Very WELL said Ma'am

I couldn't figure out how to embed a article so here it is from the Austin American Statesman. No additional License, Fee, or Training, only making brief mention of proper retention holsters during the CHL class.



The Texas Senate gave initial approval Monday to a bill allowing for holstered handguns to be openly carried, turning aside a flurry of amendments from Democrats in a series of party-line votes.

On a 20-11 vote, the Senate�s Republicans approved Senate Bill 17, with final passage likely for Tuesday, the same day a House committee will hold its first public hearing on a similar measure.

Also Tuesday, the Senate will hold its initial vote on a second gun measure, allowing concealed handguns in college and university buildings.

SB 17 would allow those with a concealed handgun license to openly carry firearms in a shoulder or belt holster. The bill also would let business owners forbid openly carried handguns on their premises by displaying prominent signs.

�We have about 800,000 concealed handgun license holders in this state that I feel like have been vetted and trained and can be trusted,� said the bill�s author, Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls.

�I believe in freedom,� Estes said. �The question we should ask is not why can they (openly carry handguns), but why are they forbidden from doing this?�

Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, said the bill was a solution in search of a problem.

�What are you really trying to accomplish today? Help me,� Whitmire said. �The really, really average Texan does not understand the relevance of your proposals (or see) how they would make Texas a better place to work or live.�

The 20 Senate Republicans turned aside Democratic amendments that would have banned openly carried guns in city halls or within 1,000 feet of public parks. Democrats also failed in attempts to allow cities and counties to opt in or opt out of the state�s open carry law or to require those openly carrying handguns to also display their concealed handgun license as an aid to police officers.

Whitmire offered an amendment banning open carry in the Capitol, warning that the large number of schoolchildren who visit would be put at risk if a �disturbed person� grabbed an available gun from a holster.

�It�s not if it�s going to happen, it�s when,� Whitmire said, his voice rising to a shout. �You�re making a huge mistake.�

Calling Whitmire�s fears far-fetched, Estes said he did not want to exempt the Capitol from a law that other government offices will have to follow.

Monday�s vote came on the first day the Senate could vote on a bill that had not been declared an emergency by Gov. Greg Abbott.

Estes amended his bill to delay implementation until Jan. 1, 2016, saying the Department of Public safety asked for the four-month delay to help it prepare.

Estes also accepted amendments from Sen. Judith Zaffirini, D-Laredo, requiring that handgun license instruction include information on retention holsters and techniques to securely carry handguns, and one from Sen. Joan Huffman, R-Houston, clarifying that open carry would not be allowed in buildings or public areas of college campuses.

SB 17 would not change the requirements to receive a concealed handgun license, and a current license holder would not have to reapply to openly carry a handgun.

am very upset thiers so much mixed feelings from gun owners and sportmen, texas is one of only a handful of states that did not have some form of open carry. I was not proud that my state was named with the other ones listed. I agree the best method is concealed, but that should be up to each person, as some one else said at least now if your handgun is shown by mistake u want be in trouble as it is now printing could get you in trouble. As for you folks with mixed or out right against open carry do a little research on what states have open carry of some type and ones that totally ban it.

Eddie Ray Routh, possibly?

BTW, what is a pleb? Short for plebiscite, maybe? Not familiar with that word....

Am I apathetic regarding this specific topic ? Perhaps. I am a CHL holder. My "meh" comment was meant to shorten a post which would have went something like this: "Being a CHL holder now, I don't believe I would partake in the ability to open carry. It makes me no difference if they pass it or not. I don't see myself doing it."
But since I have now typed it anyway, I suppose I should have just typed it out initially.

Once the novelty of it wears off in a few weeks, the whole state will say one big MEH. I doubt you will personally see more than 2 or 3 people a year open carrying unless you work at a gun shop or a range.

Who would be the first person to be shot by some nut at a location. I say he shoots the open carry guy to eliminate his threat.

What does Routh have to do with open carry? He killed people while at a shooting lane in the gun range, didn't he? Are you suggesting that guns be banned at the shooting lanes of the gun range?

And pleb is short for plebeian. Common folk.

I'm all for options, I can't say with a certainty that I would partake in this one though.

Ah, plebian makes better sense than plebiscite. I learned something new.

I had earlier opined that some crazy citizen could grab an openly carried sidearm from the holster and start blazing away. My reference to Routh is that it was possible that he may have snatched Kyle's gun from the holster and used it on Littlefield and Kyle. Or maybe not.

FYI, the Dallas Morning News, probably the most conservative large city newspaper in the country, wrote in today's editorial a scathing denouncement of open carry. The DMN noted that they have always supported the Second Ammendment and have always supported concealed carry. But this open carry idea harkens back to "Frontier Texas" and is "Rootin' Tootin' Madness." I kinda agree.

I just love the guys on here that don't like the idea of open carry themselves so they think it should not be legal for everyone else. LOL

That is straight from the liberal playbook.

Actually texretvet, it is straight from the First Amendment playbook, which shockingly, is just as important as the Second. Civil discourse, even disagreement, is healthy among people who are otherwise like-minded. And just because perhaps 80% of us support open carry, the 20% of us who do not have NO mandate to succumb to the shout-down of the rabble mob.

Even Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the affirming opinion in Heller vs District of Columbia (undeniably a great victory for us gun owners) that the Second Amendment right is NOT unlimited. Local government has a right to restrict gun access to felons or the mentally ill. Government has a right to restrict carry in sensitive places, like schools, courtrooms, and government buildings. And government has a right to restrict sales of any weapons that aren't in "common use". And government, at least on the local level, is a servant of the individual citizen.

We may disagree on the finer points of the Second Amendment, but I will hunt hogs or eat BBQ with the most strident open carry proponent. And have a great time. Every time.

X2

I would like to see all of the gunowners not being divided on a gun issue. United we stand, divided we fall (against the liberals).

Someone chooses to conceal all the time, fine, that is their right to do so. Someone else chooses to "mostly conceal", fine that is their right to do so. And finally another person decides it is in his best interest, in a certain situation to open carry, again, his right. Why decide you don't want to do something, so everyone else can't do it either?

I will stay concealed, or mostly concealed, but I'm not going to tell another person they have to conceal because I choose to.

I just speak from experience. I was a uniform police officer for 18 years, and have been plainclothes for the past nine. How many years have you open carried? I know what the difference is between open carry and concealed. If you don't think wearing that gun for all the world to see doesn't change how you handle yourself in a public place you are naive. If it doesn't change how you handle yourself you are just being foolish. I'm glad Texas has passed this law and I support it 100%. You do need to make adjustments to daily activities though.

Choctaw, I wasn't questioning you years of being an LEO I knew you were already, I asked about the other 44 states having folks who open carry get picked off because they're open carrying?

As for the rest of your post, I wholeheartedly agree.

My fear exactly! Concealed is out of sight, out of mind. I believe many businesses don't realize how many guns walk in and out of their doors each day. Once they do, I think many more will post signs.

Does anyone know which states make up this 44 number I keep hearing? I have travelled in all but 3 states in America and have never seen anyone open carry except in Alaska, Montana and Wyoming. Been around hundreds of thousands of people and have only seen LEO's open carry in the other states.

Open Carry Map

Just incase you don't click links

My question is this. Why can we not sue these businesses for violating our constitutional rights? If I put a sign up in front of my business that says "No Muslims" or "No Catholics" then you will see me on the news and in court for violating their 1st Amendment rights. Why is it ok for businesses to violate our 2nd Amendment rights?

Because our right to keep and bear arms isn't spelled out explicitly. And it's one of those "rights" that they feel the need to limit, based on its vagueness, instead of letting it run rampant, based on its vagueness. Therefore they say "if it's not spelled out, it doesn't cover it"... And yes, they use that interpretation at their will, depending on the "right" in question.

"Because our right to keep and bear arms isn't spelled out explicitly..."

Well, that certainly isn't true at all. The Second Amendment is very clear and explicit about our right to bear arms. They spelled it out like this: "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That's crystal clear to me. And it was crystal clear to SCOTUS when they ruled as much in District of Columbia v. Heller, where the court held that "the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

However, I still believe that a private business has the right to allow or not allow you to bring your guns on their property, because I believe in private property rights and free markets. The right to bear arms shall not be restricted by the government, either through law or regulation. However, it can be restricted by private individuals and businesses. It's an important distinction.

So do yall agree with S#s on a gun? Kinda stepping into that shall not be infringed thing

Best book I've ever read re gun rights is The second Amendment Primer by Les Adams. It goes into the history of weapons laws from early Europe, the Constitution and US historical Legislation.

It's pretty inexpensive and I highly recommend it.