So, according to you, I can wear my handgun in plain view of the public and walk around downtown?
Open carry legislation/question
- Thread starter pmcbear04
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
So, according to you, I can wear my handgun in plain view of the public and walk around downtown?
txinvestigator
TGT Addict
Not true.
txinvestigator
TGT Addict
Everyone knows that open carry for the general public is banned in Texas.
As we've seen, there are those who will argue open carry isn't banned based on the limited authorizations in Texas code. It would be the same type of argument as if someone had said that Texas bans the carrying of a weapon in bars.
The nitpicker would again argue that wasn't true because there are certain groups of individuals who are allowed to carry into bars, so that proves there is no ban on carrying in bars.
When you read that kind of argument, you can be certain the person presenting it is either doing so just to argue or has a very rigid mind.
Texas bans the general public from carrying a handgun that isn't concealed except in very limited circumstances. And like I said earlier, to say it isn't true is at the minimum, disingenuous. And that's saying it mildly.
As we've seen, there are those who will argue open carry isn't banned based on the limited authorizations in Texas code. It would be the same type of argument as if someone had said that Texas bans the carrying of a weapon in bars.
The nitpicker would again argue that wasn't true because there are certain groups of individuals who are allowed to carry into bars, so that proves there is no ban on carrying in bars.
When you read that kind of argument, you can be certain the person presenting it is either doing so just to argue or has a very rigid mind.
Texas bans the general public from carrying a handgun that isn't concealed except in very limited circumstances. And like I said earlier, to say it isn't true is at the minimum, disingenuous. And that's saying it mildly.
Here we go in circles again.
You know that I am not talking about non-applicabilities. You know I am talking about average joe deciding to not wear a covering garment over his handgun because it is too hot, or whatever reason he decides.
I am done with you, txinvestigator. You need some serious help.
Open Carry
I'm sure this is considered dead after the last few comments but I can't resist.
You got two sides arguing pretty much the same thing and one of those sides just can't hear the other one quite right.
Mercot - you're right. As far as the "General Layman" is concerned, Concealed Carry is banned in Texas. But, that's the problem right there. It isn't banned as TxInvest has been repeatedly stating. I can sit in my front yard with a shotgun in my arms and a .45 on my hip and be good. I can't, as we would both like to, carry openly on my hip to the same places as I do concealed.
I think the point that TxInvest was pushing but was somehow missed is that if a push for new legislation to authorize this is going to be pushed for, it needs to be done correctly. Meaning, the Legalese is VERY important. One word makes a whole bunch of difference and it is not "nitpicking" - it's simply the way the law works. Words are words and the wrong ones can ruin your day. So, if we're to push for this, saying that open carry is banned is legally incorrect. I would agree it's highly restricted while some others, who are not proponets of this, would say it's more than reasonable that you can openly carry on your property just put it away when you're in the general population.
For now, these kinds of changes have to be made within the law and through the very system that enforces unjust laws. These means that exact definitions and persuasive arguments are each just as important.
It's more difficult to draw from concealed than open carry? Absolutely - no doubt it's more difficult. That isn't going to get legislation passed though. Even MY arguments won't get it passed. Suzanna Hupp - those arguments helped get legislation passed but it took a mass murder to bring it about.
The point that I see being missed by one side is the fact of the matter that, unfortunately, the law is not common sense. The law is language and precise use of it determines everything. Generalizations and "Everbody knows" statements don't cut the mustard.
For me, I see dishonor in carrying concealed. From the origination of the Handshake and on I see the hiding of weapons to be frowned upon. I understand some of the arguments against open carry (element of surprise, weapon retention) but I don't believe them anymore than some of my arguments will be believed or agreed with. The Element of Surprise, I believe, is bunk. I agree that an open weapon is most definitely a deterrent to assault. The same way that a person walking straight, head up, eyes scanning is less likely to be preyed upon compared to a person walking with slumped shoulders, hiding their eyes and generally looking weak. Sure, the gun doesn't make everything but it damn sure helps.
As far as police being attacked while carrying open, they are also being attacked by people who they are trying to detain or arrest. If anyone can quantify the number of times that uniformed police are randomly attacked/mugged, I'm interested. I doubt the method of carry in any such instance would make little difference as the person is quite well aware that a uniformed police officer is armed anyway. I'd have to assume that concealed carry off duty allows them the ability to fit in with the "Civilians" (God I hate saying that) and not stick out in the crowd.
Basically, I see it as I should be able to carry any weapon that I have already been given PERMISSION (yep, it's become a privilege not a right) from the FBI to purchase openly as I wish. However, if I want to HIDE the weapon and carry it around I should then request permission (CHL) and let the "Authorities" know I'm doing so. I agree with LICENSED Concealed Carry ONLY when UNLICENSED open carry is an option. Otherwise, I see some infringing going on. But hey, that's just my opinion....
I'm sure this is considered dead after the last few comments but I can't resist.
You got two sides arguing pretty much the same thing and one of those sides just can't hear the other one quite right.
Mercot - you're right. As far as the "General Layman" is concerned, Concealed Carry is banned in Texas. But, that's the problem right there. It isn't banned as TxInvest has been repeatedly stating. I can sit in my front yard with a shotgun in my arms and a .45 on my hip and be good. I can't, as we would both like to, carry openly on my hip to the same places as I do concealed.
I think the point that TxInvest was pushing but was somehow missed is that if a push for new legislation to authorize this is going to be pushed for, it needs to be done correctly. Meaning, the Legalese is VERY important. One word makes a whole bunch of difference and it is not "nitpicking" - it's simply the way the law works. Words are words and the wrong ones can ruin your day. So, if we're to push for this, saying that open carry is banned is legally incorrect. I would agree it's highly restricted while some others, who are not proponets of this, would say it's more than reasonable that you can openly carry on your property just put it away when you're in the general population.
For now, these kinds of changes have to be made within the law and through the very system that enforces unjust laws. These means that exact definitions and persuasive arguments are each just as important.
It's more difficult to draw from concealed than open carry? Absolutely - no doubt it's more difficult. That isn't going to get legislation passed though. Even MY arguments won't get it passed. Suzanna Hupp - those arguments helped get legislation passed but it took a mass murder to bring it about.
The point that I see being missed by one side is the fact of the matter that, unfortunately, the law is not common sense. The law is language and precise use of it determines everything. Generalizations and "Everbody knows" statements don't cut the mustard.
For me, I see dishonor in carrying concealed. From the origination of the Handshake and on I see the hiding of weapons to be frowned upon. I understand some of the arguments against open carry (element of surprise, weapon retention) but I don't believe them anymore than some of my arguments will be believed or agreed with. The Element of Surprise, I believe, is bunk. I agree that an open weapon is most definitely a deterrent to assault. The same way that a person walking straight, head up, eyes scanning is less likely to be preyed upon compared to a person walking with slumped shoulders, hiding their eyes and generally looking weak. Sure, the gun doesn't make everything but it damn sure helps.
As far as police being attacked while carrying open, they are also being attacked by people who they are trying to detain or arrest. If anyone can quantify the number of times that uniformed police are randomly attacked/mugged, I'm interested. I doubt the method of carry in any such instance would make little difference as the person is quite well aware that a uniformed police officer is armed anyway. I'd have to assume that concealed carry off duty allows them the ability to fit in with the "Civilians" (God I hate saying that) and not stick out in the crowd.
Basically, I see it as I should be able to carry any weapon that I have already been given PERMISSION (yep, it's become a privilege not a right) from the FBI to purchase openly as I wish. However, if I want to HIDE the weapon and carry it around I should then request permission (CHL) and let the "Authorities" know I'm doing so. I agree with LICENSED Concealed Carry ONLY when UNLICENSED open carry is an option. Otherwise, I see some infringing going on. But hey, that's just my opinion....
Very well stated, however no one was missing the point except the one claiming open carry was not banned in Texas.
No one was attempting to craft legal language from what I could see, so an objection because of the technicallity of the code was uncalled for. They were just stating the facts as it pertains to the majority of Texas residents.
Yes, some can carry openly in Texas but to make the claim that that means open carry is not banned is simply ludicrous. If one wanted to go further with that argument, one could claim that open carry and possession of firearms was not banned anywhere in the entire world. Why? Because law enforcement around the world carry firearms openly. It's a ridiculous position when discussing open carry in Texas to claim it isn't banned based on such a narrow technicality.
txinvestigator also made the claim with his abbreviated Texas code, that a person could carry open and in fact was required to, if "traveling". I believe we all know that is not the case and anyone using his definition would find himself being approached by a LEO in the low ready position not long after stepping from his vehicle with his weapon exposed. I did notice he never responded specifically to a comment about that, so I assume he just didn't want to address it.
I agree with you about the dishonor of having to carry concealed and as I stated in one of my comments, it makes me feel like a thief in the dark, always hiding.
Much has been said about the type of clothing a concealed weapon carrier must submit to when carrying and mostly referred to a male's attire. However, no one addressed the attire required or the differences in body shapes of women if they wanted to carry a concealed weapon on their person. The alternative for them means they are forced to carry in a purse. Not being a women, I have no idea of the unique problems they may have in carrying a concealed weapon. However, I think we can all agree the differences would be non-existent with open carry.
Even for a male, one must wear pants that are at least two inches wider than their waist size if they wear an IWB holster, if they wanted to be confortable. Of course, with the holster removed, those pants would be sagging, much like the wannabe thugs we all see today. The other alternative is to use a belt holster which means a possible additional outer garment which also must be oversized to comply with the law regarding printing.
I don't know what a legislative bill would require as far as the facts some have said was needed. When asked to post a list of the type of facts they were referring to, there was no response. So I assume they didn't know either and were just parroting someone else.
I personally would rather have open carry than concealed carry and though there was an objection to the statement that criminals would not carry openly so as to not call attention to themselves, I believe that to be an obvious conclusion. If carrying openly invites the scrutiny of law enforcement and gives them probable cause to stop and question someone carrying openly, not many crimiinals would take that chance.
No one was attempting to craft legal language from what I could see, so an objection because of the technicallity of the code was uncalled for. They were just stating the facts as it pertains to the majority of Texas residents.
Yes, some can carry openly in Texas but to make the claim that that means open carry is not banned is simply ludicrous. If one wanted to go further with that argument, one could claim that open carry and possession of firearms was not banned anywhere in the entire world. Why? Because law enforcement around the world carry firearms openly. It's a ridiculous position when discussing open carry in Texas to claim it isn't banned based on such a narrow technicality.
txinvestigator also made the claim with his abbreviated Texas code, that a person could carry open and in fact was required to, if "traveling". I believe we all know that is not the case and anyone using his definition would find himself being approached by a LEO in the low ready position not long after stepping from his vehicle with his weapon exposed. I did notice he never responded specifically to a comment about that, so I assume he just didn't want to address it.
I agree with you about the dishonor of having to carry concealed and as I stated in one of my comments, it makes me feel like a thief in the dark, always hiding.
Much has been said about the type of clothing a concealed weapon carrier must submit to when carrying and mostly referred to a male's attire. However, no one addressed the attire required or the differences in body shapes of women if they wanted to carry a concealed weapon on their person. The alternative for them means they are forced to carry in a purse. Not being a women, I have no idea of the unique problems they may have in carrying a concealed weapon. However, I think we can all agree the differences would be non-existent with open carry.
Even for a male, one must wear pants that are at least two inches wider than their waist size if they wear an IWB holster, if they wanted to be confortable. Of course, with the holster removed, those pants would be sagging, much like the wannabe thugs we all see today. The other alternative is to use a belt holster which means a possible additional outer garment which also must be oversized to comply with the law regarding printing.
I don't know what a legislative bill would require as far as the facts some have said was needed. When asked to post a list of the type of facts they were referring to, there was no response. So I assume they didn't know either and were just parroting someone else.
I personally would rather have open carry than concealed carry and though there was an objection to the statement that criminals would not carry openly so as to not call attention to themselves, I believe that to be an obvious conclusion. If carrying openly invites the scrutiny of law enforcement and gives them probable cause to stop and question someone carrying openly, not many crimiinals would take that chance.
Absolutely, I get your point as I said. I'm not sure what TxInvest's history or current job is but it's obvious it's at least related to the Law. You'd have to see where, when coming from that background, it's hard to step out of it and use "Average Joe" layman language. Marijuana is banned - open carry is not - as far as the specifics of law goes - it's just heavily restricted. However, as you said, talking to most people on the street and you say "No, you can't carry openly except on your own land etc..." yeah, most of us would agree that's close enough for Government work to call it banned.
Anyway, I was just seeing where the contention was being brought up, like you've discussed, technicalities might not be necessary in a thread about "Loosening up the Open Carry Laws" but, then again, when discussing the laws EVERYTHING is technicalities.
As far as feeling like a thief in the dark - I just sold a rifle to a friend of mine and we actually talked about where we should go to look at it and make the transfer. We were initially nervous about being out in the open with it. THAT'S A DAMN SHAME!!! I'm a FREE MAN that actually had the instinct to hide what I was doing as if it was unlawful (I don't care if it's EVER made illegal, it will NEVER be unlawful).
As far as the criminal thing - that's a bunk argument from the beginning. If the argument is that with Open Carry then criminals can carry theirs and we won't know the difference. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE WITH CONCEALED CARRY? They already hide their guns, as I have to hide mine, and it's against the law. I guarantee any open carry law will include "Lawfully owned firearm" or something to the like.
The real problem we're at is we're not arguing AGAINST a new law, we're arguing AGAINST a restrictive unnecessary law that's already in place. That's a much harder position to be in because you have to show cause why it should be changed. The same "wild west shootout" arguments will be made, sure, but it's our job to show just cause. TxInvest is right in this - we have to have a strong substantial argument WHY it should be changed. Unfortuantely, the idea that openly carrying is MORE respectable and desireable than HIDING a weapon won't work here. People, in general, are scared of guns and we have to show why this is a valuable addition to our State.
My positions are based on values, rights and liberties. Unfortuanately, the Government doesn't really care about that. Hard Numbers and statistics are the only thing they care about because backing those "Polls" is what gets them re-elected.
So, things like Concealed Carry holders being killed because they couldn't deploy their weapon quickly enough are the kind of statistics that are needed, however unfortuante that is. The problem, I believe, is that it just ain't the case. A thug sees you pulling your shirt back and your other hand reaching - he knows what that means and will most likely take off.
What facts are necessary? I'm not sure - I'm definitely going to be thinking damn hard about it. It shouldn't have to be this way as we are SUPPOSED to be in a position where Liberty is the default and the Government has to prove to US why they need to do something, not the other way around.
Anyway, I was just seeing where the contention was being brought up, like you've discussed, technicalities might not be necessary in a thread about "Loosening up the Open Carry Laws" but, then again, when discussing the laws EVERYTHING is technicalities.
As far as feeling like a thief in the dark - I just sold a rifle to a friend of mine and we actually talked about where we should go to look at it and make the transfer. We were initially nervous about being out in the open with it. THAT'S A DAMN SHAME!!! I'm a FREE MAN that actually had the instinct to hide what I was doing as if it was unlawful (I don't care if it's EVER made illegal, it will NEVER be unlawful).
As far as the criminal thing - that's a bunk argument from the beginning. If the argument is that with Open Carry then criminals can carry theirs and we won't know the difference. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE WITH CONCEALED CARRY? They already hide their guns, as I have to hide mine, and it's against the law. I guarantee any open carry law will include "Lawfully owned firearm" or something to the like.
The real problem we're at is we're not arguing AGAINST a new law, we're arguing AGAINST a restrictive unnecessary law that's already in place. That's a much harder position to be in because you have to show cause why it should be changed. The same "wild west shootout" arguments will be made, sure, but it's our job to show just cause. TxInvest is right in this - we have to have a strong substantial argument WHY it should be changed. Unfortuantely, the idea that openly carrying is MORE respectable and desireable than HIDING a weapon won't work here. People, in general, are scared of guns and we have to show why this is a valuable addition to our State.
My positions are based on values, rights and liberties. Unfortuanately, the Government doesn't really care about that. Hard Numbers and statistics are the only thing they care about because backing those "Polls" is what gets them re-elected.
So, things like Concealed Carry holders being killed because they couldn't deploy their weapon quickly enough are the kind of statistics that are needed, however unfortuante that is. The problem, I believe, is that it just ain't the case. A thug sees you pulling your shirt back and your other hand reaching - he knows what that means and will most likely take off.
What facts are necessary? I'm not sure - I'm definitely going to be thinking damn hard about it. It shouldn't have to be this way as we are SUPPOSED to be in a position where Liberty is the default and the Government has to prove to US why they need to do something, not the other way around.
This reminds me of another question regarding traveling in Texas with a firearm. How does the law affect those who travel on motorcycles.
In an automobile, it has been stated that the weapon must be visible if you are traveling and don't hold a concealed handgun permit, but I look at a motorcycle as similar to an open top convertible and when you are 'on' it, you are 'in' it.
Do motorcycle riders strap the weapon on or place it somewhere in the open so as to conform to the requirement that the weapon be visible?
If so, are they in immediate violation as they get off the motorcycle with a visible weapon?
If they attempt to conceal the weapon while they remain seated prior to leaving the vehicle, do they violate the law requiring the weapon to be visible while in (on) the vehicle?
It's a point in the law I may have need of soon and if anyone has the answer, I would certainly appreciate hearing it.
In an automobile, it has been stated that the weapon must be visible if you are traveling and don't hold a concealed handgun permit, but I look at a motorcycle as similar to an open top convertible and when you are 'on' it, you are 'in' it.
Do motorcycle riders strap the weapon on or place it somewhere in the open so as to conform to the requirement that the weapon be visible?
If so, are they in immediate violation as they get off the motorcycle with a visible weapon?
If they attempt to conceal the weapon while they remain seated prior to leaving the vehicle, do they violate the law requiring the weapon to be visible while in (on) the vehicle?
It's a point in the law I may have need of soon and if anyone has the answer, I would certainly appreciate hearing it.
From that thread, TxInvest says "A motorcycle is a motor vehicle.
I suppose if you narrowly read the law, you cannot be "inside" a motorcycle.
However, I do not believe that the intent of the legislators was to exclude motorcycles."
I would question whether the intent of the legislators matters once the law is signed. Only thing that matters then is the language. Any case precedents on this yet?
I suppose if you narrowly read the law, you cannot be "inside" a motorcycle.
However, I do not believe that the intent of the legislators was to exclude motorcycles."
I would question whether the intent of the legislators matters once the law is signed. Only thing that matters then is the language. Any case precedents on this yet?
Thanks for the link to that discussion.
It appears they are just as confused as I am. the only thing most of them agree on is that a motorcycle is a motor vehicle as defined under the law.
They appear to be confused as to whether is needs to be concealed or not if you don't have a CHL.
It appears they are just as confused as I am. the only thing most of them agree on is that a motorcycle is a motor vehicle as defined under the law.
They appear to be confused as to whether is needs to be concealed or not if you don't have a CHL.
Big country
TGT Addict
When you are "required" to openly Cary your firearm if you are a commissioned security officer. Not traveling. I openly carried my pistol last saturday night and no one said a word, but I was at my post in uniform with my pocket card.I think that is what txinvestigator was referring to when he says "YOU ARE REQUIRED TO OPEN CARRY" (not yelling) I do think txinvestigator is a little to "letter of law" some times but his argument is sound for the most part. Zen is right as well, when you are talking about law it is a tight rope kinda thing. Every word that comes out of your mouth (or in this case your fingers) is going to have consequences weather they are good are bad depends on the words you use and the way you articulate them. for example: " Officer he came around the corner and I shot him" does not make you look very good after a defensive shooting. "Officer that man came around the corner with a gun in his hand and he was charging straight at me. When I told him to stop he raised the bat above his head. I drew my weapon and told him to stop again he did not stop charging at me, so I fired my weapon" Which one of those sounds better? (I know there are mistakes in there LEO's) The point is that every word that you say has five lawyers trying to pick it apart. I have been told by State Troopers that if you are traveling with your firearm they don't want to see it.
Big country
TGT Addict
I agree. The intent does not matter when you are on the side of the road with the flashing lights in your face. The letter of the law and how that specific officer interprets it is what matters then. The "intent" of the legislators is irreverent, the way it is put on paper is what is used to send people to jail.
Yes, you're right, the "required" to make it visible is not in the law. My mistake.
But 46.15(b)(3) says: "46.02 does not apply to a person who: is traveling;"
46.02 is the section that says it is an offense to have a weapon in plain view in a vehicle, so one can read 46.15(b)(3) to say you can have it in plain view if traveling.
Note: that wasn't a quote of the legal language.
But 46.15(b)(3) says: "46.02 does not apply to a person who: is traveling;"
46.02 is the section that says it is an offense to have a weapon in plain view in a vehicle, so one can read 46.15(b)(3) to say you can have it in plain view if traveling.
Note: that wasn't a quote of the legal language.
Ok, so I didn't read a couple of the pages in this thread because the arguments were going nowhere. I can however speak on the issue of Open Carry, as I do it nearly every day in Norfolk VA. I've never been harassed by the police. I've never been targeted by criminals. I've never had a citizen run away screaming "man with a gun!" These things don't happen. They don't happen just like gun fights didn't break out when concealed carry was introduced. I don't need a license to speak freely, and I don't need a license to carry a gun. I believe in personal freedom. That's why I open carry.
txinvestigator
TGT Addict
You were good right up to there. Because they have not happened to YOU, does not mean they don't happen. YUour anecdotal evidence is fine, but there is plenty of contrary anecdotal evidence.
You DO need a license to carry a handgun in Texas, sorry.
I am glad you exercise your freedoms where you can.
Members online
- wiredgeorge
- pbratton
- popper
- tangoparson
- Huntersammo
- TicToc26
- KC Huntin
- topduarte
- kbaxter60
- D0ntTr3@d0nM3
- Axxe55
- mdf9183
- 1911'S 4 Me
- angel71rs
- Dred
- brashears9567
- texcross
- Texasgordo
- mroper
- surevaliance
- McCrapper
- digger
- zackmars
- Txdweeb
- lonestardiver
- BuzzinSATX
- SGT Dave
- Txhighlander
- paknheat
- DinoLJ
- wbblazer90
- glazer1972
- Hoji
- retiredboomer
- roadkill
- eyefold
- jgillaspy
- Mike_from_Texas
- dsgrey
- RoundRockRed
- TexasRedneck
- Renegade
- Madcap
- Ioannes
- jetcycles
- buckshot4900
- Psssniper
- Ausländer
- Blaize
- prisondoc
