If open carry passes...

[jsimmons]

While open carry would be great for concealment issues that occasionally happen I could see society easily reacting to seeing guns (which were always here in the first place but were concealed...remember out of site out of mind) at their local hangouts in such a way they would move to impose more bans on them. (I hope I'm wrong...but it seems logical given the way society is).

That's why OC isn't the answer - constitutional carry is the answer - carry how/where you see fit. If you're "out and about" carry openly if you want to. When you enter a business (that's not posted), cover it up - if you want to.

 

[Texan2]

It was this post: The phrasing "is usually done by", instead of "might be done by", indicates that your friends are referring to an extant activity which involves showboating.

The four words right before "is usually done by" are "is merely an opinion". And I dont want to keep beating this to death, but how is there "empirical evidence" that proves people are not wearing a gun for show??? There is no way that I know of to accurately gauge why someone OCs in an OC state. All we know is why the tell us they do.

I think you are over analyzing these comments.

But if this bill ever does get a sponsor, I vote for Bithabus to go to Austin and help argue the case. He is like a pit bull.....

 

[TexasRedneck]

With all due respect, in a state where OC isn't currently allowed, how in the blazes is someone able to say why someone else would OC??? I can think of several reasons for OC, among which are convenience/comfort. It really shouldn't matter in my mind - if they start getting stupid, then take care of the problem. But until then, what's the issue? Is it possibly the loss of implied power on the part of the openly-armed PD? Is it honest concern over possible overt acts of aggression by those carrying? Hard to say - but since no civilian can currently OC in this state, it's pretty difficult to project, IMO.
From what I've been able to discern, AZ has had no significant OC issues...shouldn't that be a saliant part of this conversation?

 

[Texan2]

It really shouldn't matter in my mind - if they start getting stupid, then take care of the problem.

Absolutely

 

[Texan2]

Is it possibly the loss of implied power on the part of the openly-armed PD?

Hmmmmm... the PDs authority isnt implied, it is statutory, so I am not sure how OC would cause an LEO to think they were losing power. LEOs know there are hundreds of thousands of armed individuals walking amongst us as we speak and it is of little/no concern. I dont think OC would effect LEOs much at all.

 

[Wolfwood]

... Bithabus ... is like a pit bull....

don't you hate / kill pitbulls?

roflmao

 

[Wolfwood]

Hmmmmm... the PDs authority isnt implied, it is statutory, so I am not sure how OC would cause an LEO to think they were losing power. LEOs know there are hundreds of thousands of armed individuals walking amongst us as we speak and it is of little/no concern. I dont think OC would effect LEOs much at all.

as someone (perhaps yourself) pointed out OC seems to me as though it would make it easier on the LEOS "because i don't have to wonder why someone might be putting his hand in his pocket"

 

[Matthew2000tx]

Matthew

Great post, but if I may point out one thing, which is "printing or an accidental exposure" is not against the law in Texas.

Either may cause a disruption in a public place (much like some feel OC could do), but the Texas Penal Code for Disorderly Conduct (§42.01) specifically states "(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionallyor knowingly: (8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm" (emphasis mine).

Cheers! M2

Yes, thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Bithabus]

The four words right before "is usually done by" are "is merely an opinion". And I dont want to keep beating this to death, but how is there "empirical evidence" that proves people are not wearing a gun for show??? There is no way that I know of to accurately gauge why someone OCs in an OC state. All we know is why the tell us they do.

I think you are over analyzing these comments.

But if this bill ever does get a sponsor, I vote for Bithabus to go to Austin and help argue the case. He is like a pit bull.....

Well if someone is wearing a gun "for show" but it not overtly "showboating", or engaging in any sort of anti-social behavior, then what is the problem? Why would anyone fear that situation, unless they already are afraid of guns? Some people are afraid OC will bring back the old West, "blood in the streets" etc, and there is lots of evidence that that won't happen. Texas will not be the test case for OC.

 

[Bithabus]

From what I've been able to discern, AZ has had no significant OC issues...shouldn't that be a saliant part of this conversation?

Indeed, this fact refutes most of the arguments against OC. The experimental trials, as it were, have already been conducted. The only reason for someone to believe OC should be illegal is fear of guns.

 

[M. Sage]

Indeed, this fact refutes most of the arguments against OC. The experimental trials, as it were, have already been conducted. The only reason for someone to believe OC should be illegal is fear of guns.

TX is very much in the minority when it comes to OC. Most of the nation has it, why not here?

 

[Bithabus]

TX is very much in the minority when it comes to OC. Most of the nation has it, why not here?

Is that rhetorical or are you asking why it is still illegal?

 

[M. Sage]

Mostly rhetorical, but if someone can come up with a reason why people in places like NY and CA should have more freedom when it comes to open carry than we do, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Texas1911]

Mostly rhetorical, but if someone can come up with a reason why people in places like NY and CA should have more freedom when it comes to open carry than we do, I'd love to hear it.

That can be argued for any cause ... the real question is this:

"Do we as Texans want Open Carry, and is it in the best interest of us as citizens of this state".

My answer is, Yes. You won't stop people from being idiots, and frankly OC would give those of us that are law abiding and safe the option of a more comfortable and simplistic form of carry.

Should issues arise, I'm not afraid to address them with effective measures, just the same as was done with CC, but I'm not expecting alot of issues to be honest.

 

[TheDan]

there are a few new guys with "rookie-itis" that want to OC everywhere...it usually wears off after a few months.

I think the same thing will happen with John Q Public. Once open carry is passed, the people that want to show off will do it for a short period of time and then they'll get tired of it. I don't understand the fear of people showing off, tho... As long as the show-offs aren't breaking any laws, what does it hurt anyone? Sure some idiot might do something stupid, but if I was worried about stupid people doing stupid things that could kill me I'd never get in a car. Hell, I'd never leave the house. I'm sure there will be growing pains, but a funny thing happens when you give people more responsibility. They grow up.

To answer the original questions in this thread... No, I don't think OC will pass this session. Just look at this thread. If we have this much dissent when we actually generally agree with each other, then it's never going to happen. When it eventually does pass, I'll probably OC fairly regularly. I probably won't do it for the rare occasions I go into the city, tho.

My girlfriends leftist mom told me one day that the only bad thing about me is that I have a bunch of guns.

Next time she brings it up, tell her the fact you have a gun, know how to use it, and have a decent understanding of Texas's use of force laws means that her daughter essentially has an armed bodyguard protecting her whenever you are around.

 

[MR Redneck]

I think the same thing will happen with John Q Public. Once open carry is passed, the people that want to show off will do it for a short period of time and then they'll get tired of it. I don't understand the fear of people showing off, tho... As long as the show-offs aren't breaking any laws, what does it hurt anyone? Sure some idiot might do something stupid, but if I was worried about stupid people doing stupid things that could kill me I'd never get in a car. Hell, I'd never leave the house. I'm sure there will be growing pains, but a funny thing happens when you give people more responsibility. They grow up.

To answer the original questions in this thread... No, I don't think OC will pass this session. Just look at this thread. If we have this much dissent when we actually generally agree with each other, then it's never going to happen. When it eventually does pass, I'll probably OC fairly regularly. I probably won't do it for the rare occasions I go into the city, tho.



Next time she brings it up, tell her the fact you have a gun, know how to use it, and have a decent understanding of Texas's use of force laws means that her daughter essentially has an armed bodyguard protecting her whenever you are around.

So? Does all that mean you want to exercise your rights, could it mean you prefer open carry, or are you just wanting to be a show off?
The term show-off has no meaning when it comes to your rights. If someone were to claim I was showing-off simply because I had a gun in the open, I would have to say thank you! People who choose to " Show-off " might simply prefer open carry as a convenient method to carry. Others who prefer to " show-off " may be doing just that! They may feel like a visible gun will prevent crime.

 

[M. Sage]

So? Does all that mean you want to exercise your rights, could it mean you prefer open carry, or are you just wanting to be a show off?
The term show-off has no meaning when it comes to your rights. If someone were to claim I was showing-off simply because I had a gun in the open, I would have to say thank you! People who choose to " Show-off " might simply prefer open carry as a convenient method to carry. Others who prefer to " show-off " may be doing just that! They may feel like a visible gun will prevent crime.

Nobody bitches about Facebook being full of people using the 1A as an excuse to "show off". Which is pretty much all Facebook is.

I've been a "show off" at traffic stops and asserted my 4th and 5th Amendment rights even when I had nothing to hide. And yes, I'm admitting that one of the only reasons I did so was simply because I could. Got a problem with that? Take it up with Jefferson.

 

[Texan2]

Nobody bitches about Facebook being full of people using the 1A as an excuse to "show off". Which is pretty much all Facebook is.

I've been a "show off" at traffic stops and asserted my 4th and 5th Amendment rights even when I had nothing to hide. And yes, I'm admitting that one of the only reasons I did so was simply because I could. Got a problem with that? Take it up with Jefferson.

When did you exercise your 5th amendment rights on a traffic stop? Did the cop ask you if your were speeding?

 

[MR Redneck]

Nobody bitches about Facebook being full of people using the 1A as an excuse to "show off". Which is pretty much all Facebook is.

I've been a "show off" at traffic stops and asserted my 4th and 5th Amendment rights even when I had nothing to hide. And yes, I'm admitting that one of the only reasons I did so was simply because I could. Got a problem with that? Take it up with Jefferson.

I to am a Thomas Jefferson fan. Not that any of these other people around here will read it," because they seem to like their rights being restricted" but here's some imformation from a right to carry study. Our founding father DEFINED and DESCRIBED to SECOND AMENDEMNT in the manner it was intended to be defined. Enjoy..
2nd Amendment is an Individual Right

Heller vs. District of Columbia - "Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.†As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed." - Majority opinion, United States Supreme Court DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER.

This argument is further confirmed by every single one of our Founding Fathers. Allow me to quote a few of them to demonstrate this point.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom of the press." - Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father, drafted the Declaration of Independence, 3rd US President, Source a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright in 1824.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson's advice to his 15 year-old nephew Peter Carr 1785

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams of Massachusetts -- U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person." - James Madison, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution June 8, 1789

"A people armed and free forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for
the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppression." - James Madison (1751-1836), Father of the Constitution for the USA, 4th US President

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." - John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President A Defense of the Constitution of Government of the United States of America, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." - Patrick Henry

"Are we at least brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - Patrick Henry, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." - Thomas Paine (1737-1809) Source: I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56, 1894

To a man, every single one of our Founding Fathers believed in the individual right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (firearms).

 

[Texan2]

Not that any of these other people around here will read it," because they seem to like their rights being restricted"

Which people are those? So far everyone that has commented on this subject thinks OC should be legal. Maybe I missed a post?