Handgun Open Carry- Where Do You Stand

[Mreed911]

My point is that the only time I would pull my gun is when I have decided that pulling the trigger is the only way to stop the threat....and I practice to make my draw to shoot time low enough that the person confronting me has zero time to react i.e. back down because they see the gun because by the time anyone sees it it is too late.

You're limiting the legal usefulness of having a deadly weapon. Texas law is explicit about there being multiple ways to threaten and use deadly force and sets out criteria for each. In fact, displaying a weapon to create apprehension of use is explicitly called out as not even being the use of deadly force.

Plus, where I come from (admittedly I am unsure of the law here) but if you show a weapon in a threatening manner in a situation that did not require it you are brandishing and have then broken the law i.e. if I pull my gun using it as a "you better stop because I have a gun" then I have just broken the law and I am now in legal trouble. Whereas if I pull the gun and use it because my llife was threatened then I am justified to have shown the weapon

This is TEXAS gun talk and we weren't discussing situations that didn't require deadly force. If deadly force isn't legal in a situation in Texas you're likely either committing Aggravated Assault or Deadly Conduct.

Please read up on Chapter 9 of the Penal Code to see the broader options for legal use of a deadly weapon in Texas when presented with legal justification.

 

[duckknot]

...and thus the nanny state was born.

It really is sad to me...but so many of those who are pro gun are the same ones causing most the problems...i.e. presenting your semi automatic rifle at low guard in a place where it is absolutely unnecessary or people causing the deaths of their friends/family because they neglected the most basic rules of firearm safety we are fighting an uphill battle on the "unrestricted open carry" front.

 

[duckknot]

You're limiting the legal usefulness of having a deadly weapon. Texas law is explicit about there being multiple ways to threaten and use deadly force and sets out criteria for each. In fact, displaying a weapon to create apprehension of use is explicitly called out as not even being the use of deadly force.



This is TEXAS gun talk and we weren't discussing situations that didn't require deadly force. If deadly force isn't legal in a situation in Texas you're likely either committing Aggravated Assault or Deadly Conduct.

Please read up on Chapter 9 of the Penal Code to see the broader options for legal use of a deadly weapon in Texas when presented with legal justification.

No, I am simply stating that the only time I (once again, me, my opinion, my belief, my decision, doesn't have to be accepted/practiced by everyone else) would use a deadly weapon is when I plan to use deadly force because the situation/person that I am confronting has forced it to be that way. If you want to draw your weapon as a deterrent that is absolutely fine (and in most cases would probably be quite effective) but it is not the way I would do it, in my eyes and my opinion drawing a gun should only be done when it's use is absolutely required to either eliminate a threat or to allow you to make an initial defense followed by a move to a position of advantage. So, I would only draw my weapon when and if deadly force is the only option that I have deemed capable of getting me out of the situation alive and in good health! Not to mention, I train (dryfire and livefire) to be able to draw my weapon, acquire my sights and put my first shot on target in as close to 1 second as possible, this does not allow time for meto recognize backing down (as I would have given them plenty of chances to do so and I would have likely removed myself from the situation before it became necessary

Yes this is TEXAS gun talk, I am quite aware of that but that doesn't mean I can't be aware/sensitive to the fact that other laws and regulations are present in other places (especially when I spent several years carrying in a state that is far more friendly to both concealed and open carry than Texas which means I am not used to the laws here and I am no expert in Texas law). And, no offense, but if you are so worried about this forum remaining about TEXAS issues then why are we even discussing an event that occurred in Georgia?

Please do not mistake my posts as being confrontational, as they are not, I am simply trying to understand your mindset and trying to learn about others opinions so that I can better understand my surroundings and can be better prepared for situations I may face!

 

[Younggun]

Fight!

Fight!

Fight!

 

[duckknot]

Fight!

Fight!

Fight!

Chadup you!

 

[TheDan]

It really is sad to me...but so many of those who are pro gun are the same ones causing most the problems...

Fatty and snowboots are a very small minority of gun owners, and they are even a minority in the OCT crowd. The actions of a few idiots is not a logical reason to curtail people's rights or make blanket statements like "human beings (in large part) keep proving themselves incapable of the responsibility that comes with the carrying of a weapon." It's an emotional argument and makes the statists happy.

 

[duckknot]

Fatty and snowboots are a very small minority of gun owners, and they are even a minority in the OCT crowd. The actions of a few idiots is not a logical reason to curtail people's rights or make blanket statements like "human beings (in large part) keep proving themselves incapable of the responsibility that comes with the carrying of a weapon." It's an emotional argument and makes the statists happy.

Liberals and gun grabbers are not logical and they hold the actions of one person against us all of the time!

And it is not just fatty and snow boots, its the ones who I see all the time practicing negligent handling of a weapon, the ones who have NDs that cause deaths/injuries, the ones who don't properly secure their weapons and the ones that make me feel uncomfortable at a range......there are a ton of irresponsible gun owners out there andand even if they are the minority, they're the only ones that gun grabbers are ever gonna pay attention to!

 

[Younggun]

And they will always exist.

Teach who will listen, and move on with life. Getting your blood pressure up because someone doesn't exercise their rights to a standard you approve of is pointless.

Besides, would you be willing to infringe on "fatty" or "snow boots" right to keep and bear arms? I wouldn't. Not even that person who is irresponsible at the range. The range could kick them out without infringing, but that's up to the range.

So the libs concentrate on a minority....by saying people are not responsible enough for gun ownership we are just playing in to their game. You are just agreeing with them that our rights must be infringed for the greater good.

 

[TheDan]

Liberals and gun grabbers are not logical and they hold the actions of one person against us all of the time!

I'm glad you realize your previous statement about people at large not being responsible enough to carry is not logical and sounds like something a liberal would say.

 

[duckknot]

Whoa, when did I ever say to infringe anyone's rights? I support unrestricted open carry.....but I also know that idiots are making it an easy target to attack and prevent!

 

[Hoji]

Fatty and snowboots are a very small minority of gun owners, and they are even a minority in the OCT crowd. The actions of a few idiots is not a logical reason to curtail people's rights or make blanket statements like "human beings (in large part) keep proving themselves incapable of the responsibility that comes with the carrying of a weapon." It's an emotional argument and makes the statists happy.

You don't get to many public ranges, do you? Lol

 

[matefrio]

As gun owners we should fight for the right to open carry pistols or rifles.

After that we can be divided, as gun owners, as to what's fashionable.

 

[benenglish]

You don't get to many public ranges, do you? Lol

"Lol"? No, it's not funny. Your statement touches a pervasive truth that we hate admitting to ourselves. Your statement was soberly and sadly insightful.

OTOH, most human beings are completely incapable of handling the responsibilities that come with procreating, too. Humans play with lots of things they're too stupid to be near. It's always been that way and always will. So, despite the idiocy I see at public ranges or coming from certain open carry attention whores, I conclude that such conduct is not a valid reason to restrict rights.

Public idiocy does, however, make it more difficult to defend those rights.

 

[duckknot]

Public idiocy does, however, make it more difficult to defend those rights.

This is the point I was trying to make! You're a smart cookie sir english!

 

[Blind Sniper]

You don't get to many public ranges, do you? Lol

That's why I'm kinda nervous about going to the local range up here. Their pistol/shotgun range is completely unsupervised (range website says that an RSO is available "on request"), but if anyone wants to use their 25, 50, 100 or 200 yard rifle lanes (keep in mind, -all of this- is indoors), they are -required- to be accompanied by an RSO, regardless of how many times they've shot there.

Seems to me they're doing it bass-ackwards, but by some miracle no one has been injured yet, barring minor stuff like slide-bite and brass-induced burns.

 

[TexasTSX70]

Unlicensed open carry is the goal. However, I will support open carry for CHL holders as a step towards that goal.

In Texas politics, evolutionary, not revolutionary, changes in law are the rule.

 

[TN88]

Unlicensed open carry is the goal. However, I will support open carry for CHL holders as a step towards that goal.

In Texas politics, evolutionary, not revolutionary, changes in law are the rule.

Vermont has this. There is no such thing as a pistol permit in that state. As long as you are not a felon, you can carry whatever you want, however you want regardless of state of residency. I have a camp there, and it is very convenient to open carry in the woods when hiking or riding the ATV. I have not seen anyone in town open carrying, though.

It is my understanding that most land in Texas is privately owned, so open carry when in the woods is OK provided you are on private property, correct? At the very least there really needs to be something allowing open carry when not in town no matter who owns the land you're on.

 

[Marlowe]

Vermont has this. There is no such thing as a pistol permit in that state. As long as you are not a felon, you can carry whatever you want, however you want regardless of state of residency. I have a camp there, and it is very convenient to open carry in the woods when hiking or riding the ATV. I have not seen anyone in town open carrying, though.

It is my understanding that most land in Texas is privately owned, so open carry when in the woods is OK provided you are on private property, correct? At the very least there really needs to be something allowing open carry when not in town no matter who owns the land you're on.

"No matter who owns the land you're on" represents a wholesale dismissal of people being able to control what goes on upon their own property. Such a banner declaration takes it right out of the realm of "publicly accessible places" and places it directly in your own backyard.

 

[TN88]

"No matter who owns the land you're on" represents a wholesale dismissal of people being able to control what goes on upon their own property. Such a banner declaration takes it right out of the realm of "publicly accessible places" and places it directly in your own backyard.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, however when I said "no matter who owns the land you're on" I intended that to mean gov't owned land such as state and national forests. Regarding private property, the assumption is that you have permission, otherwise you're trespassing.

 

[Younggun]

Actually, land owner doesn't matter if you're hunting (except federal). There are several exceptions that allow open carry during different activities and I can't think of any stipulations for being the land owner.