MR Redenck
Regular Member
http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=43279&sid=b15f6f96070fc0a97cb8aff71037a719
Read this mess. :cuss:
Read this mess. :cuss:
-
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.
Opposition for Texas Open Carry
- Thread starter MR Redenck
- Start date
KBCraig
Regular Member
Surely you're not surprised, are you?
rodbender
Regular Member
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.
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.
MR Redenck
Regular Member
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.
MR Redenck
Regular Member
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.
Jack House
Regular Member
I concur.
CliffH
Regular Member
Temporary deletion requested.
Last edited:
emk
Regular Member
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.
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.
Kingfish
Regular Member
Here is a novel idea. Why not get rid of the sign law altogether?
Jlivings
New member
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.
KBCraig
Regular Member
You're heard of "NIH syndrome" -- Not Invented Here?
I swear, Cotton suffers from NWBM syndrome -- Not Written By Me.
I swear, Cotton suffers from NWBM syndrome -- Not Written By Me.
billv
Regular Member
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.
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.
44Brent
Regular Member
TSRA sends "Alert" message, but no mention of OC
Keep the Faith = hope that someday TSRA will support OC.
Keep the Faith = hope that someday TSRA will support OC.
MR Redenck
Regular Member
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.
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:
KBCraig
Regular Member
I don't think anyone is sniping at them, merely pointing out their sniping at those of us who support OC.
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.
That's an interesting defense of the man. It's exactly why many of us question his motives and actions.
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.
Indeed. Now go tell Chuck the same thing.
Last edited:
KBCraig
Regular Member
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?
KBCraig
Regular Member
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.
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.
MR Redenck
Regular Member
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.
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.
KBCraig
Regular Member
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.