Open Carry Texas Finally Backs Down

Image courtesy of businessinsider.com

Image courtesy of businessinsider.com

Earlier this week, I wrote an article about the recent open carry incidents in Texas where some individuals have made it a point to carry assault weapons in public and into private establishments, in protest of Texas law which does not allow the open carry of handguns. Let me explain this: In Texas you can get a concealed weapons permit pretty easily, you can “stand your ground” like in many other states such as Florida, and you don’t even need to have a permit to have a concealed weapon in your vehicle. In other words, Texas is one of the most gun friendly states in the entire country, and I really don’t have a problem with that. Individuals should be able to defend themselves, their family and their property from criminals without undue burden or fear of civil or criminal charges so long as they act within the boundaries of the law.

However, some of the individuals involved with the new Open Carry protests have gone well beyond sensible gun ownership and into the bizarre realm of where anyone can take any weapon anywhere they want. The already very lax gun laws in Texas aren’t good enough for them and Open Carry Texas. In other words, they believe the 2nd Amendment means zero restrictions and even trumps the rights of private property owners. It seems that they believe the “shall not be infringed upon” part of the 2nd Amendment also means that it gives them the right to infringe upon the rights of others, especially the 1st Amendment rights to assemble and speech of Moms Demand Action, a group opposing them.

I probably can’t speak for the personal beliefs and backgrounds of each and everyone of those individuals who feel that the current, extremely gun friendly laws in Texas and other red states aren’t loose enough. However, I really want to know at what point Open Carry Texas and others will be satisfied? When they can have a loaded AR-15 on their back in a grocery store or nightclub against the wishes of the property owner? Removing the federal requirements for owning a fully automatic weapon? What is going to satisfy them? Probably only the complete gutting of any and all regulation of firearms, as well as any of the consequences surrounding the potential misuse of the guns they seem to worship above all else.

Even the leaders of Open Carry Texas have finally realized what a public relations nightmare their members have created and have ordered them to stand down in this statement:

Whereas, our mission is to get open carry of handguns passed in Texas, we must once again adjust in a way that shines a positive light on our efforts, our members, and our respective organizations. We have decided the prudent path, to further our goals, is to immediately cease taking long guns into corporate businesses unless invited.

For all further open carry walks with long guns, we are adopting the following unified protocol and general policy to best ensure meeting our respective legislative mission to legalize open carry:

1) Always notify local law enforcement prior to the walk, especially the day of
2) Carry Flags and signs during your walk to increase awareness
3) Carry the long gun on a sling, not held
4) Do not go into corporate businesses without prior permission, preferably not at all
5) If asked to leave, do so quietly and do not make it a problem
6) Do not post pics publicly if you do get permission and are able to OC in a cooperate business
7) Do not go into businesses with TABC signs posted with a long gun (Ever)
8) If at all possible, keep to local small businesses that are 2A friendly

(Source)

My question is why do you absolutely have to have your weapon visible? Isn’t carrying your Bersa, your Sig, or your Glock concealed enough? My only guess is because you’ve gone across the line from self-defense to intimidation, and that’s counter-productive to any sensible 2nd Amendment discussion – and utterly stupid.

If the sight of police officers carrying shotguns or assault weapons in full uniform disturbs people, imagine how most private citizens would react to what looks like random, rogue gunmen carrying any kind of weapon out for all to see? If you walk into a bar, restaurant or even a school with a visible handgun on your hip or an SKS on your back, you aren’t making a political or self-defense statement. You aren’t defending gun rights, you aren’t helping your cause, you’re simply being a dick who is just asking to get shot by the police or a licensed concealed carry holder.


Comments

Facebook comments

  • DavidD

    If you want to walk around with a concealed weapon on your own time here in Texas I won’t kick up a fuss.
    I don’t and think it is counterproductive because if you don’t train and fire a handgun on a regular basis you are more likely to hurt some innocent party or yourself in an actual gun batte.
    Comply with the law and accept the consequences if you ever pull your weapon and fire.
    No open carry.I enjoy the old westerns on TV but know it’s make believe and don’t want to live in such a society.
    I will ban you from my property and support other people from banning you from their business and jobsites.
    It’s provacative and dangerous and I will get up and leave any establishment when some civilian yahoo comes in openly carrying .

    • ryan

      How do you explain police shootings? They are “highly trained” they shoot and kill people all the time who have no business being shot.

      • DavidD

        Some are and some aren’t highly trained.A real incident with pistols usally involves multiple rounds with very few hitting.
        Even after being hit people can still be upright and fire back.
        It happens very quickly and even trained profesionals can freeze up and be ineffective.
        People get shot for all sorts of reasons and why goes to intent which my original post never addressed because it had nothing to do with the points I was adressing.
        First if you are just packing heat and don’t know what you are doing and not skilled in small weapon combat your chances of dealing with that situation in a positive matter are slim to none.

      • ryan

        Have you thought of the deterrent factor of some one who sees a firearm is less likely to engage that target. As CJ Grisham mentioned 92% REDUCTION.

      • DavidD

        Did you even read my post or do you just regurgitate talking points .
        If you want to make a point feel free to do so all by yourself but trying to refute me by bringing up unrelated points is a poor choice of tactics and rude.
        If I’m going to commit a crime I’m taking out the open carry guy first.
        He will never know what hit him because I know he’s armed while he has no clue who I am or what my intent or whether I’m armed.
        In combat this is called a tactical advantage.
        I worked around criminals for years and impulse control and pre planning aren’t their strong points.

      • MrLightRail

        No. If I have nefarious intent, that person packing openly will be the first person I take down.

      • solange82200

        In Tucson AZ a good.guy with a gun almost shot the wrong person instead of the shooter, Jared Loughner

      • MUSLIMCHILDMOLESTER69

        Almost…that doesn’t mean , did. NYC police shot 7 bystanders at the empire state building a couple years back…piss off , mutt.

    • ryan

      Also private property owners can do what they want and we respect their wishes.

      • DavidD

        I’m glad you do.
        Obviously your compadres did not.I doubt if the owner and the other customers were glad to see them.
        I’m glad you have addressed this issue and I hope there is no repeat of this reckless behavior or attempts at intimidation.
        We as owners of weapons know that along with rights come resonsibility.

    • CJ Grisham

      Old Westerns on TV do not accurately portray that time period. The “wild west” was actually a very peaceful time other than gangs and I few outlaws.

      • DavidD

        Other than cowtowns and mining camps where there were lots of young guys with lots of money,few women,lots of alcohol and abundant weapons left over from the Civil War you are correct.
        Most people were family people working long hard hours of physical labor and had no energy and very little inclination to raise hell.They couldn’t afford it even if they wanted too and the women didn’t like it.
        Some people dream of going back to a fantasy land that never existed.
        When you combine that with weapons that can be dangerous.

      • CJ Grisham

        And yet, we aren’t having any problems at all. Wonder why that is? Probably because SAFETY is a major focus of everything we do. Your fear is irrational and inaccurate.

      • solange82200

        We aren’t having any problems at all? Thirty thousand gun deaths a year is no problem at all?

      • CJ Grisham

        Funny, my gun hasn’t killed anyone. How does that work again? Maybe that’s those “smart guns” everyone keeps talking about. By the way, more people die from the flu. Alcohol killed nearly 30,000 people too, but I don’t see anyone calling for bans on that! Regardless, you’re confusing your numbers. There were 30,000 gun INJURIES, not deaths. At least get your facts straight. 72,000 died in cars. The CDC can be your friend.

      • Jim Woody

        OK, CJ, I will start the movement to ban the flu right now. Who’s with me?

      • Jamal22

        You know, Jim Woody, I protect myself against the flu every year, just like I protect myself against evil people with intent to hurt me. I don’t expect the hospital to protect me, just like I can’t depend on the police to protect me walking down the street when a bad guy wants to harm me.
        I saw recent artwork where it made the statement I agree with: Blaming the NRA on Sandy Hook is like blaming AAA for DUI deaths.

        I understand some people are just afraid of guns; that is okay, but don’t push your fears off on those of us that use a tool you’re afraid of.

      • Kyle Walker

        How are assault rifles tools? Handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns are one thing but assault rifles are not tools outside of a military function.

      • Jamal22

        Well, Kyle, I am assuming you are referring to a modern sporting rifle as an ‘assault’ rifle, but it’s not. The AR-15/M-4 is simply a rifle. I’m assuming again because you haven’t said, but it must LOOK scary to you. An ‘assault’ rifle has a definite advantage to a modern sporting rifle, and that is a selector switch. That switch means you can fire a single round or fire on automatic.
        Do you believe books should only have so many pages? What about speaking in public, should we regulate that too? A rifle is a tool, regardless of how it looks or functions.

        What if, God forbid, we are being oppressed by a tyrannical government, this government uses the military to suppress our freedoms and rights. They send in the military to kill and suppress us (like England did) and we can’t fight back; what will be the outcome? Just because the military has an ‘assault’ rifle should not prevent me from owning one too, but recent laws (1986) prevent me from owning a recently manufactured auto rifle.
        As you may or may not know, the 2nd amendments primary reason was to prevent the government from becoming too tyrannical and stripping our rights that were so clearly laid out in our Constitution and bill of rights.

      • Kyle Walker

        Jamal it would be wise not to assume too much, that is a dangerous habit that even your guns won’t protect you from. Over zealous gun rights activists are usually quick to assume, a sign of their underlying paranoia. I’ll humor you and continue this debate.

        What do books or their size have to do with guns ? No one ever walked into a school and killed innocent students with books. If you are going to use an outside example for comparison, at least try to find one that is relevant.

        What if, God forbid, we are being oppressed by a tyrannical government,
        this government uses the military to suppress our freedoms and rights.
        They send in the military to kill and suppress us (like England did), how do you believe your AR-15 will fare when pitted against a tank or any part of the military’s arsenal? With massive defense contracts, I believe the military is better equipped than any civilian ever will be.

        Because the military has assault rifles is the exact reason why civilians should not. These weapons are tools that are designed to do nothing but kill and kill efficiently. They are designed for the battle field not the playing field. Putting such hardware in the hands of untrained professionals, civilians with unknown intent, is asking for sheer chaos. I’m not judging the gun based off of how “scary” it looks, but the UN-uniformed person carrying said gun on the street, and his intentions.

        1986 is not very recent. If you remember correctly, Ronald Reagan, a conservative was president, and every republican president since has supported the ban on assault rifles.

        As you may or may not know the second amendment WAS to prevent the government from confiscating private weapons, but the founding fathers could not have imagined the technology we possess now. Again, rifles are one thing, military grade technology is another. For example, I don’t imagine they would have been too keen on the civilians of the late 1700’s owning private cannons.

        Under your definition of the second amendment, whatever the military possesses the public has the right to possess too. I personally believe that is not what is defined in the second amendment or was the intent of said amendment by the men who drafted the Constitution. While the Constitution should be interpreted to fit the times, I do not believe that the 2nd was drafted to give civilians military grade armaments.

        Once again, supporting sensible gun regulations does not make you anti gun any more than supporting anti traffic regulations makes you anti car.

      • Jamal22

        Over zealous gun rights advocates. 🙂 I’ll take that title. Your thoughts are wrong on all points. I see any attempt to correct a thought process such as yours is an exercise in futility.

      • Kyle Walker

        Once again your vague response only highlights your weak argument and discussion points. The denial of facts simply because they do not support your argument or personal opinion does not make for a solid argument. Your lack of zeal to continue also highlights the weakness in your argument. If my thoughts are, “wrong on all points,” please elaborate and inform me, So far your attempts to “correct” my thought process have been lackluster uniformed.

      • Kyle Walker

        So according to that logic we should ban cars and driving now too? Supporting gun regulations doesn’t make you anti gun any more than supporting traffic regulations makes you anti car.

      • Kyle Walker

        Gun rights groups fear of any gun regulations is irrational and inaccurate

  • TigiOma

    Wouldn’t most REASONABLE people agree that the “shall not be infringed upon” part of the 2nd Amendment refers to the GOVERNMENT infringing, not private property owners? I have every right as a homeowner, or business owner or property owner to determine what happens in or on that property? And before you tack my ear to the pillory, I was raised with guns and I am a gun owner ( rifles and handguns…)….

    • Tony

      I have not heard anyone with the open carry movement state that private property owners should not be able to establish rules for their property. Where is this coming from?

      • DavidD

        From the yum yums with long rifles who showed up at a family restaurant.
        I doubt if the owners or customers were glad to see them .
        At other locations and at other times openly armed men showed up at locations where people were having open meetings on regulating firearms.
        Did you not read this article or others documenting such actions?

      • solange82200

        Go on Chipotle Facebook page or many of the articles about their stance and you will see ton of open carry folks raising hell about Chipotle discriminating against them. One person even compared their stance to the civil rights movement, claiming that Chipotle banning guns is the same as them banning blacks from coming in their restaurants

      • MUSLIMCHILDMOLESTER69

        It’s coming from the dumbest bastards on the planet…they’re also the ones screaming for $15/hr for flipping burgers.

  • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

    I am not a gun owner and was never around them growing up. No one I knew had a gun. I, for one, would be very uncomfortable and uneasy going into an establishment where it was ok for anyone to walk in with their guns. I sure would not enjoy myself and I would leave because of it. I live in Texas and for the first time in all of the years I’ve lived here I am more afraid to go out anywhere for fear of some nutcase getting upset about something and randomly shooting the place up! You can laugh all you want, but I’m just giving one viewpoint–mine–and how I feel about guns.

    • Tony

      In case you have forgot, people are already carrying guns around you concealed since 1995. Do you FEEL SAFER because a layer of cloth keeps you from seeing it??

      • DavidD

        I know I do.
        Open carry for display is a ramping up of weapons policy.
        If you do not see that and there is little difference why all this activity pushing this policy?
        Even if you have the right to open carry which I contest why is it necessary to do so?
        Even if the courts rule in your favor which is what this is going to come down to after spending lots of money that could be spent on something else.
        What is the overiding need? Just because you can do something legal does not mean it is moral or smart to do so.
        Showing up in public places to intimidate other people by open carry is despicable and if you have weapons then your opponets can just as easily arm themselves also.
        Do we want to substitute gunfire in private businesses for civil discource on public policy.

      • Tony

        You make a lot of assumptions on your part. The first one is that open carry in public places is to intimidate others. Sorry you FEEL this way. Intimidation can be defined as “intentional behavior that would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities fear of injury or harm.”. Why would open carry as opposed to concealed carry by the same person make you more fearful? The same law abiding person has the same responsibilities. You admit freely that you do not see the necessity to open carry. Have you asked anyone why they would want to open carry? Why do you assume that it is to intimidate you? Please don’t make assumptions. If you are really interested in the subject, inform yourself! Just because someone has a differing opinion, don’t assume ‘we want to substitute gunfire in private businesses for civil discource on public policy’.

    • Maybe a democrat like you should move to California where you would feel safer. I grew up in east Texas, horses cattle bird dogs and hunting. You sure your not a transplant from the west coast, like maybe San Francisco. A well armed society is a polite society.

  • ryan

    Why do yall equate people with guns to mass shootings? Last mass shooting where people are able to legally possess a firearm?

    • Edward Krebbs

      Not sure if it qualifies as the latest, but two that come to mind are Aurora, CO and it 0is appearing that the one in CA in the last few days is looking like it might fit the category.

      • ryan

        Firearms where not legally allowed on either property. They where gun free zones. Just like VT Sandy Hook and FT Hood. So the problem is only the CRIMINALS have guns BC we law abiding citizens have to leave our firearms in the car.

      • Edward Krebbs

        Ryan you really need to go back and verify your information. I’ll just note one of your false strawmen about gun free zones. The shooting in Santa Barbara was near the U of C but only one part of it was on potentially U of C property. Specifically, “The violence began, police said, when Rodger attacked three men who were in his apartment.” – that is private residence. The last person shot was in a deli while the shooter was on the street. In the middle was in front of a sorority which may have potentially been on campus. So far it is being reported he obtained his firearms legally. BTW – news is now reporting that in another town in California there was another shooting, in a private apartment, about an hour later with reports that it had something about the young women refusing to have sex.

      • Charles Vincent

        Lets talk about the UC issue then Ed. But first lets look at the big picture.
        1) California has some of the strictest gun laws in the US.
        2) The UC shooter stabbed to death some of his victims.
        A) He got his three handguns Legally.
        B) He convinced law enforcement that he was fine in a wellness check just prior to the killings.
        C) He ran down two pedestrians in his car.

        Now the question to you Ed is what laws would have stopped him?

        P.S.

        IN the last 30 years from 2013 back to 1983 there were 67 mass shootings.

        65 of those 67 shooters had mental health issues.

        55 of those 67 shooters obtained those weapons legally.

        Over the same time period the break down of shooting locations is as follows.

        Schools-12 of 67
        Workplaces-20 of 67
        Religious-3 of 67
        Other public places-32 of 67

        I have more facts but I’ll let you think on what I’ve listed already.

      • Edward Krebbs

        Vincent, you seem to want to make my point for me. He got the guns legally and passed the backgroud check. Concealled Carry didn’t protect any of the individuals. Open carry wouldn’t either. BTW – the limiting to a cherry-picked subset of 67 shootings greatly skews your stats.

      • Charles Vincent

        “Concealled Carry didn’t protect any of the individuals. Open carry wouldn’t either.”

        Which of the victims were licenced to carry concealed? If none of them had a licence you sir have created a straw-man argument.

        ” BTW – the limiting to a cherry-picked subset of 67 shootings greatly skews your stats.”

        I have more facts but I’ll let you think on what I’ve listed already. I have stats going bat to the 18th century on school shootings and stats back to 1900 on mass shootings. I told you that already but you apparently didn’t read that in my OP.

        “So which of these people do you feel safer that they have firearms? And which conspicuously waving around a firearm would make you feel safer (see picture at top of article with a selfie (you’v got to be kidding!) of holding their rifle with hand directed at the trigger).”

        You don’t know anything about guns do you?
        That guy has good trigger presence that’s where they train you to keep your finger as apposed to it being on the trigger. Both gentlemen are also following gun safety 101 by pointing the muzzle at the ground. Second and most importantly they are posing for a picture I doubt they walk with the firearm in hand like that. That’s straw-man number two for you.

        Now back to the stats.

        School shootings by decade.
        1764 – 1 in the whole century then 86 years with out one recorded shooting.
        1850’s – 5
        1860’s – 6
        1870’s – 12
        1880’s – 16
        1890’s – 11
        1900’s – 26
        1910’s – 9
        1920’s – 3
        1930’s – 12 NFA 1934
        1940’s – 13
        1950’s – 21
        1960’s – 17 OCCSSA 1968 and GCA 1968
        1970’s – 24
        1980’s – 30 UFA 1988
        1990’s – 35 GFSZA 1990 and BHVPA 1993, AWB 1994-2004(expired)
        2000’s – 48
        2010-2014 – 100; 103 if we include the ones you mentioned.

        Mass shootings since 1900;
        1900’s – 0
        1910’s – 2
        1920’s – 2
        1930’s – 9
        1940’s – 8
        1950’s – 1
        1960’s – 6
        1970’s – 13
        1980’s – 32 note SSRI’s started being prescribed to population in 1980
        1990’s – 42
        2000’s – 28
        2010-2013 – 14; this number is larger if you include 2014 numbers.

        So again I ask how exactly did these laws you want to pass(or that have been passed) stop the shootings?

    • DavidD

      Because people used firearms to carry out those mass shootings.

  • Edward Krebbs

    Wonder what the reaction would be if the people walking around with weapons were black, appeared to be Arabs, etc.

    • ryan

      We would join them. I think its funny how yall act like we are all racist. Yall are the undercover racists

      • Rhonda Painter

        So, it’s just a total coincidence that every single picture of you features white guys? Hilarious. Where’re the New Black Panthers when you need them?

      • MUSLIMCHILDMOLESTER69

        You must be greezy.

  • CJ Grisham

    Texas is one of only 5 states that doesn’t allow open carry of handguns. 30 of those are unlicensed open carry. Everything we do is geared towards getting open carry of handguns passed. This policy shift has NOTHING to do with backing down and EVERY THINK to do with getting back to accomplishing our mission. It is because we had become distracted from our goal and we are just refocusing.

    To answer your question about why we want open carry of handguns, it’s to reduce crime. Open carry is a proven deterrent to crime. In fact, researcher Gary Keck concluded that 92% of all crimes are stopped at the mere presence of a firearm. Criminals are cowards and want to survive to hit again. They won’t put their lives on the lone KNOWING they could shot. Concealed carry is only good at responding to a crime already in progress. Additionally, Texans should have a CHOICE about how they wish to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. When the only option to carry is with the permission of the government through a licensing scheme, it violates the very purpose of the 2A.

    • DavidD

      Texas repealed open carry to stop all the violence in private places,Texans then and now are not known for their propensity for backing down and if you combine that with alcohol you get a lot of dead people.
      Even with that the law banning weapons from establishment that served alcohol making it a state felony was needed to cut the death toll even futher.
      The joints on the Old Jacksburo highway were slaugter pens with the sheriff deputy going from place to place dealing with the dead bodies.
      Often the beer delivery guys had to wheel the cases around the dead bodies in the morning because the deputies hadn’t got there yet.
      I worked around criminals for years and doing impulsive stupid things when high and drunk is very common.Most of the time stupid is the most apt modifer for criminal.The prisons and jails are stuffed with them.
      Regulation of firearms didn’t just fall from the sky but had concrete cause and effect and is constitutional.
      We don’t have people owning automatic weapons,you can’t order functional ones through the mail unless they are black powder and making explosives will get you serious time in the federal pen.

      • CJ Grisham

        Your version of history makes great fiction. Our gun laws banning open carrying (and concealed carry until 1995) were based on the Jim Crow laws to keep blacks from carrying firearms. To not legalize open carry means to support continued racism.

  • RoBin

    They absolutely have to have their weapon visible because it’s illegal for them to walk around with their penis visible. Conceal carry to your hearts content. I’d go so far to say that I don’t much care if you have a sidearm visible. I have to draw the line, personally, at walking around carrying an assault weapon.

  • estar

    These nuts should ram those guns where the sun don’t shine and fire at will. Seems since they need a gun to feel like men, they should use it to come off like one as well. Do us all a favor, we need less of those A-holes on this earth. No one will shed a tear for them.

  • frank jackson

    These are the people that fuck it up for those of us that are law abiding CCW holders.

  • AntiLies

    lol so your whole article is based on a few idiots brandishing their ar-15’s in protest. That fits in nicely with you people: judge all by the actions of a few. That’s your commie way though. Injury to one, injury to all…

    Unable to individualize. Blanket law everybody. Don’t blame the parents or society when a little democrat shoots up a street, oh no, blame the NRA. Your OWN KIND does the mass killings, but you just conveniently chose to ignore that and blame the NRA, the organization made up of extremely well educated and responsible gun owners, yet you turn a blind eye to the gun violence in your democrat run cities… You people are such hypocrites it is truly unbelievable how ANYBODY can take you serious.

  • MUSLIMCHILDMOLESTER69

    The writer is a first class fag-bag.