Request for open carry in Texas

[MatthewVanitas]

I think the proposal here would be quite similar to TN, MN, IA, and IN where you need a permit to carry openly or concealed.

I agree with the idea of this. Gang bangers won't get permits. You have to spend how much money to get a Texas CHL? $140? The Course costs anywhere from $100 to $250, and a handgun costs even more if you're starting out fresh.

So... the argument is that the mechanic with a wife and two kids making $8.50 an hour CAN afford a TX CHL, but the guy who provides cover for his buddies moving $3000 of crack a day CAN'T?


I don't have the cite right now (lame excuse), but there are cities who ran across situations where a gang would pick out members who had no criminal offenses and get them CCW, and those members would carry a gun to protect the gang's dealers. Cops show up, the guy with the crack runs, the guy with the gun pulls out his CHL in the ID-holder around his neck and raises up his hands, and the cops have nothing on him.

This is a situation where the old adage applies: "To hell with your laws: good people don't need 'em, bad people don't obey 'em."

 

[DKSuddeth]

also this will probably not win the support of law enforcement who would have to go and approach legally armed gang bangers.

and this would be different from approaching illegally armed gang bangers.....how?

 

[Maxwell]

So... the argument is that the mechanic with a wife and two kids making $8.50 an hour CAN afford a TX CHL, but the guy who provides cover for his buddies moving $3000 of crack a day CAN'T?

The guy whos covering for his drug dealing buddies:
1) Would not fancy the paperwork to buy a license anyway... Thats a long time argument we've had for rkba.
Criminals dont obey laws, the problem is the laws disarmed good guys so we no longer stand on equal terms.

2) Could be brought up on many other charges if he pulled the weapon or was caught knowingly helping a drug dealer.
If hes just standing around doing nothing, you wouldnt have a charge anyway. Why is the cop wasting time?

3) Was not disarmed from the first gun law, will not be rearmed by any changes made to help civilians.
Most crime happens in low wage areas. What set the US apart from europe was self defense became something for everyone, not just the rich nobels who could afford it.

 

[LAK]

The "gangbangers" that are not barred from possessing a firearm can already carry concealed while they are in a motorvehicle - with no stinking permit like everyone else. Could anyone care less that their pistol is hanging on their hip as opposed to under a hanging shirt?

Not to mention any legal shotgun or rifle.

Turning "gangbangers" into some kind of irrational fear is nonsense. The bad ones are going to get killed sooner or later, and no amount of legislation is going to "save" people from those that are that bad who are not physically under lock and key.

------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[HonorsDaddy]

Andy C...

The Harris County DA is quite anti-gun unfortunately. He's also on record as stating he will defy state law regarding having firearms in your vehicle while travelling and prosecute anyone he can for it. I'll be very surprised if he is re-elected.

 

[AndyC]

Hmmm...being antigun I can understand (actually, I can't, but that's another debate), but saying he will defy state law? It's a scary world when prosecutors believe that they can willfully ignore existing laws as they see fit. What a complete w@nker

 

[DKSuddeth]

being antigun I can understand (actually, I can't, but that's another debate), but saying he will defy state law? It's a scary world when prosecutors believe that they can willfully ignore existing laws as they see fit.

Thats exactly what the Harris County D.A. has instructed LEOs in his county to do in regards to the new 'traveling' law passed by the legislature. He has publicly stated that he will continue to prosecute people in the old fashion of making the defendant prove he was traveling instead of having to assume he/she was traveling according to the new law.

 

[Desertdog]

He has publicly stated that he will continue to prosecute people in the old fashion of making the defendant prove he was traveling instead of having to assume he/she was traveling according to the new law.

If I am in my motor vehicle and I am not parked in my driveway, am I traveling or not?

I may be only on the way to the grocery store; but is that any different than being on my way to another town? Am I not "traveling" in both situations?

 

[DKSuddeth]

If I am in my motor vehicle and I am not parked in my driveway, am I traveling or not?
I may be only on the way to the grocery store; but is that any different than being on my way to another town? Am I not "traveling" in both situations?

Before the new law was passed and took effect, traveling wasn't defined but it was an unwritten rule that you had to be crossing through 2 counties to be considered traveling AND if you were stopped with a gun in your car, you were arrested and put on trial to PROVE you were traveling across 2 counties. The legistlature rewrote the law so that it was ASSUMED you were traveling and the LEO/DA had to prove you WEREN'T traveling across 2 counties to arrest you. Instead of enforcing the 'assumption of innocence', the Harris D.A. has stated that he will continue to enforce the law as it was before, which means if you are stopped and a gun is found in your car, you will be arrested and tried to PROVE you were traveling.

 

[txgho1911]

Even in Indiana as open carry is legal with the liscense. It is very hard sometimes to find any official recognition of this fact. This is the best description on a LEA website of the Indiana liscense to cary handgun.
http://www.warrickcountysheriff.com/records.htm#gun permits
All that and there are other sites stating a 21 year old requirement that does not exist.

 

[rbernie]

Here's a silly question - presuming that it doesn't stand a good chance of making it thru the legislature, is there some irrevocable harm in asking for it anyway? In other words, is there some reason whereby it would be best not to fight the fight if the odds aren't in our favor?

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

DK Suddeth wrote:

Quote:
also this will probably not win the support of law enforcement who would have to go and approach legally armed gang bangers.

and this would be different from approaching illegally armed gang bangers.....how?

the big difference is that a law enforcement officer can currently arrest an illegally armed gang banger for unlawful carrying of a handgun if he/she does not have a valid carry permit in Texas. they would not be able to arrest a legally armed gang banger for simply being armed with a handgun in plain view.

that is the MAJOR reason most police departments will be against open carry without a permit of some sort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertDog
If I am in my motor vehicle and I am not parked in my driveway, am I traveling or not?
I may be only on the way to the grocery store; but is that any different than being on my way to another town? Am I not "traveling" in both situations?

Before the new law was passed and took effect, traveling wasn't defined but it was an unwritten rule that you had to be crossing through 2 counties to be considered traveling AND if you were stopped with a gun in your car, you were arrested and put on trial to PROVE you were traveling across 2 counties. The legistlature rewrote the law so that it was ASSUMED you were traveling and the LEO/DA had to prove you WEREN'T traveling across 2 counties to arrest you. Instead of enforcing the 'assumption of innocence', the Harris D.A. has stated that he will continue to enforce the law as it was before, which means if you are stopped and a gun is found in your car, you will be arrested and tried to PROVE you were traveling.

there is some argument in regards to two counties, having a hotel room reservation/bill or proof of travel expenses, etc.

you are right about the Harris County (Houston) D.A. despite the new law change his office is still sending out the anti-2A message.

but that is not simply the attitude of one D.A. it is the attitude of pretty much everyone in charge in the big Texas cities.

i just don't see UCW being repealed. it would allow possession of also "illegal knives" (switchblades, etc) and clubs in addition to handguns.

this would most likely be political suicide for any Republican who wants to sponsor this bill. the Republicans are already looking at the upcoming general election in 2008. with the current political attitude of America they may be replaced by a bunch of Democrats.

 

[Euclidean]

People need to get over the idea that a gun is something to get overly excited about.

The reason our law is the way it is, is because people have an irrational fear of firearms.

If I strapped a radio, a flashlight, or a toaster to my hip and walked around that way, people would notice it and note it but no one would panic or call the police.

Now put a revolver on my hip and suddenly I'm an evil, evil man. Throw a shirt tail over that revolver and suddenly I'm a good law abiding citizen.

Firearms laws in Texas aren't nearly as bad as many other places, but our laws still suck. We have a long fight ahead of us to make this a pro RKBA state.

 

[Art Eatman]

"Travelling" in Texas was defined by court precedent. In the horseback days, it was defined by mileage from home. The advent of the automobile finally had it that one should be out of one's home county for an overnight stay in order to "travel".

The new law is taken by most to mean that if you're in your car and moving, you're a traveller. This particular DA wants to limit "travel" to the original court-precedent definition.

Art

 

[AFhack]

IMO open carry with a permit would be both an LEO and carryer nightmare.

LEO's would probably have to drop down to racial (and/or societal) profiling to determine whether or not to stop a person to ask to see their permit. While not stopping anyone to check for a permit would sort of reduce the weight of requiring a permit. Requiring a permit and then only prosecuting the case when lacking one is in addition to another crime seems like a waste of legislation to me. End result - cops either profiling, or cops asking everyone who's wearing a gun show them their permit.


Also IMO - you can't get the "concealed carry" vs "open carry" out of this kind of discussion. The wisdom (or lack thereof) is just too ingrained to remove it completely. Likewise, you probably won't see it in this forum, but you also can't exclude the non-armed public's reactions. People that are comfortable relying on good judgement and law enforcement personnel for their personal safety generally don't like to see handguns on the hips of a few people they meet while visiting their corner store.


I know it probably doesn't sound like it from the above opinions, but I'm a huge fan of open carry and enjoy living in an area where it's legal. However, I think population density plays a huge part in whether or not open carry "should" be legal, and "may" or "may not" be helpful. In general, the more people you got rubbing shoulders the less useful (and desirable) open carry is....

That's probably not how things "should" be, but it seems to me the way things are - at least here in the USA.

 

[DKSuddeth]

the big difference is that a law enforcement officer can currently arrest an illegally armed gang banger for unlawful carrying of a handgun if he/she does not have a valid carry permit in Texas. they would not be able to arrest a legally armed gang banger for simply being armed with a handgun in plain view.

that is the MAJOR reason most police departments will be against open carry without a permit of some sort.

But this is the exact kind of thinking that we need to overcome. If a 'gang banger' is not a felon (or otherwise meets the requirements for owning a firearm) he would be legal to carry the gun with a concealed license anyway. Most 'gang bangers' are either ex-felons or of otherwise disqualifying factors so carrying a gun either way would be illegal.

In other words, the police can arrest anyone for illegally carrying a firearm, open or concealed, if they are not eligible to own one anyway or are using it in the commission of a crime, but if nobody is committing a crime, whats the big deal?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Thats exactly what the Harris County D.A. has instructed LEOs in his county to do in regards to the new 'traveling' law passed by the legislature. He has publicly stated that he will continue to prosecute people in the old fashion of making the defendant prove he was traveling instead of having to assume he/she was traveling according to the new law.

Since when do police officers take orders from district attorneys? I haven't lived in Texas for a good menay years, but the corner of the world I now inhabit has police departments headed by chiefs of police. We don't call 'em "District Attorneys," but the prosecutors have no control over the ploice, they only review the charges and evidence after the police have done their thing.

Any LEO worth keeping his badge should know enough to ignore Mr. DA and go by the law, not by what one nutcase prosecutor thinks he wants to impose ("enforce" is hardly the appropriate term here) on his county.

 

[gunsmith]

LOL

for example, you are in a public place and you see a transvestite (cross-dresser) in the same place. you may not feel comfortable seeing a cross-dresser standing so close to you and your kids.

I could care less!

Open carry is neccesary because ninny idiots make a big deal if you accidentaly print.

Open carry in illegal in Reno but (sometimes) I carry a full size glock in a paddle holster and cover it with a tee shirt and it is very obvious what it is.

when it's over 100 degree's concealing is sometimes a pita

 

[Gray Peterson]

Since when was open carry illegal in Reno?

 

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

As a Texas CHL holder for the past six years I don't know that I'd migrate to open carry if given that as an added choice.

Something tells me that our legislators will screw something up. Probably an either/or scenario. Personally, I think the whole concept of unrestricted open carry is fine. I simply prefer to be the one providing surprises.

If I HAVE to open carry, I'd like the option of a FAL, please A Serbu Super Shorty woudn't be terrible, either.

<added ex post facto>
Rich creamy goodness added by Serbu.
http://www.serbu.com/shorty.htm Scroll down and see the holster.

Regards,
Rabbit.

 

[Johnny_Yuma]

You already bought a gun

Why not buy a jacket?

If you really, really just have to have people stare at you, get a nose ring.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Once again, the choice between open carry and concealed carry is a personal one and disparaging remarks about one or the other, because YOU don't like it, is not warranted or necessary.

 

[Deavis]

If I HAVE to open carry, I'd like the option of a FAL, please A Serbu Super Shorty woudn't be terrible, either.

You can already carry a Serbu or a FAL openly in Texas. The prohibition against open carry applies only to handguns, not long guns. Strap on your FAL, then your Serbu, and take a nice walk around the park. It is completely legal in Texas.

the big difference is that a law enforcement officer can currently arrest an illegally armed gang banger for unlawful carrying of a handgun if he/she does not have a valid carry permit in Texas. they would not be able to arrest a legally armed gang banger for simply being armed with a handgun in plain view.

that is the MAJOR reason most police departments will be against open carry without a permit of some sort.

I'm not sure I follow your logic here. If they aren't breaking the law and if they aren't a felon, then why would you want to arrest them in the first place? I realize being able to arrest someone for carrying a gun illegally is useful but how does that change if they are open carrying? If you have already rolled them for something, then you check them out, and if it is illegal they go away for a long time. It would be no different than finding an illegal concealed gun on them except that you would know they have it first. Does that make sense?

This reminds me of a discussion I had at a range where a guy told me, "I am glad that MGs are illegal because I don't want those gangbangers down at a certain Austin range to have them!" Okay, so you want to ban something from the entire population because someone who looks sketchy *might* misuse it? You know, they probably think he looks sketchy in his shooting vest, yellow glasses, and his loafers.

I think the concern of the LEO community can be dismissed just like it was for CHL. States with open-carry have, to my knowledge, no issues with it so why would Texas be any different?

 

[aguyindallas]

This is always an interesting discussion. I am not sure if I WOULD go to 100% open carry, but having the option is important to me. While it would still be a restriction on your 2A rights, I could "settle" for permitted open carry. In other words, change our CHL (Concealed Handgun Licesnse) to Carrying Handgun License.

This will still have our permit price where it is, thus deterring some criminal element. This will not change the fact that it would be against the law to carry without a license whether open or concealed. That part of it takes away the argument that LEO has about not being able to make arrests for the unlicensed carrying gangbanger.

I wish this would come to pass even though I would likely not carry openly much. I agree with the fact that it would help in the event your over garment blows up over your gun or hangs up on it exposing it. I dont care if the soccer moms are not comfortable. If you dont want to see it, dont look and keep walking around oblivious to the things going on right under your nose that you have NO clue about already. Surely this would condition more people and surely this would draw more interest of the average joe and get them involved in our passion. How can that hurt?

 

[Maxwell]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Criminals were not disarmed from the first gun laws, they wont be rearmed by relaxing those laws.

A penalty/registration fee would not act like a roadblock to any criminal worth his salt. The only part they would avoid is the additional paperwork...but they do that already, dont they?

The question at hand is weather you, Joe citizen, should have the right to carry your legal weapon convieniently without violating the law.

Criminals do not want to draw attention to themselves. It would be very unusual for one to carry openly just to provoke the cops. If he had no record and was doing nothign wrong, is he a criminal?
It they continue to carry concealed, nothing changes for us.

The root of the rkba argument is that most people are good people. By allowing more to carry weapons, you increase the chances that weapons will be in the right hands during any emergency.

Removing the legal roadblocks to allow for good people to carry weapons helps to balance the odds against those who never cared for the law to begin with.