Real world impact of open-carry on peace officer’s
Senate Bill 17 by Sen. Estes would remove the requirement that Texas Concealed Handgun Licensees keep their self-defense handguns concealed. The Bill was considered in a public hearing in the Senate State Affairs Committee on February 12, 2015, along with SB11, the so-called campus-carry Bill. Some of the testimony given was given by police officers and sheriffs as well as well as a representative of the Sheriffs Association of Texas. This article will focus on SB17 (open—carry) and its impact on Texas peace officers.
Why do some open-carry bills talk about holsters?
While the hot-button issue dealing with open-carry bills is licensed open-carry v. so-called “constitutional carry,” there is another issue that concerns gun owners who may choose to carry a handgun openly in the event it becomes legal in Texas. At issue is whether to require that a holster be used and, if so, to what degree should Texas law specify the retention features a holster must incorporate. Folks who do not carry a concealed handgun on a regular basis may find this to be an insignificant point to generate much debate, but they would be mistaken.
Private property or semi-private property, you can’t have it both ways.
In terms of real property, most people would agree that private property can be subdivided into two subcategories; 1) property owned solely for personal use such as one’s home or lake house; and 2) property used for business purposes such as a store, auto repair shop or movie theater. Texas has a long standing tradition of providing sweeping protection to owners of private use property, while allowing greater regulation of property held for business purposes. The rationale is that the government should have minimal control over a citizen’s use of real property that they purchased with their own money and on which they pay taxes to multiple taxing authorities. Texans jealously guard “private property rights” and rightfully so.