TXlaw1 wrote:What is the need for citizens to open carry when they can have the advantage of concealed carry if confronted with a perp who wants to do them harm? Is there really research that shows that open carry deters crime? If so, I'd like to be pointed to it.
There may or may not be tactical advantages. SRothstein addresses that from the perspective of a long-time LEO in his post. For me, that is irrelavent. Each Texan should be able to make up his or her own mind. It isn't about "need' but rather about liberty. At least that's the philosophical part of my answer.
The practical part is that it is HOT in Texas and there are times where covering up -- or fully covering up to the standards of CC -- are inconvenient or uncomfortable. Numerous times I've faced this situation: I'm going to take the bike for a spin. It is summer in Texas and I'm already going to be hot in my armored jacket which is too tight to allow for a shoulder rig. IBW is uncomfortable but doable IF I don't take my prefered side arm (an XD .40 micro, so not a hand cannon). My regular strong-side holster isn't covered by the tight jacket so I'll need some other cover garment. Do I: a) take a smaller pistol and go IBW, b) find another way to cover my usual hoster and gun and accept the additional heat & hassle, c) buy new stuff to aleviate some of these issues, or d) don't carry.
Will it really cause mass panic if someone happens to distinguish my black and stainless pistol from my black and silver jacket and black bike? I'm licensed and trusted by Texas to carry a handgun so is this behavior so egregious or threatening or scary that it needs to be illegal? I really believe that it is simply a case of government shielding a segment of the citizenry from something that MIGHT be upset them. I know that it was done for the benefit of the CHLer, to reduce opposition for initial passage and to keep things quIet since, and I appreciate that. Nevertheless, I think we can do with a little less protection.
In an ideal world, where freedom and individual autonomy is the ultimate goal, no public policy maker would care that a some, perhaps even many, would find an openly carried sidearm to be worrisome. The reply would be "Tough. Freedom isn't easy. I'm sure the OCer doesn't like everything that you do either, but that's not a sufficient reason to criminalize any action." This isn't a perfect world so it is a legitimate concern. We need to steadily move towards expanded freedom but do it in thoughtful measured way that doesn't cause unnecessary drama. Charles's new organization will greatly assist in this effort.
Like most who support making OC legal, I'm not advocating that everyone OC. I'm not debating the relative merits of OC vs. CC. I've said many times that
I would only OC under certain conditions and am a strong advocate for all 2A rights. If we must be allowed only one or the other, I'll take CC. My view is that we need not limit ourselves that that choice.
OC can be, and almost everywhere in the USA is, legal but rarely seen. That's a great combination. OCing does occur, but most people never spot it, notice it, remember it, or get offended by it thus there's no clamor in OC states to outlaw it. We
can have our cake and eat it too. There may be a yahoo or two that intentionally OCs in crowded, urban places just to assert their rights just like those who wear a provacative t-shirt or body decorations. Those few may indeed cause a small commotion from time to time. Freedom is messy (neo-Nazis marching in Skokie, black armbands, KKK rallys, etc.). Nevertheless, those are situations are rare and we should not let the statistical outliers keep everyone else from having the legal protection to exercise a constitutional right in a responsible way whether they ever choose to do so or not. I've never picketed or been part of a public demonstration but that doesn't mean I don't value that 1st Amendment right. Same for the 5th when under arrest, etc.
SA-TX
