Quantcast

Open carry "victory", $25K payday.

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by wally, May 27, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Elkins45

    Elkins45 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Messages:
    5,683
    Location:
    Northern KY
    I don't disagree with anything you posted, except to point out that most of this discussion has revolved around the advisability or propriety of open carry in the particular circumstance, not the legality of the act.

    I will admit to having skimmed a bit of the last few posts, but has there been an advocation of making open carry illegal? I wouldn't have shown a visible gun in that ircumstand and in fact don't open carry at all (because the guy with the visible gun gets shot first) but I still think it should be legal.
     
  2. rondog

    rondog Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    6,838
    Location:
    Commurado
    I'd just like to know how much of that $25K actually made it to his hands, if any, after the IRS and the lawyer looted it. I hope he at least got to buy lunch.
     
  3. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,231
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    In the usual contingency fee arrangement, if the case settles the lawyer gets a third of the net (if it goes to trial the lawyer's cut often goes up to 40% -- 50%). Some States have laws limiting the lawyer's cut.

    Certain expenses, like filing fees, deposition costs, expert fees, etc., are deducted from the settlement proceeds before they are divided.

    So without consideration of costs, the lawyer here would have gotten around $8,000 and the client around $16,000. The client will probably pay taxes on his cut (as will the lawyer).
     
  4. Frank Ettin

    Frank Ettin Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    12,231
    Location:
    California - San Francisco Bay Area
    I should add the if this was a 42 USC 1983 action, the lawyer fees would be recoverable from the unsuccessful defendant. But in the case of a settlement, there might not or might not have been a separate arrangement for lawyer fees.
     
  5. Ed Ames

    Ed Ames Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,264
    Location:
    Tejas Norte
    There is an assumption that any time someone is arrested a crime has been committed.

    If the arrest was based on the law, the crime was the cause of the arrest. Mary hits Nancy, there is a law against hitting, Oscar arrests Mary for the crime. The justice system agrees that there was a crime.

    Now how about if Mary kisses Nancy, Oscar arrests Mary. Was there a crime?

    When a situation like this comes up, defending the arrest means asserting that the act which triggered the arrest was criminal. That doesn't mean you think there is a specific law against the type of action (kissing, open carry, whatever), or even that there should be, but it does mean you think that doing so was still a crime.

    One path through the maze is to say that with an arrest there is always a crime. If the act which led to the arrest wasn't the crime, then the arrest itself was. That's how it works if I (not a police officer) arrest someone. In that scenario, if Mary is released without charges Oscar uses his immunity to avoid prosecution for the crime of false arrest. In most cases that's the end of it. In some cases Mary (and Nancy) sue and receive compensation.

    That seems to be a close analogy to this situation.

    I took some of the posts as disagreeing with the settlement/agreeing with the arrest. That means they think that open carry is a crime (in this scenario). Not that new laws should be passed, but that the behavior was already criminal. The alternative is to think the arrest was the crime (though covered under immunity), a position I think those people would oppose.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2014
  6. jbrown50

    jbrown50 Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Messages:
    619
    Location:
    DC
    JohnKSa,

    To some people it would have been glaringly self evident and ill advised for anyone to carry a gun even concealed into any theater nationwide after the Aurora theater killings. Those same people would also like to see no guns carried at all from now on nationwide and would use "out of respect for the Aurora theater families and victims" as the reason. Those same people would also use Virginia Tech, Columbine, Sandy Hook and other tragedies as a reason why, out of the respect for the families and victims, we should forego the Second Amendment and terminate all private gun ownership nationwide.

    At what point do we put the brakes to this irrational thinking and point out the fact that Jim Mapes and millions of other responsible, law abiding and peaceful gun owners like him did not and would not commit the murders that those handful of criminals did?

    They keep looking at the gun and not considering the person behind the gun. We keep thinking that if we can appease them a little they'll back off a little and let us have our concealed carry. Well, guess what? They don't want us to have that either.
     
  7. Mainsail

    Mainsail Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,176
    Location:
    Washington
    I think that is where the divergence lies.

    Person A lives is state X. Person A considers the wearing of a firearm (openly or concealed) to be little different than the wear of a watch or sunglasses.

    Person B lives in state Y. Person B considers firearms differently that Person A- and there are a myriad of reasons why- shame, fear, culture, elitism, peer pressure, etc. Person B considers his or her position to be the paradigm in state X and Y, and thus cannot grasp the idea that other gun owners, and the general public, could think any differently. Person B cannot accept Person A's view of firearms carry.

    Those of us who actually DO open carry will always agree with Person A because we have real-life experience. To us, a sidearm on our belt is not the big deal it is to Person B. But here’s the catch- having done it (OC) we also have experience with the general public and discovered that the vast majority DO NOT think like Person B thinks they do or should. We aren’t assuming, or guessing, or projecting- WE HAVE SEEN WITH OUR OWN EYES.

    Person B opines the individual arrested should have been more sensitive to the general public and changed his normal behavior.

    Person A scratches his or her head and wonders what the big deal is.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2014
  8. wally

    wally Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,392
    Location:
    Houston, Tx
    It would be a lot easier if they would respect our sensitivity and enthusiasm towards firearms! Perhaps we should start there.
     
  9. Ankeny

    Ankeny Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2003
    Messages:
    2,131
    Yup, the city simply settled a nuisance lawsuit (in their view) to save the money they would have to spend to take it to court. I would imagine the plaintiff was all over the offer because his "damages" were minimal. Just a guess.
     
  10. 4v50 Gary

    4v50 Gary Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Messages:
    20,188
    I agree the taxpayers lose, but the party responsible has been indemnified by the employer. Hopefully the officers are trained in the law so that this mistake is not repeated. It would be good if there was a training bulletin issued by the state attorney general. We used to see that type of stuff read at briefing (and the sergeant would note down the date).
     
  11. Elkins45

    Elkins45 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Messages:
    5,683
    Location:
    Northern KY
    That is a very interesting idea, and one I hadn't considered before. Thanks for broadening my perspective.
     
  12. krupparms

    krupparms Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,044
    Location:
    OR. / State of Jefferson.
    A big problem is the police are indemnified against breaking the law! I was offerd 10k to settle my case! I took it to court & won! My award was alot less than the 10k! But the police were found guilty of violating my civil rights! This was a 2nd. amd. & 4th.amd. case. I was O.C.ing in my HOME! THE insurance company spent about 100k to defend the police. And then pay the award! Some would say I should have taken the money as I am disabled! But this was about doing the right thing! They even went so far as to disparage my service to the county! And said I just wanted money! These people need to lose their jobs! A police officer that breaks the law should be arrested by his fellow officers! If they don't they have just committed a crime themselves! There will never be a good time to O.C.if we worry about others sensitivity! There are things that bother my sensitivity, but are leagle. Should those people stop doing something leagle just because of my sensitivity? If you want to throw away my right to O.C. then I should be able to throw away the right to C.C.! Something I would not even think of! When anyone including LEOS break the law they should pay for it! As to sensitivity, I will worry about theirs, when they worry about mine!
     
  13. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    16,596
    Location:
    DFW Area
    That's a very good point. Since I first encountered this thread the day it opened, I have been polling my friends, family, and coworkers and reading the contents of other threads and online discussions to determine if what seemed painfully obvious to me was merely an outlying opinion. Thus far I have not found anyone who had not previously made it clear that they were "fundamentalist OC activists" who thinks that it was anything other than ill-advised to open carry into a theater in the Aurora area only a few days after the mass murder took place. It was refreshing to know that my grasp on reality is still strong, and it created opportunities for good discussions.
    Another very good point. And if influencing the public positively in the interest of gun rights is important then understanding how one's actions will affect others' feelings is very important.
    This is either a non sequitur or a strawman.

    If you are implying that my post should be construed to be a comment on whether or not the man's actions should be legal then it is a strawman. Nowhere in my post did I claim, or even imply, that what the man did was or should have been illegal.

    If you are implying that "ill-advised" is equivalent to "should be illegal", that is a non sequitur. Just because an action is legal does not mean it can't be ill-advised.
    It doesn't. That's why I have done and am doing my best to determine if what I thought was glaringly self-evident was, in actuality, a controversial subject amongst the general public. So far I haven't been able to come up with any evidence that calls the accuracy of my assessment into question.

    It's important for us to maintain a perspective that allows us to realize how the general public, as opposed to a group of dedicated open carry activists or admitted firearm enthusiasts, perceives certain activities.

    What I am saying is that all evidence points to a truly disturbing disconnect. Not just between what the general public thinks about the post-Aurora shooting open carry incident and what the dedicated open carry activists think, but also in how the average firearm enthusiast views the incident vs. the aforementioned OC activists.
    I would absolutely NOT want that either. And in the interest of avoiding having external controls applied in the form of anti-gun laws, it behooves us to be prudent in how we interact with the general public. That extends even to the types of activities and actions we support or decry.
    Interestingly enough, as regards this particular incident, there doesn't seem to be nearly the problem with this that one might expect. People I've talked to and the online discussions I've been able to peruse seem to be in nearly universal agreement that he shouldn't have been arrested for what he did. People seem to be readily able to understand that what he did was legal.
    I do not disagree with the settlement. I would have voted in favor of the plaintiff had I been on the jury. I do not agree with the arrest. I think that the police should have responded, verified that the man was acting rationally and then immediately left the scene.
    That is incorrect. A significant number of the persons I have polled and a number of the online discussions I have perused involve gun owners or even gun enthusiasts. There is no direct correlation between those who suggest that this man's actions were ill-advised and those who want to prevent all carry of handguns.

    There are groups who would like to use high-profile events as a springboard for passing anti-gun legislation, but it's a serious misconception to believe everyone who believes that the man's actions were unwise are also anti-gun.

    This is a common error I see among the more "fundamentalist" OC supporters. They try to dismiss any and all opposition as being anti-gun even when that classification is entirely inappropriate. It is a very effective technique to avoid having to consider opinions which might be different from one's own. By categorizing all opposition as anti-gun, a person is able to dismiss any and all input without having to objectively assess the concerns raised. It is one of the major reasons that the fundamentalist OC activists have become so philosophically disconnected from the rest of the firearm community.
    If you can figure out an effective way to tell the general public how to think then be my guest. Until you manage that, we, as the firearms community, are limited to affecting the general public by what we say and what we do.

    Therefore it is critically important that we think carefully about what we say and do and what effects our words and actions are likely to have on the general public.
     
  14. barnbwt

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    "Hopefully the officers are trained in the law so that this mistake is not repeated"
    Yup; a true-blue court victory probably wouldn't win a whole lot more for the plaintiff or our side in this arena, since it doesn't seem the city is really set on implementing the illegal police actions as a matter of course, and the financial loss is sufficient for them to take training/other measures to ensure these incidents do not occur often (or at least do not end in court losses or settlements often)

    Good enough, I say :cool:

    TCB
     
  15. Ed Ames

    Ed Ames Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,264
    Location:
    Tejas Norte
    It was aimed at people who disagree with the settlement/think open carrying in this situation was grounds for arrest. If you are not in that camp it is either a non sequitur or not aimed at you. I'll leave it for you to decide which as you like. I have talked to quite a few people eho "like guns" and very very few had even heard of the high road.

    The average firearms enthusiast IS the general public. They rarely know very much more than anyone else, and they are not particularly political about their views. Online forums tend to politicize people because there is only so much "9mm vs X" talk a person can stand.

    The gap extends between OC "activists" too. Of course there will be disagreements. The more generally aligned people are, the bigger those differences can seem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences describes it fairly well.

    Is it disturbing? I don't find it so. I find it typical.

    Example: I would never call myself an open carry activist or even advocate. I do not personally want to open carry, and honestly I would be just as happy if nobody did around me. I am an unregulated carry advocate. As in, I don't think the law should say anything on the subject, except maybe that saying anything is reserved to the state (for preemption/to avoid local laws). In the US system, that which is not forbidden is permitted, meaning unregulated could also be called unlicensed. I am willing to caccept regulation that explicitly allows unlicensed carry, but that's the extent of my compromise.

    If it isn't regulated, that means one could carry concealed or unconcealed, so technically I am an advocate for allowing open carry (and more)...but to me there is a huge distinction and I don't want the "open carry advocate" label applied to me. See what I said about small differences?
     
  16. Mainsail

    Mainsail Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,176
    Location:
    Washington
    You are right that there is a philosophical difference between the way you think and the way others in the community think.

    Not all of us that OC are 'activists' in any sense of the word. Like I said, I don't consider the wearing of a sidearm to be all that different than the wearing of a watch or sunglasses. Just because you cannot accept it doesn't mean it's wrong.

    The individual did nothing whatsoever that was illegal, improper, insensitive, or ill-advised. Just because some people, including some gun owners, don't agree doesn't change that.

    What the police did in this case is no different than the gun confiscations during hurricane Katrina. The idea that circumstances can somehow supersede the law is absurd.

    Does anyone believe the Katrina gun confiscations were proper? After all, in the heat of the moment a few people believed it was a good idea.
     
  17. orionengnr

    orionengnr Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,535
    Well said.
    I have asked for, and have not seen a response, to this simple question:
    Has there "ever" been a case of an OCer, or a CHLer committing a mass shooting?

    If the answer is "No", then I will continue to stand by this logic:
    The more people who OC or CC their weapons (and do not commit a crime) the more people will become inured to the idea of OC or CCing.

    People need to understand that law-abiding OC/CCers are not (and have never been, and will never be) the problem...but are part of the solution.

    Antis do not understand this, and will not readily accept this...but in the face of mounting/daily evidence, at a certain point will be unable to refute it.

    It will be a long journey, but as a wise man once said, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

    We do not have OC where I live (in TX), but we are working on it. Some who are working on it may (or may not) be helping...that is another discussion.

    If and when OC is legal here, I may do it on occasion. I will not be stupid or confrontational, but I look forward to having the option...

    Let's remember that "shall not be infringed..." and work to see it actualized.

    As far as the $25k...that is small change to any city...but if they have to keep paying out such judgements regularly, sooner or later, someone is going to take notice and start allocating some money for training instead of continuing to pay out settlements.
     
  18. krupparms

    krupparms Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,044
    Location:
    OR. / State of Jefferson.
    +1 for Orion.
     
  19. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    I just read through this entire thread again and noted the comments and those who seemed to think that Jim Mapes did nothing wrong by carrying in the theater (marked as "for") and those who think that Jim Mapes should not have open carried in the theater (marked as "against"). Again "for" just means they seemed to think he didn't do anything wrong, not necessarily that they fully support the open carry movement and would have done it themselves. Here are my results and I look forward to these specific people correcting me if I was wrong:

    MEHavey - against
    jbrown50 - for
    Robert - against - moderator
    NavyLCDR - for
    blarby - for
    Art Eatman - against - moderator
    XD Fan - against
    Mainsail - for
    Skribs - for
    barnbwt - for
    Frank Ettin - against - moderator
    hartcreek - for
    krupparms - for
    Cee Zee - against
    GLOOB - for
    tomrkba - for
    DAP90 - against
    RW Dale - against
    Elkins45 - against
    Warp - for
    stonecutter2 - for
    Arizona Mike - for
    wally - for
    JohnKSa - against
    Ed Ames - for

    10 people whose comments clearly suggested they thought Jim Mapes was wrong for open carrying in the theater - including all 3 moderators who posted - no surprise there.

    15 people whose comments suggested that they though Jim Mapes did nothing wrong by open carrying in the theater. Interesting, eh?

    You can get any results to any poll you want just by who you ask and how you ask the question. My survey was completely unsolicited and based only upon what comments people posted. I also don't find it surprising that the results JohnKSA received were received and posted by JohnKSA himself who happens to be in one of the top 10 anti-open carry states in the country - Texas.
     
  20. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    16,596
    Location:
    DFW Area
    Not at all. In fact, the average firearms enthusiast isn't even the average firearms owner. It's another step from there to get to the general public.
    Not really. What's interesting is that you think that the microcosm of this single thread is representative of the general firearms community, let alone the general public.
    That is not what I have observed. The disconnect is between the "fundamentalist OC activists" and the general firearm community, not to mention the general public.
    The individual did nothing whatsoever that was illegal. The rest of your statement, as NavyLCDR correctly pointed out, is not something you can state as fact because it is an opinion.

    It is critical for activists to avoid becoming so bogged down in one particular micro-society or become so wrapped up and blinded by a particular cause that they lose the ability to understand the perspective of others and that is what is going on with people like Mr. Mapes, the Chipotle folks and those who support their ill-advised actions.

    What I can tell you is that if you undertake the same kind of objective survey I have, there is every reason for me to believe that you will obtain the same results I have. Namely that you will find the people who believe the statement that this particular individual "did nothing whatsoever that was --, improper, insensitive, or ill-advised" are part of a tiny minority.
    From a purely practical, logical and objective viewpoint, this is true. However it is critically important that all gun owners, particularly those who, by their public actions, self-appoint themselves as spokespersons for the community, understand that not everyone shares their perspective and that their actions, if imprudent or ill-advised can cause significant harm to the cause of gun rights.
    This is a common error I see among the more "fundamentalist" OC supporters. They try to dismiss any and all opposition as being anti-OC or anti-gun even when that classification is entirely inappropriate. It is a very effective technique to avoid having to consider opinions which might be different from one's own. This strategy allows a person to dismiss any and all undesirable input without having to objectively assess the concerns raised. It is one of the major reasons that the fundamentalist OC activists have become so philosophically disconnected from the rest of the firearm community.
     
  21. Mainsail

    Mainsail Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,176
    Location:
    Washington
    When I was a poor young airman in Charleston back in the 80s, our small HOA voted to give the very large HOA next to ours, the tidy sum of $5000 as a gift for the maintenance of a common area that both communities shared. I argued against doing so- after all, why give them $5K? They're going to maintain the area just the same as they always had. They didn't ask for it, why give it? The counter argument was that (our) HOA wanted to merge with the large HOA, and this would be seen as a good-will gesture.

    Long story short- they took our $5K, but when our HOA approached them about merging, they quickly declined. Our homes were not in the same class as theirs, and they didn't want the extra aggravation.

    Good will gestures are great, but do not guarantee reciprocation.

    If the OCer elects not to carry in their normal everyday fashion as a gesture of good will due to some recent or nearby tragedy, do you really think the gun opponents will ever do likewise? Do you think they will back off their gun-ban position merely because I elect to hide my gun? Do you seriously believe they will appreciate gun ownership more simply because they didn't happen to see a gun for a few weeks? If you answered yes to any of those questions, you have lost touch with reality.

    You can't argue that gun banners will like us (gun owners) or accept us. What you're arguing for, at BEST, is for gun control proponents to dislike us maybe just a little less. Get over it- whether they see a gun or not, their feelings are not going to change.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2014
  22. MinnesotaFats

    MinnesotaFats Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2013
    Messages:
    247
    Location:
    The Land of 11,842 Lakes
    After reading this entire thread im on NavyLCDR's "for" side. I wouldnt give an inch so someone could take a mile. Where do you draw the line? Never OC in that area? Wait a month? John you think "polling" your buddies is somehow more representitive to the firearms community than the "microcosm of this single thread"? Gimmie a break.
     
  23. Ed Ames

    Ed Ames Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    4,264
    Location:
    Tejas Norte
    The average firearm owner, and the average firearm enthusiast, are both part of the general public.

    That is to say they are mainstream and hold the same views, in the same proportions, as anyone else because thier views are shaped by the same people as everyopinions. There are plenty of enthusiasts that go along with banning any type of gun they aren't personally interested in, for example, if the expert on the TV says it will help stop the crisis of violence sweeping the nation (never mind the statistics).

    As much to the point, the average owner or enthusiast is not trying to shape the opinions of the group.

    That combination - being shaped by, and not attempting to shape - is about the only useful definition of "general public" that exists.

    A few small splinters, e.g. people who spend too much time arguing in online forums, will startto take their views from alternative sources (thr forum echo chambers) and afraction of those people will attempt to start swaying opinions. Those are the people who are not representative of the general public.

    The dividing line has nothing to do with ownership or enthusiasm, it has to do with clique amd intent.
     
  24. krupparms

    krupparms Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,044
    Location:
    OR. / State of Jefferson.
    I have made this point before! But it bears repeating. One of the reasons I support O.C. is I am disabled & 55 .I know ALOT of people that cannot afford the fee for a C.C.PERMIT! IT PUTS A UNREASONABLE BURDEN ON THESE CITIZENS! NO STATE WILL HAND THEM OUT FREE THAT I KNOW OF :! A CITIZEN THAT IS DISABLED ALSO MAY NOT BE ABLE TO C.C.!WOULD YOU DENIED THESE CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS! AS LONG AS THEY CHARGE FOR PERMITS I CAN'T WORRY ABOUT SENSITIVITY! WHERE IS THE SENSITIVITY FOR THESE CITIZENS, ALOT OF O.C. FOKES ARE DISABLED VETERANS! THAT IS ONE VIEW THAT ALWAYS SEEMS TO GET LOST! AND I HAVE YET TO SEE THE WORD SENSITIVITY IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS! AND WHEN HAVE I SEEN SENSITIVITY FOR THE DISABLED OR VETERANS?
    Alot of service members also cannot afford permits eather.
    MAINSAIL : GREAT POST!
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2014
  25. JohnKSa

    JohnKSa Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2003
    Messages:
    16,596
    Location:
    DFW Area
    True enough. The problem is that gestures that generate ill will quite frequently produce negative results.
    Ah, this argument again.

    1. I haven't said that we need to make "gun banners" like us. I don't think it's possible and it would be foolish for me, or anyone else to work towards that goal.

    2. The focus here isn't the "gun banners", they are always against us. But they can not make significant gains against us unless they can garner support from the general public. This is why we always see a push after a mass shooting. The "gun banners" are using the emotions generated amongst the general public by the mass shooting to provide temporary power for their ongoing agenda.

    Your statement, while correct has nothing to do with my comments nor with any practical approach to advancing and preserving gun rights.

    The issue here is that we must do what we can to avoid activities that can easily be foreseen to generate the emotional support from the general public that the gun banners need to achieve their goals.

    Note the word "emotional". This isn't about hard facts, this is about the perceptions and feelings of the general public.
    All of your questions are non sequiturs and/or strawmen. They have nothing to do with anything I've said and the conclusions you're drawing from them don't follow. This is another symptom of the disconnect I'm trying to point out.
    Yes, that is true. However the general public, while containing firearm owners and firearm enthusiasts is made up of many more groups and therefore it is completely false to represent "firearm enthusiasts" as being the same as "the general public".

    A simple example of this concept is: "My car has tires, but my car is not a tire."

    Because the general public is made up of more than just firearms enthusiasts and firearm owners, the views of the general public are not representative of the views of the average firearm enthusiast or even the average firearm owner and certainly not of the minority of gun enthusiasts who fit the description of "OC activists". That's what's under discussion here.
    With only very few exceptions, it is safe to say that no one here at THR is representative of the general public.

    I don't really know what to tell you if you honestly believe that the views of the average firearm enthusiast are the same as the views of the general public. If it were true, it would be much easier and a lot simpler to advance and preserve firearm rights. Unfortunately it is not true.
    That is one of the reasons I support OC as well.

    Because my comments are unpopular with some and my arguments are difficult to answer, they will attempt to falsely characterize me as anti-OC. It is a simpler solution than addressing the concerns I feel that I must raise. In reality, one of the reasons I find it impossible to keep quiet on this topic is because some of the actions being advocated/supported here are very likely to have a negative impact on OC as well as on gun rights in general.

    In TX, one of the primary focuses of the TSRA in the next legislative session was to be the push for passage of OC in TX. Unfortunately, the recent demonstrations have complicated the situation and may actually stall the effort for another few years. That will be costly to persons like yourself who can not afford the cost of permits.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2014
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice