OPEN CARRY TEXAS. Texans get in here!

[km101]

Extreme example, Waco.

What kind of legislation will stop Federal agents from acting in an illegal or unethical manner?

I have a CHL and I carry every day. I don't know if I would carry openly, but I would like to have the right.
Please post info about how to contact local chapters. I did not find anything under my county or city.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Man I would hate to be counted with NY and CA as a state with no open carry. Just kidding.

The problem we all face is trying to change something that has been in effect for a long time or the old "why change it if it isn't broken" retort. Because 30 other states have open carry we should also have it is a bad approach. You need to make a case for why you need open carry and why the present situation doesn't work. The reason concealed carry is becoming the norm is because it is a very good way of being armed without scaring the pants off of people who think everyone should be unarmed. Out of sight, out of mind. The biggest problem I see isn't with open carry but the rigorous, expensive and time consuming process of getting a license to carry concealed.

Open carry here is not the norm even though it's legal. I don't know anyone who carries who doesn't have a permit and doesn't carry concealed. I've seen a few people open carry but only a few in the 39 years I've lived here. WA is a very large state with open carry and hardly anyone does it. So now you have to ask why. One reason might be is if you are going to get into your vehicle with a loaded weapon and no CPL you're illegal right there. But I don't think that's it. I think those that are serious about carry get a license and carry concealed. No one needs to know that I'm armed but me. I don't have 2A stickers plastered all over my vehicle for the same reason. I'm under the radar until I vote.

 

[barnbwt]

"What kind of legislation will stop Federal agents from acting in an illegal or unethical manner?"
None. Just like gun control laws. All you can do is put systems in place that route out and will severely punish unethical behavior. Just like murder laws.

"Out of sight, out of mind."
And like most easy solutions, hiding from the squealers does nothing to lessen their animosity; instead, it makes your secretive behavior seem even more illicit (while the stigma of 'coward' with regards to CCW has dissipated, hiding something important on your person will always be viewed with suspicion by social animals like ourselves)

"I think those that are serious about carry get a license and carry concealed."
I don't know much about Washingtonian gun laws, but I did grow up in Vancouver; open carry would have gotten the cops called out in my suburban neighborhood, and no one went shooting outside Scout camp. Even a neighbor who volunteered as a sheriff's deputy (doubtless armed) didn't dare carry openly while on duty for fear of spooking everyone. Granted, as a ten year old, I wouldn't expect any suburban environment to push guns toward me, but I only met one person who'd even hunted recently the entire time I was there. An old fellow who carved fantastic decoy ducks, and who retired to SC where he could hunt more easily/cheaply (I have to imagine the greenie-weenies have made hunting a fairly obnoxious affair in WA, by now)

TCB

 

[orionengnr]

I don't like open carry. I won't oppose it but I won't support it either.

While we're at it, I've got nothing to hide...and I think stop n'frisk should be the law of the land. After all...it's "for the children".
While we're at it, I'm not such a big fan of people who disagree with me...maybe we should dispense with that pesky First Amendment.

See where that mindset leads?

I am a TX CHL holder, and while I would probably not get much mileage out of an Open Carry Law, it's not all about me. It's about the Constitution, and you either believe in it or you don't.

I do.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I personally been satisfied with the current law. Im not sure yet of open carry , too much exposure to others and they would know what i have.

How much did you have pay in order to get the government's permission to carry a gun? And you are SATISFIED with that?!? Really?????? Wow. Would you be just as satisfied if you had to pay the government for a permission slip to post on the internet or attend church?

Would you be just as satisfied if you had to submit to a background check, with fingerprints, and pay the government for a 4th amendment card in order to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures? Think about how easy THAT would make law enforcement. Cop stops you for whatever little reason they can find, like they thought your tail light was burned out and if you don't have your 4th amendment card on you he can search your vehicle without your consent. Think of all the criminals they could catch that way and how much safer the children would be. Would you be satisfied with that? Oh - and some states might not honor your home state 4th amendment card...

I guess I just hope that Texans' satisfaction with their current system stays in Texas and doesn't spread to where I live.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I think it is very interesting to note the strong anti-gun history of Texas - which continues even today:

http://www.txchia.org/history.htm

The first Texas law against concealed and open carry was "An Act to Regulate the Keeping and Bearing of Deadly Weapons, Law of April 12, 1871, ch. 34, §1, 1871 Tex. Gen. Laws 25" passed as part of the Reconstruction. That law was not substantially modified until 1995.

In many ways the Texas process was typical. The push started with proposed laws in 1983, 1985, 1987 and 1989 (the Texas Legislature meeting only on odd numbered years). The 1991 attempt came closer to passing, but failed to gain enough support in the legislature, and was amended to death.

Two years later the 74th Legislature passed SB 60, and the new Governor George W. Bush fulfilled a campaign promise to sign the first Texas concealed carry bill.

Throughout the long struggle to get a concealed handgun law passed for Texas there were a number of people who risked their political lives to accomplish what many thought might be an impossible task. Two stand out.

One is Texas Senator Jerry Patterson, who sponsored and shepherded a number of the bills, including the successful 1995 effort and the equally important 1997 revision. He happens to be a classmate of mine from Texas A&M University, Class of 1969.

The other is Suzanna Gratia, who rose from the tragedy in Killeen to provide essential testimony at a critical time. As Suzanna Gratia-Hupp she become a Representative in the Texas Legislature and served several terms, always speaking up for gun owners.

The law went into effect September 1, giving the Texas Department of Public Safety about three months to write all the procedures, design the paperwork, and train enough Qualified Instructors to teach the required course DPS wrote. They did it.

Texas continues to be one of the top 10 most repressive states regarding carrying a firearm in public - and with the opinions expressed here, it doesn't seem like it will change in the near future. Please keep your attitudes south of your northern border, we sure don't want them up north!

 

[GEM]

Being mono-manical about open carry is fine. However, TX is quite a gun friendly environment. I've lived in the NW also and have NO trouble with TX laws and the culture.

I might suggest as this is The High Road, you keep your insults under control.

 

[Art Eatman]

Reconstruction: WashDC ran things in the post-war South. (My great-great uncle, state senator Bolivar Pridgen, punched out the boss of the US Gestapo one afternoon in the state capitol building. Around 1870 or so.)

Texas didn't allow carrying a handgun on the street, true. But no onerous state controls on buying and selling. Open carry on property under your control has always been legal. And a rifle or shotgun in a rack in a pickup cab was not uncommon. In 1952 I took my 1917 Enfield to a gunsmith--via city bus. No hassle; one little old lady inquired as to make, manufacture and cartridge. I got off the bus, walked a block to the gunsmith's, and nobody cared.

"Travelling", by court precedent, came to mean being out of one's home county overnight--in which case you could have a handgun in your vehicle with you. Now, if you're out and about in town in your car, the law says you're a traveler. No CHL needed, as long as the handgun stays in the car.

And by showing my CHL, I can bypass the line and the ding-dong machine and enter the state capitol building with my handgun.

All these improvements have come about via rational argument, not by braying and displaying.

 

[moxie]

Thanks Art.

 

[GEM]

Ditto - Art. I did exactly that when testifying. I fail to see why the efforts of Dr. Gratia-Hupp are implied to be restrictive. It was the case during the debates that gun rights absolutists argued against the CHL bill as all we need is/was the 2nd Amend. So would we be better off if the bill failed. NO, we would have deprived significant portions of the TX population from the ability to carry and protect themselves. You can bray that they should have broken the law and carried anyway. Good for you.

Some shall issue laws were sabotaged for a time by such absolutists. Luckily, reason prevailed. Perhaps shall issue laws will lead to OC but why was the first step opposed?

Now, if you are in the know in TX as compared to the NW, you would hear that some OC types would sabotage attempts at campus carry laws if they don't get OC! Now that's really sensible.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by GEM: Some shall issue laws were sabotaged for a time by such absolutists. Luckily, reason prevailed. Perhaps shall issue laws will lead to OC but why was the first step opposed?

Now, if you are in the know in TX as compared to the NW, you would hear that some OC types would sabotage attempts at campus carry laws if they don't get OC! Now that's really sensible.

As I mentioned before, success in passing legislation almost always requires compromise.

That was true in Missouri when shall-issue CCW legislation was enacted. Some of the compromises involved the acceptance of things that seem to be anathema to many of the absolutists on this board. But without those compromises, we would have... ... nothing at all. No concealed carry, no handgun purchases without permits, no loaded firearms in automobiles in close proximity to the drivers, no reciprocity with other states. Nothing.

I would not presume to decide for Texans what makes the best sense for them. Campus carry? Perhaps open carry but with local preemption? No improvement at all, because absolutists refuse to compromise?

Not my call, thanks.

 

[GEM]

The TX CHL law was not perfect - but we got it. Over time it was modified to be much better. It is a technique folks should understand as compared to the bray and pray approach (that's a gun pun, folks).

 

[NavyLCDR]

The fact remains that Texas is still in the top 10 most restrictive states regarding carrying a loaded handgun in public and a lot of Texas gun owner's are satisfied with that.

I don't need a permit at all to open carry a loaded handgun in public, but I do need one to keep it loaded in a vehicle. If I desire to conceal my handgun (not required) or keep it loaded in a vehicle, I pay $55.25 for a 5 year license, with fingerprints - and that's it. I don't have to pay for or attend any training on top of that. The local sheriff has 30 days to issue my permit. Renewal for another 5 years is $35. How much total $$$ does it cost in Texas? Out of state residents have actually more freedom to apply for a WA CPL because they can apply at any LEO agency in the state but residents have to apply in their own county - but they might have to wait 90 days for their license.

I am only prohibited from carrying in a bar that is limited to over 21 years of age (none of that 51% profit stuff). With my license, I can carry on the premises of a school when dropping off or picking up a student, even outside my vehicle (just can't go in the building itself), and anyone can have a gun in their vehicle on school property when doing business at the school (and violating the school premises restrictions is only a misdemeanor, not a felony). Churches, reacetracks, hopspitals, nursing homes, and amusement parks are all no problem for me. I can carry while voting. If I am stopped by a police officer I am not required to tell them about my permit or my gun. Not even any issues with alcohol consumption while carrying a firearm unless I violate some other law. There are no signs that a private party can post that makes it a crime for me to carry past.

So, if you are satisfied with that in Texas - more power to you, but I still find it sad the level of government restrictions of a right that is supposed to be guaranteed to not be infringed upon that people are happy with. I'm not happy with the restrictions we have here even though we have way less restrictions (as do most states) compared to Texas.

Yeah, I have to do the instant NICS check even with my CPL when buying a gun - and without the CPL people have to wait 5 days for a local background check in WA for a handgun - we really need to get rid of that here, it's a worthless requirement that ties up law enforcement recourses - as well has making short barreled shotguns and machine guns legal here.

I tend to agree - Texas (from the outside) does not appear to be ready for open carry.

 

[JRH6856]

And in addition to what Art wrote, carrying a prohibited weapon was a misdemeanor offense, and most often resulted in a warning. After the end of Reconstruction, the law remained on the books because selective enforcement made it a convenient tool for keeping politically disenfranchised segments of the populace disarmed. The politically dominant (white) majority generally carried or not as they chose with no ramifications unless they did something else that resulted in a prosecution. Then carrying a prohibited weapon was an easily proven charge. When Texas was mostly rural, they county Sherriff had a lot of authority, and a lot of extralegal influence. If the sheriff didn't want to charge you, that pretty much settled things, and the sheriff's opinion generally reflected the opinion of the voters since he was elected.

This was pretty much the status quo for 90 years, while Texas gradually transitioned from a rural state to a more urban/suburban demographic. County sheriffs were no longer the supreme LE authority for many people. City Police Chiefs were hired, not elected so voter accountability mattered less and less. And when the Civil Rights act of pretty changed the political demographic, selective enforcement became less and less useful or usable. The political turbulence of the '60s brought on a lot of changes in gun laws across the country, with many restrictions being added at state and federal levels. Texas was already restrictive, but whereas in the past, few paid attention to the law, now it became necessary to pay attention. The move started to permit legal carry of concealed handguns and while ti took a few years to get, we did get it.

But for many, the only thing that changed is that now they have to pay to get a card from the state instead of making a campaign contribution to the sheriff.

 

[CoalTrain49]

"Out of sight, out of mind."
And like most easy solutions, hiding from the squealers does nothing to lessen their animosity; instead, it makes your secretive behavior seem even more illicit (while the stigma of 'coward' with regards to CCW has dissipated, hiding something important on your person will always be viewed with suspicion by social animals like ourselves)

With that same reasoning you wouldn't have a problem walking through a slum in Detroit with a few 100 dollar bills attached to your ballcap and large gold chains around your neck. You wouldn't get very far before someone decided you really didn't need all that "important" stuff. You may not be labeled a coward but I'm pretty sure you would be labeled stupid. I don't know about you but anytime I'm in a part of town that I know to be a high crime area I view everyone with suspicion.

(I have to imagine the greenie-weenies have made hunting a fairly obnoxious affair in WA, by now)

Correct, that would be your imagination.
I've been hunting here for at least 20 years and have not found anything obnoxious about it. Just the opposite in fact.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Texas continues to be one of the top 10 most repressive states regarding carrying a firearm in public - and with the opinions expressed here, it doesn't seem like it will change in the near future. Please keep your attitudes south of your northern border, we sure don't want them up north!

That's funny, because up North is where they came from. Did you read your own link?

"The first Texas law against concealed and open carry was "An Act to Regulate the Keeping and Bearing of Deadly Weapons, Law of April 12, 1871, ch. 34, §1, 1871 Tex. Gen. Laws 25" passed as part of the Reconstruction."

Texas was on the wrong side of a losing war and we got our laws dictated to us for a long time. A process that is still being undone today.

Personally, I love it when out of state people tell me how OMG restrictive Texas is while I wear my gun around all day every day. Terrible, just terrible I tell you.

But hey, at least you guys finally caught up with us and allow SBRs up there once the governor gets around to signing it. Finally catching up to Texas, eh?

As for the Open Carry Texas organization:

NOT HELPING!

 

[JRH6856]

Quote:
What many of us fear is that if any "Open Carry" legislation happens to get passed and is not very carefully worded in regard to signage (as in NOT tied to the current 30.06 verbiage), it could result in just enough "Man with a Gun" calls to 911 to create an epidemic of wasted police resources, business owners and managers not wanting any more "panic attacks" in their buildings or parking lots and a rash of new 30.06 signs going up at thousands of locations where there are none present today.​

And he is looking at the wrong end. What we need to be doing is working to get rid of 30.06 (the law, not the ones we can carry openly).

 

[Mainsail]

Personally, I love it when out of state people tell me how OMG restrictive Texas is while I wear my gun around all day every day. Terrible, just terrible I tell you.

I don't understand your point here- I wear mine around all day every day too. If it's hot I take my coat off and carry openly. When it's cold out I can conceal a regular sized gun under my coat, then take the coat off when I get inside a store or restaurant. If I want to conceal with the barrel sticking out the bottom of a short coat, I can do that too. If it's hot I can still carry a regular sized gun because concealing is not required.

My CPL doesn't require concealment- it's merely another option.

Our gun laws, like most of the country's gun laws, are great. Arizona, Vermont, or Alaska gun rights impress me, Texas gun laws do not.

Nevertheless, we're rooting for y'all!

 

[Art Eatman]

From what I watched in Texas (moved back in 1963), there just wasn't all that much interest in handguns, generally. Not until all the anti-gun noise out of DC in the GCA '68 stuff. Then, later, when IPSC got going, it began to change.

Remember that much of Texas was and is rural. Out on the farms and ranches, if you wanted to tote a handgun, all well and good. I did, from 1966 on.

But as a generality, before the 1960s/1970s, there was rarely any particular need for self-defense carry. So, it wasn't any big deal and thus no great effort to get rid of onerous laws.

The western states didn't suffer under Reconstruction, nor did they have any perceived need for Jim Crow gun control. Call it the "luck of circumstance and geography".

 

[Midwest]

The fact remains that Texas is still in the top 10 most restrictive states regarding carrying a loaded handgun in public and a lot of Texas gun owner's are satisfied with that.

However, gun owners in New Jersey, New York, California, Maryland, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Washington DC, would probably jump at the chance to have Texas carry laws.

.

.

 

[barnbwt]

"The western states didn't suffer under Reconstruction, nor did they have any perceived need for Jim Crow gun control."
Funny, that's exactly what many cities/states to the West and Easy have ended up with...

"With that same reasoning you wouldn't have a problem walking through a slum in Detroit with a few 100 dollar bills attached to your ballcap and large gold chains around your neck. You wouldn't get very far before someone decided you really didn't need all that "important" stuff. You may not be labeled a coward but I'm pretty sure you would be labeled stupid. I don't know about you but anytime I'm in a part of town that I know to be a high crime area I view everyone with suspicion."
If a few 100 dollar bills and a large gold chain were effective means of defending myself...maybe? (alright; the chain could perhaps be an effective weapon, but probably less so than a good handgun of equal value ). Also note; how come the gang-leaders driving the pimp-mobiles aren't constantly high-jacked? Oh yeah, because they would bring force down on anyone who tried, and because everyone knows they'd have a piece handy.

Glad to hear Washington has sane hunting laws; all I remember from school was how the Chinook Salmon and Spotted Owl were all more important and noble than electricity cheap enough to keep the aluminum smelters open. You can understand my perceptions.

"And he is looking at the wrong end. What we need to be doing is working to get rid of 30.06 (the law, not the ones we can carry openly)."
Preach!

"Personally, I love it when out of state people tell me how OMG restrictive Texas is..."
And not just gun stuff obviously. Knowing the history of how Texas got (basically all) its historically restrictive laws makes me resent the attitude even more. Restrictive governance foisted upon us by ruthless men at the point of a gun. Only very recently being dismantled (we still can't even redistrict our own stinkin' precincts without a 'Mother, may I?' while we prop up the nation's economy). I imagine knowing Hawaiians hold similar chips on their shoulders, having once been a nation more legitimate than even Texas.

TCB

 

[CoalTrain49]

Also note; how come the gang-leaders driving the pimp-mobiles aren't constantly high-jacked? Oh yeah, because they would bring force down on anyone who tried, and because everyone knows they'd have a piece handy.

Yes sir, that looks like a good example for everyone in place of concealed carry. Just join a gang and no worries. Wonder why the Detroit Police Chief supports concealed carry even though MI is an OC state?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...hief-Concealed-Carry-Deters-Crime-Saves-Lives

I know this appears to be unrelated to Texas' bid for OC but if you look at states that have it and the people there that prefer CC to OC one would have to ask the question why fight for it if no one would actually use it. Trying to get it just so you can say you have it doesn't make much sense to me unless you are actually going to use it. To me it's like free beer for someone who doesn't drink. Maybe a poll of TX residence would be in order to see if the folks who CC would OC if it were legal.

 

[moxie]

I've asked a lot of my fellow Texas residents who have CHLs if they would carry OC if legal. Most say no.

Fact is, as I noted above, most Texans I know like the status quo. With a CHL that is now easier to get and renew (as of last Sept.), you can carry just about anywhere you want. You can carry in church if your church allows it. You can carry in most bars, applying the same logic as drinking and driving. You can't be impaired. Some bars derive 51% or more of their income from booze and you can't carry there. I don't think there is even one of those bars in my county, so it's really a non-issue. The 30.06 signage allows store/facility owners to prohibit guns on their property. I'm fine with that. The only actual common application of these signs in my experience is hospitals/clinics. They are off limits.

So we Texas CHL holders are armed when and where we need to be for the most part. Open carry just scares a lot of people. We want to protect them, not scare them. So the current CHL situation is one most of us are very satisfied with. We don't feel "restricted" at all.

 

[JRH6856]

So we Texas CHL holders are armed when and where we need to be for the most part. Open carry just scares a lot of people. We want to protect them, not scare them. So the current CHL situation is one most of us are very satisfied with. We don't feel "restricted" at all.

Well, whether of not we feel restricted, the fact remains that we are restricted.

 

[barnbwt]

"Wonder why the Detroit Police Chief supports concealed carry even though MI is an OC state?"
Probably because there is even less chance of OC happening in Detroit than a meteor strike making the question moot . Something-something absurdum; I never went to debate school . I'll go out on a limb and guess he supports his officers carrying openly, and believes strongly that their doing so is a deterrent rather than a risk

"Some bars derive 51% or more of their income from booze and you can't carry there. I don't think there is even one of those bars in my county, so it's really a non-issue."
Your county wouldn't happen to be surrounded by counties with lots of such bars, would it? I wouldn't have such an issue with the 51% rule if it weren't such an obviously arbitrary rule, nor if I was the one doing the bar's finances. I've heard of people getting in trouble and having charges brought when they were not aware the business was, or had recently become, subject to the rule (I assume the owner's are supposed to post signage when they cross the line, but what if they don't?) And more broadly, how does my need/right for self-defense with a firearm change when the bar makes one more sale that pushes it over 51%? How does being there but not impaired by alcohol impede my ability to use the gun judiciously in accordance with the law?

TCB