Open Carry, TX. style

[Deaf Smith]

He signed it today at a gun range. Signed them both.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/06/13/gov-abbott-signs-open-carry-campus-carry-laws-at-shooting-range/

Deaf

 

[chicharrones]

Done Deal

http://bearingarms.com/open-carry-campus-carry-signed-law-texas/

He signed it today at a gun range. Signed them both.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/06/13/gov-abbott-signs-open-carry-campus-carry-laws-at-shooting-range/

Deaf

I just saw it on the 10 o'clock news a little while ago. Time for a "yeehaw"!

 

[JRH6856]

The Gov ticked more than a few people off by giving credit for passage of both bills to NRA and TSRA, both of which, while supporting SB11, actually lobbied against HB910 at various times.

 

[xxjumbojimboxx]

He signed them about three miles from my house at reds indoor range. Whenever you guys see me brag about a used gun I got on the cheap, or all the .22 ammo ive been able to buy, its usually at that place ...

 

[Midwest]

Congratulations Texas !

.

 

[barnbwt]

"The Gov ticked more than a few people off by giving credit for passage of both bills to NRA and TSRA, both of which, while supporting SB11, actually lobbied against HB910 at various times."

By which you mean the amendment which, now that the game is over and won, can clearly be seen as a ruse exploited by Democrats to run the clock out. Acevedo talks a good game about hassling every open carrier in Austin, but I'll believe it when he ropes the city into a class action civil rights lawsuit (and doesn't get his butt fired). He was also the only outspoken Chief voice on the issue from what I recall; I doubt 'stop n papers' will be a widespread problem. I'm sure the reason Abbot failed to mention OCT/OCTC was because he/everyone really hopes like hell they will just pocket the victory and go away, instead of moving onto the next extreme firearms adventure.

The extent to which Art involved himself politically...I have to wonder if he plans on remaining police chief --there's gonna be a lot of blowback from all sorts of civil liberties & hippy-dippy stoner groups driving politics that won't appreciate the various sound bites.

TCB

 

[gun_with_a_view]

Under the law’s provisions, if you want to open carry, you’ll need a concealed carry license

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20.../breaking-abbott-signs-texas-open-carry-bill/


So, how does that compute???

 

[JRH6856]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20.../breaking-abbott-signs-texas-open-carry-bill/


So, how does that compute???

The CHL (Concealed Handgun License) becomes just a Handgun License or a Handgun Carry License. But existing CHL holders are grandfathered, won't need to get new cards, won't need additional training. And until the law goes into effect on Jan 1, all you can get in Texas is a CHL. So all that is needed for 800,000 plus Texans to open carry on January 1 is the CHL they already have.

 

[JRH6856]

I'm sure the reason Abbot failed to mention OCT/OCTC was because he/everyone really hopes like hell they will just pocket the victory and go away, instead of moving onto the next extreme firearms adventure.

Probably, but I don't link OCT and OCTC. OCT pretty much wishes Kory Watkins and OCTC would just disappear as well. OCT has done OC walks, (and I have doubts about the usefullness of such efforts) but they have been careful to make arrangements with local LE first. The only trouble they have had has been from DPS at the capital. OCTC doesn't make arrangements. Their "walks" are more of a flash mob affair.

And OCT was pretty heavily into lobbying during the session. At least as much as any other pro OC lobbying effort, and I'll give them as much or more credit for their behind the scenes work especially countering the negative visibility of OCTC as I do the NRA or TSRA. They were all their in the front lines and in different ways, made a positive contribution to getting the bills passed.

And I doubt OCT is going away. I'm sure they will be pusing for constitutional carry in 2 years.

 

[barnbwt]

"Carried Handgun License?"

Just curious; who is actively tooling up for New Year's Day? I really want to get something decent to be seen in public with, but not something so nice that I'll be crestfallen if some pig throws me to the ground and scratches it (being facetious, but only partially )

Hopefully all the press, and all the prep-time means there will be absolutely no ambiguity for officers once the time comes. Expecting too much again, I know... Might be worth pestering both the AG and your local sheriffs/chiefs with letters as the date approaches, so it will hopefully trickle down the ranks.

TCB

 

[JRH6856]

"Carried Handgun License?"

Just curious; who is actively tooling up for New Year's Day? I really want to get something decent to be seen in public with, but not something so nice that I'll be crestfallen if some pig throws me to the ground and scratches it (being facetious, but only partially )

Hopefully all the press, and all the prep-time means there will be absolutely no ambiguity for officers once the time comes. Expecting too much again, I know... Might be worth pestering both the AG and your local sheriffs/chiefs with letters as the date approaches, so it will hopefully trickle down the ranks.

TCB

I'll just use my old IPSC rig for my 1911 or BHP. Either my Chapman Hi-Ride (after tightening the retention tensioning screw) or Askins Avenger (which I already use for CC at times) with the snapon retention strap.

And I'll probably do it once for fun and then go back to CC most of the time.

 

[gun_with_a_view]

The CHL (Concealed Handgun License) becomes just a Handgun License or a Handgun Carry License

Well, now. That simply begs for a legal challenge based on an undue burden on members of the public who would prefer to go armed but for the costs and bureaucratic hassle of obtaining a "license" to exercise a right. The TX state government remains unwilling to give up control over it's subjects when it comes to handguns. Unless all that is required is a simple procedure and payment of actual cost, this law is already DOA if challenged.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....Unless all that is required is a simple procedure and payment of actual cost, this law is already DOA if challenged.

Only in your imaginary world. In the real world it very much remains to be seen.

It didn't go that way in Florida (Norman v. Florida, No. 4D12-3525, District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida, Fourth District, 2015). The Florida Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Norman has petition SCOTUS for certiorari, and well have to see if they take it up.

 

[gun_with_a_view]

As a result, some of these “traditional restrictions” were considered
presumptively lawful in the eyes of the Court.

The Florida court is all wet behind the ears on the instant case. Anybody who has followed the Heller and subsequent cases knows or should know full well the SCOTUS presumption that traditional restrictions was saying the restrictions were presumed to be lawful for purposes of argument and not that the restrictions were in fact lawful. That latter point remains to be determined.

The decision of the court is flawed by reversible error.

The Court in Heller I
also explicitly referenced the
history of the concealed carry of
weapons, noting that “the majority of the
19th century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on
carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues

All those laws were aimed at restricting the carry of concealed weapons by undesirable parties, and so are not good precedent.

Credit being given where credit is due, that last opinion is not mine, but emanated some time back from Eugene Volokh.

I smell epic judicial failure on this one.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The Florida court is all wet behind the ears on the instant case....

You might think so, and many might hope so; but it still remains to be seen. But in the case of Norman, it's not true unless the Supreme Court says so. Your wishes and hopes are not what the law is.

 

[JRH6856]

Well, now. That simply begs for a legal challenge based on an undue burden on members of the public who would prefer to go armed but for the costs and bureaucratic hassle of obtaining a "license" to exercise a right. The TX state government remains unwilling to give up control over it's subjects when it comes to handguns. Unless all that is required is a simple procedure and payment of actual cost, this law is already DOA if challenged.

I'm glad to hear it. So can we assume that you will be open carrying in Texas on Jan 1 in order to create a test case?

 

[gun_with_a_view]

So can we assume that you will be open carrying in Texas on Jan 1 in order to create a test case?

Fools rush in, and my mama didn't raise no fool. An imbecile maybe, but not no fool. The sentence for gun violations in Texas is currently seven years as I understand it. I'll just sit back and wait for somebody to step off into the deep end and for the SA Foundation to pick up his case. It will be one to watch.

 

[gun_with_a_view]

You might think so, and many might hope so; but it still remains to be seen.

That is the danger lurking behind every litigation. One might lose the case. You just never know until the verdict is in.

 

[Frank Ettin]

You might think so, and many might hope so; but it still remains to be seen.

That is the danger lurking behind every litigation. One might lose the case. You just never know until the verdict is in.

If the litigation is a matter of principle hoping to set useful precedent, verdicts aren't the issue. What matters are the rulings of appellate courts. And the danger there, beyond the misfortune for the litigants, is the setting of bad precedent.

For example, Heller was for all the marbles. If Heller had come down rejecting the individual right model of the Second Amendment, a great deal would have been lost for all of us here.

 

[gun_with_a_view]

If Heller had come down rejecting the individual right model of the Second Amendment

A parade of horribles that would have been, indeed.

There was also a possibility SCOTUS would have ruled the right a handgun is a property right, albeit a fundamental one. A couple of law profs made a convincing argument to that effect which is archived in the amicus briefs for the petitioner in the Heller case:

B. Guns Are a Form of Property Subject
to Deferential Scrutiny.
Any individual right to keep and bear arms
unrelated to militia service would be essentially a
property right and, as such, ought to trigger deferen-
tial judicial scrutiny. Property rights are among the
oldest “fundamental” rights. See, e.g., Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Ry. Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 236 (1897). Nevertheless, for seventy years, this Court consistently has applied deferential forms of
scrutiny to laws that enhance public welfare by
regulating the ability of individuals to own or use
their real or personal property. Weapons safety laws,
which do no more than regulate the ability of indi-
viduals to own or use one particular type of personal
property, should receive the same judicial scrutiny
regardless of whether the right to bear arms is fun-
damental. This Court repeatedly has held that the right of
individuals to own and use property is subject to reasonable restriction. In
Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934)

http://www.americanbar.org/content/...tionerAmCuChemerinskyWinkler.authcheckdam.pdf

 

[Frank Ettin]

There was also a possibility SCOTUS would have ruled the right a handgun is a property right, albeit a fundamental one. A couple of law profs made a convincing argument to that effect which is archived in the amicus briefs for the petitioner in the Heller case.....

Convincing to whom? Not the Supreme Court. The Duke University amicus brief was not cited by either the majority or any of the dissents in Heller. Nor was the property right theory addressed at all in any of the Heller opinions.

The property rights theory was never on the table.

 

[gun_with_a_view]

The two profs made a fairly plausible argument in their brief. But since SCOTUS didn't buy into it, the life of their document was, in a word, brief. The decision in favor of Heller was 5-4. Who knows what would have happened if the court had been balanced a little more to the left.

 

[tomrkba]

I really want to get something decent to be seen in public with, but not something so nice that I'll be crestfallen if some pig throws me to the ground and scratches it

Milt Sparks can get you a matching holster, belt and ammo carrier before the deadline. Del Fatti and others may have a much longer waiting list.

However, if you're going to open carry, please get some retention and combatives training prior to doing so. I also recommend a modern holster such as the Safariland ALS (or variants). However, these are not attractive holsters.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

And OCT was pretty heavily into lobbying during the session. At least as much as any other pro OC lobbying effort, and I'll give them as much or more credit for their behind the scenes work especially countering the negative visibility of OCTC as I do the NRA or TSRA. They were all their in the front lines and in different ways, made a positive contribution to getting the bills passed.

The legislators that have the closest relations with OCT are the same ones that sponsored the amendment that almost sunk the whole deal. In terms of lobbying proficiency, OCT showed three positive traits:

1). They didn't waste legislators' time with 100 witnesses giving redundant testimony like Moms Demand Action - and they were smart enough to point out that fact to the legislature (although since Alice Tripp & Charles Cotton had criticized Grisham for this practice a year earlier during a podcast debate, the main positivity there was being able to recognize and use valid criticism)

2) They reversed and memory-holed their support of the Dutton-Rinaldi Amendment as "back door constitutional carry" very quickly once they realized where Acevedo was going with that.

3) OCT continues to improve their lobbying skills, albeit they started at such a low level there was hardly room to decrease; but as OCTC demonstrated, there was still room to do worse.

 

[JRH6856]

Now that the legislative/lobbying battle is over, the battle for credit continues.

It's no secret that OCT's goal was, and is "constitutional" carry (though since the Texas constitution gives the legislture the power to regulate carry, anything they decide to allow is in fact, "constitutional carry" so "unlicensed open carry" would be a more accurate label). I expect OCT to be pushing this again for the next session.

As you note, OCT is getting better and that they can learn from past mistakes can only be a good thing. OCTC is better ignored as all they have done is provide fodder for MDA and the like.