TexasCHLforum.com

Thanks v7a.

That's reassuring to hear, hope it goes smoothly

Cautiously optimistic but it does sound good.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I hope that a lot of OCT/OCTC/CATI folks are watching this debate. If anyone watching thinks that unlicensed open-carry had any chance of passage, then they are unwilling to to fact political reality.

Chas.

Mr. Cotton,
Can you enlighten me what the useful purpose of "licensed" open carry is supposed to achieve? It is my concern that each and every LEO will feel obligated to enforce "licensed" open carry by approaching every open carry individual to check that person's compliance with said law and asking for proof of approval to open carry. Why would I subject myself to this forced interaction by each LEO, maybe even several times just on one particular outing. In addition, I think these LEO's are going to on very heightened alert. At this time I can carry concealed standing shoulder to should with an LEO and he/she never knows I'm carrying and has no concern with me. Now, I do understand if I encounter a bad guy and need my firearm, I do have to draw from concealment.
Thanks,
Mike

Pb_shutr wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I hope that a lot of OCT/OCTC/CATI folks are watching this debate. If anyone watching thinks that unlicensed open-carry had any chance of passage, then they are unwilling to to fact political reality.

Chas.

Mr. Cotton,
Can you enlighten me what the useful purpose of "licensed" open carry is supposed to achieve? It is my concern that each and every LEO will feel obligated to enforce "licensed" open carry by approaching every open carry individual to check that person's compliance with said law and asking for proof of approval to open carry. Why would I subject myself to this forced interaction by each LEO, maybe even several times just on one particular outing. In addition, I think these LEO's are going to on very heightened alert. At this time I can carry concealed standing shoulder to should with an LEO and he/she never knows I'm carrying and has no concern with me. Now, I do understand if I encounter a bad guy and need my firearm, I do have to draw from concealment.
Thanks,
Mike

Mr Pb_shutr,

You clearly say you conceal carry with no law issues
No one is suggesting you must open carry. If you want things for you to not change, don't change anything. Enjoy carrying legally concealed and you have no worries.

Why would anyone want to approve an amendment to delay an open carry law from taking effect until the beginning of 2016?

That was one of the amendments that passed.

I'm curious as to why anyone would vote for it since obviously, many just did.

Strat9mm wrote:Why would anyone want to approve an amendment to delay an open carry law from taking effect until the beginning of 2016?

That was one of the amendments that passed.

I'm curious as to why anyone would vote for it since obviously, many just did.

DPS asked for more time so the law get into effect.

Strat9mm wrote:Why would anyone want to approve an amendment to delay an open carry law from taking effect until the beginning of 2016?

That was one of the amendments that passed.

I'm curious as to why anyone would vote for it since obviously, many just did.

DPS made the request. It's to give them time to train the CHL instructors on changes in the law.

With the minimal class time required now, I really don't see the point.

30 days should be more than enough.

Slow-tracking those who are already licensed is just that, slow-tracking those who are already licensed.

And on thinking about this even more, I don't think there should be any delay at all if the bill is passed.

Instructors and DPS can deal with the curriculum changes on their own time, not 'ours'.

Strat9mm wrote:With the minimal class time required now, I really don't see the point.

30 days should be more than enough.

Slow-tracking those who are already licensed is just that, slow-tracking those who are already licensed.

You do realize you are talking about a government agency right? There are only so many classes for CHL instructors. The delay from 9/1 to 1/1 is simply not that big a deal.

jmra wrote:

Strat9mm wrote:With the minimal class time required now, I really don't see the point.

30 days should be more than enough.

Slow-tracking those who are already licensed is just that, slow-tracking those who are already licensed.

You do realize you are talking about a government agency right? There are only so many classes for CHL instructors. The delay from 9/1 to 1/1 is simply not that big a deal.

I don't understand what that has to do with those of us who are already licensed, took the 'long' class, and not even close to renewing.

Why penalize one group, when they don't need to be?

Anyone know if that was CJ or someone in OCT who was whooping and hollering today when OC passed the Senate?

I understand the feelings of those who are angry that the legislature are delaying the implementation of this law, keep in mind that we have waited over a century for this, what is 4 little months?

Respectfully, I'm not angry, I'm just confused.

I could answer by hypothetically asking, well, exactly how much is a saved human life worth if it's lost because someone could have carried openly, sooner, but didn't?

But the real question is, what does preparing updated training for -future- licensee's have to do with those of us who are already licensed, and would presumably be able to open carry immediately without any further required training.

Given how much the training and renewal requirements have already been cut, are we going to have to go through more training when we aren't even up for renewal? Perhaps I missed something.

Pb_shutr wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I hope that a lot of OCT/OCTC/CATI folks are watching this debate. If anyone watching thinks that unlicensed open-carry had any chance of passage, then they are unwilling to to fact political reality.

Chas.

Mr. Cotton,
Can you enlighten me what the useful purpose of "licensed" open carry is supposed to achieve? It is my concern that each and every LEO will feel obligated to enforce "licensed" open carry by approaching every open carry individual to check that person's compliance with said law and asking for proof of approval to open carry. Why would I subject myself to this forced interaction by each LEO, maybe even several times just on one particular outing. In addition, I think these LEO's are going to on very heightened alert. At this time I can carry concealed standing shoulder to should with an LEO and he/she never knows I'm carrying and has no concern with me. Now, I do understand if I encounter a bad guy and need my firearm, I do have to draw from concealment.
Thanks,
Mike

I see absolutely no utility to open-carry whatsoever. Some people want it for various reasons, none of which I've heard have anything to do with utility. The testimony today that open-carry reduces crime is utterly without any support or evidence. The testimony that someone carrying concealed would not have time to respond to a deadly attach whereas one carrying openly would be able to respond was laughable! My cover garment adds less than 1/2 second to my draw, if that.

I'm supporting it because I'm a good soldier and the decision was made to promote open-carry.
Chas.