-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Fox 4 (TX) video news report on Open Carry campaign
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
Hcidem
Regular Member
imported post
Nice report with good exposure of the OCDO website. I thought the sudden injection of the naysayer seemed a bit forced, but I imagine it was their attempt at giving the "other side" a voice. Since he was in the gun shop/range himself, and based upon his wording, I expect he's not an anti, but just a cynic.
Nice report with good exposure of the OCDO website. I thought the sudden injection of the naysayer seemed a bit forced, but I imagine it was their attempt at giving the "other side" a voice. Since he was in the gun shop/range himself, and based upon his wording, I expect he's not an anti, but just a cynic.
FMCDH
Regular Member
imported post
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but the main reason for this OC petition in Texas is to ease or eliminate the excessive punishment that occurs for those who happen to unintentionally flash their firearms while CCing.
A secondary and I would image, almost equally important reason is due to weather and clothing considerations. No one wants to have to wear a coat in any weather 70f or above.
The whole focus on "visual deterrent" is arguable at best and probably should not be the primary focus reason for OC in Texas or elsewhere. Sadly, the one and only person they showed an interview for gives exactly that reasoning, and fails to state it very well.
I would say, aside from the publicity for the site, the news report does very little to give "good exposure" to the OC movement.
Then there is the "any free exposure is better than none" camp.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but the main reason for this OC petition in Texas is to ease or eliminate the excessive punishment that occurs for those who happen to unintentionally flash their firearms while CCing.
A secondary and I would image, almost equally important reason is due to weather and clothing considerations. No one wants to have to wear a coat in any weather 70f or above.
The whole focus on "visual deterrent" is arguable at best and probably should not be the primary focus reason for OC in Texas or elsewhere. Sadly, the one and only person they showed an interview for gives exactly that reasoning, and fails to state it very well.
I would say, aside from the publicity for the site, the news report does very little to give "good exposure" to the OC movement.
Then there is the "any free exposure is better than none" camp.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
FMCDH wrote:
Having said that, obviously licensed concealed carriers want and deserve the right to choose to open carry when they want to and not be in fear of prosecution for exposing their handgun from time to time even when mainly concealing.
FMCDH wrote:
Well, no, Texans just want the same open carry rights that you have in Washinghton, and those in most states do - to be able to open carry their handguns if they want to, no permit required.
Having said that, obviously licensed concealed carriers want and deserve the right to choose to open carry when they want to and not be in fear of prosecution for exposing their handgun from time to time even when mainly concealing.
Cowboy_Rick
Regular Member
imported post
The naysayer needs to live in El Paso or near Laredo-the MEXICAN DRUG CARTEL is thick and active!! People living there are scared because they know something is going to happen!! In Juarez last year there were 1536 innocent people that were killed. This is not good.It takes 16 hours to drive from Juarez to Dallas! So far the MEXICAN DRUG CARTEL has been across the border twice-there is a map on CNN.com under Mexican DRUG War.
The naysayer needs to live in El Paso or near Laredo-the MEXICAN DRUG CARTEL is thick and active!! People living there are scared because they know something is going to happen!! In Juarez last year there were 1536 innocent people that were killed. This is not good.It takes 16 hours to drive from Juarez to Dallas! So far the MEXICAN DRUG CARTEL has been across the border twice-there is a map on CNN.com under Mexican DRUG War.
KBCraig
Regular Member
imported post
FMCDH wrote:
But the punishment is harsh, and needless. The point of the Texas OC movement is to eliminate any duty to conceal for a licensee, and to eliminate any need for a license to carry if one chooses to OC.
FMCDH wrote:
There is no punishment in Texas for unintentionally flashing or printing. The law requires that someone "intentionally fails to conceal" for there to be a violation.
But the punishment is harsh, and needless. The point of the Texas OC movement is to eliminate any duty to conceal for a licensee, and to eliminate any need for a license to carry if one chooses to OC.
David817
Founder's Club Member
imported post
FMCDH wrote:
FMCDH wrote:
Well said, with Mike's clarification. The coat is a dead give away when the temp is over 100, although that is only about three months out of the year.
FMCDH
Regular Member
imported post
KBCraig wrote:
BUT...that being said. I appreciate the clarification of your post.
What is printing if I may ask?
KBCraig wrote:
Yea, your kind of splitting hairs here. There is a thin line between flashing and "failing to conceal" when an LEO or other complainant is looking to make it stick.
BUT...that being said. I appreciate the clarification of your post.
What is printing if I may ask?
Shorts
Lone Star Veteran
imported post
KBCraig wrote:
Is it reasonable to consider if a person is seen flashing, unintentional or not, there will still be a 'man with a gun' call?
Because if no one sees it, did he really flash? And if a tree falls in the woods, ....
:uhoh:
KBCraig wrote:
Is it reasonable to consider if a person is seen flashing, unintentional or not, there will still be a 'man with a gun' call?
Because if no one sees it, did he really flash? And if a tree falls in the woods, ....
:uhoh:
Cowboy_Rick
Regular Member
imported post
Printing can be an unsightly bulge where one is notsupposed to be such as at the waiste on the right side when the left has no bulge. Here in TEXAS, you can loose your CC license over this. You will have to prove that it was unintentional.
So just do away with it-it is our right under the 2nd Amendment so allow that right to be utilized. Also in this state we have J.P.'s which usually only have a few months of required training and are totally POLITICAL, they can handle up to CRIMINAL if they so desire.
Printing can be an unsightly bulge where one is notsupposed to be such as at the waiste on the right side when the left has no bulge. Here in TEXAS, you can loose your CC license over this. You will have to prove that it was unintentional.
So just do away with it-it is our right under the 2nd Amendment so allow that right to be utilized. Also in this state we have J.P.'s which usually only have a few months of required training and are totally POLITICAL, they can handle up to CRIMINAL if they so desire.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
Shorts wrote:
Shorts wrote:
I don;t think folks are using the term "flash" correctly - flash it seems to ne is mor elike brandishing, normally illegal by statute in many states, or at least actionable as a common law assault, absent justification.
diesel556
Lone Star Veteran
imported post
I think it's amazing that printing is considered illegal in TX. I thought cc was difficult enough (when necessary), but after reading some of the threads in the holster forum I realize we have it easy in WA.
I don't fault the pro OC customer for his lack of polish. I think that the reporter could have found a more polished individual for the piece if she wanted to. The anti OC gentleman's arguments irked me a bit.
I think it's amazing that printing is considered illegal in TX. I thought cc was difficult enough (when necessary), but after reading some of the threads in the holster forum I realize we have it easy in WA.
I don't fault the pro OC customer for his lack of polish. I think that the reporter could have found a more polished individual for the piece if she wanted to. The anti OC gentleman's arguments irked me a bit.
Gator5713
Lone Star Veteran
imported post
David817:
It may only get over 100 3 months out of the year in D/FW... But in south and west Texas it is likely to be 95-105 or more much more than that!!! Remember, there is a WHOLE LOT of Texas South of you!!!
But the point is still valid, throughout the state the average temp for the year is above 80 and that makes it really difficult to wear a coat and I think it looks a little sloppy to walk around with my shirt un-tucked, so our options here are very limited.
A shoulder rig under my shirt (90% of the time I wear 'pearl snap' shirts) is probably the most concealable and readily accessible concealed option for me, but I work outside a lot and thus sweat a good deal so that position is bad for the gun...
Back on topic, I think the OCer did all right, could have been more polished, but the naysayer seemed forced and I think that most people that saw it and gave it any thought would probably come to the conclusion that both of them were a little paranoid, but that the OCer was afraid of sommething that we should all actually fear, while the naysayer was afraid of Law Abiding Citizens which makes no sense...
David817:
It may only get over 100 3 months out of the year in D/FW... But in south and west Texas it is likely to be 95-105 or more much more than that!!! Remember, there is a WHOLE LOT of Texas South of you!!!
But the point is still valid, throughout the state the average temp for the year is above 80 and that makes it really difficult to wear a coat and I think it looks a little sloppy to walk around with my shirt un-tucked, so our options here are very limited.
A shoulder rig under my shirt (90% of the time I wear 'pearl snap' shirts) is probably the most concealable and readily accessible concealed option for me, but I work outside a lot and thus sweat a good deal so that position is bad for the gun...
Back on topic, I think the OCer did all right, could have been more polished, but the naysayer seemed forced and I think that most people that saw it and gave it any thought would probably come to the conclusion that both of them were a little paranoid, but that the OCer was afraid of sommething that we should all actually fear, while the naysayer was afraid of Law Abiding Citizens which makes no sense...
David817
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Gator,
Maybe I should have said that it is over 100 for three months, although it is possible anytime (it was 83 yesterday). Personally, I generally go with the untucked look. That works pretty well, even on the beach that used to be. My work takes me out west, but not down to your neck of the woods, or forest as it may be. I45 is a route that I took often, but for fun, not work. Gig 'em.
Gator,
Maybe I should have said that it is over 100 for three months, although it is possible anytime (it was 83 yesterday). Personally, I generally go with the untucked look. That works pretty well, even on the beach that used to be. My work takes me out west, but not down to your neck of the woods, or forest as it may be. I45 is a route that I took often, but for fun, not work. Gig 'em.
FMCDH
Regular Member
imported post
Mike wrote:
That is as I understand it as far as WA/OR state law is concerned. That is what I was taught by my EP instructors. Those definitions were based upon their common allowance of OC however.
I know we still have occasional troubles with citizens and LEOs alike here in Washington getting those concepts confused. I imagine in Texas its exponentially worse since you don't even have the common law allowance of OC to protect you from MWAG calls.
I completely understand and support your push for OC.
Mike wrote:
I believe the term "flash" would be an un-intentional peek of a firearm in its holster, where "brandishing" is normally the intentional showing of a firearm out of its holster, for the intent to intimidate. I suppose this term could be used for showing the weapon in its holster too however.
That is as I understand it as far as WA/OR state law is concerned. That is what I was taught by my EP instructors. Those definitions were based upon their common allowance of OC however.
I know we still have occasional troubles with citizens and LEOs alike here in Washington getting those concepts confused. I imagine in Texas its exponentially worse since you don't even have the common law allowance of OC to protect you from MWAG calls.
I completely understand and support your push for OC.
Cowboy_Rick
Regular Member
imported post
Here in TEXAS you have a wide variety of climate changes. Such as in the morning it may be 20 degrees, by noon it will be about 85 degrees, then rain and freezing by sundown. It is a mess, this also adds to the delima of Concealed Carry, it may work in the morning but not at mid day and Vice Versa! Yesterday it was 62 degrees at night during the day yesterday it was 45, today it is 67 and the wind is constant at 20 mph from the WNW. Tonight it goes back to 27 degrees.
Here in TEXAS you have a wide variety of climate changes. Such as in the morning it may be 20 degrees, by noon it will be about 85 degrees, then rain and freezing by sundown. It is a mess, this also adds to the delima of Concealed Carry, it may work in the morning but not at mid day and Vice Versa! Yesterday it was 62 degrees at night during the day yesterday it was 45, today it is 67 and the wind is constant at 20 mph from the WNW. Tonight it goes back to 27 degrees.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
FMCDH wrote:
I think the term conotates a brief but deliberate display - not inadvertant shirt rising over holster while reaching up for a can of peas.
Alternatively: She flashed her badge at the check point to get professional courtesy. The gamgster flashed his gun to othger patrons while standing at the bar.
"Flash" is not a good term for us folks.
FMCDH wrote:
Definition of "flash" #32 at Dictionary.com: "to display suddenly and briefly: She flashed her ID card at the guard."
I think the term conotates a brief but deliberate display - not inadvertant shirt rising over holster while reaching up for a can of peas.
Alternatively: She flashed her badge at the check point to get professional courtesy. The gamgster flashed his gun to othger patrons while standing at the bar.
"Flash" is not a good term for us folks.
Shorts
Lone Star Veteran
imported post
Mike wrote:
I see your point Mike.
My post was tongue in cheek in general and meant to convey that any gun seen on any one's hip was going to alert someone. If it alerts the wrong someone, a call to the cops is made anyway. I figured the use of any word in any form (display, show, uncover, flash, failing to conceal, visible, can be seen, ...) was going to be hashed out here
Mike wrote:
I see your point Mike.
My post was tongue in cheek in general and meant to convey that any gun seen on any one's hip was going to alert someone. If it alerts the wrong someone, a call to the cops is made anyway. I figured the use of any word in any form (display, show, uncover, flash, failing to conceal, visible, can be seen, ...) was going to be hashed out here
FMCDH
Regular Member
imported post
Mike wrote:
It does conjure up images that we really don't need associated with the movement.
Still, I find it amazingly unfair that "printing" is considered to be some sort of crime. We really are spoiled in Washington in comparison. Education of our LEOs and a few politicians (cough...Nickels) is all we have to worry about for the most part.
I hope you guys get the same! In fact, I would like to see Federal preemption on the subject much to the style of Alaska's laws. Probably a pipe dream, but something to wish for.
Mike wrote:
lol :lol:
It does conjure up images that we really don't need associated with the movement.
Still, I find it amazingly unfair that "printing" is considered to be some sort of crime. We really are spoiled in Washington in comparison. Education of our LEOs and a few politicians (cough...Nickels) is all we have to worry about for the most part.
I hope you guys get the same! In fact, I would like to see Federal preemption on the subject much to the style of Alaska's laws. Probably a pipe dream, but something to wish for.
Cowboy_Rick
Regular Member
imported post
We are now at 50460 signatures, not bad at all. And, yes "FLASHand PRINTING" are not good terms and should have never been used or even referred to.
We are now at 50460 signatures, not bad at all. And, yes "FLASHand PRINTING" are not good terms and should have never been used or even referred to.