Open Carry In Texas - For or Against?

I support open or concealed carry with a license. You need a license to drive on public roads, you should be able to pass a simple written / practical exam with a firearm if you want to carry. That is not a form of rights oppression, it's making sure you are aware of your rights and everyone else's. Your rights end where the next persons begins. It's the responsibility side of the rights coin. Originally Posted by junkweed

Agree 100%.

"That's a very old lie that keeps growing every time someone tells it".

The 1980 study that gave rise to the statistic that "guns in the home were 10X more likely to injure a family member as a criminal" did suffer from some serious flaws -- but, numerous subsequent studies in prestigious, peer-reviewed academic journals draw essentially the same statistical conclusion.

The New England Journal of Medicine published a comprehensively-investigated study of firearms-related deaths and injuries in Memphis, Galveston and Seattle over an 18-month period in 2000 and found that for every 1 justifiable use of a firearm in the home, there were 4 accidental shootings, 7 assaults with a deadly weapon and/or homicides involving family members and 11 attempted or successful suicides.

The 2004 National Follow-back Mortality Study, published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, analyzed death certificates from 49 states (excluding only South Dakota, whose laws prohibit the use of death certificates for statistical purposes) over a 13-month period and concluded (at a statistical confidence index level of 95%) that the presence of firearms in the home was associated with a 7.6X greater likelihood of violent death. The study did not examine non-fatal injuries.

Unless you think that adding in South Dakota would throw the statistics your way, the statistical evidence is pretty compelling.

But my original point had nothing to do with whether or not guns in the home are a smart idea. You are entitled to protect your homestead.

My point was that I think the growing number of people carrying guns (concealed or not) in public, and the national rush to lower the threshold enabling someone to carry a gun in public, is bad for society as a whole. Exporting the collateral damage implicit in the above statistics into public just ain't smart public policy.

Here in Texas (according to DPS statistics), holders of Concealed Handgun Licenses are 5X more likely to be convicted of threatening someone with a firearm (compared to the unlicensed public); 2.5X more likely to be convicted of a weapons offense; and 2.3X more likely to be convicted of offenses involving death due to a firearm.

I don't think this is because people who have Concealed Handgun Licenses are bad people -- hell, the statistics show they are generally more law-abiding than the public at large.

I think it is because they have a gun at their disposal when "shit happens". And that's what scares me.

When I started this thread I was not sure anyone would even weigh in on the subject..... I was truly not prepared for the intellectual and fact based arguments and positions presented. Apparently hobbyists can be a rather intellectual group....

Personally, I prefer concealed carry. I am wary of open carry just because of the inherent potential that it has to incite a public scene...... i.e. people at McDonald's freaking out because some individual is carrying openly..... Also, you still retain the element of surprise that concealed gives you. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the idea of being able to strap on a REALLY NICE BELT & HOLSTER SET made by Lucchese (look it up if you don't know who Luccheses is - if you live in Texas you need to know!) or a custom leather shop and put in two REALLY BIG HAND CANNONS.... but the reality is, at current, it would more than likely cause a big stir....... Furthermore, it has been my distinct impression since joining this board that most of us are all about flying UNDER THE RADAR...... and that's why I'm sticking with concealed even if Open Carry is made law.

I look at it three ways - the tactical, comfort factor, and the constitutional.

From the tactical standpoint, I totally agree that I would carry concealed in most cases, just so that I'd have that moment of surprise if push comes to shove.

Comfort-wise - open carry would win, hands down, especially in Texas. We just don't have many months where you can conveniently dress in enough layers to easily conceal carry. I put mine at the small of my back under my shirt, but then I look rather sloppy with an untucked shirt, and I often sweat all over it (I only really carry when I'm out walking my pups or headed into a really shady part of town).

From the standpoint of "rights", I think it shouldn't even be a question - constitutional carry - no permits, no registration. It's right there in the Bill of Rights, and while legal scholars may disagree, I've always interpreted the BoR to be universal rights guaranteed to the individual, rather than just applying as a restriction on the federal government, so I don't see why any state should be able to restrict any of the rights at all. Of course, we all know that's not reality, but I strongly believe that was intended at the time of ratification.

I think that any comparison to a driver's license is incorrect, though - driving has always been termed as a privilege, not a right. Bearing arms is a right. Of course, as a counter-point, I actually think that driving should be a right as well...if for no other reason than to stick it to all of those pain in the ass driver's ed teachers and defensive driving coaches (they'd have to re-learn their whole spiel).

From a public perception point, I see police open carry all the time, and while that isn't the common citizen and not directly applicable, I don't see anyone cowering in fear of "that evil gun", so the mere sight of an unconcealed gun doesn't seem to bother anyone. And to be honest, I trust my neighbors and fellow citizens more than I would typically trust the government (not a knock on police - just a statement saying that I don't suspect the worst from people - I just prepare in case I'm wrong).

Or, to put it simply, as a friend of mine says "An armed society is a polite society"...and we could all use more politeness, I think. And when was the last time you read about an attempted mass-shooting at a gun show or gun store?

Or, to put it simply, as a friend of mine says "An armed society is a polite society"...and we could all use more politeness, I think. And when was the last time you read about an attempted mass-shooting at a gun show or gun store? Originally Posted by Luvdatpuddy

Although I fully respect your opinions, I disagree with almost all of them. Japan, for example is a much more polite society than ours and they have banned handguns forever. In the year for the attached data, U.S. had 9,960 gun homicides and Japan had 11.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...nership/table/

As stated in the article:

"The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the highest per capita rate of firearm-related murders of all developed countries."

Regarding your last statement about an attempted mass shooting at a gun show. You do realize that NO ONE entering a gun show is allowed in with a loaded weapon by Federal law. There are in all likelihood more people carrying concealed handguns at the local Walmart. So the your statement that no one has attempted a mass shooting at a gun show is based on incorrect assumptions.

As for your comments on open carry. I think you underestimate the percentage of people who do NOT want to see people openly carrying. It bothers MOST people. While I support the concept of open carry, I prefer to not see guns in public places. The only poll I could find on the subject had 24% of the respondents supporting open carry in restaurants and stores. If you can find information that states otherwise I would like to see it.

Finally, the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This amendment has, by far, been the most discussed amendment to the Constitution.
Do me a favor and google something like "Meaning of the second amendment" and see what comes up. Here is one:

Source: http://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard. It was deemed a compromise between Federalists — those who supported the Constitution as it was ratified — and the anti-Federalists — those who supported states having more power. Having just used guns and other arms to ward off the English, the amendment was originally created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against a tyrannical federal government.

Since its ratification, Americans have been arguing over the amendment's meaning and interpretation. One side interprets the amendment to mean it provides for collective rights, while the opposing view is that it provides individual rights.


Those who take the collective side think the amendment gives each state the right to maintain and train formal militia units that can provide protection against an oppressive federal government. They argue the "well regulated militia" clause clearly means the right to bear arms should only be given to these organized groups. They believe this allows for only those in the official militia to carry guns legally, and say the federal government cannot abolish state militias.


Those with the opposite viewpoint believe the amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, free of federal regulations, to protect themselves in the face of danger. The individualists believe the amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.


All I'm trying to point out is that no matter what side of the issue you are on, you are right or wrong depending on which interpretation of the second amendment you choose to believe. "It's right there in the Bill or Rights" is meaningless.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this, sir. While you are quite correct in that no one (besides police, of course) have loaded fire arms at gun shows, many people park "ammo vans" right across the street and sell munitions as you're leaving (at least they always had them at the gun shows I went to in Houston), so knowing that 500 people could storm across the street, arm up, and gun you down probably lessens the incentive. Even putting aside this point, I don't think it's really much of a coincidence that the majority of mass shootings take place in "gun free zones" where the killer can be pretty confident that no one will be shooting back.

Japan - well, I think there are much broader cultural differences between us and Japan that highly contribute to this as well. They tend to be a much more polite and respectful people that we do, which permeates all aspects of their society.

And while my perspective on the Bill of Rights was really my perspective, my reading of the Heller decision leads me to believe (and I may be wandering out of bounds, but I believe it is the majority viewpoint) that the Supreme Court has determined that the second amendment applies to the individual, not a formalized militia. Obviously has been hotly contested over the years - "does 'well-regulated' militia" indicate a requirement, or does it indicate a supportive reason for the individual right?". The initial reason for its creation is exactly as you cited, I believe - an armed populate could form up to fight the British, and at any point, every able bodied man would be called up, which is probably what blurred the line on "is it an individual or collective right?".

I absolutely agree that the U.S. has probably the highest level of gun ownership in the world, although I'd have to research the per-capita murder rate, as I believe it has been trending downward over the last 20 years or so (generally speaking), which has been happening as gun laws are loosening rather than tightening. Now, while this doesn't definitely indicate "causation", I believe it is an important point to consider. Pew Research Center study is located here http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/...ublic-unaware/. It's a little old (2013), but seems to indicate that despite our violent tendencies as a species, we're learning.

As for the people that "don't want to see open carry"...well, that's a matter of preference and dare I say possible squeamishness (not applying it to everyone who believes this, but probably a factor for some), which does not (again, my opinion) trump personal rights. However, I have no data to detract or counter your viewpoint, so I'm totally willing to concede that you have cited a majority opinion. Of course, aside from a few wingnuts, I don't think that many people really would open carry after the original thrill pales, so I think that the "fear of the problem" would likely be much larger than the problem itself.

I'm not a legal scholar by any definition, I just read up about this, and very interested in the second amendment (and all of the others for that matter)...I lean towards a civil libertarian viewpoint, which probably explains my outlook.

Love hearing the other side, though, sir. Thank you for a well-constructed and presented viewpoint! In the end...is there a "right" or "wrong"...probably not. We all just have our opinions, and frankly, if there was more live and let live, this world would be a happier place.

I, too, have been reading up on second amendment rights for years and discussing the issues on many forums.

Regarding your statement on the majority of mass shootings occurring in gun free zones.

Source: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...mass-shootings

"Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location."

Do you realize that every day there are no killings in tens of thousands of gun free zones? My home, my office building, my bank, all the schools across the nation.
The difficult question to answer is whether or not anybody would have been killed had
guns been allowed in those locations? No way to answer. I do remember an incident at a NE Austin strip club in which 2 guys got into a fight inside the club (a gun free zone), carried the fight outside at which time one of the guys got a gun from his vehicle and shot and killed the other guy. An incident where the gun free zone worked.

The Heller decision -- definitely a landmark decision in gun rights. Remember it was only a 5-4 decision. 5 Conservative leaning judges voting for, 4 Liberal leaning judges voting against. I happen to agree with the decision. But the decision also made it clear that certain existing gun control laws were valid.

Source: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...ler-30295.html

And, although the Supreme Court's decision adopted the broader, individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court also made it clear that the right to own a gun continues to have a number of significant qualifications or restrictions, including:

• Not everyone can own a gun. The right does not extend to felons or the mentally ill.
• Guns cannot be carried everywhere. Laws forbidding individuals from carrying firearms in "sensitive" places, such as schools and government buildings, will probably stand.
• Certain restrictions on the sale of guns are allowed. Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms will most likely stand.
• Individuals do not have the right to carry certain types of guns. The right does not protect guns that are not generally owned for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Just what kind of handguns may be possessed is not explicitly set forth in the opinion (apart from the one specific reference to sawed-off shotguns, which are not allowed). The Court did endorse the "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons,'" but did not state whether such weapons include assault weapons or semi-automatic weapons.
• Concealed weapons. Laws forbidding people to carry concealed weapons on their person (or in a place close at hand, such as the glove compartment of a car) probably remain valid.
• Sentence enhancements. A variety of criminal laws provide for increased punishment of offenders who use weapons when committing a crime. Heller does not affect the validity of these laws.

Regarding statistics on the decrease in homicide rates, and violent crime in general, in the U.S. over the last 20 years, as the PEW article states, the real causes behind the drop is open to discussion. Obviously gun rights groups like the NRA state the reason is more guns on the street in the hands of law-abiding citizens. In Texas, the number of CHL holders has gone from 0% to about 3% of the eligible population. Do you really think that criminals about to commit a crime think about the fact that 3 out of every 100 people might be carrying a handgun?

Finally, if you don't like me comparing the U.S. homicide rate vs. the Japan homicide rate, then look at the homicide rates in other countries similar to the U.S. The U.S. had 3.2 homicides per 100,000 people. Germany .19. France .06. Canada .51. Italy .71. Spain .2. England/Wales .07. Switzerland .77. Australia .14. I think you get the point.

Good discussion. Please don't stereotype me as a gun control freak. Yes, I don't believe in "Constitutional carry" and I do believe that people carrying guns in public should be properly trained on them and know their legal boundaries in using them. I do know that we still have a serious problem in the U.S. regarding gun homicides. The rate has dropped but it is hard to say how good that fact is when more than 8,000 homicides still occur each year in the U.S.

Sorry for the length of the post.

I would absolutely not qualify you, nor draw the conclusion that you're a "gun control nut". In my way of thinking, that is someone who debates only using worst-case scenarios, fear, and paranoia, none of which I find in your posts.

Much of what you say is valid, I think. I don't know how much the "gun free" zones "work", but I do find the correlation between them and mass-shootings interesting. However, I was not implying "causation", so much as pointing out the correlation, despite the way I may have phrased it.

Heller is definitely a split decision, and a 5-4 decision does not put this issue into the category of "settled law", or at least not with the same weight as say "Brown vs. Board of Education" (9-0). I could absolutely see it being overturned by a future court, although I personally would be disappointed if that happened. Regardless, I respect the call of the Supreme Court, even with other decisions that I don't personally agree with. And it certainly is nuanced in the particulars. Now, some aspects of those restrictions, I personally agree with (felons can't own guns), but disagree with from a constitutional perspective (if a felon has served his/her time, and is a free citizen not on parole, then I think they should be allowed to have a gun - constitutionally speaking...even if I'd rather they personally didn't have one).

Sentence enhancements are a real can of worms in my book. Never understood how those were valid. I mean, if someone robs me, whether they use a gun or not, I still got robbed. Or hate crimes, to take a non-relevant example...why would it be worse for a white guy to kill a black guy (just an example) due to racial prejudice...the other combinations don't include a special added penalty (white on white, black on black). At the end of the day, someone got killed by someone else is the way I look at it. However, it is the law, no matter how I may personally disagree with it.

Location restriction - now this one is mostly hypocrisy, I think. Most of those areas are where law makers are present (state capitols, congress, etc.). Sure there are others (colleges, some areas schools, etc.), but the message that I take away from the lawmaker aspect is "you can have your gun, just don't have it around me", which is a case of a politician saying "what's good for the common person doesn't apply to me".

As for the "certain types of weapons" banned (which I assume you're referring to the 1934 law), yep...so far, it has withstood judicial challenge, although I suspect that as more momentum builds for "gun rights" (which seems to be the legal trend more than the reverse right now - at least at the federal level), this will likely be challenged many more times. But, as you stated, right now, it is considered settled law. I believe the original rationale was to help combat organized crime rather than the common citizen, but regardless, it applies to everyone. I suspect (and I may very well be wrong on this), that this will eventually be overturned as well, or technological innovations will make it obsolete at some point. I've never really understood "why" it mattered how you killed someone - you killed them...killing is illegal, punish killing, not the tool. A simplistic view, perhaps, but I'm a simple guy.

Nope - wasn't pointing out that "more concealed carry permits = less crimes". Just pointing out that while gun laws are loosening (generally), population is increasing, and gun violence rates are going down regardless. I wasn't stating that to "prove my point", but rather to refute the notion that "less gun control = more murder", which is really doesn't seem to be the case.

I'll have to look into those various rates in Europe...I know in Switzerland, the murder rate is extremely low, despite a very high level of gun ownership, but will dig into the particulars on the other countries.

Very nice responses. BTW, the "certain types of weapons" is not my statement. The Supreme Court was simply stating
that existing gun control laws were unchanged based on the Heller decision.

Okay, here's something that happened this week that really pisses me off. The open carry bill is certain to pass this year in Texas. However, supporters of a bill forcing colleges to allow concealed carry in Texas public college dorms and classrooms with a valid CHL has fading support. So the supporters are trying to attach the concealed carry bill to the open carry bill. Give me a break!! This is NOT how government is supposed to work. Yes, I realize that all too often it does work like this but that doesn't make it right.

On this, sir, I 100% agree. Personally, I've always thought that any law (and there should be a "complexity limit" to a law) should be a "single-issue"...allow an up/down vote on that issue, and move on to the next one. Omnibus bills, 80 amendment packages, etc., really irritate me, because often you can have a bad law coupled with a good one, so then lawmakers are forced to choose whether or not they consider it "worth it" to get what they consider needed passed.

Absolutely the way it works, for sure, but I hate it as well - each idea/law/issue should stand/fall on it's own merits.

I, too, have been reading up on second amendment rights for years and discussing the issues on many forums.

Regarding your statement on the majority of mass shootings occurring in gun free zones.

Source: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...mass-shootings

"Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location."

Do you realize that every day there are no killings in tens of thousands of gun free zones? My home, my office building, my bank, all the schools across the nation.
The difficult question to answer is whether or not anybody would have been killed had
guns been allowed in those locations? No way to answer. I do remember an incident at a NE Austin strip club in which 2 guys got into a fight inside the club (a gun free zone), carried the fight outside at which time one of the guys got a gun from his vehicle and shot and killed the other guy. An incident where the gun free zone worked.

The Heller decision -- definitely a landmark decision in gun rights. Remember it was only a 5-4 decision. 5 Conservative leaning judges voting for, 4 Liberal leaning judges voting against. I happen to agree with the decision. But the decision also made it clear that certain existing gun control laws were valid.

Source: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...ler-30295.html

And, although the Supreme Court's decision adopted the broader, individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court also made it clear that the right to own a gun continues to have a number of significant qualifications or restrictions, including:

• Not everyone can own a gun. The right does not extend to felons or the mentally ill.
• Guns cannot be carried everywhere. Laws forbidding individuals from carrying firearms in "sensitive" places, such as schools and government buildings, will probably stand.
• Certain restrictions on the sale of guns are allowed. Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms will most likely stand.
• Individuals do not have the right to carry certain types of guns. The right does not protect guns that are not generally owned for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Just what kind of handguns may be possessed is not explicitly set forth in the opinion (apart from the one specific reference to sawed-off shotguns, which are not allowed). The Court did endorse the "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons,'" but did not state whether such weapons include assault weapons or semi-automatic weapons.
• Concealed weapons. Laws forbidding people to carry concealed weapons on their person (or in a place close at hand, such as the glove compartment of a car) probably remain valid.
• Sentence enhancements. A variety of criminal laws provide for increased punishment of offenders who use weapons when committing a crime. Heller does not affect the validity of these laws.

Regarding statistics on the decrease in homicide rates, and violent crime in general, in the U.S. over the last 20 years, as the PEW article states, the real causes behind the drop is open to discussion. Obviously gun rights groups like the NRA state the reason is more guns on the street in the hands of law-abiding citizens. In Texas, the number of CHL holders has gone from 0% to about 3% of the eligible population. Do you really think that criminals about to commit a crime think about the fact that 3 out of every 100 people might be carrying a handgun?

Finally, if you don't like me comparing the U.S. homicide rate vs. the Japan homicide rate, then look at the homicide rates in other countries similar to the U.S. The U.S. had 3.2 homicides per 100,000 people. Germany .19. France .06. Canada .51. Italy .71. Spain .2. England/Wales .07. Switzerland .77. Australia .14. I think you get the point.

Good discussion. Please don't stereotype me as a gun control freak. Yes, I don't believe in "Constitutional carry" and I do believe that people carrying guns in public should be properly trained on them and know their legal boundaries in using them. I do know that we still have a serious problem in the U.S. regarding gun homicides. The rate has dropped but it is hard to say how good that fact is when more than 8,000 homicides still occur each year in the U.S.

Sorry for the length of the post.
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Is prostitution a felony?

Oh and use of mother jones as a source=lol

In New York City, there were 328 homicides in 2014, the lowest since at least 1963.
No open carry. Very few CHLs granted. Purchasing a handgun difficult. All-in-all, if you are a gun rights advocate you don't want to live in NYC. Yet it is one of the safest cities in the U.S.

BTW, I was wondering if you have actually been in one of the major cities in Arizona (there are no major cities in Alaska , Vermont, Wyoming or Kansas) and have actually seen people openly carrying handguns. If so, what percent of the adults are carrying openly? Just interested in what one might expect in Texas. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

NYC, what about Chitgaco? I could also argue Williamson is statically safer for violent crime and has one of the highest conceal carry rates nationally.

Oh and use of mother jones as a source=lol Originally Posted by 30seconds

If you don't like mother jones as a source, here are some other sources which argue that the shooters did not pick out their targets based on whether or not they were gun free zones;

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09...un-free/195927

http://www.westword.com/news/gun-con...-zones-5856078

Let's look at the major recent mass killings in the U.S.:

Ft. Hood April 2014: Ivan Lopez killed 4 people and wounded 16 others. Had an argument hours earlier came back armed and opened fire in the same building.

Ft. Hood November 5, 2009 -- Major Hassad shot 13 people and wounded 30 others. Hassad was upset with the army for not accepting his religious views.

Columbine HS -- April 20, 1999 -- 2 students at Columbine HS killed 13 people.

Virginia Tech -- April 16, 2007 -- Seung Hui-Cho, a senior at VT killed 32 and wounded 17.

Washington Naval Yard -- September 16, 2013 -- Aaron Alexis, who worked at the naval yard, shot and killed 12 people.

Aurora, Colorado -- July 20 2012 -- James Holmes kills 12 and injures 70 others.The movie theater was one Holmes was most familiar with.

In every one of these mass shootings, there is a strong connection between the shooter and the site of the killings. There is absolutely no proof that the sites were chosen because they were gun free zones. Also, in the majority of the instances the shooter did not expect to live so the only possible reason in arguing that he purposely chose a gun free zone in which to do his killings is that he could kill a few more people than in a non gun free zone before being killed. Ridiculous.

NYC, what about Chitgaco? I could also argue Williamson is statically safer for violent crime and has one of the highest conceal carry rates nationally. Originally Posted by 30seconds

I made it very clear in my first post that arguments can be made equally by gun rights supporters and gun control supporters on just about every gun related issue. If you will re-read my posts, all I am doing is pointing out that their are 2 sides to each argument.