Today in Texas - open carry on the horizon

[HorizontalMike]

...But states can do what states want to do, so if texas wants this, who am I to complain? A better fight would have been NOT charging a person who WAS concealing his weapon whose gun was accidentally exposed as his shirt lifted up when he reached for something.

And THAT is why I think OC will pass here in Texas. In order to STOP the harassment of CHL citizens by the gun-phobics. Living in fear of accidental "printing" or "exposure" charges by LEOs SHOULD go away with OC. Who knows...

I say "should" because if OC in Texas also requires a CHL, LEOs might start using OC as a probable cause for "checking" CHLs.

 

[keith44spl]

Are you talking about government madatory training to carry?

There are states that require no mandatory training and those that do. There is nothing to suggest any measurable benefit in reduced carry accidents or anything else that I am aware of.

When talking about OC, you continue to object using arguments of no benefit. Do you have some safety/accident data to share with us demonstrating how states that require training for carry benefit from reduced gun carry accidents?

Phil,

Since I've been camp'd in the Bluegrass, I have found that the Commonwealth of Kentucky has
never impeded on her citizens right to openly carry a firearm.

An issuance and possession of a State license to carry a concealed deadly weapon is the only exception
to the state statute, i.e. misdemeanor of carrying a concealed deadly weapon. (A privilege tax)

The concealed carry deadly weapons license training course is safety driven and
a study of the statutes of the use of physical force and deadly physical force, etc....

I work for the DA's office and we just don't have a lot of felonious firearm
violation from the average law biding citizens.

It's mostly repeat offenders that misuse firearms, not the general public at large.

It has been my general observation most folks are safer
with firearms....Than behind the wheel of an automobile.

But that's jest me talking here.


.

 

[Philadelphia Patriot]

In PA, we do not require any mandatory training to acquire your license to carry firearms (LTCF). It's very rare for a person with a LTCF to accidentally shoot themselves or accidentally shoot others. I'd say it is about the same or more common for police officers to accidentally shoot themselves or others in PA.

Requiring mandatory training is just a way to to discriminate against people of less social economic status from practicing their 2nd amendment rights. Requiring mandatory training is also just a way for people, companies, and politicians to deepen their pockets by taking advantage of firearm owners.

I can't find any studies, but I would love to see the number of firearm-related accidents per year (in a specific state) divided by the number of gun owners (in the same specific state) and see the percentage you get. Then compare those percentages with mandatory training states and non mandatory training states. Until that happens there really isn't a major reason to support mandatory training other than the reasons I listed in my 2nd paragraph.

I'm not against training, and I highly recommend it. I also strongly recommend it for people who weren't raised shooting guns. That being said, I am against MANDATORY training. Until I see solid, indisputable, unbiased evidence, I'll continue being against it.

It's okay to not want to open carry. The problem is with people who do not want the OPTION and RIGHT to be able to open carry. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean others shouldn't be allowed to practice it. Also nowhere in the 2nd amendment do I see "...the right of the people to keep and bear concealed arms shall not be infringed..." This basically sums up people who are against having the option to open carry.

 

[ladder13]

I found this quote in an article about Kansas being on the verge of Constitutional Carry.
Seems appropriate in light of recent calls for fee's and permits.

"To me, licensing is mainly a way for the state to extort money from citizens while maintaining the fiction that the government owns your right to bear arms and can place limits on it, while in reality (or at least in the U.S. Constitution), each citizen owns his or her own rights, and the government’s real job is to protect those rights."

 

[ISCS Yoda]

kieth44spl, get to D/FW, we'll have a blast!

But states can do what states want to do, so if texas wants this, who am I to complain? A better fight would have been NOT charging a person who WAS concealing his weapon whose gun was accidentally exposed as his shirt lifted up when he reached for something.

The CHL law in Texas was modified to ensure that accidental exposure of a concealed handgun did NOT get you arrested.

Sec. 46.035. UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER. (a) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder carries a handgun on or about the license holder's person under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, and intentionally fails to conceal the handgun... (text omitted)...
(h) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) that the actor, at the time of the commission of the offense, displayed the handgun under circumstances in which the actor would have been justified in the use of deadly force under Chapter 9.

 

[kbm6893]

In PA, we do not require any mandatory training to acquire your license to carry firearms (LTCF). It's very rare for a person with a LTCF to accidentally shoot themselves or accidentally shoot others. I'd say it is about the same or more common for police officers to accidentally shoot themselves or others in PA.

Requiring mandatory training is just a way to to discriminate against people of less social economic status from practicing their 2nd amendment rights. Requiring mandatory training is also just a way for people, companies, and politicians to deepen their pockets by taking advantage of firearm owners.

I can't find any studies, but I would love to see the number of firearm-related accidents per year (in a specific state) divided by the number of gun owners (in the same specific state) and see the percentage you get. Then compare those percentages with mandatory training states and non mandatory training states. Until that happens there really isn't a major reason to support mandatory training other than the reasons I listed in my 2nd paragraph.

I'm not against training, and I highly recommend it. I also strongly recommend it for people who weren't raised shooting guns. That being said, I am against MANDATORY training. Until I see solid, indisputable, unbiased evidence, I'll continue being against it.

It's okay to not want to open carry. The problem is with people who do not want the OPTION and RIGHT to be able to open carry. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean others shouldn't be allowed to practice it. Also nowhere in the 2nd amendment do I see "...the right of the people to keep and bear concealed arms shall not be infringed..." This basically sums up people who are against having the option to open carry.

I can't find studies that say OC makes crime go DOWN, either. And any study you DO find cant be taken seriously because they never take ALL things into consideration. So some town in Vermont with common OC can't be used to support OC in an urban area.

My issue with OC has always been the same. I see no benefits. I live in an OC state and rarely see it. But if the people of Texas want to walk around like Wyatt Earp, then so be it.

Now let's see how many businesses refuse business to those who do OC. Cause if some of my customers got up and left my business I'd put a stop to that immediately. And judging by the people not happy with the antics of the OC crowd in Yexas, I'd say that's gonna happen.

 

[Philadelphia Patriot]

You're equating human being looking to do business in a place with a person who chooses to display a weapon? Seriously? I don't recall OC proponents getting beaten and lynched because they dared to walk into a business.

And you're equating the civil rights movement with some guys who walk around with AR's? Don't you think that's insulting to those who were beaten, imprisoned, and murdered?

Or are equating guys like me to the good old boys with a rope?

I'm talking about norms, what is considered acceptable and what isn't. And firearms are a civil right. The NRA is the America's longest standing civil rights organization in this country. African americans had to fight for their rights. Firearm owners need to fight for their rights too. Maybe firearm owners aren't being beaten or lynched, but there still are injustices against them...if you believe in the constitution.

Also open carrying is growing in Pennsylvania and becoming more acceptable. Go check out the Pennsylvania firearm forums. There are strong groups in PA that help fight for our rights. Their most recent accomplishment allows for organizations to challenge and sue municipalities and counties for violating preemption.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

Hey guys, knock off the bickering. Stay on topic.


Kmb,

Should it not be incumbent on those who seek to impose restrictions and demands upon others to first demonstrate the measured benefit of such restrictions and demands?

That someone may not see any benefit to freedoms, isn't much of an argument to impose restrictions upon them. Particularly such freedoms that include "shall not be infringed". Wouldn't you agree?

 

[kbm6893]

Hey guys, knock off the bickering. Stay on topic.


Kmb,

Should it not be incumbent on those who seek to impose restrictions and demands upon others to first demonstrate the measured benefit of such restrictions and demands?

That someone may not see any benefit to freedoms, isn't much of an argument to impose restrictions upon them. Particularly such freedoms that include "shall not be infringed". Wouldn't you agree?

I would not agree as you do. Texas does not impede those who can LAWFULLY own and carry a weapon from doing so. Despite what you believe, the Supreme Court has already ruled that states can impose a reasonable restriction of the carrying of firearms. Some states are more generous than others. I lived my whole life in NY and moved to PA when I retired. I enjoy the better firearms laws here immensely. Still, I almost never see other PA residents OC'ing. This new law in Texas IF it passes would only give a person in possession of a CCW permit the option of carrying openly. I don't see the advantage. And the idiots with AR's on the street do NOT speak for the average American OR the average gun owner.

Look at the NRA membership. What is it, 5 million members. Maybe 1 in 10 gun owners? Not such a tidal wave of support.

Look, I do not endorse OC in MOST situations. I don't look at the hiker with a gun on his hip the same way as I do the guy with s gun on his hip in Home Depot. I'm not gonna change my mind and you're not gonna change yours. So why bother trying?

As for demonstrating the benefit of restrictions, it has been done. Public outcry over openly displayed weapons. Happened in Texas with this movement. Happened in PA with the idiot soccer mom who took off her jacket at a kiddie soccer game.

OC'ers come across as being the most arrogant of people. "Don't like my gun? TOO Bad!" they don't care about others who are put off by them. And they have the balls to try to pass their obnoxious behavior off as education.

 

[Philadelphia Patriot]

OC'ers come across as being the most arrogant of people. "Don't like my gun? TOO Bad!" they don't care about others who are put off by them. And they have the balls to try to pass their obnoxious behavior off as education.

Maybe they come off that way because they're tired of being harassed for doing nothing illegal. Plus why should anyone care about other people's feelings if they are not breaking the law and are practicing their constitutional rights? If I was worried about offending people I could never wear an NRA t shirt, conceal carry a firearm, or even own a gun in my house because it'll offend some soccer mom(s).

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

I would not agree as you do. Texas does not impede those who can LAWFULLY own and carry a weapon from doing so.

Of course they do, we're discussing those impediments. Texas Senate has just passed legislation that would repeal some of those impediments.

To suggest that it's ok to suppress freedom guaranteed in the Constitution with no other argument other than baseless emotion is where we disagree.

I have yet to see a fact based measured argument that mandatory training results in any measured carry safety benefit over states that do not. .Yet, benefit is what you keep harping on for an excuse to not allow OC. I see those arguments colliding into each other, don't you?

 

[kbm6893]

Of course they do, we're discussing those impediments. Texas Senate has just passed legislation that would repeal some of those impediments.

To suggest that it's ok to suppress freedom guaranteed in the Constitution with no other argument other than baseless emotion is where we disagree.

I have yet to see a fact based measured argument that mandatory training results in any measured carry safety benefit over states that do not. .Yet, benefit is what you keep harping on for an excuse to not allow OC. I see those arguments colliding into each other, don't you?

The Texas senate did no such thing. Those who choose to OC need a ccw permit that must be applied for and granted. Certainly impediments galore. Everytime you fill out a 4473 or have your name run to buy a gun your "right" are being impeded. Yet you cheerfully do so.

As for mandatory training, I agree it is not a panacea for all gun accidents. But I have seen WAY too many people who clearly have no idea what they are doing when it comes to guns. Sad to say, but we can't trust people to do the mature thing when it comes to the safety of others. On another forum I belong to, one guy told everybody that he carries his Beretta PX4 with the hammer back on a live round. Says it's no different than a Glock. Would you trust that idiot with a gun?

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

The Texas senate did no such thing. Those who choose to OC need a ccw permit that must be applied for and granted. Certainly impediments galore. Everytime you fill out a 4473 or have your name run to buy a gun your "right" are being impeded. Yet you cheerfully do so.

As for mandatory training, I agree it is not a panacea for all gun accidents. But I have seen WAY too many people who clearly have no idea what they are doing when it comes to guns. Sad to say, but we can't trust people to do the mature thing when it comes to the safety of others. On another forum I belong to, one guy told everybody that he carries his Beretta PX4 with the hammer back on a live round. Says it's no different than a Glock. Would you trust that idiot with a gun?

Of course the Texas Senate did. It was Senate Bill 17. To point out that there are other impediments is circular logic at it's worst.

The "idiot" factor is a red herring in regard to mandatory training. An "idiot" that walks into a mandatory training class is the same "idiot" that walks out a few hours later. Trust me on this. I know the SWAT guy who has been conducting Tennessee's mandatory training for decades. There is no magical transformation into a thoughtful intelligent decision maker. And no one that I am aware of ever walks out prepared to make a split second life or death decision under high stress that is guaranteed to not be the worst mistake of their life.

Yes, we have to trust the freedom to exercise Constitutional rights over the false promise of safety for surrendering them. "Idiots" and all.

 

[ladder13]

Let's see now, some poor citizen who is confined to a wheelchair or not very ambulatory, and living on SS only. They can barely afford the necessities, and perhaps have family member doing their shopping and other chores for them.
There are people like that out there.
Just who is going to provide them with 24 hr protection since they can't afford perhaps even the rent payments, the opportunity to get to a range, or some gov't mandated fees.
Tough luck?

 

[keith44spl]

Of course the Texas Senate did. It was Senate Bill 17. To point out that there are other impediments is circular logic at it's worst.

The "idiot" factor is a red herring in regard to mandatory training. An "idiot" that walks into a mandatory training class is the same "idiot" that walks out a few hours later. Trust me on this. I know the SWAT guy who has been conducting Tennessee's mandatory training for decades. There is no magical transformation into a thoughtful intelligent decision maker. And no one that I am aware of ever walks out prepared to make a split second life or death decision under high stress that is guaranteed to not be the worst mistake of their life.

Yes, we have to trust the freedom to exercise Constitutional rights over the false promise of safety for surrendering them. "Idiots" and all.

I too am a Commonwealth CCDW instructor, and trained in response to active shooter and other firearm instruction...

But, the state requires I only instruct the prescribed curriculum, no real world stuff.

So, most just recall enough info to past the state written
test and shoot well enough to pass the live fire exercise.

Folks don't gain any IQ points from gov't training.....That I can tell.


.

 

[kbm6893]

Let's see now, some poor citizen who is confined to a wheelchair or not very ambulatory, and living on SS only. They can barely afford the necessities, and perhaps have family member doing their shopping and other chores for them.
There are people like that out there.
Just who is going to provide them with 24 hr protection since they can't afford perhaps even the rent payments, the opportunity to get to a range, or some gov't mandated fees.
Tough luck?

carry or use a deadly weapon, know how to use it. Period. Figure out a way to make it happen.

there are people out there that don't understand how a firearm works. How it can still fire without the magazine. Who have no basic concepts of trigger control and basic safety practices. I see them all the time at my range.

Which is why I shoot on off days. I'm off all next week. Plan to hit the range at least twice.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

there are people out there that don't understand how a firearm works. How it can still fire without the magazine. Who have no basic concepts of trigger control and basic safety practices. I see them all the time at my range.

For most folks the first time they ever shoot a gun is at a range. It was for me too. So sure, there are going to be inexperienced folks. Still, even with everyone having a gun in their hand and finger on the trigger, someone unintentionally shooting another at a range is a rare event considering the billions of rounds fired, and being shot by someone that mandatory training would have neccesarily prevented is nil around here as far as I know.

You live in PA, right? Last year, Cpl. Richard Schroeter, a highly qualified firearms instructor, shot to death a state trooper while conducting training. Just another "idiot" in need of a 8hr goverment mandatory training class?

Inattention, not lack of government training is usually the culprit. Bad judgement is also a factor, like the Las Vegas gun instructor who got a bullet in the head while allowing a little child to shoot a machine gun.

Mandatory training doesn't fix inattention or bad judgement.

As far as carrying in public, 99.99% of us will never shoot the gun in self defense during our entire lifetimes, "idiots" and all. The notion that government mandatory training will cover that .01% so that we may all sleep better is just feel good goverment-think.

Despite thinking that you're surrounded by "idiots" everywhere, gun owners do quite well with their freedoms absent government mandates. And the "idiots", attending mandatory training or not, will still be idiots.

 

[ladder13]

"Idiots" don't frequent ranges on "off days"?




"You live in PA, right? Last year, Cpl. Richard Schroeter, a highly qualified firearms instructor, shot to death a state trooper while conducting training. Just another "idiot" in need of a 8hr goverment mandatory training class? "

FACTS triumph over "feelings" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[ladder13]

Anyone remember the 8yo who shot himself with an UZI on a gun range in Mass, under supervision?

Or the AZ instructor killed by the young girl, also 8yo I believe, who lost control of a full auto and shot him in the head.

 

[kbm6893]

"Idiots" don't frequent ranges on "off days"?




"You live in PA, right? Last year, Cpl. Richard Schroeter, a highly qualified firearms instructor, shot to death a state trooper while conducting training. Just another "idiot" in need of a 8hr goverment mandatory training class? "

FACTS triumph over "feelings" ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I get to the range at 9 AM and am gone within an hour. 99% of the time, nobody else is there. It's an outdoor range and is private. I used to shoot at public ranges. Last time I was there, a family of 4 shows up. Mother is texting while dad is trying to figure out how to load the magazine of his Desert Eagle. Kids literally FIGHTING over whose turn it is to shoot the .45. Same range a few months before, some idiot shows up with his "student" and a Glock 23. Loads the "clip" (his words, not mine), and turns the gun to the side to show his "student" that the trigger is now forward and the gun is cocked. Gun pointing right at me. Same range a year before that, guy in full camo is shouting Asian obscenties as he shoots at his target with an M1 carbine. Looked to be a Vietnam vet. Kept yelling "take that, you gooks!". I didn't even stick around for that session. Didn't fire one shot. Just left before he confused me with some VC. One time in a gun shop in NY, some guy comes in after the black out in 2004 (I think). Buys a pistol grip Mossberg 12 gauge. As he's about to leave, he asks the clerk where the "clip" goes. Guy tells him it's a magazine tube and where to place the shells. Guys leaves with the gun and 200 rounds of 00 buck.

So now I shoot in solitude. Healthier that way. Yes, too many idiots out there. I'd love to shoot with people I can trust and occasionaly do, but it's rare. Don't waste time yapping anyway. Shoot, collect brass, go home.

As for experienced people having accidents, you just prove my point. NONE of us are incapable of having one, and even highly trained people do. I never said training will prevent ALL accidents. I said it lessens them. And anybody who doesn't believe that is just not worth wasting my time on anymore.

In a perfect world, it sure would be nice if people who chose to exercise their right to own a firearm would take it seriously and spend the time and money on getting competent with the weapon they are carrying. But unfortunately, that isn't the case. And if that idiot shoots himself, I say Darwinism is at work and call it a day. When he shoots somebody else, I have a problem with that, and so should you.

A good friend of mine bought an XD 10 years ago. He lived in Florida at the time and I didn't get down to see him for over a year after he bought it. He has a kid so I asked him where the gun was. In his sock drawer, of course. I told him that wasn't secured and he said "don't worry. The "clip" isn't in it. I keep it on a high shelf" As if a kid looking for Christmas presents doesn't know it's there? So I rack the slide. Round pops out. He had no idea the gun could fire without the "clip".

We're members of a GUN FORUM. Generally, that means we are more familiar with firearms, so we're not the best examples. How many people buy a gun and shoot a box of ammo to make sure it works, then put it away? On another forum I am a meber of, some idito was walking around with the hammer back on his Beretta PX4. Says his "instructor" at his "advanced pistol class" told him safeties will get you killed, and carrying with a hammer back on a live round an no safety is no different than carrying a Glock, since the trigger has to be pulled! And this is somebody who is "trained"?

You're asking for proof of something that DIDN'T happen. How can I provide proof of something that did NOT happen?

And if it was suddenly mandatory that I get some "training". I'd do it in a heartbeat. Write off the cost on my taxes. No big deal.