denwego
Regular Member
It's been a long while since I've posted anything, mainly since there isn't much day to day OC stuff to discuss in Houston, but with the current upswing in OC-related news, my thoughts turn to more actively helping the cause!
So, the big thing of late has been long gun OC, obviously, since it's our only legal firearm recourse in Texas. One of the reasons why I enjoyed OCing when I lived in Colorado and Virginia was the freedom of knowing that it required no permit or other licensure to exercise our rights. And when you get down to it, Texas is essentially constitutional-carry when it comes to long guns, as we can OC or CC them in almost every location without any license or permit. Sensibly speaking, if we had that level of freedom regarding handguns, it would be fantastic. Ergo, it seems like the best way to affect the changes we want regarding carrying pistols is to focus more on the potential normalcy of carrying pistols, itself, versus drawing parallels with long arms.
We who support carrying firearms, whether openly or concealed, tend not to be unusually phased by the concept of carrying them by mere definition. More so, we are aware that there’s no functional difference between carrying a rifle or carrying a pistol, if the mere objective is to carry ANY firearm. (I mean not to digress into a discussion of “shotgun v. revolver” in a specific situation, obviously; it goes without saying that WE know when we’d rather have a rifle in a hurricane, riot, or other non-day-to-day scenario.) But that having been said, we are also the type who understand that there’s no functional difference between an all black AR-15 and a wood furniture Mini-14; our closeness to the issue can make objective observation difficult or impossible in comparison to those who only casually dabble in firearms, or who own guns but take no invested stance on any deeper issue.
My point of stating our closeness to the issue is that appearances take on a differing meaning for us versus the larger, observing public. If our goal were to be the normality of carrying long arms in particular, then carrying long arms would be the chief method to affect such. But with our goal being the legalization of openly carrying handguns, it behooves us more, in my mind, to normalize that, rather than rifles or shotguns.
It’s quite hard to normalize that, though, since we’re trying to normalize a practice illegal under most circumstances. To that end, I know many folks have turned to carrying blackpowder revolvers, as they’re not beholden to §46.02. And let’s be honest; carrying a pistol in a belt holster is much less disagreeable to the average member of the public than a slung rifle, even though WE know there’s little functional contrast. Since our goal is a political statement and not actual self-defense at that very moment and place, there’s no direct argument in favor of a long arm, since the technological deficiencies of a cap and ball from 1858 are meaningless. It also improves our perception amongst the only people who should truly matter to us, the “undecideds”; the MDA / anti-gun crowd don’t care if we have a tank, a cannon, an AK-47, a Sig 226, or a bright pink cap gun, since they’re unmanned by any firearm whatsoever. The one downside to the antique firearm route is that very few LEO’s are going to know the fine points of the law regarding unlawfully carrying weapons, the definition of a firearm & handgun as applied, and the inapplicability to non-authentic replicas. WE know them, but it’s a perilous situation when we’re in the real world, so to speak.
To that end, I’ve been thinking since last September of air guns. To wit, preemption was extended to air guns as well as firearms, making them legal to carry openly or concealed, own, possess, transport, etc., across the state. Now, none of us would be foolish enough to carry a BB gun for self defense, since that’s the sort of stuff that gets you killed in the real world… but we’re not in the “real world” here, after all; we’re in the world of political theater, hoping to affect a change in laws. And we really should remember that statement in particular, that we’re engaged in theatrics, and politics, and a PR campaign to swing enough votes in the state to change things in the way we want them to change. Antagonizing, or at minimum reducing our PR stockpile, is counterproductive in politics.
My proposition, thus, is now that it’s universally legal to openly carry an air gun, BB gun, or airsoft gun thanks to preemption, that this is a tool we can use to more directly approach and simulate the situations we hope to earn with actual firearms. More expressly, outside of an organized pro-OC rally or demonstration, we could print up some T-shirts which say something along the lines of, “No, it’s not a real gun, but you’d be just as safe and unharmed if it were / Legalize Open Carry”. It need not be that hokey, but you get my drift; I would want to start positive dialogues with people on the street, in the store, and maybe even with LEOs who would eventually probably show up sooner or later. We should be like politicians in the sense that we’ll win more people over with shaking hands, getting people to nod and smile, and not force people too quickly into either a pro-OC or anti-OC corner. If someone’s unused to guns and goes, “OMG, is that a REAL GUN?”, and you say, “no, BUT…”, I feel we can use that in many circumstances.
One argument you can give against an air gun is that it trivializes carrying a firearm, that it’s a toy rather than a weapon. However, I would retort by saying that we have to push public perception away from “a firearm is always a life or death situation!” to a fair degree before we can truly even begin to normalize any sort of open carry in a state which has lacked it for so long. Some people are going to have a visceral, instinctual, and fearful reaction to a firearms which can be partially diffused and mollified by the fact that most people are not utterly terrified of a BB gun. Some of those folks, and others on our side of the issue would then laugh, make lite of the situation… our point isn’t to win a manliness contest, not to actually possess a lethal weapon at that time. It’s politics. It’s perception. A lack of fear can be very fruitful to reduce hate. People who chuckle at something you’re doing generally don’t hate what you’re doing. We don’t necessarily need people to AGREE with us, just not DISAGREE with us, and that is a very important distinction in political matters.
Thoughts? Agree or disagree? I’m curious to hear both ways!
So, the big thing of late has been long gun OC, obviously, since it's our only legal firearm recourse in Texas. One of the reasons why I enjoyed OCing when I lived in Colorado and Virginia was the freedom of knowing that it required no permit or other licensure to exercise our rights. And when you get down to it, Texas is essentially constitutional-carry when it comes to long guns, as we can OC or CC them in almost every location without any license or permit. Sensibly speaking, if we had that level of freedom regarding handguns, it would be fantastic. Ergo, it seems like the best way to affect the changes we want regarding carrying pistols is to focus more on the potential normalcy of carrying pistols, itself, versus drawing parallels with long arms.
We who support carrying firearms, whether openly or concealed, tend not to be unusually phased by the concept of carrying them by mere definition. More so, we are aware that there’s no functional difference between carrying a rifle or carrying a pistol, if the mere objective is to carry ANY firearm. (I mean not to digress into a discussion of “shotgun v. revolver” in a specific situation, obviously; it goes without saying that WE know when we’d rather have a rifle in a hurricane, riot, or other non-day-to-day scenario.) But that having been said, we are also the type who understand that there’s no functional difference between an all black AR-15 and a wood furniture Mini-14; our closeness to the issue can make objective observation difficult or impossible in comparison to those who only casually dabble in firearms, or who own guns but take no invested stance on any deeper issue.
My point of stating our closeness to the issue is that appearances take on a differing meaning for us versus the larger, observing public. If our goal were to be the normality of carrying long arms in particular, then carrying long arms would be the chief method to affect such. But with our goal being the legalization of openly carrying handguns, it behooves us more, in my mind, to normalize that, rather than rifles or shotguns.
It’s quite hard to normalize that, though, since we’re trying to normalize a practice illegal under most circumstances. To that end, I know many folks have turned to carrying blackpowder revolvers, as they’re not beholden to §46.02. And let’s be honest; carrying a pistol in a belt holster is much less disagreeable to the average member of the public than a slung rifle, even though WE know there’s little functional contrast. Since our goal is a political statement and not actual self-defense at that very moment and place, there’s no direct argument in favor of a long arm, since the technological deficiencies of a cap and ball from 1858 are meaningless. It also improves our perception amongst the only people who should truly matter to us, the “undecideds”; the MDA / anti-gun crowd don’t care if we have a tank, a cannon, an AK-47, a Sig 226, or a bright pink cap gun, since they’re unmanned by any firearm whatsoever. The one downside to the antique firearm route is that very few LEO’s are going to know the fine points of the law regarding unlawfully carrying weapons, the definition of a firearm & handgun as applied, and the inapplicability to non-authentic replicas. WE know them, but it’s a perilous situation when we’re in the real world, so to speak.
To that end, I’ve been thinking since last September of air guns. To wit, preemption was extended to air guns as well as firearms, making them legal to carry openly or concealed, own, possess, transport, etc., across the state. Now, none of us would be foolish enough to carry a BB gun for self defense, since that’s the sort of stuff that gets you killed in the real world… but we’re not in the “real world” here, after all; we’re in the world of political theater, hoping to affect a change in laws. And we really should remember that statement in particular, that we’re engaged in theatrics, and politics, and a PR campaign to swing enough votes in the state to change things in the way we want them to change. Antagonizing, or at minimum reducing our PR stockpile, is counterproductive in politics.
My proposition, thus, is now that it’s universally legal to openly carry an air gun, BB gun, or airsoft gun thanks to preemption, that this is a tool we can use to more directly approach and simulate the situations we hope to earn with actual firearms. More expressly, outside of an organized pro-OC rally or demonstration, we could print up some T-shirts which say something along the lines of, “No, it’s not a real gun, but you’d be just as safe and unharmed if it were / Legalize Open Carry”. It need not be that hokey, but you get my drift; I would want to start positive dialogues with people on the street, in the store, and maybe even with LEOs who would eventually probably show up sooner or later. We should be like politicians in the sense that we’ll win more people over with shaking hands, getting people to nod and smile, and not force people too quickly into either a pro-OC or anti-OC corner. If someone’s unused to guns and goes, “OMG, is that a REAL GUN?”, and you say, “no, BUT…”, I feel we can use that in many circumstances.
One argument you can give against an air gun is that it trivializes carrying a firearm, that it’s a toy rather than a weapon. However, I would retort by saying that we have to push public perception away from “a firearm is always a life or death situation!” to a fair degree before we can truly even begin to normalize any sort of open carry in a state which has lacked it for so long. Some people are going to have a visceral, instinctual, and fearful reaction to a firearms which can be partially diffused and mollified by the fact that most people are not utterly terrified of a BB gun. Some of those folks, and others on our side of the issue would then laugh, make lite of the situation… our point isn’t to win a manliness contest, not to actually possess a lethal weapon at that time. It’s politics. It’s perception. A lack of fear can be very fruitful to reduce hate. People who chuckle at something you’re doing generally don’t hate what you’re doing. We don’t necessarily need people to AGREE with us, just not DISAGREE with us, and that is a very important distinction in political matters.
Thoughts? Agree or disagree? I’m curious to hear both ways!