Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: Opposition for Texas Open Carry

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    596

    Opposition for Texas Open Carry


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Surely you're not surprised, are you?

  3. #3
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    What a bunch of CHL elitists. They are so scared to exercize their rights and expect everyone else to be as well. Actually they are guarding their revenue stream because they know that this will eventually lead to Constitutional carry.

    I do think it would have been better to have a gun buster sign apply to OC and the 30.06 sign apply to CC.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    596
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    What a bunch of CHL elitists. They are so scared to exercize their rights and expect everyone else to be as well. Actually they are guarding their revenue stream because they know that this will eventually lead to Constitutional carry.

    I do think it would have been better to have a gun buster sign apply to OC and the 30.06 sign apply to CC.
    Gun buster signs are simply a right that private property owners have. I dont agree with such signs, but i'll be the first to say I will respect them. If someone doesnt want me at their place because im armed, i'll be glad to leave. I will also make sure I let them know how I wont come back either. Even if im not carrying, I wont spend my money at a place that doesnt allow firearms.
    The attitude those people have about the right to carry clearly shows no respect for the rights of others.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    596
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    Surely you're not surprised, are you?
    No sir im not. I just wanted everyone else to see what kind of problem were going to have. After reading that mess, one can truely understand why the right to carry is so restricted in Texas. Just look at the comments their leader made.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    I do think it would have been better to have a gun buster sign apply to OC and the 30.06 sign apply to CC.
    I concur.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    East Texas
    Posts
    36
    Temporary deletion requested.
    Last edited by CliffH; 03-24-2011 at 08:19 PM.

  8. #8
    Regular Member emk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Corpus Christi
    Posts
    23
    I don't see why two signs can't work. If a business wants to hassle us out of our rights, they ought to be hassled into complying with a law that already works otherwise decently well with CC.

    They did make a point about the verbal warning, however, I just think the verbal warning ought not to be law without a sign, because verbal conversations can have so many misinterpretations that it's insane. Legal sign ought to be sufficient.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Kingfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia, USA
    Posts
    1,276
    Here is a novel idea. Why not get rid of the sign law altogether?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    San Antonio tx
    Posts
    5
    The problem with these people is that they talk a lot but it appears none of them have the necessary anatomy to act in the creation of a open carry bill so they are just like people who don't vote and then complain. if they wanted it done differently then they should have helped but they didn't so they have no rights to complain.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    You're heard of "NIH syndrome" -- Not Invented Here?

    I swear, Cotton suffers from NWBM syndrome -- Not Written By Me.

  12. #12
    Regular Member billv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Houston now, Asheville soon
    Posts
    84
    ok ok. This sniping at TXCHL is not helping matters.

    We are all trying to get better 2A rights, including Open Carry. It doesn't do any good to snipe at them. I really don't care who writes the bill as long as it gets passed.

    Whether you like or don't like Cotton, he can likely make a few whispers and this bill might just be dead or at the least make it difficult to pass.

    Can we all just work together on this?

    Now grow up boys and girls and keep you eye on the target - Open Carriy in Texas. It'd be nice if Texas weren't the last state to get it.
    What part of "shall not be infringed" do *they* not understand?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    766

    TSRA sends "Alert" message, but no mention of OC

    Bills Moving in the Legislature
    Dear Brent,

    Commuter's Protection Bill

    SB 321/HB 681 dealing with the legal possession of a firearm and ammunition in a private, locked vehicle on the employer's parking lot.

    SB 321 passed in the Texas Senate and has been received in the House and is awaiting Committee referral.

    HB 681 was received in House Calendars Committee Tuesday of this week and awaits to be set on the House calendar for debate by the entire Texas House of Representatives.

    Concealed Carry on Campus

    SB 354/HB 750 deals with allowing adult students, faculty or staff with a concealed handgun license to have access to certain locations on public college and university campuses, currently prohibited by law. The legislation would also stop public colleges and universities from adopting rules allowing the institution to expel a CHL student or to fire a CHL staff member for possessing their handgun. Currently the institution's rule making arm reaches onto the grounds and into a private vehicle.

    SB 354 public testimony was taken in Senate Criminal Justice Committee and a committee vote is pending.

    HB 750 was voted out of House Homeland Security and Public Safety Committee and will soon be in House Calendars Committee.

    TSRA Range Protection Legislation

    SB 766/HB 1595 deals with limiting or stopping frivolous lawsuits against safe sport shooting ranges.

    SB 766 is being reviewed before a final vote on the Senate floor and HB 1595 was heard in committee on Wednesday evening and both are moving in the process. Note: HB 1595 was brought up in committee on Wednesday night, actually Thursday morning after midnight. Kudos to Rep. Jason Isaac and staff for doing such a good job after enduring a day of debate over Voter ID. Also, thanks for the hard work and patience on the Senate side. Senator Estes and staff are great to work with.

    All TSRA supported legislation has been heard in a public hearing and all bills are still moving in the process.

    Time is the opponent this session as always. Voter ID took a week to be debated and the Appropriations Bill will come up next week, followed by debates over Redistricting.

    The clock is ticking.
    Contact Information on the State Website

    Contact information for House Members (click on your representative's name and then on their home page for email or phone)

    Contact Information for State Senate Members (click on their name and their home page for email and phone #s)

    HB 356 by Rep. Lon Burnam--rated F by TSRA

    HB 356 by Rep. Lon Burnam was heard in House Homeland Security and Public Safety Committee this week. The bill states "a person's license issued by another state may not be recognized in this state if the person has established a domicile in this state."

    Many snowbirds have more than one home state, more than one "established domicile". The state of Texas lists six months for residency requirements.

    Rep. Lon Burnam (D-Ft. Worth) has never filed or voted for a bill in support of the concealed handgun license, or gun owners in general.

    For many sessions Rep. Burnam worked to force an age restriction on youth, 17 and under, in possession of a rifle or shotgun. Defense to prosecution was with your parent or guardian, not your uncle, your brother, your 4-H coach. The Legislature stopped those bills.

    Rep. Burnam voted against Castle Doctrine, and on and on, over a decade of anti-gun bills and anti-gun votes.

    It would be a very good thing if HB 356 were left pending in committee.
    Texas Legislature on Line

    Read bills, track legislation through the process, find out who represents you. It's all at the link above.

    Remember the Texas State Rifle Association represents Texans before the State Legislature. Our power comes from our Texas membership.
    Join, upgrade, or renew today at www.tsra.com or call 512-615-4200.

    Keep the Faith

    Alice Tripp
    Legislative Director
    Texas State Rifle Association
    Keep the Faith = hope that someday TSRA will support OC.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    596
    The only argument anyone has against this bill is the 30.06 sign.
    This is the sign private property owners post when they dont want you carrying guns on their property. Is that acceptable, well yes! Should we respect the wishes of private property owners, of course. The simple fact that private property owners have the right to determine if they will allow guns on their property should not change. We cant simply force ourselves on anyone. This is no different than the state law telling you that you can not allow me to carry a hangun on your property. Right now, if you were to have a open carry BBQ in Texas, we would all be breaking the law.
    The complaint of having two seperate signs, one for open and one for concealed carry, accomplishes nothing. If you think about it, most anyone who would not allow open carry in their establishment would not allow concealed carry either. Do we need two different signs? Will the anti gun people only post one of those signs? Not so hard to figure out is it?
    Now here's the problem. The CHL's dont like this bill because their worried about 30.06 signs showing up all over the place. "It could happen"!.? If it does then I wont go to those place as many of us wont. Even if im not carrying, I wont spend my money at a place that doesnt respect a persons rights.
    So what is the problem with open carry? Thats simple too. Most everybody wants it, but they dont want 30.06. You cant take away 30.06 because that will violate private property ownes rights. We cant expand our right by taking away the rights of others.
    The only place we should eliminate 30.06 is State, County, and City property. Those are places we HAVE to be. Signs on Steak House door's are places we dont have to go. " Buy some Steaks and eat at home around the dinner table". Does a family good !
    I know for a fact that signs will be an issue, for a while at the least. How do we deal with it you ask? We deal with it the same way it should have been dealt with years and years ago People! Open carry should have been givin back to us a long time ago but it hasn't. So now we have to deal with the side affects and I for one will be most happy to do so. We cant change the fact that open carry will cause signs to pop up.
    The Elitist wanting a whole seperate sign that wont apply to concealed carry wont work either. People will simply post both signs. The aftermath of the 30.06 sign alone will simply become a profit issue for your favorite place to eat. It doesnt take long to figure the books on signs versus profit.
    I cant help that fact that nobody has already dealt with restoring open carry, so lets get it dealt with and enjoy.
    Last edited by MR Redenck; 03-25-2011 at 09:12 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by billv View Post
    ok ok. This sniping at TXCHL is not helping matters.
    I don't think anyone is sniping at them, merely pointing out their sniping at those of us who support OC.


    We are all trying to get better 2A rights, including Open Carry. It doesn't do any good to snipe at them. I really don't care who writes the bill as long as it gets passed.
    You're right, it shouldn't matter. It doesn't matter to me if it's written by Lavender, or Cotton, or even Burnam: I support the goal, not the author.

    On the other hand, "who wrote it?" it seems to matter very much to some people, mostly Cotton.


    Whether you like or don't like Cotton, he can likely make a few whispers and this bill might just be dead or at the least make it difficult to pass.
    That's an interesting defense of the man. It's exactly why many of us question his motives and actions.


    Can we all just work together on this?
    That's all any of us in the OC movement are asking for. It's other supposed pro-gun people who refuse to work with us, and still manage to blame us.


    Now grow up boys and girls and keep you eye on the target - Open Carriy in Texas. It'd be nice if Texas weren't the last state to get it.
    Indeed. Now go tell Chuck the same thing.
    Last edited by KBCraig; 03-26-2011 at 03:00 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by MR Redenck View Post
    The only argument anyone has against this bill is the 30.06 sign.
    This is the sign private property owners post when they dont want you carrying guns on their property. Is that acceptable, well yes! Should we respect the wishes of private property owners, of course. The simple fact that private property owners have the right to determine if they will allow guns on their property should not change.
    Chucky's latest argument against HB 2756 (that modifying PC 30.06 to include open carry is somehow "throwing CHLs under the bus") is simply crazy. Especially since he's simultaneously lobbying to "throw private property owners under the bus" via the parking lot bill.

    Here's where I stand: any private property owner should be free to prohibit anything they want on their property. (Yes, I would even roll back the "protected classes" part of the Civil Rights Act, because I would prefer that racist @holes be outed by their actions.)

    If the owner of a parking lot bans GMC vans, or guns in cars, well, then I'll just have to find somewhere else to park.

    Okay, side issues aside... We've known all along that 30.06 only applies to concealed handguns by the plain language of the statute. Cotton's long-standing objection to OC is his worry that it would increase the number of 30.06 signs, even though 30.06, as currently written, doesn't apply to open carry.

    HB 2756 proposes to make PC 30.06 equally applicable to both concealed and openly carried handguns. This puts OC and CC on equal footing (as they should be, if both are legally carrying). Chucky, on the other hand, wants to leave simple gun-buster symbols, no matter how small or inconspicuous, as "sufficient notice" to ban open carry, and subject OCers subject to a Class A misdemeanor (up to a year in jail) if they miss a tiny obscure ambiguous sign (just as CHLs faced from 1996-97, something he fought to correct via passage of PC 30.06 in 1997).

    Who's really throwing whom under the bus, here?

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Oh, and speaking of the "parking lot bill(s)"...

    I don't find any reference to "trespass" or "30.06" in any of them. If I'm wrong, please correct me with a cite, but it seems that Mister "Don't mention 30.06 in a bill!" has overlooked the fact that his parking lot bills wouldn't override the parking lot owner's right to post a valid 30.06 notice.

  18. #18
    Regular Member pooley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    Oh, and speaking of the "parking lot bill(s)"...

    I don't find any reference to "trespass" or "30.06" in any of them. If I'm wrong, please correct me with a cite, but it seems that Mister "Don't mention 30.06 in a bill!" has overlooked the fact that his parking lot bills wouldn't override the parking lot owner's right to post a valid 30.06 notice.
    Signs still apply. The definition of "premises" used in these bills excludes parking lots.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    West Texas
    Posts
    596
    Guns and laws against guns is a concern that we face.
    The simple fact that guns are a part of our constitutional rights as American citizens is the reason we do what were doing.
    Guns should not be illegal no matter where you have them. It's you actions that should be illegal.
    Guns inside of your vehicle should not be illegal no matter where those vehicles are. Your vehicle is your private property, if the gun is left in the vehicle it's still in your property.
    Signs, thats a right a private property own should reserve. Private property should stay private.
    When addressing criminal punishment for carry a gun, the punishment should be applied to what you did with that gun. Throwing people in jail because they simply chose to carry a gun is unconstitutional.
    I will not tolerate anyone who finds it acceptable to throw Texans in jail because for simply carrying a gun. This 30.06 business is a weak excuse for anyone to oppose open carry.
    The right to carry arms does not segregate between open or concealed carry. Refer to the 2nd amendment, its simply a right to bear arms.
    That 30.06 sign doesnt need to segregate between open or concealed either. We cant force our 2nd amendment right on private property owners by any means.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by pooley View Post
    Signs still apply. The definition of "premises" used in these bills excludes parking lots.
    I think SB 31 is the leading contender, right?

    It does nothing to prevent charging someone, even an employee, with PC 30.06 if the parking lot is properly posted.

  21. #21
    Regular Member pooley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    I think SB 31 is the leading contender, right?

    It does nothing to prevent charging someone, even an employee, with PC 30.06 if the parking lot is properly posted.
    I'm assuming you meant SB 321.

    It used the "premises" definition from PC 46.035(f)(3)

    ""Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area."

  22. #22
    Regular Member rushcreek2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs. CO
    Posts
    924
    The right referenced in the 2nd Amendment, and Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution is not subject to any requirement for, or against concealment because neither constitutional provision establishes any such requirement.

    The U.S. Supreme Court in its Heller, and McDonald holdings made allowance for infringements such as longstanding prohibitions against possession by felons, and the concealment of arms , but constitutionally no such distinction exists. This reservation allowed for "longstanding prohibitions against" this or that amounts to an outright act of amending the U.S. Constitution by judicial decree. This is why Texas needs to start addressing the right to bear arms independently from the federal constitutional law perspective. This can be accomplished by ENHANCING all rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, rather than following the historic path of infringing upon rights.

    The right under federal law (2A), and Texas law (Article 1, Sec. 23) may in fact not be "unlimited", in the sense that its assertion may be subject to some degree of compromise when confronted by other equally protected rights, but no compromise is in order when a protected civil right is confronted by simple sensitivities, preferences, or prejudices which do not constitute protected rights.

    The right to BEAR arms BY DEFINITION is the right to carry an object OPENLY, DISPLAYED, and REVEALED notoriously -meaning NOT HIDDEN from observation - as well as CONCEALED at the discretion of the bearer.

    The constituted "power of the (Texas) Legislature to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime" can only be logically presumed to apply to acts of the Legislature that are applicable to the wearing of arms BY CRIMINALS since by definition ONLY CRIMINALS commit crimes.

    Such logic pursued further, a citizen can only become a CRIMINAL by commiting A CRIME. BEARING ARMS that "are in common use" is NOT A CRIME in and of itself under United States law. Any CRIME relating to the bearing of arms must by definition be defined as a crime separable from the act of bearing such arms.

    If the category of arms so borne is otherwise "lawful", and the rights of citizenship of the bearer are fully intact, then the crime would logically have to relate to some activity being engaged in other than the bearing of arms which is a protected right, and by definition cannot be a crime.

    In theory this is correct. Unfortunately our constitutions are not respected for THE LAW that they constitute, because we the people allow our representatives, and employees to violate the law every day.
    Last edited by rushcreek2; 03-27-2011 at 05:05 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by pooley View Post
    I'm assuming you meant SB 321.

    It used the "premises" definition from PC 46.035(f)(3)

    ""Premises" means a building or a portion of a building. The term does not include any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk or walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area."
    Yes, but the problem remains: this creates a conflict between two separate laws. It changes the Labor Code to say employers can only prohibit guns from "premises" as defined in Penal Code 46.035(f)(3).

    But since they didn't touch the Penal Code, it will remain illegal for anyone with a CHL to possess a concealed handgun on or about their person (which includes in the passenger compartment of a vehicle), in a parking lot that is properly posted with a 30.06 notice, or if any other valid notice has been given in accordance with 30.06.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    233
    I read this "BLOG" that was mentioned, and all I observed is "COULDA,SHOULDA AND WOULDA". No facts just blurbing. The CHL classes should be much longer for these people along with a few "Criminal Law classes". So sad, these people should be "INFORMED" but surely they are NOT. But I don't remember anyone saying that this would be EASY!!! We should all remember that the treck of 1,000 miles begins with the first step!
    Many people have moved into this STATE and most of them are from up NORTH, where the thoughts and lifestyle differs greatly from our own. They do not understand what is faced every day in the sourrounding counties or even communities-just their own, but yet they are emposing their lifestyle upon all of us, which I personally thing is very wrong. This "OPEN CARRY" would, maybe, be very big at first but when the NEW wears off then it would be mostly un-noticeable.
    Last edited by Cowboy_Rick; 03-27-2011 at 09:38 PM. Reason: Additional information.

  25. #25
    Regular Member pooley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    185
    Quote Originally Posted by KBCraig View Post
    Yes, but the problem remains: this creates a conflict between two separate laws. It changes the Labor Code to say employers can only prohibit guns from "premises" as defined in Penal Code 46.035(f)(3).

    But since they didn't touch the Penal Code, it will remain illegal for anyone with a CHL to possess a concealed handgun on or about their person (which includes in the passenger compartment of a vehicle), in a parking lot that is properly posted with a 30.06 notice, or if any other valid notice has been given in accordance with 30.06.
    I see what you're getting at, but I can't see it as an issue. Whenever two separate laws contradict the newer is the one in effect.

    Gov't Code, 312.014

    "IRRECONCILABLE AMENDMENTS. (a) If statutes enacted at the same or different sessions of the legislature are irreconcilable, the statute latest in date of enactment prevails."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •