Post your TX Open Carry experiences here!

[nonameisgood]

Well, one could take the principle just a wee bit further, and go to the next fuel station.

It was late and the pump was already running when I noticed, but I won't be going back. It appears Shell is post stores. I prefer Chevron anyway. My bike runs much better on it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[qednick]

More great non-eventful stories! Thanks for posting guys!

Last night in Bandera went to Boyles Hardware again, then to the new Burger King. No issues at all but there were a couple of young fellas (waiting on their food I guess) behind us while we ordered and I could feel the stares. They'll get used to it!

 

[qednick]

Went to Walgreens on Wurzbach @ Vance Jackson. No issues in the store but when I came out there was a [homeless?] person asking for change. They began to approach me, saw I was armed, kinda went "uh oh" and promptly turned around and walked away.

 

[okiephlyer]

What will they do if they get a new guy, he does crap work on your vehicle, you complain, then they get pissed, because you complained, and then toss your butt cuz of your gun.

Or, they call a cop because they got a guy with a gun, all agitated (you arguing/complaining of the crap work) and such, scaring the heck out of folks (is what they tell the cops on the phone), who (you) walked right past a 30.07 sign.

Nope, no gun = no business.

Find a local mom/pop mechanic and support the little guy...as long as they recognize your 2A of course.

Sorry about coming into this thread a little late, and from a Northern neighbor. The dealership that I normally went to (Major brand manufacturer) for service posted a "NO GUNS" sign after OC started in Oklahoma. I had been a customer there for a couple of years. I was taking my car for service and noticed the sign on the door that had not previously been there. The service manager was right there and I explained, as I turned to leave, that as long as the sign was on the door, I would not be back. On my way home, I decided to call the dealership and asked to speak to the General Manager. Surprisingly, he answered the phone. We had a brief, respectful conversation and he agreed to let me send him some information. I emailed some articles to him along with some propaganda. A few days later he sent me another email and agreed that the sign was not in the best interests of the dealership or the customers. The sign came down and I continued to be a good customer. The service manager was there to greet me the next time I returned and said he was glad I talked to the GM.
Sometimes you just need to speak to the right person. In this case, it was the GM. (not General Motors).

 

[qednick]

Sorry about coming into this thread a little late, and from a Northern neighbor. The dealership that I normally went to (Major brand manufacturer) for service posted a "NO GUNS" sign after OC started in Oklahoma. I had been a customer there for a couple of years. I was taking my car for service and noticed the sign on the door that had not previously been there. The service manager was right there and I explained, as I turned to leave, that as long as the sign was on the door, I would not be back. On my way home, I decided to call the dealership and asked to speak to the General Manager. Surprisingly, he answered the phone. We had a brief, respectful conversation and he agreed to let me send him some information. I emailed some articles to him along with some propaganda. A few days later he sent me another email and agreed that the sign was not in the best interests of the dealership or the customers. The sign came down and I continued to be a good customer. The service manager was there to greet me the next time I returned and said he was glad I talked to the GM.
Sometimes you just need to speak to the right person. In this case, it was the GM. (not General Motors).

That's great info and a great result!

 

[nonameisgood]

OCT is at it again, making us all look bad. Confronting a store manager, being rude, meeting the police who had been called and then showing the world their harmful antics. I expect more knee jerk sign coming as a result. Can these guys not think things through?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stealthyeliminator]

OCT is at it again, making us all look bad. Confronting a store manager, being rude, meeting the police who had been called and then showing the world their harmful antics. I expect more knee jerk sign coming as a result. Can these guys not think things through?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WTF are you talking about?

Also, this is not you telling us about your open carry experience in Texas. You should have made a new thread for your crap so that it's easier for Grapeshot to clean up when it is closed and doesn't leave a stain on this thread.

If you're referring to the recent Walmart deal, perhaps you should consider that 1. this was not an "OCT" event. I don't know if the guy was an OCT member - there are only, you know, only a few of them... about 28k or so? But he wasn't acting in any capacity as a representative of OCT. He was just a guy in a store. 2. He didn't confront a store manager, he was confronted by a civilian demanding to see a license. 3. The way he handled himself is in no way an "OCT tactic," nor would I say does it conform to OCT's SOP 4. Walmart is incorrect in their belief that they are legally obligated to check licenses 5. What OCT HAS done is speak with the TABC, and get clarification that Walmart does NOT need to check licenses, and is trying to have pressure put on the TABC to clarify this to Walmart once and for all. 6. Back to the guy that took the video (not "OCT") - his meeting the officers went fine, no arrests, and he continued shopping afterwards. 7. he now shops there regularly without issues

In other words, get your facts straight before you start bashing people like an MDA idiot. YOU should know better. Are you so ignorant as to just automatically blame everything that happens in Texas on OCT?

ETA: "I request that OCT members cooperate with Walmart if asked to show their LTC. Walmart does not like being placed in this position either. Their managers have plenty of work to do without this." - OCT

nonameisgood, you have made false disparaging remarks against OCT. Please correct yourself. Every long-term member of this forum should know better.

 

[qednick]

Hey fellas, we're all on the same side here! I saw the story too about the Devine WalMart but I guess it may have been picked up by some anti sites and spun differently?

From all accounts, this was a regular Joe who happened to be OC'ing at the Devine WM and was asked by an employee if he had his license. He said he didn't need to show it and went to the customer service desk. Someone called the cops to "clarify" the issue, who then came, the guy showed them his LTC voluntarily but stated that he wasn't required to unless they had PC or RAS. The cops agreed with him and everything was hunky dory. He's been shopping there everyday since. OCT then got wind of it and contacted the TABC. The TABC agreed with them that WM nor any other licensee is required to check for licenses.

The biggest news to me was that Devine actually has a WalMart!!

 

[nonameisgood]

I guess my poor opinion of OCT's history made me accept the media reports and believable. I stand corrected and suspect that Bloomberg indeed did dupe Texas NPR. This surprises me since CJ Grisham appeared on KERA (the Dallas NPR affiliate) for a couple of segments which were not anti. (His words were really blunt and unlikely to make friends, but that's another thread, as you say.)
This related directly to the Walmart encounters described in this thread, hence the post. If someone's thin skin let my post bother them, oh well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[qednick]

I'm not a member of OCT and, to be honest, I don't know much about them other than what I see in online media (I haven't watched MSM for ages). I also know that in that other forum it's become something of a "sport" to disparage and blame everything bad on OCT--which is why I never joined that other forum even though I'm not a member of OCT...because it's very clear to me that the owner of that other forum has a very deep personal gripe with them and CJ Grisham, and it's brushed off onto members there.
In other words, I can see through it...even though I haven't had a dog in that particular fight.

Anyhoo, to stay on topic... I've been OC'ing every day since Jan 1st wherever possible, whenever possible. There's not much point in me keeping posting "non-events" at the same locations but I did hit up a new one on the way home last night which was the Dollar General in Pipe Creek. I was looking for a single can of refried beans. Of course, I spent a good five minutes trying to find them among all the other canned goods on the shelves containing taco sauce, etc. (how was I to know they'd be on the shelf with the delicious jams and jellies two aisles over??).
Anyways, plenty of people brushing past me including an older dude that worked there, women with kids, etc. Then I checked out and nothing. Yup nothing happened!! You read all this way thinking there'd be some cool story coming up but, alas, OC in TX has been and continues to be a complete non-event to me.

 

[Grapeshot]

The regular reporting of "non-events" when OCing helps to spread the word + calms the nerves of first timers, newbies.

 

[solus]

snip...

snip..... you have made ... disparaging remarks against ... Please correct yourself. Every long-term member of this forum should know better.

humm, seems every member should know better, eh steathy?

ipse

 

[Stryker]

I agree with Grape. I spent many months reading hundreds of open carry experience posts in Washington before crossing over. Non-event reports are absolutely invaluable. Keep 'em coming!

Uneventful dinner at Red, Hot, and Blue BBQ in Flower Mound last night. They either didn't notice or didn't care.

 

[qednick]

The regular reporting of "non-events" when OCing helps to spread the word + calms the nerves of first timers, newbies.

Very true and good point!

So I just did an experiment. I had to go down to a buddies sign shop (we sub-contract certain things to each other) and it's the first time since Jan 1st that I've been down there. I figured I'd go in OC and see if he noticed or cared. I was in there for a good 30 minutes and during that time two other patrons came in. If anyone did notice, nothing got said. I'm really thinking people just simply don't notice or pay attention and, if they do, then they simply don't care one way or the other.

So to solidify what Grapeshot and others have said: if you're reading this and curious about OC'ing and perhaps want to try it, go ahead and do it!! There's nothing to be afraid of.

 

[MSG Laigaie]

I agree with Grape. I spent many months reading hundreds of open carry experience posts in Washington before crossing over. Non-event reports are absolutely invaluable. Keep 'em coming!

Glad we could help pave the way. I am very happy you are all getting bored OCing. This will get more and more common as time goes by.

Good on you Texas.

 

[notalawyer]

Perhaps we can put this issue to rest once and for all by simply reading

followed by

and (hopefully) all understanding that as the nonapplicability section does not state "It is an affirmative defense to prosecution . . . ." it is not an affirmative defense to prosecution...

I am not a lawyer, but this seems pretty straightforward. If a lawyer would like to chime in and make a correction, feel free...

OFF TOPIC, but the question was asked...

I'm not_a_lawyer.

Although it does not state "It is an affirmative defense to prosecution..." it is. Well at least in Florida... and I think most other states are the same.

If the exception is contained within the enacting clause, it becomes an element of the crime, but if the exception is contained in a clause subsequent to the enactment clause of a statute (or a separate statute), the exception is an affirmative defense.

So if Texas is similar to Florida (too tired to go look up the penal code), carrying of a concealed firearm is made illegal in one section and the exceptions are listed later in the section (or another section) then they become affirmative defenses, requiring proof by the 'defendant' showing his compliance with the exception.

Herein Florida, before we changed it last year, the law - for simplicity sake...
SECTION 1 said: Carrying of a concealed firearm is unlawful.
SECTION 2 said: Section 1 does not apply if the person is licensed under the concealed weapon and firearm statute.

So legally speaking, even though you had a CWFL on your person and presented it to Officer Friendly when he asked for it, you could still be 'lawfully' arrested, put in jail and end up going to trial where the display of your CWFL to the judge (just like you did with Officer Friendly) would end up in (best case) dismissed charges, or (worse case) Not Guilty. This of course after your attorney subpoenaed someone from the licensing office to verify the validity of the card you presented.
All that was required of the state was to prove you were carrying a concealed firearm. The rest was up to you.

Of course, realistically it would never go that far, it was still very problematic. We had a few people arrested and only got off when their attorney talked to the SA. Or the SA dropped the case on his own.

What we did (after a Florida Supreme Court case) was change the statute to conform to the court opinion: SECTION 1 now says "It is unlawful for a person not licensed in accordance with the concealed weapon and firearm statute to carry a concealed firearm..." EASY PEASY, LEMON SQUEEZY!

The absence of a CWFL now becomes an element of the crime that the state must #1 have PC for to detain you, and #2 they have to prove it in court.
The benefit is that a LEO must now know - impossible unless he knows you just got out of prison yesterday or something along those lines -(or have probable cause to believe) you are not licensed to demand you CWFL and ID. And that can only happen after he has detained you under reasonable suspicion of criminal activity irrespective of the mere presence of a firearm.

The mere presence of a concealed (partially or completely) firearm cannot be used as a reason for the detention. - As long as it really was a concealed firearm that perhaps peaked out when you reached up for something on a shelf, or taking off your jacket when getting in the car, etc. as opposed to obviously openly carrying it.

We have some other problems along this line...we have a completely different statute that lays out a group of exceptions to our concealed carry and open carry prohibitions. Since they are in another statute altogether, they are affirmative defenses. Like: At or going to/from hunting, having a gun at home/work, at or going to/from the range, etc. Kind of silly when you think about it. Someone could 'legitimately' be arrested, while hunting, for open carrying their rifle (yes even with a valid hunting license in a lawful hunting area.) Or even for concealed carrying a firearm at their own home (absent a CWL)


So if your law is like ours before the change, the exception is an affirmative defense.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Sorry but... "well, at least in Florida".... Where Florida's laws mean nothing in Texas and vice versa... and "if Texas laws are like Florida's"... Well, I'm not going to assume that they are...

I think there are more differences between Texas and Florida law than you may realize upon just a cursory reading.

Additionally, the Texas legislature has described the nonapplicability section as circumstances under which a person is "excepted from the definition" of unlawful carrying weapons. As a non-lawyer it would seem as though they indeed do intend for it to be an "element of the crime," as you say, as they intend for this to be integral to the very definition of the crime. To say that they "can't" do that unless it's in the same sentence, or same X, seems ridiculous to me, considering they are the lawmaking authority in the state. If there is solid reasoning (other than just saying "well that's just how it is" or "that's how it is in X state(s)) or if there are statutes or constitutions that dictate these structures be a certain way, please point to them.

"If the exception is contained within the enacting clause, it becomes an element of the crime, but if the exception is contained in a clause subsequent to the enactment clause of a statute (or a separate statute), the exception is an affirmative defense."

It is unclear from your post if you are saying this is a universal truth in all of the world, or if you are saying that this is the case in Florida and are assuming it is no different in Texas. Surely you mean the latter, but sorry, I'm unwilling to make that huge of an assumption. IMO, it is a little silly to say that the lawmaking authority in the State absolutely cannot phrase and structure statutes in the manner they see fit.

"CSHB 311 would standardize in plain English whom the law covers. Reorganizing the statute would be especially helpful to police officers, security guards, game wardens, the public and others who are used to the term “does not apply” and understand its meaning. This could help prevent erroneous arrests of persons who are legally carrying a weapon and avoid making them prove that they were not breaking the law."

 

[notalawyer]

Sorry but... "well, at least in Florida".... Where Florida's laws mean nothing in Texas and vice versa... and "if Texas laws are like Florida's"... Well, I'm not going to assume that they are...

I think there are more differences between Texas and Florida law than you may realize upon just a cursory reading.

Additionally, the Texas legislature has described the nonapplicability section as circumstances under which a person is "excepted from the definition" of unlawful carrying weapons. As a non-lawyer it would seem as though they indeed do intend for it to be an "element of the crime," as you say, as they intend for this to be integral to the very definition of the crime. To say that they "can't" do that unless it's in the same sentence, or same X, seems ridiculous to me, considering they are the lawmaking authority in the state. If there is solid reasoning (other than just saying "well that's just how it is" or "that's how it is in X state(s)) or if there are statutes or constitutions that dictate these structures be a certain way, please point to them.

"If the exception is contained within the enacting clause, it becomes an element of the crime, but if the exception is contained in a clause subsequent to the enactment clause of a statute (or a separate statute), the exception is an affirmative defense."

It is unclear from your post if you are saying this is a universal truth in all of the world, or if you are saying that this is the case in Florida and are assuming it is no different in Texas. Surely you mean the latter, but sorry, I'm unwilling to make that huge of an assumption. IMO, it is a little silly to say that the lawmaking authority in the State absolutely cannot phrase and structure statutes in the manner they see fit.

"CSHB 311 would standardize in plain English whom the law covers. Reorganizing the statute would be especially helpful to police officers, security guards, game wardens, the public and others who are used to the term “does not apply” and understand its meaning. This could help prevent erroneous arrests of persons who are legally carrying a weapon and avoid making them prove that they were not breaking the law."

Sorry, but I was simply trying to help you figure this out for yourself by giving an example based out of Florida. I could take the time to look at it more closely, but based on your attitude, I certainly won't be helping you any more in the future.

I've been studying statutory construction & interpretation and court rulings for nearly 20 years in Florida and other states, so I have a pretty good understanding of the topic. Just because 'you can't believe' some legal concept is the way it is, does not mean is does not operate exactly that way.

It's obvious you do not understand the legal concepts involved, even after they are explained to you.

 

[OC for ME]

...

"CSHB 311 would standardize in plain English whom the law covers. Reorganizing the statute would be especially helpful to police officers, security guards, game wardens, the public and others who are used to the term “does not apply” and understand its meaning. This could help prevent erroneous arrests of persons who are legally carrying a weapon and avoid making them prove that they were not breaking the law."

Sounds good on paper.

Post Heien v. North Carolina reality rears, may rear, its ugly head.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Sorry, but I was simply trying to help you figure this out for yourself by giving an example based out of Florida. I could take the time to look at it more closely, but based on your attitude, I certainly won't be helping you any more in the future.

I've been studying statutory construction & interpretation and court rulings for nearly 20 years in Florida and other states, so I have a pretty good understanding of the topic. Just because 'you can't believe' some legal concept is the way it is, does not mean is does not operate exactly that way.

It's obvious you do not understand the legal concepts involved, even after they are explained to you.

[strike]My problem is that you said "(too tired to go look up the penal code)" meaning everything else that you were saying might or might not be even applicable, but there's nothing in it that leads me to be able to determine whether or not it is. I don't know how to look up in the penal code whether or not what you're saying is applicable. If you do, awesome, but you didn't... So yes, I am frustrated that you would suggest something might be the case, but don't actually help get any closer to determining whether or not it is really the case. I welcome your help. I just want to move towards knowing the real deal as opposed to trolling around in what-could-be waters. [/strike]

ETA: Has nothing to do with "I can't believe" some legal concept is the way it is - I never said that. I said I don't want to assume anything. I don't want to assume it's that way in Texas just because it's that way in Florida. If it is, fine... I'm open to someone showing me that it is. I'm not going to operate as if it is based on the assumption that it's the same as Florida - that would not be a reasonable thing for me to do.

ETA: When I said " please point to them. " this is not a sarcastic challenge implying that they don't exist - I'm genuinely requesting assistance while simultaneously admitting I don't know how to research this query!

ETA:

but based on your attitude, I certainly won't be helping you any more in the future.

What if I apologize for being an *******?