of the odd gas station and Applebees. In DFW we have the Mills mall that took down their sign.

I'm still guessing MORE places we can CC legally and definitely MORE where we can OC.

Scott, there have been three different people on this board that have stated that they can no longer carry at work because of the furor over OC. This very thread was started by one of them. Do you seriously want to claim that he's lying? http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 3#p1041163

stingeragent wrote:One point at a time. All the links you posted in the top of thread were from 2014. That in no way shows they had anything to do with the 2015 session.

So the fact that Texas legislators now have panic buttons to protect them from pro-gun activists had nothing to do with the 2015 session and had no impact on the legislators' thinking about gun rights?

stingeragent wrote:As to folks on this forum not supporting OC and you wanting 1 specific example? There are at least 10 on page 1 of this forum. Heres one. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=81386]

Please! Complaining about the impact OCT has had on our ability to carry is NOT anti-OC. Find a post where someone says, "I'm opposed to OC. I think it should never pass". THAT would be anti-OC.

stingeragent wrote:As to grisham being arrested for "LEGALLY" open carrying an AR. Yes he was. He was doing what he legally could on a back roads area ( there is a youtube video of this ). That did in fact start the OCT movement. Would you have done any different? You get illegally arrrested for exercising your freedoms and don't try and do anything about it? That was the whole point for him starting the group in the first place.

OK, I'll forgive you for knowing nothing about me and not bothering to find out.

stingeragent wrote:Furthermore, I may be new to this forum but that does not make me any less relevant. I am pro gun. I have always been. I served 6 years in the army and have 3 tours to Iraq so do NOT treat me like I am insignificant because I don't have thousands of post like you do.

I never once said you or anyone else was less relevant. And I did not treat you as insignificant. I simply asked you to learn a little about the history of this forum before judging it. And for the record, I served six years in the US Navy during the Vietnam War.

stingeragent wrote:Lastly, as I said before, and your post clearly indicates it is all speculation that OCT caused anything. You posted links to news stories from 2014 that "proved" because of their antics weapons won't be allowed in their stores. Fair point, but that is not the case everywhere.

So you concede that they did do some damage but still complain it's speculation? Fine. You're entitled to an opinion, even when it makes no sense.

stingeragent wrote:Those same exact stores could have come to the same conclusion once open carry of handguns passed. You fail to realize the difference between a handgun and rifle.

Oh that's rich.

stingeragent wrote:Outside of the caliber and the weight and length, they can still take your life. That's all the Anti's care about. This same exact thing would have happened regardless of OCT. Some mom in Chipotle would of got offended because the law abiding LTC holder is sporting a Springfield XDS. They only brought the attention earlier than when the law was passed.

Yes, and gave the anti-gun forces plenty of time to gear up and propagandize. What do you suppose would have happened if law abiding citizens had OC'd on Jan 1, and then, when some anti noticed it and demanded the store put up signs, the store manager said, "What? We never even noticed that. The guy was obviously not causing a problem."?

stingeragent wrote:Quit being so naive.

Ooph! I'm almost 69 son. I left naive in the rear view mirror a long time ago.

stingeragent wrote:This same discussion would have happened irregardless of if OCT had never existed. If this law was passed on the backburner and no one was the wizer, don't you think the anti gun folks would notice citizens with hosltered handguns instead of AR-15's on their back. Do you thinks MDA cares if you have an open carried handgun vs a rifle? Nope. A gun is a gun. This arguement was unavoidable.

Yes, but it would have been fought on OUR terms, not theirs. Which would you rather do? Patrol openly through enemy ground? Or setup an ambush and wait for them to walk into it?

stingeragent wrote:Edit: If you want more examples for anti-oc on this board. Look at the title of this very thread. Also see here. viewtopic.php?f=7&t=81545 or here viewtopic.php?f=7&t=81114
I am not gonna link every post disproving your opinion. Browse through this forum and you will see there is quite a few folks against OC

You have a very broad definition of what anti-OC means.

stingeragent wrote:Edit 2: Back to grisham and his initial arrest, he was doing nothing wrong. How did you expect him to react. Put yourself in his shoes and come up with a different scenario for how you would of reacted. Personally if I get arrested for something I'm 100% legally doing I am gonna make the worlds biggest fit about it too. I am assuming you are incorrectly looking at these issues after the fact when everything has been established and not putting yourself in that persons position. It's easy to criticize an officer invovled shooting after the video goes viral on youtube, but for that officer in that moment it is not so easy. It is their life or the suspects, and then they are judged by a jury of their peers based on that action.

Grisham didn't get arrested because he did nothing wrong. Nor was he convicted for doing nothing wrong. His BEHAVIOR was what got him arrested, and his behavior is what is causing all the problems now. And before you go off on my opinion about Grisham, go read my posts. He's a personal friend of mine, and I defended him on this forum long after the incident - until I could no longer deny that what he was doing was wrong.

If he had simply behaved like the professional soldier that he claimed to be, he never would have been arrested.

switch wrote:Like many others, I felt like Grisham and OCT were over the top and were doing harm. I have decided (just my opinion), that they probably did not have a negative effect.

So, in your opinion, the fact that our legislators now have panic buttons on their office doors to protect them from pro-gun activists is not a negative????

switch wrote:We've been trying to get constitutional carry/OC for years. The fact is, it never went anywhere UNTIL these activists got involved.

We've been trying to get campus carry for years. The fact is OCT did NOTHING to get campus carry passed and yet we still have it. So giving them credit for something we have been working on since 2011 and would have gotten passed without their "help" doesn't comport with the facts.

switch wrote:We got a lot of improvements this year (30.06 lowered to Class C, cities subject to $10.500 fines, Premises carry on 4 year public universities Aug 1, knife pre-emption, NFA law improved, LEO has to give you a chance to leave the TSA checkpoint).

And OCT had NOTHING to do with getting ANY of that passed. They are a one trick pony. They could care less about all the other issues that we've worked on for years.

switch wrote:I never believed there was a chance for constitutional carry. I think licensed OC was the likely outcome. We may get constitutional carry in 4 to 6 years.

I don't know what you expected to get that was NOT passed.It seems to me, if there was a back-lash against/triggered by OCT, some of these improvements would not have passed.

I guarantee you we would have gotten OC passed without any "help" from OCT. And we would have had a lot less negative reaction to it as well.

switch wrote:Maybe the lege passed these hoping OCT would quit OC rifles. :) Actually, seems to have worked. I haven't seen any rallies w/rifles lately. :)

OK, there has been a proliferation of 30.06 signs. I think it's a worthwhile trade off, considering. YMMV

But can't we all just get along?

Tell that to the guys that can no longer carry at work. To the guys that now have to change their shopping routines, because the stores they've gone to for years are no longer available to them. The tradeoff might seem worthwhile to you, because it's had no impact on you personally. It might seem a lot less worthwhile to someone who has now had to disarm.

That's exactly what many of us are complaining about. The selfish demand for "rights" turns a blind eye to the impact it has on thousands of people's lives.

stingeragent wrote:I know everyone is always quick to blame OCT for everything but as of yet I haven't seen conclusive proof that their actions had any statistical impact on where we are now. (if I'm wrong please post a link) From what I have seen it has all been taken as speculation that OCT makes the news so that has to be the reason when in fact that may not be the case. In any case, everything they did is and was legal (to my knowledge) so they were just doing what they legally could. You may think it was in bad taste, or I may think it was in bad taste, but none the less, that is not for us to decide as it is and was a freedom they could use. We can not be hypocritical of someone using their freedoms (in our opinion in bad taste or not), and then expect us to get our freedoms without prejudice. Just as we can preach about our gun right's, the crazy anti's can do the same even though we know for sure 99% of what they say is garbage.

I don't know what rock you've been living under, but I'll just post a few links proving that the statements made in this forum about OCT are factual.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/mor ... s-at-home/
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2014/05/31/open ... rotestors/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/201 ... s/9789685/
http://www.alan.com/2014/07/02/video-op ... ause-derp/#
http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texa ... 015078.php
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... squad.html

Just Google Open Carry Texas and protest and activist and you'll find tons of articles about their actions and the consequences of those actions.

And for a good taste of their willingness to work together, read this thread http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showt ... -CHL-forum

If you had advocated open carry on there you would have been chastised and then banned if you did not fall in line like a good little sheeple.

I'll show in a minute how ironic that statement is.

As for your claim that it is "not for us to decide", all I can say is rights are not a one way street. As you state, they had the legal right to do what they did. But just because what they did was legal does not mean that no one has the right to criticize them for their behavior or for the damage they have done to the 2A movement. I, for one, will not be silent about their behavior or the damage they have done. With rights come responsibilities. The second part seems to be lost on a lot of younger people.

It seems a lot of new people on the forum are ignorant of the work that's been done by Charles Cotton and Alice Tripp and members of this forum for decades and the positions that have been taken. The first open carry bill was introduced in 2011. Here's a discussion we had about it. viewtopic.php?t=44594 By that time we had been working on campus carry for several years. http://www.thetrace.org/2015/07/the-mak ... -movement/ (The first discussions regarding campus carry took place on this board in 2005) In 2013 another open carry bill was introduced. The NRA-ILA supported that bill. http://www.texasgopvote.com/texas/texas ... rry-005062 It was about that time (March 2013) that CJ Grisham was arrested for openly carrying an AR-15 near Temple, Texas. It was AFTER that that OC Texas and OC Tarrant County were established and began running through the state like a wrecking ball raising the awareness of the average citizen to gun issues, and not in a positive way.

Yeah, we "sheeple" have been working on 2A rights including OC before some of these mockers were a gleam in their father's eyes.

Many of us would have preferred to quietly work our way through the legislature, as we always had in the past, and get campus carry across the finish line and work on OC but be prepared to fight again in 2017. OCT made that impossible. Either we got OC passed this session or God knows if we ever would have after OCT got through doing their damage. And we barely did, because OCT worked overtime trying to kill the bill through the Dutton Amendment.

stingeragent wrote:I have seen this quite a bit on this forum. A lot of folks on here are completely against OC

That is flatly false. I won't take the time to prove it to you. There are hundreds and hundreds of posts on this forum discussing OC YEARS before it passed, and I defy you to find ONE post where people said that were opposed to OC. There have been plenty of discussions regarding it not being as high a priority as some other cherished goals, but NO ONE has said OC should not be allowed or even said it should not be a goal.

My suggestion to a lot of the new people jumping on to this forum is to spend some time reading through the forum and learn who you are dealing with before forming any opinions about us. No one has been a greater supporter of 2A rights in Texas than the members of this forum. No one has worked harder or longer on 2A rights in Texas than Charles Cotton and Alice Tripp and members of this forum. We were working on OC TWO YEARS before OCT and OCTC came on the scene and blew everything up. So if you're going to accuse ANYONE who is a long time member of this forum of being anti-OC, you'd better prepare to get blasted, because I will not put up with it. And I have thousands of posts to back me up and prove you are wrong.

canvasbck wrote:I have to lol at all the "signs are never coming down" declarations. The vast majority of signs I have seen are at convenience stores and it abundantly clear that all of these posters came from the same source. I would be willing to wager that MDA or some other anti group supplied the signs at no cost. If you really believe that a free poster stuck to the window with scotch tape is never coming down........well lol.

One of these stores (.06 and .07) is one that my wife stops at 3-5 times a week. She will be politely informing them why she is going to have to cease stopping at their store on Monday. I'll be doing the same for another store that I used to go to every Monday and Thursday on my way to our IDPA/PASS matches.

Why don't you do us all a favor? When you go by those two stores you can no longer shop at, please take a photograph of the signs and post them here so we can see if you're right about the scotch tape. And don't forget to report them to texas3006.com as well.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Richbirdhunter wrote:So you guys have no appreciation for this restored freedom? Would you rather the government take it away again for another 125 years? Grapevine mills mall has been posted 30.06 for years and now they aren't posted at all.

Freedom scares people, we have been told it's ok to lose freedom for safety. What freedoms are you willing to give up for safety? We have the patriot act, Obamacare, "common sense" gun laws. All of these things make us safer. Do you feel free?

Are you absolutely certain about this? GVM has famously been posted for years, and as recently as last month it was STILL posted. The parent company is extremely anti-gun, and it would surprise the heck out of me if they removed all the signs.

According to texas3006.com they are not posted presently.

Just went in and out through the doors by Nike, no signs. So I drove around to every entrance. No signs at any entrance. Don't know if they are getting new ones, but until then....

Posted on: 2016-01-09 13:56:11

Rvrrat14 wrote:As witnessed in several robberies, 30.06/30.07 also let the goblins know where to go!

Sooner or later they all figure it out and become human, whereby they think for themselves.

Patience.....

What universe do you live in? I live in America, and it's been my experience that people don't learn much at all. We keep electing the same "leaders" over and over again, even after they've been convicted of crimes. How does that indicate even a modicum of learning? The nation has been going downhill for 50 years or more and yet people still argue about which party is better for the country when both parties have been destroying it.

Since 1950 every mass shooting but two have taken place in gun free zones. Have you seen much learning going on? Have any gun free zones come down? My God, we even have gun free zones on military bases.

It's been said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. On that basis, at least half, if not more, of Americans are insane. No learning is going to occur in that crowd.