# Open carry Moving forward/ CHL



## Spartan Handgun Training (May 28, 2014)

Looks like Open carry and other CHL related Texas bills are moving along and a high priority to pass. When this happens concealed handgun interest is going to double, at least while its new. *My next CHL class is Sunday March 8th at 1230 pm, at HMS Tactical, 13326 Westheimer at Eldridge*

*4 hour classroom

25 question test

Shooting proficiency at a indoor range
*
http://www.spartanhandguntraining.com

Texas: Senate Committee to Consider Campus Carry and Open Carry Bills this Week!

On Thursday, the Texas Senate Committee on State Affairs will consider two NRA-supported measures:

Senate Bill 11, sponsored by state Senator Brian Birdwell (R-Granbury), would remove restrictions in state law that prohibit law-abiding adult Concealed Handgun Licensees from protecting themselves on college and university campuses.

Senate Bill 17, sponsored by state Senator Craig Estes (R-Wichita Falls), a proposal removing the requirement that CHLs keep their handguns concealed and gives them the option of carrying them either wholly or partially visible in a belt or shoulder holster. Note: SB 17 is identical to SB 346 introduced by Senator Estes; the language from SB 346 was re-filed this week and assigned a lower bill number by Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, signifying that this issue is of high importance in the Texas Senate.
:texasflag


----------



## Sgrem (Oct 5, 2005)

Open carry is not a good idea.


----------



## JamesAggie (Jun 28, 2012)

sgrem said:


> Open carry is not a good idea.


People said the same thing about conceal carry.


----------



## duckmania (Jun 3, 2014)

sgrem said:


> Open carry is not a good idea.


Agree.


----------



## RockportRobert (Dec 29, 2006)

To each his own. I'll stay concealed, but open is good for some.


----------



## Stuart (May 21, 2004)

sgrem said:


> Open carry is not a good idea.


Agreed


----------



## BBCAT (Feb 2, 2010)

Under what conditions would you open carry?


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

I would think the bad guys would love the idea of open carry...

How would I know who is a bad guy or a good guy ???


----------



## mrau (Mar 17, 2010)

A lot of States already allow open carry and I'm not aware of numerous news reports of huge problems over it. It seems kind of odd that Texas doesn't allow it when we're such a 2nd amendment friendly State. That being said I'll always stay concealed, but to each their own in how they want to exercise their 2nd amendment rights.


----------



## Mick R. (Apr 21, 2011)

Why would interest in a CCL double because of open carry? Just my two cents, but I would think most of the folks who were seriously interested in carrying a weapon already have a CCL, and virtually every CCL holder I know (including myself) will continue to carry concealed even if it passes. 

BTW, I'm perfectly fine with open carry if it passes, but it's definitely not for me.


----------



## Spartan Handgun Training (May 28, 2014)

I guess the gimmick of it. Just like when you were no longer required to wear a motorcycle helmet. I personally would stay concealed, but if it passes, which looks like it will, you are responsible for retention. Businesses will just post "no open carry" allowed.


----------



## RB II (Feb 26, 2009)

I haven't done the research, but obviously concealed carry requires a background check and a permit. Will open carry require the same?


----------



## mrau (Mar 17, 2010)

HydraSports said:


> I haven't done the research, but obviously concealed carry requires a background check and a permit. Will open carry require the same?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States

They don't list the specific conditions for each open carry State, but on the ones they do it looks like some require a license (assuming background check also) and some don't.


----------



## Tall1 (Aug 3, 2009)

I personally would rather not open carry. My thought is that if I bad guy sees your weapon, he might be tempted to try and take it while you're distracted with something else. Unseen, there's no temptation. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

sgrem said:


> Open carry is not a good idea.


 Oh no! There will be blood in the streets! Won't somebody think of the children?

OPEN CARRY is allowed in a number of states already. As a young man, I openly carried a handgun in Arizona for 2 years. A little older and wiser, I open carried in Virginia for over 4 years, not but a few miles from the nation's capital.
The only "problem" I ever encountered was when in line in a gas station for a snack and coffee. There was a cop behind a woman and the woman asked the cop, in a breathless freaked out and scared voice
"Is he allowed to have that gun?"
Cop answered 
"Yup."

It DISGUSTS ME when people who claim to love their freedom, and brag about how free we AMERICANS are, run for the hills when people actually want to have rights and freedoms.



> HydraSports I haven't done the research, but obviously concealed carry requires a background check and a permit. Will open carry require the same?


 My understanding is that this bill will allow it with a CHL permit.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

Tortuga said:


> I would think the bad guys would love the idea of open carry...
> 
> How would I know who is a bad guy or a good guy ???


How do you know now?


----------



## phanagriff (Dec 23, 2011)

Added bonus to us that conceal carry, if the footprint shows or your shirt lifts up, you couldn't be charged.


----------



## donf (Aug 8, 2005)

100% in favor of open carry passing into law, but I probably won't do it. 
In OK , where open carry passed years ago, a buddy says almost nobody open carries, but it's a step forward for our gun rights, instead of backwards.


----------



## donf (Aug 8, 2005)

There is a group that is fighting, lobbying, protesting for " constitutional carry", which is open carry of handguns without a CHL. There may be a bill on the floor on this. Don't like that one. 
The bill that might have a chance of passing is open carry for CHL holders.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

phanagriff said:


> Added bonus to us that conceal carry, if the footprint shows or your shirt lifts up, you couldn't be charged.


That actually already passed the legislature last cycle, they modified the language. You have to be displaying it on purpose to get nailed now.


----------



## RB II (Feb 26, 2009)

I probably would not open carry, just for the reason Jamis noted above. I don't want some woman freaking out about it, not that it really would matter, just that I normally try to keep a low profile. 

I would not have any issue with open carry, IF, there was a background check, competency test (not that it really weeds anybody out, but it does at least make them shoot the dang gun and find out if they are pee down their leg scared or not) and permit required for it.


----------



## speckle-catcher (May 20, 2004)

ya'll can open carry. I'll stay concealed.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

I'll continue to carry concealed, but SB-17 will give relief from accidental exposure of a concealed firearm.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

HydraSports said:


> I would not have any issue with open carry, IF, there was a background check, competency test (not that it really weeds anybody out, but it does at least make them shoot the dang gun and find out if they are pee down their leg scared or not) and permit required for it.


More freedom, right?

:headknock

I challenge you all to take a good hard look at what "Freedom" is, how it's defined, and how easily "rights" granted by government are stripped away on a whim. Just consider it.


----------



## Jerry-rigged (May 21, 2004)

phanagriff said:


> Added bonus to us that conceal carry, if the footprint shows or your shirt lifts up, you couldn't be charged.





jamisjockey said:


> That actually already passed the legislature last cycle, they modified the language. You have to be displaying it on purpose to get nailed now.





ChuChu said:


> I'll continue to carry concealed, but SB-17 will give relief from accidental exposure of a concealed firearm.


This has been one of the reasons I have not concealed, plus I feel I kind of live on the "safe" part of town. I don't always work in the safe part of town though...

And Jamis - while the language of "accidental display" may have been modified, just like you had that woman freak out on you - what if you had been concealed, the cop was outside instead of inside, and you "Accidentally displayed", woman freaks out, run to the cop and starts telling him - that guy is flashing a gun!! now it is either Boom Boom dead Jamis, or Jamis on the ground cuffed, & stuffed.

I am in favor of the "open carry" with CHL. I am more on the fence on Constitutional carry - that is open carry, no license, but more in favor than against.


----------



## DSL_PWR (Jul 22, 2009)

donf said:


> 100% in favor of open carry passing into law, but I probably won't do it.
> In OK , where open carry passed years ago, a buddy says almost nobody open carries, but it's a step forward for our gun rights, instead of backwards.


this


----------



## StinkBait (May 31, 2004)

ChuChu said:


> I'll continue to carry concealed, but SB-17 will give relief from accidental exposure of a concealed firearm.





jamisjockey said:


> That actually already passed the legislature last cycle, they modified the language. You have to be displaying it on purpose to get nailed now.


:headknock


----------



## mstrelectricman (Jul 10, 2009)

jamisjockey said:


> More freedom, right?
> 
> :headknock
> 
> I challenge you all to take a good hard look at what "Freedom" is, how it's defined, and how easily "rights" granted by government are stripped away on a whim. Just consider it.


I "considered" it many years ago man! We think a lot alike on this apparently. Never trust government or politicians with your freedoms or "rights"!
It's a good idea IMO. I won't discuss how I presently conduct myself or how I may if it passes though.
It ain't nobodies business but mine.


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

jamisjockey said:


> More freedom, right?
> 
> :headknock
> 
> I challenge you all to take a good hard look at what "Freedom" is, how it's defined, and how easily "rights" granted by government are stripped away on a whim. Just consider it.


I'd venture to say that most people neither know what true freedom is nor would they want it if/when they find out what it means.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

Jerry-rigged said:


> This has been one of the reasons I have not concealed, plus I feel I kind of live on the "safe" part of town. I don't always work in the safe part of town though...
> 
> *And Jamis - while the language of "accidental display" may have been modified, just like you had that woman freak out on you - what if you had been concealed, the cop was outside instead of inside, and you "Accidentally displayed", woman freaks out, run to the cop and starts telling him - that guy is flashing a gun!! now it is either Boom Boom dead Jamis, or Jamis on the ground cuffed, & stuffed.
> 
> *I am in favor of the "open carry" with CHL. I am more on the fence on Constitutional carry - that is open carry, no license, but more in favor than against.


 Yep. It is better language in the CHL statutes, but if you conceal and you're not careful, there can be consequences. Look at that man that was assaulted in Florida a few weeks ago when someone saw him move his gun to his pants from his truck. Valid CHL, the do-gooder thought he was up to no good (racially profiled him....where's Jesse Jackson now? :rotfl

That said: If this passes, I *will *open carry. Not all the time, but when it is more convenient to me to do so. I've got 6+ years of my life where I open carried into grocery stores, gas stations, banks, and even shopping malls. It was never a real issue. I've walked right past cops without so much as a flying rat's tushie on their part.

I have no interest in pushing the boundaries of places that don't want me there. No guns? You don't need my money then.

This is a step forward in acknowledging self defense and the carry of arms as a natural right, or god-granted if you are so inclined that way.


----------



## Bassman5119 (Feb 26, 2008)

sgrem said:


> Open carry is not a good idea.


Huh, guess 43 states got it all wrong. Texas is one of 7 states that currently don't allow it. 
I probably wouldn't do it frequently, but would on occasion. Got all the way to the door of the Woodville Walmart one day before I realized I was packing. It's just second nature to wear it all the time in the woods. Got out of the deer stand, jumped in the truck (still in full camo) and ran to the store for feeder batteries. Quickly untucked my shirt and thanked God I wasn't on my way to jail. THAT'S WHY WE NEED IT!!!


----------



## Bob Keyes (Mar 16, 2011)

phanagriff said:


> Added bonus to us that conceal carry, if the footprint shows or your shirt lifts up, you couldn't be charged.


BINGO, right in one! That is why I support "open" carry, it does away with the requirement to totally bury your handgun beneath clothes and allows you the option of using a holster designed for comfort rather than invisibility!


----------



## marshhunter (Mar 20, 2008)

jamisjockey said:


> Oh no! There will be blood in the streets! Won't somebody think of the children?
> 
> OPEN CARRY is allowed in a number of states already. As a young man, I openly carried a handgun in Arizona for 2 years. A little older and wiser, I open carried in Virginia for over 4 years, not but a few miles from the nation's capital.
> The only "problem" I ever encountered was when in line in a gas station for a snack and coffee. There was a cop behind a woman and the woman asked the cop, in a breathless freaked out and scared voice
> ...


Exactly.. its a **** crying shame.


----------



## Bassman5119 (Feb 26, 2008)

Bob Keyes said:


> BINGO, right in one! That is why I support "open" carry, it does away with the requirement to totally bury your handgun beneath clothes and allows you the option of using a holster designed for comfort rather than invisibility!


As stated earlier by someone else, they already passed a law decriminalizing imprinting or accidental display.

My situation above was accidental, but because I forgot I was wearing, not a lift of the shirt. I would have gone to jail, weapon confiscated for whatever period of time, possibly lose CHL and mucho legal fees.

I also want one of those B_A custom leather holsters they were trying to sell at the NRA convention. Told the vendor to move to Texas when they pass O/C and he'd make a fortune.


----------



## Grumpy365 (Oct 21, 2010)

I've had my Concealed carry since it became law in Texas and have come to a conclusion.

I'm not for "open carry" or "concealed carry", I'm for *COMFORTABLE CARRY*.

People get their permit and carry for maybe a month until they find how uncomfortable carrying a gun actually is (and I've had Crossbreed holsters and every other one out there over the years)

And after all these years, I have yet to find a comfortable, concealed, safe way to carry. I always seem to be back to a piston with no holster stuck in my waist band, but I would go for a nice, COMFORTABLE discrete, outside the belt, holster in a second.


----------



## Hooked Up (May 23, 2004)

It's time to "return to" Constitutional Carry in my opinion. Constitutional Carry is actually what Senator Patterson was promoting in the early 1990s. The uninformed resistance made that idea impossible at the time but Patterson did not walk away from the issue and we ended up with Concealed (taxed) Carry. Don't tax our Constitutional rights.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

jamisjockey said:


> How do you know now?


Well, JJ..in my personal case..over the course of my career I have had pistolas stuck in my nose or ear SEVEN times...and I pretty much figger that those ARE the bad guys...and I never seen the guns until they were three feet from me and pulled it out. On several occasions I was carrying concealed..but when you already got the gun stuck in yore face...not too much time to try a quick draw... From personal experience looking at all of them...if they had a gun strapped on in plain view...they never would have gotten thru the electric doors.... Most were pretty grubby looking addicts..

Just .02

Have a nice day !...sad3sm


----------



## teamgafftop1 (Aug 30, 2010)

HydraSports said:


> I would not have any issue with open carry, IF, there was a background check, competency test (not that it really weeds anybody out, but it does at least make them shoot the dang gun and find out if they are pee down their leg scared or not) and permit required for it.


Spend a little time at the range watching CHL classes qualify. It won't give you a warm fuzzy feeling about the shooting competency of the average Joe (or Jane) that's walking around with a gun. It can be pretty entertaining and a little scary.


----------



## Whitebassfisher (May 4, 2007)

Tortuga said:


> Well, JJ..in my personal case..over the course of my career I have had pistolas stuck in my nose or ear SEVEN times...and I pretty much figger that those ARE the bad guys...and I never seen the guns until they were three feet from me and pulled it out. On several occasions I was carrying concealed..but when you already got the gun stuck in yore face...not too much time to try a quick draw... From personal experience looking at all of them...if they had a gun strapped on in plain view...they never would have gotten thru the electric doors.... Most were pretty grubby looking addicts..
> 
> Just .02
> 
> Have a nice day !...sad3sm


You have had seven more heart stress tests than many.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

Tortuga said:


> Well, JJ..in my personal case..over the course of my career I have had pistolas stuck in my nose or ear SEVEN times...and I pretty much figger that those ARE the bad guys...and I never seen the guns until they were three feet from me and pulled it out. On several occasions I was carrying concealed..but when you already got the gun stuck in yore face...not too much time to try a quick draw... From personal experience looking at all of them...if they had a gun strapped on in plain view...they never would have gotten thru the electric doors.... Most were pretty grubby looking addicts..
> 
> Just .02
> 
> Have a nice day !...sad3sm


 I will bet you dollars to donuts that those criminals have no interest in carrying openly anyways. To them, the concealed weapon is a means to an end. Can't have your victim know you're armed, right?



> Spend a little time at the range watching CHL classes qualify. It won't give you a warm fuzzy feeling about the shooting competency of the average Joe (or Jane) that's walking around with a gun. It can be pretty entertaining and a little scary.


 Truth. And the chl test is a joke to begin with. It requires marginal competency and accuracy to pass as it is anyways.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

jamisjockey said:


> I will bet you dollars to donuts that those criminals have no interest in carrying openly anyways. To them, the concealed weapon is a means to an end. Can't have your victim know you're armed, right?
> 
> 
> > You're right there..but if everybody is going around toting iron, telling the bad guys from the good guys is gonna depend on outward appearance.. and over the years I have gotten pretty good at telling the difference between chicken chit and chicken salad...
> ...


----------



## RB II (Feb 26, 2009)

jamisjockey said:


> More freedom, right?
> 
> :headknock
> 
> I challenge you all to take a good hard look at what "Freedom" is, how it's defined, and how easily "rights" granted by government are stripped away on a whim. Just consider it.


 I carry for personal protection. In my opinion, requiring permitting for open carry is better protection for me. Simple as that.

Part of freedom is the fact that we all have the right to our position on any given subject. You have yours, I have mine. One is not "better" or more right than the other.


----------



## DSL_PWR (Jul 22, 2009)

being discussed now..

http://www.senate.state.tx.us/bin/live.php


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

Whitebassfisher said:


> You have had seven more heart stress tests than many.


LOL (not really).. Yep, you're right..Gets that fresh blood flowing every time. My folks are told...so long as their is no violence..give them what they want and send them on their way. Legal narcotics are cheap..and they are leaving with a couple of hunnert bucks worth of drugs...and my insurance will take care of that.. Only iron clad rule is "Nobody leaves with them".. That hasn't come up yet...but if it did..that is when the SHTF....

Been a couple of times when they weren't paying attention to me and I could have dropped them in their tracks...but then what.. I've killed a man...if it's outside I gotta drag his dead arse back inside..then the Cops.. then the dead thug's family is gonna sue me in civil court and probably end up owning my drugstore...and mebbe my home... Lotsa thoughts race thru your mind when that adrenalin is really pumping....

(pardon the hijack...pun intended)...:rotfl:

All this chit about 'freedom' has to be modified with a dose of 'real world reality'....


----------



## donf (Aug 8, 2005)

Grumpy365 said:


> I've had my Concealed carry since it became law in Texas and have come to a conclusion.
> 
> I'm not for "open carry" or "concealed carry", I'm for *COMFORTABLE CARRY*.
> 
> ...


Right on! IWB holsters are not near as comfortable a s a good belt holster.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Tortuga said:


> I would think the bad guys would love the idea of open carry...
> 
> How would I know who is a bad guy or a good guy ???


And how would the cops know?


----------



## boltmaster (Aug 16, 2011)

donf said:


> right on! Iwb holsters are not near as comfortable a s a good belt holster.


amen to this^^^^^^^


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

HydraSports said:


> I carry for personal protection. In my opinion, requiring permitting for open carry is better protection for me. Simple as that.
> 
> Part of freedom is the fact that we all have the right to our position on any given subject. You have yours, I have mine. One is not "better" or more right than the other.


Yes, but, one of them is in stronger support of "shall not be infringed".


poppadawg said:


> And how would the cops know?


How do they know now?
But to answer your question; they same way they will in the future if open carry passes, when the pos pulls it and tries to use it on them.


----------



## pg542 (Oct 9, 2006)

As mentioned previously, open "carriers" are going to be the first targets of some lunatic or feral when the SHTF. I don't see it being much a deterrent to some social misfit bent on robbery, carjack, purse snatch or any similar activity.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

pg542 said:


> As mentioned previously, open "carriers" are going to be the first targets of some lunatic or feral when the SHTF. I don't see it being much a deterrent to some social misfit bent on robbery, carjack, purse snatch or any similar activity.


Y'all keep making these statements as if they are facts. Care to post a link of the stats from one of the open carry states that backs y'alls statement up?


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

HydraSports said:


> I carry for personal protection. In my opinion, requiring permitting for open carry is better protection for me. Simple as that.
> 
> Part of freedom is the fact that we all have the right to our position on any given subject. You have yours, I have mine. One is not "better" or more right than the other.


 What you really mean is "rights for me, not for thee". 
That, and you believe freedom comes _from_ government. What government gives, government takes. Remember that when the next gun ban comes down the pipe.


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

spurgersalty said:


> Y'all keep making these statements as if they are facts. Care to post a link of the stats from one of the open carry states that backs y'alls statement up?





jamisjockey said:


> What you really mean is "rights for me, not for thee".
> That, and you believe freedom comes _from_ government. What government gives, government takes. Remember that when the next gun ban comes down the pipe.


Both of you guys FTW.


----------



## DSL_PWR (Jul 22, 2009)

HydraSports said:


> I carry for personal protection. In my opinion, requiring permitting for open carry is better protection for me. Simple as that.
> 
> Part of freedom is the fact that we all have the right to our position on any given subject. You have yours, I have mine. One is not "better" or more right than the other.


So in addition to the CHL, you think people need another license in order to open carry?

Just curious, why?



spurgersalty said:


> Y'all keep making these statements as if they are facts. Care to post a link of the stats from one of the open carry states that backs y'alls statement up?


I'd be interested in those stats as well. That seems to be all I hear from people around me right now.


----------



## Walkin' Jack (May 20, 2004)

You know, we could debate this until the 2nd coming of Christ and it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans. Open carry, and concealed carry too for that matter, is a very subjective concept. Different people will see it differently and disagree vigorously every time it comes up.

But let's stay focused on the REAL issue hear. The salient point in all this is that EVERYONE has the right to choose whether or not/how to carry. If you don't want to open carry then don't and if you do then have at it. 

I don't think it's right FOR ME but I think YOU should have the right to make up your own mind. I feel that very strongly.


----------



## Bassman5119 (Feb 26, 2008)

Even Kansas gets it, but some of their businesses don't. Post a sign that says, "hey criminals, nobody should have a gun in here" (can you say Denny's) and you won't catch me in there. I didn't buy a truck at Helfman Ford because of their sign, even though it wasn't legal and I could have remained inside their used car storefront.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-man-but-may-not-have-been-following-the-law/


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

Walkin' Jack said:


> You know, we could debate this until the 2nd coming of Christ and it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans. Open carry, and concealed carry too for that matter, is a very subjective concept. Different people will see it differently and disagree vigorously every time it comes up.
> 
> But let's stay focused on the REAL issue hear. The salient point in all this is that EVERYONE has the right to choose whether or not/how to carry. If you don't want to open carry then don't and if you do then have at it.
> 
> I don't think it's right FOR ME but I think YOU should have the right to make up your own mind. I feel that very strongly.


Yep...pretty simple isn't it ?

Don't know why everyone is so worked up about it.


----------



## Stuart (May 21, 2004)

Walkin' Jack said:


> You know, we could debate this until the 2nd coming of Christ and it wouldn't amount to a hill of beans. Open carry, and concealed carry too for that matter, is a very subjective concept. Different people will see it differently and disagree vigorously every time it comes up.
> 
> But let's stay focused on the REAL issue hear. The salient point in all this is that EVERYONE has the right to choose whether or not/how to carry. If you don't want to open carry then don't and if you do then have at it.
> 
> I don't think it's right FOR ME but I think YOU should have the right to make up your own mind. I feel that very strongly.


Excellent points Jack. And I should clarify my stance. I'm not against this open carry bill, if it passes, that's fine. I'm more curious as to what advantages those that will exercise the right to open carry think they will gain other than, as some have pointed out, it's more comfortable.


----------



## spuds (Jan 2, 2005)

Why would anyone want to expose themselves as being armed, and give up their tactical advantage? Just because they can, in the name of "freedom"??

Criminals are stupid, so it will probably take them a while to figure out that they should look for any open carriers and blow them away first, before commencing with their larceny. And with open carry, they can have their weapon out and at the ready and no one will have any clue as to their intent.

But they'll still have to take their chances with us concealed guys. 

I think the law is perfect the way it is.


----------



## Game-Over (Jun 9, 2010)

Bassman5119 said:


> Even Kansas gets it, but some of their businesses don't. Post a sign that says, "hey criminals, nobody should have a gun in here" (can you say Denny's) and you won't catch me in there. I didn't buy a truck at Helfman Ford because of their sign, even though it wasn't legal and I could have remained inside their used car storefront.
> 
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-man-but-may-not-have-been-following-the-law/


The legal requirement for the sign is to protect the firearm carrier from prosecution, not the business. You are only violating the law if you go into a 30.06 establishment that is properly posted.

The business can ask you to leave even if they don't have a properly posted sign, you won't be breaking the law unless you refuse.

As far as open carry goes, to each his own. I do have some concerns that more businesses may prohibit weapons if they start having to deal with scared old ladies worried about "that guy with a gun over there".....I could see that becoming a headache business owners would rather not have to deal with. Anyone have any stats on how many businesses were posted before and after open carry was implemented (on top of concealed) in their states?


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

spuds said:


> Why would anyone want to expose themselves as being armed, and give up their tactical advantage? Just because they can, in the name of "freedom"??
> 
> Criminals are stupid, so it will probably take them a while to figure out that they should look for any open carriers and blow them away first, before commencing with their larceny. And with open carry, they can have their weapon out and at the ready and no one will have any clue as to their intent.
> 
> ...


 Dude. You're clueless. It doesn't happen in the states that have allowed open carry for DECADES like Arizona, Alaska, North Carolina, Louisiana, Virginia, and others. 
Open carry is not new. It's been around in many other states for DECADES.
You should be FREE to make a personal decision on how, if at all, to carry your weapon(s) for personal protection. Or just because.

The first 5 google search pages of "open carry robbed" produces 2 stories. One from 2009 and one from 2014.
Just sayin.

All those against open carry, you have some statistics showing how it's failed, flawed, and dangerous in the 43 states that ALREADY ALLOW IT?


----------



## Grumpy365 (Oct 21, 2010)

spuds said:


> Why would anyone want to expose themselves as being armed, and give up their tactical advantage? Just because they can, in the name of "freedom"??
> 
> Criminals are stupid, so it will probably take them a while to figure out that they should look for any open carriers and blow them away first, before commencing with their larceny. And with open carry, they can have their weapon out and at the ready and no one will have any clue as to their intent.
> 
> ...


 Well we're all glad you are here to make that decision for US.:headknock

sad3sm


----------



## spuds (Jan 2, 2005)

jamisjockey said:


> Dude. You're clueless.


Not clueless, pragmatic.

If I spot a weapon in the open now, I know I better get prepared. If open carry is allowed, it relinquishes my advantage.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

spuds said:


> Not clueless, pragmatic.
> 
> If I spot a weapon in the open now, I know I better get prepared. If open carry is allowed, it relinquishes my advantage.


You would be a nervous wreck at a gun range then.


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

spurgersalty said:


> How do they know now?
> But to answer your question; they same way they will in the future if open carry passes, when the pos pulls it and tries to use it on them.


For the sake of argument, if they are allowed to open carry, wouldn't they have to actually fire before they have committed a crime?


----------



## spuds (Jan 2, 2005)

spurgersalty said:


> You would be a nervous wreck at a gun range then.


Not exactly where the topic of open carry applies, now does it?


----------



## marshhunter (Mar 20, 2008)

poppadawg said:


> For the sake of argument, if they are allowed to open carry, wouldn't they have to actually fire before they have committed a crime?


No. under the open carry bill you would still need to have an license of some sort(CHL) in order to open carry and to conceal carry.

Under Constitutional carry(different from open carry bill), yes as long as they are law abiding citizens they can carry open or concealed.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

poppadawg said:


> For the sake of argument, if they are allowed to open carry, wouldn't they have to actually fire before they have committed a crime?


I'm sure if you pull a gun and point it at a cop/citizen, you've broken a law.


spuds said:


> Not exactly where the topic of open carry applies, now does it?


Yes, it is. Open carry is anywhere other than normally off limits areas. So, that applies to ranges also. Even though my comment was meant as a light hearted jab.
The fact is it seems as some people, you included, have been sensitized to the sight of a gun in public. You've been brainwashed by the medias coverage of the past shootings and tragedies to identify a weapon in public as a tool only for criminals use. That is the sad.


----------



## spuds (Jan 2, 2005)

spurgersalty said:


> The fact is it seems as some people, you included, have been sensitized to the sight of a gun in public. You've been brainwashed by the medias coverage of the past shootings and tragedies to identify a weapon in public as a tool only for criminals use. That is the sad.


I'm not sensitized nor brainwashed about guns, having grown up in the Ozarks and around them all my life.

We're carrying for the same reason. Pragmatically and tactically it gives us good guys an advantage under our current conceal system, that we give up under open carry.


----------



## RB II (Feb 26, 2009)

jamisjockey said:


> What you really mean is "rights for me, not for thee".
> That, and you believe freedom comes _from_ government. What government gives, government takes. Remember that when the next gun ban comes down the pipe.


Your reading comprehension is either terrible or you have a really bad f-inv habit of putting words in people's mouths. Either way you couldn't be more wrong about me. 
If by me you mean law abiding citizens and thee being crooks then you are right.

Tell the thousands of men and woman who fought and died for our government and our country that they died in vain. I don't believe that at all. If you don't love my country and the government that protects it, then you need to GTFO. Is it perfect, no. But it is the best in the world.


----------



## Grumpy365 (Oct 21, 2010)

spuds said:


> Not clueless, pragmatic.
> 
> If I spot a weapon in the open now, I know I better get prepared. If open carry is allowed, it relinquishes my advantage.


Hmmm, when I see open carry now, I think plain clothes or off duty cop.

Now I do have a bit of a healthy skepticism of LEO, but I don't usually worry about a tactical advantage.

I think you are full of .......it.


----------



## tmanbuckhunter (Aug 1, 2014)

A whole lot of fear mongering in this thread. Anti-OCers are almost as bad as anti-gunners. I'm 100% pro-constitutional carry so long as you do it responsibly, in a good holster with proper retention. Running around like a neckbeard in your nylon uncle mikes or with your for sure not 922r compliant SKS across your shoulder is not the right way to do it. I'm going to continue to CC in my home state of Texas or where ever else I go because it works better with how I dress, but it's not like I would hesitate to OC if I felt like it.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

*Do I need to buy a holster ...or can I just tote it in my hand ???*

OK...here is the exact wording of the law they are trying to pass...I got only one question ???

Does this mean everybody who wants to open carry is free to just carry the gun in their hand ??? ..I don't see any mention of having to wear a holster of any kind.

Just curious.....(and a little nervous if everybody can just stroll down the streets with a six-gun in each hand)

_" SECTION 8. Section 46.15, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Subsection (k) to read as follows:
(k) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no person
shall be required to obtain any license to carry a handgun as a
condition for *carrying a handgun openly or in a concealed manner*
except a person who is prohibited from possessing a handgun under 18
U.S.C. Section 922
The mere possession or carrying of a handgun, openly or
concealed, with or without a license issued under this subchapter,
shall not constitute probable cause for a peace officer to disarm or
detain an otherwise law-abiding person."_


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Tortuga said:


> OK...here is the exact wording of the law they are trying to pass...I got only one question ???
> 
> Does this mean everybody who wants to open carry is free to just carry the gun in their hand ??? ..I don't see any mention of having to wear a holster of any kind.
> 
> ...


That is one version, 'Tuga. Also, the one I like the best.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Tortuga said:


> OK...here is the exact wording of the law they are trying to pass...I got only one question ???
> 
> Does this mean everybody who wants to open carry is free to just carry the gun in their hand ??? ..I don't see any mention of having to wear a holster of any kind.
> 
> ...


Somewhere there is a provision providing for a holster or shoulder holster. One representative has proposed two points of resistance to drawing the handgun from the holster.


----------



## OMB (May 22, 2006)

phanagriff

Added bonus to us that conceal carry, if the footprint shows or your shirt lifts up, you couldn't be charged. 

What Phanagriff said!! To me that right their is the biggest benefit!


----------



## tmanbuckhunter (Aug 1, 2014)

Tortuga said:


> OK...here is the exact wording of the law they are trying to pass...I got only one question ???
> 
> Does this mean everybody who wants to open carry is free to just carry the gun in their hand ??? ..I don't see any mention of having to wear a holster of any kind.
> 
> ...


What your stating would be brandishing, and is a big time no no. :headknock

As far as I know, Texas doesn't have any laws on the books stating your firearm has to be in a holster. Some states do have laws on the books stating that if you carry, it has to be in a holster, even pocket carry. It sounds as if this penal code change is allowing for license free concealed carry as well, which is great.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

I really don't have a dog in this fight. I'm carrying no matter what when I feel the need to.CHL or no CHL...

BUT..I read the entire bill online (and it is a long SOB)..and can guarantee you there is not one word concerning 'holsters' or any mention of HOW you carry your gun anywhere in the bill..

Just curious as to WHY there is no mention of it...and not a word about 'brandishing' the weapon either.....

Here is a link to the whole bill....

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/html/SB00342I.htm


----------



## Lagunaroy (Dec 30, 2013)

Tortuga said:


> OK...here is the exact wording of the law they are trying to pass...I got only one question ???
> 
> Does this mean everybody who wants to open carry is free to just carry the gun in their hand ??? ..I don't see any mention of having to wear a holster of any kind.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info. Am I reading (k) correct? This would do away with the licensing requirement for both open and concealed carry?
It will never pass, give up the money to the state?


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Tortuga said:


> I really don't have a dog in this fight. I'm carrying no matter what when I feel the need to.CHL or no CHL...
> 
> BUT..I read the entire bill online (and it is a long SOB)..and can guarantee you there is not one word concerning 'holsters' or any mention of HOW you carry your gun anywhere in the bill..
> 
> ...


You are correct. It is the house version that has holster language. I don't think much is going to happen with any of the bills, won't ever get out of committee in the house.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

I read it the same way, Roy...

I differ with you in that I think it will PASS... Our feather-merchant legislators are way to afraid to pizz off TEXAS gun owners....Biggest and best lobbyists in the state and nation....


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Constitutional carry is dead. Open carry might still pass, Campus carry is iffy. Here's a good read on current status of all.

http://www.texomashomepage.com/stor...-capitol-hearing/29972/NRdVK_NM5kKLINUPyDWyiQ


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Tortuga said:


> I read it the same way, Roy...
> 
> I differ with you in that I think it will PASS... Our feather-merchant legislators are way to afraid to pizz off TEXAS gun owners....Biggest and best lobbyists in the state and nation....


The Tarrant County Open Carry fools killed any chance for constitutional carry.


----------



## Jerry-rigged (May 21, 2004)

ChuChu said:


> Constitutional carry is dead. Open carry might still pass, Campus carry is iffy. Here's a good read on current status of all.
> 
> http://www.texomashomepage.com/stor...-capitol-hearing/29972/NRdVK_NM5kKLINUPyDWyiQ


From the tail end of that artical - 


> In an interview Wednesday, Stickland said he thought it was unlikely constitutional carry would get a committee hearing in either chamber. But he added that he was not discouraged by that news.
> 
> â€œI have promised that I am going to amend any gun bill into constitutional carry. I have never promised anyone that we would get it passed this session,â€ he said. â€œI have promised a record vote, and we will get it. A lot of it is going to depend on how much pressure these representatives feel on the issue.â€


So in other words, Stickland, Knowing that Constutional carry is a posion pill, is planning using it to kill any and all gun bills that make it to the floor of the house.

Nice to know you are secretly against the issue, while vocally saying you support it. sad3sm


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Jerry-rigged said:


> From the tail end of that artical -
> 
> So in other words, Stickland, Knowing that Constutional carry is a posion pill, is planning using it to kill any and all gun bills that make it to the floor of the house.
> 
> Nice to know you are secretly against the issue, while vocally saying you support it. sad3sm


That's how Strickland and Dan Patrick got elected.


----------



## Jerry-rigged (May 21, 2004)

spurgersalty said:


> The fact is it seems as some people, you included, have been sensitized to the sight of a gun in public. You've been brainwashed by the medias coverage of the past shootings and tragedies to identify a weapon in public as a tool only for criminals use. That is the sad.


This, I believe is very true. Not pointing directly at Spuds, but a The Public in general. This is why I also agree with the morning guy on 700am. His take - The Left is very good at using very small steps to erode our freedoms. We on the Right try to take it all back in huge bites, and fail. We need to work like they do. Take a small bite, wait a bit, take another small bite. The first bite was the CHL. Now, a few years later, the General Public mostly agrees is it a good thing. Now let's get Open carry, with a CHL. Give it a year or three, then go for Constitutional Carry.

And to Open Carry Tarrant County, IMHO, any one that thinks they really want ANY FORM of open carry is a fool. I believe they are a left wing front group working to sabotage the movement, and they are doing a good job... :headknock


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

spuds said:


> Not clueless, pragmatic.
> 
> If I spot a weapon in the open now, I know I better get prepared. If open carry is allowed, it relinquishes my advantage.


Way to double down on the clueless.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)




----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Don't have a dog in this fight. But the one thing that has creeped me out about open carry is the creepy wackos protesting for open carry. Just an observation. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

poppadawg said:


> Don't have a dog in this fight. But the one thing that has creeped me out about open carry is the creepy wackos protesting for open carry. Just an observation.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You mean like this pair of losers, Poppa ?....:rotfl:


----------



## poppadawg (Aug 10, 2007)

Exactly. You have to wonder.......


----------



## donf (Aug 8, 2005)

The constitutional carry guys, Tarrant County, and others do not have a leftist agenda, they are simply too stupid to understand that their agenda, is killing our agenda. Carrying your AR in Starbucks and Target may be legal, but does nothing but polarize, and jeopardize , our 2nd amendment rights. 
I talked to these guys before. They can't see the forest for the trees, have no long term perspective, don't get it, aren't smart enough to get it, and will never get it.
Our freedom and protection of our 2nd amendment rights happens in Austin, and Washington, and it is brought to fruition on election days.


----------



## Mick R. (Apr 21, 2011)

donf said:


> The constitutional carry guys, Tarrant County, and others do not have a leftist agenda, they are simply too stupid to understand that their agenda, is killing our agenda. Carrying your AR in Starbucks and Target may be legal, but does nothing but polarize, and jeopardize , our 2nd amendment rights.
> I talked to these guys before. They can't see the forest for the trees, have no long term perspective, don't get it, aren't smart enough to get it, and will never get it.
> Our freedom and protection of our 2nd amendment rights happens in Austin, and Washington, and it is brought to fruition on election days.


 Totally agree with you. I've also tried to talk to a few of those clowns from OCTC and it was a total waste of time. To put it bluntly, they are bunch of full blown idiots that love the media attention they are getting.


----------



## Johnny9 (Sep 7, 2005)

Bad Idea. Only a Politician would come up with this idea.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

The Senate Committee passed both campus carry and open carry bills today.


----------



## Smackdaddy53 (Nov 4, 2011)

jamisjockey said:


> How do you know now?


Best answer to worst question.


----------



## gulfrunner (Aug 27, 2006)

*open carry*

a criminal will think twice about robbing a business if people are open carrying a gun


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

ChuChu said:


> The Senate Committee passed both campus carry and open carry bills today.


Make that..."passed out of committee"

AUSTIN (AP/KXAN) â€" Bills known as â€œcampus carryâ€ and â€œopen carryâ€ passed out of the Senate State Affairs Committee Thursday. They vote was along party lines, seven to two. Six out of the seven Republicans co-wrote the â€œCampus Personal Protection Actâ€, which would allow allow CHL holders to go inside college classrooms
After nine hours of testimony, the committee voted 7-2 along partisan lines to approve both open and campus carry bills, likely fast-tracking them for a *full Senate vote when lawmakers can begin passing bills next month.*


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

When this open carry passes and is legal law,.... will I need to have the new horse I'm gonna buy registered and inspected every year? I can legally ride it on the city streets, right?


----------



## 4 Ever-Fish N (Jun 10, 2006)

InfamousJ said:


> When this open carry passes and is legal law,.... will I need to have the new horse I'm gonna buy registered and inspected every year? I can legally ride it on the city streets, right?


Yes but only if it meets all EPA regulations. It's hard to find a place that will do the exhaust check.


----------



## Spartan Handgun Training (May 28, 2014)

Texas is one of six states that doesnt allow some form of open carry. Lt Governor Patrick, reassigned a bill to a higher priority, and are already in committee. Personally I like concealed, but I am totally against "constitutional carry". Which basically is ,if you can buy a gun , you can carry it without a permit or any type of training. It goes against the 811,000 Texans that have their CHL and took the time and spent money to do it the right ,legal way.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Spartan Handgun Training said:


> Texas is one of six states that doesnt allow some form of open carry. Lt Governor Patrick, reassigned a bill to a higher priority, and are already in committee. Personally I like concealed, but I am totally against "constitutional carry". Which basically is ,if you can buy a gun , you can carry it without a permit or any type of training. It goes against the 811,000 Texans that have their CHL and took the time and spent money to do it the right ,legal way.


The " right and legal way"? If constitutional carry passes, that is the new "right and legal way".
But, judging by your screen name, I've a good guess as to why you are really against it.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Tortuga said:


> Make that..."passed out of committee"
> 
> AUSTIN (AP/KXAN) â€" Bills known as â€œcampus carryâ€ and â€œopen carryâ€ passed out of the Senate State Affairs Committee Thursday. They vote was along party lines, seven to two. Six out of the seven Republicans co-wrote the â€œCampus Personal Protection Actâ€, which would allow allow CHL holders to go inside college classrooms
> After nine hours of testimony, the committee voted 7-2 along partisan lines to approve both open and campus carry bills, likely fast-tracking them for a *full Senate vote when lawmakers can begin passing bills next month.*


Originally Posted by ChuChu View Post
The Senate Committee passed both campus carry and open carry bills today.


----------



## DIHLON (Nov 15, 2009)

I'll just be glad when I can carry a hand cannon instead of a little pocket rocket without any repercussion if it is not completely concealed.


----------



## DSL_PWR (Jul 22, 2009)

Spartan Handgun Training said:


> Texas is one of six states that doesnt allow some form of open carry. Lt Governor Patrick, reassigned a bill to a higher priority, and are already in committee. Personally I like concealed, but I am totally against "constitutional carry". Which basically is ,if you can buy a gun , you can carry it without a permit or any type of training. It goes against the 811,000 Texans that have their CHL and took the time and spent money to do it the right ,legal way.


Ah, in it for the money? That's cool.

I find it odd that someone who is in your position wouldn't support the constitution wholeheartedly. Unless you do and you just misremembered when you were typing your post.


----------



## marshhunter (Mar 20, 2008)

spurgersalty said:


> The " right and legal way"? If constitutional carry passes, that is the new "right and legal way".
> But, judging by your screen name, I've a good guess as to why you are really against it.


X2


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

Spartan Handgun Training said:


> Texas is one of six states that doesnt allow some form of open carry. Lt Governor Patrick, reassigned a bill to a higher priority, and are already in committee. Personally I like concealed, but I am totally against "constitutional carry". Which basically is ,if you can buy a gun , you can carry it without a permit or any type of training. It goes against the 811,000 Texans that have their CHL and took the time and spent money to do it the right ,legal way.


And yet I'm sure you tell people how awesome the 2nd amendment is, and how great and free America and Texas are?

And by the way, if Constitutional Carry passes, that is the new *right and legal. *


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

I rilly like CHL..but am afraid if this open carry passes then 'road rage' is gonna take on a whole new meaning and open a big arse can of worms... sad3sm


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

Tortuga said:


> I rilly like CHL..but am afraid if this open carry passes then 'road rage' is gonna take on a whole new meaning and open a big arse can of worms... sad3sm


How so? You can legally carry in your car (concealed) WITHOUT A LICENSE ALREADY.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

jamisjockey said:


> How so? You can legally carry in your car (concealed) WITHOUT A LICENSE ALREADY.


Well, JJ..I'm still rational enough to understand that..As a matter of fact.. that is what I DO...and my CHL expired years ago..

Just the thought of possibly a million men in the Houston area wandering the streets with a six-gun strapped on their hip gives me a little case of the yips.

I'm sure I can count on you to protect me, though.....:rotfl:


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

Tortuga said:


> Well, JJ..I'm still rational enough to understand that..As a matter of fact.. that is what I DO...and my CHL expired years ago..
> 
> Just the thought of possibly a million men in the Houston area wandering the streets with a six-gun strapped on their hip gives me a little case of the yips.
> 
> I'm sure I can count on you to protect me, though.....:rotfl:


Brother the criminals already DO carry a gun without a license. That's what I've been trying to get across in the discussion. Criminals don't care.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

Tortuga said:


> Well, JJ..I'm still rational enough to understand that..As a matter of fact.. that is what I DO...and my CHL expired years ago..
> 
> Just the thought of possibly a million men in the Houston area wandering the streets with a six-gun strapped on their hip gives me a little case of the yips.
> 
> I'm sure I can count on you to protect me, though.....:rotfl:


Open Carry will only allow CHL holders to open carry. Constitutional Carry, which ain't got a snow balls chance to pass, is for the million men in Houston to strap on a six gun and walk the streets.


----------



## Steelersfan (May 21, 2004)

*....*



sgrem said:


> Open carry is not a good idea.


Why?

We have open carry here in PA and it is much adieu about nothing.....

Heck of a lot easier to get a carry permit here, too. (LTCF)


----------



## DIHLON (Nov 15, 2009)

ChuChu said:


> Open Carry will only allow CHL holders to open carry. Constitutional Carry, which ain't got a snow balls chance to pass, is for the million men in Houston to strap on a *six gun* and walk the streets.


 Nah. I prefer 19+1.


----------



## tmanbuckhunter (Aug 1, 2014)

I have to giggle at all the so called 2nd Amendment supporters who don't support constitutional carry. The founding fathers are laughing at you in their graves. Responsible citizens should be able to protect themselves and their families how they see fit without a nosy anti-gunner (if you don't support con.carry you're an anti-gunner) telling them what they can and can't do. If you carry concealed, and feel threatened by an honest citizen carrying a firearm openly, and feel that you may have to use your firearm against them or "need to prepare" yourself, you aren't responsible enough to mentally stable enough to carry a firearm anyways.


----------



## Bearwolf34 (Sep 8, 2005)

Why should our rights be limited all at the hands of regulating stupidity...you'll never make enough laws to keep the stupid out of society. All you will do is erode the rights of the normal, civilized folks who know how to act and live responsibly. Smh


----------



## judweiser (May 22, 2004)

*?*

I have a question for supporters of open carry. Do you like the idea of "less desirable folks" open carrying also?


----------



## Navi (Jun 2, 2009)

My only complaint against open carry are the attention whores with their gopro cameras giving the concept a bad name.


----------



## muney pit (Mar 24, 2014)

Im for it but see a movement inside the OC guys thats tring to stop it. Stuff like this will do nothing but harm the OC movement.
http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/28...mber-arrested-before-senate-committee-hearing.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

judweiser said:


> I have a question for supporters of open carry. Do you like the idea of "less desirable folks" open carrying also?


What makes them "less desirable"? Socioeconmic class?
Until someone tries to do me or mine harm, I have no right to dictate thier life. 
Further, I call BS on the idea of the criminal element carrying firearms in the open. I've lived in open carry states. I've never seen nor heard of criminals open carrying.
Another person open carrying a gun is no more a threat to me than a person concealing a gun, or with one in thier glovebox or under thier seat. Or in thier house for that matter.


----------



## muney pit (Mar 24, 2014)

judweiser said:


> I have a question for supporters of open carry. Do you like the idea of "less desirable folks" open carrying also?


Its gonna happen but as long as good guys are able to defend themselfs and there family i dont see it being a problem. The other fact is most of those "undesirables" have felonies, so they know if they start anything its just gonna add more time Ifthere going around OC ing a pistol. I just dont see most of those types wanting to draw attention to themself. But there will be some.


----------



## bigbarr (Mar 9, 2010)

judweiser said:


> I have a question for supporters of open carry. Do you like the idea of "less desirable folks" open carrying also?


This is exactly what I'm thinking,,, How in the heck are the police supposed to check everyone that is open carrying to see if they are legal ?

Im not totally against it but it seems like it would be a nightmare for law enforcement.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

bigbarr said:


> This is exactly what I'm thinking,,, How in the heck are the police supposed to check everyone that is open carrying to see if they are legal ?
> 
> Im not totally against it but it seems like it would be a nightmare for law enforcement.


Everyone has been to gun shows and seen people walking around with a rifle over his shoulder and wondered who let him out of the asylum.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

bigbarr said:


> This is exactly what I'm thinking,,, *How in the heck are the police supposed to check everyone that is open carrying to see if they are legal* ?
> 
> Im not totally against it but it seems like it would be a nightmare for law enforcement.


They're not. If OC passes, it will then become law. Regardless, why should the cops need to check everyone open carrying to determine if they're legal? 4th amendment covers this.


----------



## Texas T (May 21, 2004)

spurgersalty said:


> They're not. If OC passes, it will then become law. Regardless, why should the cops need to check everyone open carrying to determine if they're legal? 4th amendment covers this.


They will be stopped for several legal reasons:

Somebody reported a person open carrying, who seemed to be strange, LEO then is required to investigate the complaint.

To see if the individual actually has a carry permit making it legal to open carry.

I think it will be mostly the individuals that think they need to carry a long gun over their shoulder while shopping that will garner the most attention. Kinda like "Look at me" syndrome. But what if the legally have a NFA weapon slung over their shoulder that would raise a lot of eyebrows, especially when they are a baseball bat away from having it stolen.

But to think that because it is legal to carry openly then everybody is also legal carrying is an bad assumption.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Texas T said:


> They will be stopped for several legal reasons:
> 
> Somebody reported a person open carrying, who seemed to be strange, LEO then is required to investigate the complaint.
> 
> ...


How many times have you been stopped and only asked if you had a drivers licence? Cops have to assume this now. 
So if OC passes, you're saying I give up my 4th amendment rights.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

spurgersalty said:


> They're not. If OC passes, it will then become law. Regardless, why should the cops need to check everyone open carrying to determine if they're legal? 4th amendment covers this.


One related aspect of constitutional vs licensed OC is just that- just what it takes to confirm eligibility. Even with legal constitutional carry, there's people that can't legally carry that gun. For an officer to find that out would require a full record or background check, probably beyond the reasonable scope of what an officer can be expected to be able to get if needed. With licensed OC, it's very simple: if you have the card, you're legally permitted to have the gun, period.

As a result, constitutional carry, despite its appeal on those constitutional grounds, effectively gives carte blanch to every gangbanger felon to carry as well- the fact that they can't have that gun simply can't readily or reliably be determined.


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

If the constitutional carry (open carry) bill passes, no permit will be required for anyone to open carry.


----------



## Texas T (May 21, 2004)

spurgersalty said:


> How many times have you been stopped and only asked if you had a drivers licence? Cops have to assume this now.
> So if OC passes, you're saying I give up my 4th amendment rights.





> *Amendment IV*
> 
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, *but upon probable cause*, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The highlighted section says they still have a legal method to determine your legality of OC, without violating your 4th amendment rights
When you are pulled over the LEO knows if the vehicle has current registration/insurance in effect, who the registered owner is for the vehicle and if their are any warrants out on them and if their license is valid. If not your vehicle then they check you for validity.


----------



## spuds (Jan 2, 2005)

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I've always thought that "well regulated" meant that a background check and proficiency testing was within the constitution. 

Not that anyone who had the cash could carry.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Texas T said:


> The highlighted section says they still have a legal method to determine your legality of OC, without violating your 4th amendment rights
> When you are pulled over the LEO knows if the vehicle has current registration/insurance in effect, who the registered owner is for the vehicle and if their are any warrants out on them and if their license is valid. If not your vehicle then they check you for validity.


The LEO does not know if I have a license until he asks for it regardless of the vehicles registration/inspection status. He has no probable cause to pull me over and ask for a license UNLESS I've broken a law. The same applies to OC.



spuds said:


> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> I've always thought that "well regulated" meant that a background check and proficiency testing was within the constitution.
> 
> Not that anyone who had the cash could carry.


I always though "shall not be infringed" meant they could not limit or restrict my right to keep and bare arms as a legal citizen of this country. Silly me.


----------



## Stuart (May 21, 2004)

Can we put aside legal semantics for a little bit and answer my question a few pages back? Other than it's more comfortable, I want to hear what advantages proponents think they will have with open carry.


----------



## pknight6 (Nov 8, 2014)

Texas T said:


> They will be stopped for several legal reasons:
> 
> Somebody reported a person open carrying, who seemed to be strange, LEO then is required to investigate the complaint.
> 
> ...


How would that be any different than the LEO assuming everyone is a burglar or a pedophile? They don't, they wait until there is a reason to suspect a person and then they check them out. I would think it would be the same with a person carrying openly. That being said, I think officers would have a keen eye on anyone carrying around them.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Stuart said:


> Can we put aside legal semantics for a little bit and answer my question a few pages back? Other than it's more comfortable, I want to hear what advantages proponents think they will have with open carry.


More flexibility on what they can carry and more comfortable holsters are 2 off the top of my head.


----------



## Stuart (May 21, 2004)

spurgersalty said:


> More flexibility on what they can carry and more comfortable holsters are 2 off the top of my head.


Both of those fall under comfort to me. I want something _other_ than comfort. In winter, I can and have carried OWB and just wore a coat in total comfort.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

spurgersalty said:


> More flexibility on what they can carry and more comfortable holsters are 2 off the top of my head.


I would add more comfort in the summer when you don't wear a coat.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Stuart said:


> Both of those fall under comfort to me. I want something _other_ than comfort. In winter, I can and have carried OWB and just wore a coat in total comfort.


Quicker on the draw if you needed to use it is the best answer I can think of.


----------



## Stuart (May 21, 2004)

spurgersalty said:


> Quicker on the draw if you needed to use it is the best answer I can think of.


Is it really though? I would hope that if someone is going to carry open, they would carry in a holster with retention. My two primary carry weapons are a G26 which I carry IWB and a Ruger LCP. The Ruger I carry in a Blackhawk No 1 pocket holster. When I feel the need, I can easily walk with my hand on the grip of the gun, in the holster, in my pocket. Drawing it is as easy and quick as simply taking my hand out of my pocket. Can't get any faster than that. And nobody is the wiser, because I'm concealed.

I appreciate that everyone is different, just trying to discuss this and see what the advantages of open carry would be.


----------



## spotsndots (May 20, 2005)

Stuart I think comfort is the number 1 factor. I know plenty of people that don't carry all the time CHL wise because it isn't comfortable depending on what they are wearing. I am in favor of open carry. I would rather have my gun strapped to my waist/belt and covered by a loose fitting shirt and not worry about having to have it exposed at all. I know JJ said the CHL laws have changed to accommodate accidental exposure but this ruling would eliminate the dispute over the definition of the word "accidental exposure"

If a bad guy walks into a public place with the intent to rob it or whatever and sees 5-10 people standing around with their guns visible I believe the chance that the bad guy goes ahead with his plan diminishes greatly....One thing they don't like is lead poisoning and having multiple people against one might be enough to deter the crime.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Stuart said:


> Can we put aside legal semantics for a little bit and answer my question a few pages back? Other than it's more comfortable, I want to hear what advantages proponents think they will have with open carry.


My personal biggest plus is simple complete and total removal of the printing/accidental exposure aspect. The last legislature went a long way toward fixing that, but OC. Would blow the lid completely off that pot.

Wearing a jacket as a cover for a CC firearm? No big deal if it gets 90 degrees on a spring afternoon and you want to remove it.. I'd still carry concealed, it just really takes all the "compliance" pressure off. If I'm not carrying now, those little details are the reason why.

That, and I really just consider a nice traditional 1911 to be a great fashion accessory. The deep bluing and rosewood grips just really set off the color in my eyes.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Stuart said:


> Is it really though? I would hope that if someone is going to carry open, they would carry in a holster with retention. My two primary carry weapons are a G26 which I carry IWB and a Ruger LCP. The Ruger I carry in a Blackhawk No 1 pocket holster. When I feel the need, I can easily walk with my hand on the grip of the gun, in the holster, in my pocket. Drawing it is as easy and quick as simply taking my hand out of my pocket. Can't get any faster than that. And nobody is the wiser, because I'm concealed.
> 
> I appreciate that everyone is different, just trying to discuss this and see what the advantages of open carry would be.


I would think if it wasn't faster, LEOs would not be carrying this way.
Edit, and I don't think the flexibility issue I mentioned is a comfort thing. Thinner guys like myself have a hard time concealing anything but the smallest of pistols without the aid of a jacket or such. I have a hard time concealing my sti defender 9mm without a jacket or extremely oversized shirt.


----------



## donf (Aug 8, 2005)

spotsndots said:


> Stuart I think comfort is the number 1 factor. I know plenty of people that don't carry all the time CHL wise because it isn't comfortable depending on what they are wearing. I am in favor of open carry. I would rather have my gun strapped to my waist/belt and covered by a loose fitting shirt and not worry about having to have it exposed at all. I know JJ said the CHL laws have changed to accommodate accidental exposure but this ruling would eliminate the dispute over the definition of the word "accidental exposure"
> 
> If a bad guy walks into a public place with the intent to rob it or whatever and sees 5-10 people standing around with their guns visible I believe the chance that the bad guy goes ahead with his plan diminishes greatly....One thing they don't like is lead poisoning and having multiple people against one might be enough to deter the crime.


This^^^^^^
Bad guys don't want to get shot, they will , seeing the odds are against them , go somewhere else.
Like New York.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

spurgersalty said:


> I always though "shall not be infringed" meant they could not limit or restrict my right to keep and bare arms as a legal citizen of this country. Silly me.


Should a convicted Felon have that same right ?....or say a person that has been in and out of mental hospitals for severe mental problems ?


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Bocephus said:


> Should a convicted Felon have that same right ?....or say a person that has been in and out of mental hospitals for severe mental problems ?


That's why I used the term "legal" citizen. Someone legally able to own and have a weapon. As far as the mental problems, I can't say one way or another. That would be a better question for their doctor and close relatives.


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

spurgersalty said:


> That's why I used the term "legal" citizen. Someone legally able to own and have a weapon. As far as the mental problems, I can't say one way or another. That would be a better question for their doctor and close relatives.


Okay, just wondering. I do figure there will have to be some kind of background check like we have with a CHL to prevent those types from strapping on a gun.

We'll have to see what they come up with in the new law if it's passed.


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Bocephus said:


> Okay, just wondering. I do figure there will have to be some kind of background check like we have with a CHL to prevent those types from strapping on a gun.
> 
> We'll have to see what they come up with in the new law if it's passed.


They way I understood it Bo, was if OC passes, you'll still need the chl permit.
If constitutional carry passes, no permit required.


----------



## Spartan Handgun Training (May 28, 2014)

I'm all for the Constitution, and the right to carry and bear arms, I served in the Marine Corps for 4 years back in the 1980's ready to defend the Constitution against communism. 
I still wear a uniform protecting the community for the past 24.5 years.

I just believe not everyone has the "common sense" to responsibly carry, and of course I'm in the biz now of training. That's what the good Ole USA is about, free enterprise.. so why not.


----------



## Spartan Handgun Training (May 28, 2014)

it will be the same process as a CHL background check. You will have the option open or concealed. If you open cary, the handgun must be in a belt holster or shoulder holster. Thats what the bills read so far..


----------



## mrau (Mar 17, 2010)

http://www.texasobserver.org/open-carry-leader-legislature-treason-punishable-death/

I'm just amazed open carry is actually moving forward with this knucklehead leading OCTC.


----------



## ChuChu (Jan 23, 2010)

mrau said:


> http://www.texasobserver.org/open-carry-leader-legislature-treason-punishable-death/
> 
> I'm just amazed open carry is actually moving forward with this knucklehead leading OCTC.


The writer is using the wrong language. OCTC is a Constitutional Carry promoter. That group has done more damage to any kind of carry than any anti-gunner. I would go so far as to say they are really anti- gunners in reality.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

mrau said:


> http://www.texasobserver.org/open-carry-leader-legislature-treason-punishable-death/
> 
> I'm just amazed open carry is actually moving forward with this knucklehead leading OCTC.


. 
Okay, let's do OC everywhere.but tarrant county. They've proven they can't handle it...


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

ChuChu said:


> The writer is using the wrong language. OCTC is a Constitutional Carry promoter. That group has done more damage to any kind of carry than any anti-gunner. I would go so far as to say they are really anti- gunners in reality.


I doubt the anti- gunner angle. This is just what happens when the crowd that wants no political compromise EVER, even if it requires one to ignore any situational realities of a given issue, takes up a gun issue.


----------



## roundman (May 21, 2004)

ran across a few today on the seawall, said the cops stoped them and ask har far they were going to walk, how long etc, and be safe and have a nice day


----------



## Last Drift (Jun 30, 2009)

*Open Carry*



Tortuga said:


> I would think the bad guys would love the idea of open carry...
> 
> How would I know who is a bad guy or a good guy ???


Exactly.....


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

roundman said:


> ran across a few today on the seawall, said the cops stoped them and ask har far they were going to walk, how long etc, and be safe and have a nice day


Kinda wonder what those folks are gonna do with their ARs if a baddie jumps out and levels on their kid. Looks like they are 'carrying' in a position that when they slide that sucker around for action...it's gonna be UPSIDE DOWN..

just wonderin'...


----------



## spurgersalty (Jun 29, 2010)

Tortuga said:


> Kinda wonder what those folks are gonna do with their ARs if a baddie jumps out and levels on their kid. Looks like they are 'carrying' in a position that when they slide that sucker around for action...it's gonna be UPSIDE DOWN..
> 
> just wonderin'...





Tortuga said:


> Kinda wonder what those folks are gonna do with their ARs if a baddie jumps out and levels on their kid. Looks like they are 'carrying' in a position that when they slide that sucker around for action...it's gonna be UPSIDE DOWN..
> 
> just wonderin'...


If slung over left shoulder like the guy has it, the left hand takes the gun up in an arch while dropping the left shoulder to release the sling and twisting the gun inward to the upright position. The right hand then goes to the grip and both are used to tuck it in to the shoulder. 
Its a really quick and fluid action if done correctly. And most that carry that way know what I am talking about.


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

spurgersalty said:


> If slung over left shoulder like the guy has it, the left hand takes the gun up in an arch while dropping the left shoulder to release the sling and twisting the gun inward to the upright position. The right hand then goes to the grip and both are used to tuck it in to the shoulder.
> Its a really quick and fluid action if done correctly. And most that carry that way know what I am talking about.


OK, Salty..I'll take yore word for it.. Guess Momma is left handed...

I'd think for real effect it would be faster to just carry it in BOTH hands in FRONT of you...and forget trying to get untangled from that sling chit..


----------



## Bocephus (May 30, 2008)

When it's all said and done with the current laws, I would hope that all the "good guy's"* like us* are able to open carry, or conceal....anyway we wish, any time we wish.

And I hope it will send a message to the "bad guys" that we will do whatever it takes to defend ourselves, our families & our Country.

:texasflag


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

You can still carry concealed, just wear one of these shirts to fit in ...http://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/02/15/colorado-mans-realistic-gun-shirts-come-with-a-warning/


----------

