Radio Show Stance On Open Carry.

[Mexican_Hippie]

Good advice on testing your equipment. Most of the quality open top holsters I've had retained very well though. Even upside down.

I usually go AIWB (appendix) for concealed carry. I'd probably go cross draw OWB for open carry. Having the pistol up front makes retention quite a bit easier in and of itself.

I've been researching some really nice handcrafted leather cross draw holsters. I'm sure a number of Texas holster makers that could make one if I had a design decided upon.

 

[matefrio]

I support your right to open carry. (how many times will I need to type that?)

If open carry passes, knock yourself out and open carry. Just PLEASE be prepareed for the attention you you will draw, and invest in a quality retention holster.

I have no clue how to post a photo on here, so no pic of my holster. But it says Bianchi Modle 82 on the back of it. I thought it was called an "auto lock" , but perhaps that was just something printed on the package. I bought it about 5 yeas ago, so I don't recall. It is not 100% "grab proof", but if you don't know how to hit the releas tab, it should slow down anyone unfamiliar with it. I can not recommend Safariland enough for their retention. The ALS and SLS are sturdy holsters, they just don't hold the gun as tight to the body as the bianch 82, so they print on the shirt more. But for open duty rig carry, they rock.

One more reason for retention, try running. Go home, unload your pistol, holster up and do some jumping jacks, or go try to climb your back yard fence and see how secure your pistol feels. How confident are you that if you had to grab say your 3 year old kid in your arms and run for dear life that your gun would not got flying. If you got jumped Without warning and started rolling on the ground, would your pistol be with you? Or would it be sliding across the floor... If you had to jump over movie theater seats in the dark while 300 people pushed past you, would your gun still be with you when you finally get to a position where you could engage the crazy shooter?

These are just things to consider...

Stay safe folks!

Do you think the right should be limited to those with a CHL like Oklahoma has done or a general right?

 

[gcmj45acp]

Folks, the image below is the holster Jason is talking about. It's called the CarryLok. For me, this rode a little higher than I liked and the extra retention features aren't a significant concern for me when the gun is concealed. I've found that Comp-Tac's C-TAC and Minotaur M-TAC holsters provide the retention I need with respect to movement even if they do nothing for a targeted grab.




As for whether carry (OC or CC) should be limited to those with licenses? I don't know how Jason or Jeff will answer that question. In a perfect world, I'd say a license shouldn't be required. And now I'm going to say something that will likely cause a bunch of you to get butthurt...This isn't a perfect world and quite honestly, I can also see logical reasons for licensing, whether I support it or not. I'm saying this partly because I cannot ignore reality and live in a fantasy world where everything goes my way. Fact is, SCOTUS did the right thing and affirmed our right to keep and bear arms. But they also said that right is subject to some regulation in a fashion similar to that of the First Amendment.

Requiring licensing just to own a gun or by ammo, is an infringement and not reasonable to me. But if you're going to carry in public, I do think you need to know the law in much the same way you need to know the basic laws of the road if you're going to drive in public. So to that extent, I can see why Oklahoma limited carry (open or otherwise) to those with carry licenses and I wouldn't be opposed to do the same in Texas. Why? Because I think the minimal training and criminal background checks required to get our concealed handgun licenses are a good thing overall. What I'd like to see is a straight forward expansion of the existing licenses such that we get the option to carry openly if we choose and I think those licenses should be good in all 50 states.

If you're still paying attention and haven't started screaming for a lynching, what I'm suggesting is that Article IV of the Constitution should have eliminated all the issues surrounding reciprocity before they ever started. For those who don't know what Article IV says, here's the short version: Article IV holds that each state must respect the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of all the other states. This is why your driver's license and your marriage is legally valid in all 50 states. So what I'm suggesting is that just as my drivers' license and marriage to my wife are recognized by every state in the Union, so to should my license to carry be recognized. That's my $0.02...Flame on.

 

[matefrio]

So, you think that ideally all people who carry guns should be trained and licensed concealed and\or open carry because we don't live in a perfect world?


If so who should write and control the standards and fees of that licencing?

If open carry is enacted for CHL holders do you see reason for expansion on the time, and there for cost of the CHL license, to train someone in retention methods of carry?

Also, do you see examples, in other states, that do not require licencing of open or concealed carry to cause concern?

 

[zembonez]

Like it or not, we are stuck with licensing. It's just another way to tax and control us. Governments almost never give up control when people have already gone along with it... unless they are overthrown.

 

[itchin]

And these are the people representing gun owners publicly. Like cops saying only we should be allowed to carry because we are trained. Permits licenses and "common sense regulations" are a slippery slope. Look what happened with the awb of the 90s. You give em an inch and they takea mile.

 

[matefrio]

Like it or not, we are stuck with licensing. It's just another way to tax and control us. Governments almost never give up control when people have already gone along with it... unless they are overthrown.

We did get CHL from nothing. We have gotten silencers enacted for hunting. We did get "traveling" defined in our favor. The AWB did sunset. SCOTUS did define the 2nd A as a personal right. A Virginia law limiting handgun purchases to one per month was repealed. I can go on.

It's a slow and steady fight for progress that's lasted a few years but it's happening.

 

[zembonez]

I agree 100% that we have to keep up the fight. There are plenty out there who would love to take away.

 

[Muzzlebreak]

Hello, all. I've had a membership here for quite some time but, for some reason, never posted. I got out of the habit of checking the forum a long time ago. I logged in today because Gary mentioned this thread over lunch and I figured I might as well weigh in.

From a legal perspective, I agree wholeheartedly that OC should legal. That being said, it's an impractical option for me. I think most of the people in my office, for instance, already think I carry but if I showed up one morning OC'ing that'd probably be way too "in your face" for management to let slide and would force policy changes that I would be unhappy or unable to live with.

On making yourself a target - I also absolutely agree with JBerry that it does raise those concerns. Case in point:
My father once worked for a company that owned several commercial manufacturing locations in various locations around the country. One of those was a bottling plant in Philadelphia. After inspecting that facility, he asked the general manager why the guards at the facility entrance were unarmed. The GM replied that they refused to wear guns. Evidently, wearing firearms made them targets for a subset of extremely motivated local criminals who would roll up on the guard shack, unceremoniously execute the occupants, steal their weapons and leave. The casual thief, looking to grab a quick, easy buck, will most probably decide that his efforts would be far better spent elsewhere. For the rare but ruthlessly motivated criminal, however, a lone citizen may make a very tempting target. Assuming such a measure passes, everyone is certainly free to follow their own internal compasses but, personally, OC is of very limited use to me.

On comfort - Yeah, IWB will always involve a certain amount of discomfort. For the past several months, though, I've been carrying in a Comp-Tac OWB holster and, really, I don't find it uncomfortable in the least. Granted, even at work my mode of dress is somewhat casual and I can easily get by with an un-tucked polo shirt. I know that'll change in the future but, for now, OWB is easy peasy and very comfortable. I really can't imagine OC being any more comfortably except for not necessarily giving a rat's patute about the larger bulge under the shirt.

The few circumstances I could envision under which OC might be a desirable option (again, for me) are mostly W.R.O.L. (without rule of law). For whatever reason - natural disaster, total financial collapse, etc. - the rule of law has failed and we have all been left to our own devices. Under these circumstances, the region where I live has become hot. There is no daily routine and people do not go blithely about mundane, daily tasks. In this environment, I will probably OC. I will also be armed with a rifle and, if there is a God in heaven, surrounded by all my friends with rifles.

Licensing - I understand where Gary's coming from but this may be where he and I part company for a little bit. Licensing, in any form, just smells to me like a poll tax. If licensing is an unreasonable restriction to the right of ownership then it must also be an unreasonable restriction on the right to carry. Perhaps (and I'm just throwing it out here as a possibility) we could throw a semester of education on gun laws and the use of deadly force into the high school curriculum. Maybe then we'd see a little less stupidity from so many people. (Oh, to go through one holiday season in the Houston area without morons discharging their weapons into the air!)

Then again, if I'd had clueless students launch projectiles in my direction like Gary has, I might feel differently but, oh well.

 

[Texastransplant]

Time to push for it, I have posted remarks elsewhere here. Many states have it, all we need to do is show up in numbers to the capitol and voice our feelings. I talked to Sid Miller 59th rep and it's what he said, he'd bring it up for a vote but we need to stand up and be noticed.

 

[TundraWookiee]

You have a dedicated section on this forum...we shouldn't be required to "call in" in order to get timely responses. This is the modern age, embrace all avenues of communication.

Secondly, the lack of podcast format recordings I can download has kept le from being able to keep up. Nearly all of the programs I listen to are podcasts because it allows me to listen when I have time, during my commute. This is no longer going to be an issue for me though as I'll no longer be tuning in or supporting the show given the show's responses.

Brought to you courtesy of Tapatalk

 

[gcmj45acp]

You have a dedicated section on this forum...we shouldn't be required to "call in" in order to get timely responses. This is the modern age, embrace all avenues of communication.

Secondly, the lack of podcast format recordings I can download has kept le from being able to keep up. Nearly all of the programs I listen to are podcasts because it allows me to listen when I have time, during my commute. This is no longer going to be an issue for me though as I'll no longer be tuning in or supporting the show given the show's responses.

Brought to you courtesy of Tapatalk

You aren't required to call in. I simply offered the members of the forum the opportunity to call in for the discussion. I have fully embraced the modern age but, I have to earn a paycheck doing stuff other than the show for which NONE OF US ARE PAID. While I am glad to be part of the community, I don't get to sit around all day, just hoping someone will post a question or respond to a thread. As for podcasts, every episode since I reconfigured the site in May can be found here Podcasts | The Official Guns Over Texas Radio Blog

 

[TundraWookiee]

You aren't required to call in. I simply offered the members of the forum the opportunity to call in for the discussion. I have fully embraced the modern age but, I have to earn a paycheck doing stuff other than the show for which NONE OF US ARE PAID. While I am glad to be part of the community, I don't get to sit around all day, just hoping someone will post a question or respond to a thread. As for podcasts, every episode since I reconfigured the site in May can be found here Podcasts | The Official Guns Over Texas Radio Blog

Haha good luck. Apparently you should only focus on something if you get paid for it. A good number of us work busy jobs as well and still manage to focus on other things we care about.

I'm out.


Brought to you courtesy of Tapatalk

 

[JBerry]

You have a dedicated section on this forum...we shouldn't be required to "call in" in order to get timely responses. This is the modern age, embrace all avenues of communication.

Secondly, the lack of podcast format recordings I can download has kept le from being able to keep up. Nearly all of the programs I listen to are podcasts because it allows me to listen when I have time, during my commute. This is no longer going to be an issue for me though as I'll no longer be tuning in or supporting the show given the show's responses.

We never said you were "required to call in", so how am I required to come to this forum to give timely responses? I check in when I can. I have a full time job I just walked in the door from (12 hours on shift today) and family to attend to. If you want an instant answer, calling the show is the simplest way. If not, you just have to wait until I get to a computer. I can check the facebook app from my phone, so that is another quicker way to get to us.

I do the radio show for free, just like Gary and Jeff. We do this show because we love to shoot and we believe in the Second Amendment. Yet some of you seem to think we are out to restrict your rights. Do Gary and I get to have an opinion? If it is different form yours are we heretics? I know you guy want 100% unrestricted access to guns as your God given right, I get that. I guess no matter how we answer, you will not agree. That is your right.

Some examples of the line of logic you are taking:
A) Do you guys agree that Convicted Violent Felons should not own guns? OH NO! You are restricting the God given rights of Felons!
B) Are you a CCW permit holder? Then you submitted to government control of your rights! You are for restricting rights!
C) Do you want open carry by someone drunk with a .18 BAC? No?!? You are out to restrict the God given rights of drunks to carry guns!
D) You want people to be 21 years old, or 18 years old before they can open carry? You are against gun rights!

No matter How I answer, you will try to pick at my answer until it is your answer...

So, for the third time, I SUPPORT YOUR RIGHT TO OPEN CARRY! If it passes in Texas, great. And like Gary, I live in the real world and have no problem with saying that Felons can not carry a gun, and someone drunk should not carry a gun. That does not mean we are anti gun rights.

We would love for you guys to keep listening, but you have the right to change the station. We want to be a responsable voice for gun owners, and try to present things in a more professional way than crap TV shows like "Sons of Guns" or "American Gun". I would think you would want to support anything that tries to promote gun ownership and for people to get their Texas CHL.

Stay safe folks, and practice, practice, practice...

 

[ChunkyMonkey]

Ahhhhhh......now the good debate starts.....in for the Exchange.

 

[Texan2]

Wow...what a thread.
From a legal standpoint, and a freedom standpoint, I hope OC passes.

I can OC now and NEVER do. Its absurd, the act of an attention mongor. It serves little...hmmm actually no purpose, but maybe as a SLIGHT deterrent to a petty theif.

Police do it IN uniform as stated several pages back because they are paid to be seen. The first step is always "command presence"...the ability to deter crime by your presence. I know of no criminal who gives a shit if Billy Bob has his 1911 strapped on his overalls.

Police that are in plain clothes usually CC. They wear a blazer or other garment to cover their weapon. There is a reason. Surprise is your friend. Always has been, always will be. If I had been stuck in that Aurora theater I would never want anyone to know I was carrying.

There are always going to be laws to govern any activity. This purist mentality that thinks the 2A means you can do NOTHING to restrict arms is absurd. So John Hinckley should be able to buy one? People in mental institutions, people on death row should be able to carry? I should be able to by a nuke? Obviously there is not now, nor ever been (even in 1776) any pure for of freedom....its called anarchy.

Something else....

These guys who do this radio show (which I have yet had a chance to hear) come on here to share info with us, for free. Have a little respect. We wont always agree, but there is no reason to be a douche nozzle when trading comments with them. Its embarrassing to me as a gun owner and member of this forum when pro 2A guys act like babies and quite frankly it feeds the machine that tries to paint us all as immature rednecks.

In conclusion.

1. OC should be legal.
2. I dont get why anyone would ever do it (outside of rare bizarre circumstances)
3. Be nice.

 

[tx_transplant]

How to go about it, license vs none. That's a tough call, IMHO. In essence, currently, if you are legal to purchase a firearm, you are able to get your concealed license. If it would help the measure get passed, I would be amenable to requiring licensing for OC or CC, one course of instruction.
However, generally I am not in favor of licensing either which way. As for knowing use of force laws, in my opinion, it is incumbent on the individual to keep abreast of the law and changes (personal responsibility), just like with driving. As for purchasing, the NICS is meant to weed out those who are ineligible already. People are already carrying concealed without licenses, I can assure you of that. You can't completely prevent people from breaking the laws, just deal with them when they do.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

...
In conclusion.

1. OC should be legal.
2. I dont get why anyone would ever do it (outside of rare bizarre circumstances)
3. Be nice.

I vote for this Geez, lighten up guys.

My perspective on felons...

If they served their time and are ready to be in public they ought to be able to defend themselves like anyone else. I have no knowledge of the current laws, but there should be some way to appeal for a reinstatement of rights on a case by case basis.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

OC has luke warm support.

If it would bring it over the finish line I think extending OC to CHL holders would be a reasonable compromise for this session, especially if the alternative is gaining no ground at all.

 

[gcmj45acp]

I vote for this Geez, lighten up guys.

My perspective on felons...

If they served their time and are ready to be in public they ought to be able to defend themselves like anyone else. I have no knowledge of the current laws, but there should be some way to appeal for a reinstatement of rights on a case by case basis.

One of the things that led to the "permanent" loss of the right to keep/bear arms for felons was the high recidivism or likelihood that they would re-offend with yet another felony. There is a process by which one can have his rights restored but, you basically have to be awarded a pardon by the governor and then have your records expunged, no small task. There's long been a debate about automatically restoring the rights of those who have served their full sentences. The high recidivism is what keeps coming up and for every case of a guy who really does turn his life around, there are at least 100 more who go right back to being turds because they can't or won't abide by the laws the rest of us typically choose to obey. I could probably get behind the concept of the restoration of rights for those who weren't convicted of a violent felony but, I don't know that you'll ever get support for restoring the firearm rights of a guy who served his time for offenses such as murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, sexual assault, kidnapping, or armed robbery.