Incendiary Image of the Day: Texas Tribune Edition


The Brief: Open Carry Activists Don’t Bring Their Guns to Capitol the headline announces. “A group that advocates for allowing the open carry of handguns without a permit, also known as constitutional carry, rallied outside the Capitol . . . They were joined by state Reps. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, and Molly White, R-Belton, as well as a survivor of the 2009 Fort Hood shootings. The protesters made their position known by brandishing empty gun holsters, with some of them filled by bananas, copies of the Constitution or cans of hairspray, per a report from The Associated Press’ Jim Vertuno.” So why did the Trib show a pic of . . .

“Chris Way and his son Ryan, 2, participate in an open carry march on March 12, 2014 during the South by Southwest festival. The event was led by the Austin chapter of Come and Take It,” as the caption informs. Because guns. Because the Trib wants to inflame the antis with pics of babies and openly carried guns.


Personally, I have no problem with legal open carry firearms – unless not doing so helps the cause of gun rights (e.g., Texas’ AR-toting Chipotle Ninjas). Even then, a right is a right no matter what I think about its expediency. Keep calm and carry on? Like that.

That said, I do have a problem with newspapers who manipulate their editorial or photographic coverage to piss on Americans’ natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. What do they think protects the First Amendment? The courts?


  1. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Why? I guess it would be something like CLICKBAIT RF…

    1. avatar Jeff in CO says:

      Awesome! 😛

  2. avatar Accur81 says:

    If I had a AR over one shoulder and my 2 year old son Emerson on the other, nothing would be heard at that rally other than “Hold it! Me hold it!!! Please? Daddy?! Me hold it!”

    That probably ain’t gonna help the cause.

    1. avatar Jon in CO says:

      I think that’s a fine child you have there sir!

    2. avatar Anon says:

      I’m afraid your child may be a gun grabber.

      1. avatar Ryan says:

        You, sir, have made my day.

        Also, do proceed to choke yourself on your jacket zipper.

    3. avatar CYRANO says:

      My toddler would have said…I helped you clean it right? Right! Right? and then it would be.. When I grow bigger I can shoot that one Daddy. and then it would be… “I like the quieter one Daddy, that one (50 Cal) is too LOUD.”

  3. avatar DrVino says:

    The press twisting facts? That would NEVER happen, right?

  4. avatar James Acerra says:

    Shocking, Truly Shocking that a Media outlet that does not support the Constitution or the 2nd Amendment (by the way it protects their right to use the 1st). To use a photo that has nothing to do with the story is just unheard of!!!
    But anyway I thought it was a nice picture and shows the younger generation being involved.
    Open Carry, Constitutional Carry by any name is a great cause. We do need to police ourselves, try and keep the show off’s out of the mix. If you enter a text debate on a page, Twitter, Facebook wherever we find our finger going, please try to keep the discussion clean, to the point as well as not personnel.The web bandits try (and sadly get to often) to get rude, vulgar, knuckle dragging Neanderthals riled up so they can point to the texts, comments or pictures that make people that believe in the greatest document ever produced.
    Let’s all try to put our best holster, sling forward.
    We would not throw ammunition to a person that wished to do us harm, Why throw it to anyone that fights us on the 2nd Amendment on Open/Constitutional/Concealed .
    Thank all and enjoy your RIGHTS.
    Yours in service
    James Acerra

  5. avatar JR_in_NC says:

    Well, I hesitate to mention this, but…

    So, how about all the earlier comments about “if you want to OC protest, think of the optics and carry with a banana or an empty holster. That way, they can’t misrepresent or twist things.”

    Yeah, right.

    Anti’s are going to twist stuff no matter what our side does.

    We keep letting them say what the goal is, then let them move the goal post. We keep chasing the treat they dangle on a little string.

    This is exactly why the empty holster, banana, copy of the Constitution in the holster stuff is a bad idea.

    So, I gotta ask: How’s it working out asking for them permission to exercise a right or letting them determine how it’s exercised?

    1. avatar Ing says:

      It’s not a bad idea. It’s actually fairly brilliant. Just don’t expect it to work miracles. Sure, the press still cast 2A advocates in a bad light (it’s just what they do), but they couldn’t use photos of *this* event to do it.

      Make enough of these smart PR decisions, and eventually they add up — and eventually the media’s bias and ignorance show through.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Sure, the press still cast 2A advocates in a bad light (it’s just what they do), but they couldn’t use photos of *this* event to do it.

        Why must we accept that someone lawfully carrying a long gun in any way represents a “bad light” for 2A advocates?

        This attitude has already ceded ground to the other side. We’ve let them win half the battle, by letting them define the landscape.

        1. avatar BDub says:

          Dead-on right, Chip.

        2. avatar Aaron says:

          you live in a dream world. get out of your echo chamber some times.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          When I arrived in TX in the early ’70s, damn near every pickup I passed in the street had one or more rifles in the back window. Over the years, more and more ARs joined the more common lever-actions. I was out-of-state from ’81 to ’91, when I got back it was far less common, because of widespread theft, not a change in attitudes toward guns. Exactly where and when Texans got so crazy about someone carrying a rifle, I don’t know. Maybe its the newly arrived Californians trying to make TX like the state they LEFT. I mean, who CARES? Yet even on this blog, people pretend that carrying a rifle is somehow offensive or threatening. I contend it is no more so than carrying a concealed LCP. “That guy has a rifle!” should routinely be answered with “So what? It is LEGAL!”

      2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        So, how is the end result of that article any different? How many people saw it and even noticed the photo was from an older story…and cared?

        People tend believe the first thing they see/read/hear on a subject. That’s why retractions are always far less known than original reporting.

        Yeah, they could not use a photo from this event. Big whoop. They still painted the story the way they wanted and very, very few are the wiser.

        Give you a good example: how many here on this very Pro-2A site still believe the hot-button Chipotle OC photo was as originally represented, even though a later story published here (and elsewhere, I think) told the truth about that ‘event.’

        It’s a bad idea to let the other side set the narrative, and an even worse one to pander to that narrative all the while letting them move the narrative goal posts all the time.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          We aren’t letting them set the narrative by doing things like this. That horse left the barn a long time ago; the narrative is already set, and has been for more than 50 years. They’re not going to abandon it. They’ll lie, mislead and shift the goal posts to keep it going.

          The thing is, the public in general doesn’t know that’s what the press is doing. They have no idea the information game is rigged.

          It was easy enough to substitute a “representative” photo this time, and most likely it was only noticed by the few people it misrepresented. How easy will it be down the road when everyone knows they’re using the same stock photo of the Chipotle Ninjas from 4 years ago again for an event that happened yesterday? My point is that smart tactics add up over time.

  6. avatar James says:

    I realize the media world is changing and the main stream media outlets, national and local cannot absolutely control the flow and content of information, but we also need to be smarter since we know that same media is still s dominant distributor of information and will never be fair or unbiased to a cause they don’t like. This type of manipulation needs to be exposed as is done here and we need to convince the naive that still believe the media is somewhat trustworthy because they have trouble accepting that they are being intentionally deceived.

  7. avatar Alaskan Patriot says:

    Constitutional Carry… I don’t think it means what they think it means…

    1. avatar DickG says:

      Well Sir. In regards to the Constitution of the United States, what do you think “Constitutional Carry” means.

      1. avatar Chief Master says:


    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I saw a news report just recently about the status of OC in the new TX legislature, which (as I understood it) claimed “constitutional carry” meant unlicensed OC, period. My understanding has been it means unlicensed OC or CC, either one. Rifles, pistols, loaded, unloaded, 6 rd mag or 60 rd mag, semi or full auto, you got it you can carry it without anyone’s permission.

      Better have a reason to shoot it, though. Otherwise you may be jailed, if you survive.

  8. avatar Gearmoe says:

    This media exploitation and bias is rampant throughout the USA. As most of you know, we here in WA State just had the joy of the progressive elites screwing us. The newspapers and TV stations, the majority, backed the anti-firearm groups. It’s an ugly reality in our Country. We must do all we can to unseat any progressive and elitist influence.

  9. avatar Excedrine says:

    The courts? Protecting our rights?

    Ahahaha.. Hahahahaaa! AHAHAHAHAHA!

    But, seriously. No. Just.. no. The courts piss on our rights much more often than they “protect” them, and by “protect” them I mean water them down so as to make them fundamentally non-existent.

    Fourth and Fifth Amendments, anyone?

    1. avatar Scott P says:

      Even the Heller decision allowed for “reasonable restrictions”. Never defined what that reasonable was which is why California has bullet bans which they deem as “reasonable” and Washington State’s Universal Background Checks also deemed “reasonable”, or how about Colorado’s 15 round mag limit also “reasonable”.

      Pretty much the amount of gun control that passed at the state level post-Sandy Hook really shows Heller and McDonald did not mean crap as “victories” since politicians made and still do laws to undermine the 2nd Amendment like those court cases did not exist and the courts in those respective states siding with the politicians.

      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        While I disagree that Heller and McDonald did meant “crap,” I do agree with your overall point.

        Politicians at all levels throughout the country work to limit rights (not just 2A), and the answer always seems to be “well, if it’s wrong, the courts will sort it out.” Meanwhile, for it to get TO the courts, someone (maybe a bunch) has to be unlawfully arrested and the court process is very expensive….all for the chance the court rules on the side of rights.

        Things will never be as they are supposed to be until government (ie, those that make up government) see their rightful role as protecting individual rights rather than ruling and controlling.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Things will never be as they are supposed to be until government (ie, those that make up government) see their rightful role as protecting individual rights rather than ruling and controlling.

          +1, and it would appear that 90+% of politicians forget this assuming they ever knew it. It’s just that their specific hot button “gotta control that” issue varies.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Steve, you’re thinking they may “forget this”? I wonder if they ever knew. Anybody heavy on political science course load, what is taught on the subject in our universities?

        3. avatar SteveInCO says:

          Yeesh. Once in my life I try to be charitable….

          Yeah, why give them the benefit of even that much doubt.

  10. avatar DaveR says:

    “Because the Trib wants to inflame the antis with pics of babies and openly carried guns.”

    Wait a cotton pickin’ minute RF. That guy was equally using the child to further *his* cause. That’s what kids are for–to project adult agenda on to.

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Or maybe he wanted to attend the rally, but could not find a babysitter. Maybe he is a single dad and doesn’t have a babysitter…

      I don’t see a “Dad’s Demand Action” shirt, nor is he making the child hold a sign in protest, I see no posturing of the child at all.

      He is simply holding his child while at a rally.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        We just don’t know. However, if I had to bet, I’d bet Dave’s right, the kid was a prop. And similar excuses could be made for the picture appearing in that article.

  11. avatar juliesa says:

    It’s misleading to use that picture, but my main takeaway from the article is the most important thing that could get us some good gun legislation this session: the new Lt Gov did away with the 2/3 filibuster, so the Repubs now have complete control of the senate.

    In the last session, two Dem senators were able to kill campus carry. They won’t be able to do that this time.

  12. avatar Aaron says:

    I don’t see anything incendiary about that image. Looks like America ought to look.

  13. avatar Texas Raider says:

    You know, there are 2nd Amendment loving NRA members that are almost ‘gun poor’ that have a CHL and vigorously vote for hard core conservatives that *don’t* believe in Open Carry. For a variety of reasons, I simply don’t think it’s a good idea and there is nothing it accomplished that a concealed weapon can’t do better. I know, I know, that single solitary issues makes me a commie spy on this board, a trolling liberal baiting folks into a frenzies panic that suggests I secretly want to confiscated their great grandpaw’s WWII .45 and melt it with an arc welder.

    But no, I’m about 75 meters to the right of Rush Limbaugh and carry every day. But I just don’t think OC is a very good idea.

    1. avatar Aaron says:

      actually, despite my joking post above, i agree with you. I carry everywhere i legally can, and carry into stores even if they have a sign saying not to do so. But no one will ever be able to tell, unless 1 – they install metal detectors, or 2 – some emergency causes me to bust a cap in sumbody ass.

      OC means showing your cards.

      1. avatar Out_Fang_Thief says:

        Showing your cards? Sure, but you should only show your cards when it’s time to…not before.
        To be honest, I get a weird vibe from people who think that open carrying AR’s or AK’s is what we want to see in America. I like that law and order in America, for the most part, doesn’t walk around openly carrying AR type long guns. If the cops aren’t OC-ing AR’s, why do you think that you should? If we carry, we should carry concealed because we’re a first world nation, and making displays of firearms is not in our national identity, at least, not since the late 1800’s, before we had a dependable, functioning system of law enforcement Now, we bring them out when we need to, but then we tuck them back into concealment when we’re done. Besides, CC is a deterrent. Ever since Florida enacted CC, crime; and more specifically, violent crime, has fallen. OC is just not necessary. I would go as far as saying, that the OC supporters aren’t showing us all their cards. Why do you really want to walk around, in public, with a loaded AR? Despite all the unloaded protests, I assume that you eventually want to carry loaded AR-15’s into shopping malls and other target-rich public places. What up? Are you and your AR going to save the day from ineffective concealed hand guns? Do you really believe that an AR is a good self defense choice, for the 3-15 foot range of most defensive shootings? The way I see it, the OC crowd is just giving ammo to the enemy. Mostly, I think society does have a say in how we carry guns in public. And doesn’t, “I want to carry whatever I want, wherever I want, and no one should be able to stop me.” come off as sounding a lot like self-entitled children? Here, have some cheese.

        1. avatar Aaron says:

          hmmm, i think you misunderstand. i concealed carry everywhere i am legally able. I, too, don’t think highly of open carry because it is like showing your cards. Perhaps i wasn’t clear in my previous post.

        2. avatar Scott P says:

          Wow. Just wow.

          And you wonder why our 2nd Amendment has fallen to the way it has with posts from bigots like you. I get it you don’t like open-carried rifles or open carry in general because ot scares you and you get “feelings” like a raving-anti.

          Are you doing it to appeal to anti’s, that they are going to cut you some slack and become your friend? Guess what? They don’t give a f what you do or how you carry yourself they will hate you no matter what and won’t stop till you are completely disarmed. I bet you are all for universal background checks too?

          Liberty means tolerating what you don’t agree with it. If someone wants to open carry an AR or AK that is their right to do so. If you don’t like it too damn bad. Go somewhere else then. You don’t have the right to tell others how they conduct themselves as long as they are not physically hurting or preventing someone from going on with their day and “feelings” don’t count. If anything I feel offended by your post trying to pander to the anti’s but you don’t see me trying to take away your right to say such an asinine statement as you just did. If anything it is hypocritical because you say you support the 2nd Amendment but then you and other CCW-only bigots go around telling other gun owners how to “bear” their arms.

          I myself as another Floridian have several reasons to not be on the CCW-only bandwagon. You should know how hot and humid it gets here. That makes CCW hard especially with what to carry in regards to clothing. Maybe you are a big guy so it is easy for you to conceal easily anything you want but I am much smaller so I am limited to what I can get especially when I hate and do not want to be limited to mouse guns. I would like to open carry not only out of comfort but to open carry any handgun I want.

          So before you call open-carriers selfish why don’t you look in the mirror at who is selfish in telling how Americans to carry. Again the irony is laughable that CCW’ers point to open carriers as helping the anti’s when they are so knee-deep in their own hypocrisy they can’t see it is really THEM helping the anti’s by not only trying to delegate what carry is acceptable but giving in to a bunch of people who never stop at the status quo and will hate you no matter what, thinking compromising works when it never has with these people.

        3. avatar Scott P says:

          I also wanted to add I am also offended how you slander fellow gun owners exercising not only their 2nd but their 1st Amendment rights as well. However, like already said, you don’t see me trying to silence your bigotry like you are to others doing what you don’t agree with. The last time I checked it was the right to keep and bear arms not the right to keep and CCW arms only.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Blah, blah, blah…

          The way I see it, the OC crowd is just giving ammo to the enemy.

          Blah, blah, blah…

          If anyone is giving ammo to the enemy, it is you, and your attitude.

        5. avatar SteveInCO says:

          @Out_fang_thief. Can’t disagree. I can’t disagree, that is, with Aaron, Scott P. and Chip Bennett.

          I’ve certainly seen some stupid open carry out there. I’ve seen a lot more not-stupid open carry. Neither one has any effect on the fact that it is a right that should be recognized and protected by the government, rather than infringed to varying degrees in varying places (there goes “equal protection under the law” but that’s yet another gripe for another day).

          If you want to condemn the stupid open carriers for being stupid that’s one thing. To condemn all open carriers for the stupid actions of some open carriers is the height of bigotry and you ought to be ashamed of yourself thinking like that and claiming to be worthy of associating with adults.

        6. avatar DickG says:

          We (including you) are not “self-entitled” to OC. We are “entitled” by the Natural, unalienable, or God-given if you will, Right enshrined in the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution.
          Whether, when, and/or why you chose to OC is your business, not mine.
          Your reasons are just as subject to debate with regards to OPINION as mine. The Right, however, is NOT subject to debate or compromise.
          HOWEVER, just because you have a RIGHT to do something, doesn’t mean it’s always a good idea under every circumstances.
          And that, Sir, we can debate ’til the cows come home!

      2. avatar BDub says:

        The OC movement is as much about the principle as the act.

        1. avatar Aaron says:

          i understand. but it can do more harm than good, depending on circumstances

      3. avatar Cogitans says:

        I wince whenever I walk through a new store that has detectors of some sort. A few years ago I found out about that when walking into a Barnes and Nobel. It was very awkward.

    2. avatar Roymond says:

      Many people won’t vote for a candidate who doesn’t support open carry for a very good reason: they don’t like having to be treated like a criminal in order to be allowed to exercise a right protected by the Constitution.

      Anyone who goes through the fingerprinting and associated paperwork for getting a concealed carry license/permit is cooperating with a government registration program.

      1. avatar Scott P says:


        That is what makes me hesitant to get a CC license. Maybe these ignorant bigots think the government is for us (when it isn’t) and that America is perfect that it can never fail.

        Look back to the story of the MD trooper who was able to get information on CCW records in Florida. That is some scary stuff right there especially when the government has openly declared if you are a gun owner you are a terrorist.

    3. avatar Grindstone says:

      OC may not be a great idea, but criminalizing it is a worse idea.

    4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      But I just don’t think OC is a very good idea.

      You’re not a commie statist unless you want to force others to abide what you consider to be a “good idea” or not.

      The manner one chooses to exercise rights lawfully is not subordinate to others’ opinions of whether or not that manner is a “good idea”.

    5. avatar JR_in_NC says:

      ” For a variety of reasons, I simply don’t think it’s a good idea and there is nothing it accomplished that a concealed weapon can’t do better. “

      Well, then, I guess it is a good thing the US Constitution’s Second Amendment does NOT say “the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, subject to Texas Raider’s approval, Shall Not Be Infringed.”

      This is the pesky little thing about “Rights” and “Liberty.” They do not need to seek approval…that’s why they are RIGHTS.

      This is exactly the core of the problem we face. Everyone, even those on ‘our side,’ seek to have a say in…one might say “control”…what others do and how they do it.

      If someone is OC-ing and not harming anyone or threatening anyone in any way…how on earth is that a problem for you? It’s kind of a “Live and Let Live” thing…very fundamental.

      I don’t care how far to the “Right” you are; your comment smacks of a fundamentally statist worldview – that what YOU think about OC should matter in regard to anyone but YOU exercising that right.

      I welcome being corrected on that final point. I’m just relaying how your comment reads to me.

    6. avatar LarryinTX says:

      One day, when you trip and fall, for example, and someone sees your gun, as you are being booked for a felony and in the process of losing all firearm rights forever, you may suddenly see the reason for legal OC. Right now I don’t believe that could happen in my state (not certain), but it’s one legislature away. Accidentally or incidentally displaying is not protected in every state. The opposite is also correct, if you are OCing and toss a shirt on because of a cold breeze, should you be subject to arrest and prosecution for unlicensed carry of a concealed weapon, because the tails of the shirt occasionally cover your holster? All those laws are BS, need to go. Then YOU can decide when and how and what to carry, as 2A commands.

  14. avatar IAB2 says:

    No surprise the journolista editor at the Tribune chose a misleading picture. Like 80% of the mass media,
    He-She is just obeying the orders of the Elite Who Know Whats Best For The Little People.

    Props to the Open Carry group that organized and protested peacefully. As many have tried to point out, the issue is not the right, but how you go about protesting, to persuade, but not threaten.

    The banana in the holster is a good attention getter and it speaks to the issue – “Vote for Open Carry Handgun” directly in a humorous and non-confrontational way that gets people thinking about the issue, rather than “the gun nuts” getting their ego boost by strutting around in camo, and showing off their mall ninja gun.

    It was OCTard Nitwits in San Diego, protesting the ban on open carry handguns, by protesting, harassing tourists on the boardwalk by walking around with black rifles in low ready, who were directly responsible for the bad PR by the gleeful press then, and the predictable result in Sacramento – a ban on long gun open carry that followed in short order.

  15. avatar Southern Cross says:

    After moving house I was installing my safe in a room that had a concrete slab floor. The rifles were removed from the safe because I was drilling holes for the dynabolts and were resting against my workbench.

    My then 2-year-old son said “Daddy, look, BOOM!” while pointing at the guns.

    While I thought it was cute at the time, to this day I don’t know how he knew what they were and what they did.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Bugs Bunny.

  16. avatar Phil LA says:

    We’re winning. Be smart. Be respectful. Keep the momentum.

  17. avatar MIKE CROGNALE says:

    I have been hated on frequently for complaining about the OCT tactics. I said that they would ruin any chance we had for Open or Constitutional Carry. Well, today the Lt Governor, Dan Patrick killed any hope of it in this legislative session. It’s “not a priority and the votes aren’t there.” Thanks OCT guys. Thanks a lot.

    1. avatar JR_in_NC says:


      1. avatar JR_in_NC says:

        Never mind; I found stories.

        Okay, so this is his statement. All the stories said the same thing: HE won’t vote for it, and HE doesn’t think it’s a priority.

        It really doesn’t matter much what HE thinks.

        My question at this point: What was HIS position before the last election cycle? Is he flip-flopping?

        1. avatar Unknown Prosecutor says:

          I am good friends with a vote counter at the Texas Lege — open carry in Texas was pronounced dead when the geniuses at Open Carry Tarrant County went to a State Rep’s office, acted like fools and started calling people tyrants. The legislators who were trying to get open carry this session are not happy, as once again the Chipotle ninjas have accomplished what Moms Against Everything could never get done… As many people pointed out, open carry would have done just fine, the votes were there, and after the election, there was no legitimate opposition… But stupid is as stupid does, and the ninjas just couldn’t keep themselves from forming a circular firing squad. The phrase “I’m not sure I want guys like that open carrying…” keeps being used in the Capitol…

        2. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          Your use of derogatory terminology and labels, vice simple reporting of verifiable facts, lead me to question the veracity of your claim.

          How about less histrionic “Chipotle Ninja” and more citations showing:

          (a) that it really *IS* dead in the legislature


          (b) that OCT or OCTC had anything directly to do with it.

          I’m not interested in emotional bleating.

        3. avatar Robert Farago says:

          I have contacts within the Texas legislature. They tell me that the Ninja action and “invasion” of the State House put Open Carry on the back burner. I will have more specific info for you ASAP.

        4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          They tell me that the Ninja action and “invasion” of the State House put Open Carry on the back burner.

          While I find that legislators are generally far more receptive to courteous phone calls, emails, and office visits, to me this sound more like “they” are merely using OCT as a scapegoat to put on the back burner something they never really wanted to deal with in the first place.

          People visited the offices of legislators on the first day of session? Oh Noes!

        5. avatar SteveInCO says:

          @Unknown, PROVIDED you can cite real evidence (not repeating anecdotes), I think you have a good argument here.

          @JR, if, hypothetically, Unknown shows evidence that the people in the legislators’ office managed to turn off enough legislators to kill open carry, would this finally be evidence that someone can indeed act too stupidly in support of his own cause? Apparently, someone can carry smart, and the media will distort it. Other people can do something mildly stupid (like having a picture taken, which can be plucked from context by the other side for their purposes) and it doesn’t matter, because the media will distort it. Is ANY action dumb enough that we shouldn’t do it, regardless of whether the media will distort it or not?

        6. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          @JR, if, hypothetically, Unknown shows evidence that the people in the legislators’ office managed to turn off enough legislators to kill open carry, would this finally be evidence that someone can indeed act too stupidly in support of his own cause?

          If the OCT folks were being rude, disrespectful, and threatening in their actions and words, trying to bully legislators into voting for open carry, then I would agree – but it is a matter of their rudeness and disrespect, and would have absolutely nothing to do with carrying (openly or otherwise) while doing so.

          I’ve never known a legislator to respond well to rudeness and bullying. If that’s how they were acting, then yes, they acted stupidly.

          That said: don’t Republicans have a majority? Wouldn’t those Republicans be expected to act (or not) on open carry based on principle, regardless of how boorish the OCT folks acted?

        7. avatar JR_in_NC says:

          “@JR, if, hypothetically, Unknown shows evidence that the people in the legislators’ office managed to turn off enough legislators to kill open carry, would this finally be evidence that someone can indeed act too stupidly in support of his own cause? “

          Sure. My point along was not to blindly, dogmatically support OCTC, et al, but to form the conclusion based on evidence, not conjecture.

          Let’s continue the discussion, however. Rude behavior in the public offices is a far cry from the mere act of legally OC-ing of rifles in Chipotle or Home Depot.

          It bugs me that it has been shown that the Chipotle story was grossly mischaracterized in the original reporting and yet this is the ‘event’ that is used to discredit OC activism in general. That’s disturbing on many levels.

          There is no doubt that rude, idiotic behavior in public offices is harmful to the cause – any cause. We just have to be very careful not to conflate different actions into one big soup. We also, I think, need to be careful that that story was reported accurately and not misrepresented as well.

          Further, if OCT or OCTC (I can never keep up with which one is the bad guy du jour) is blamed for killing OC in TX (rightly or wrongly), I’d still be curious about other causes…other (quieter?) activism behind the scenes, for example, or perhaps some well spent dollars from Bloomberg or his ilk.

          Having seen the way legislation can be ramrodded through State legislatures regardless of protests, support and opposition, I do find it dubious at best that the actions, even rude actions, of such a small number of people could so overwhelmingly damage a cause this thoroughly and this quickly.

          In short, I suspect it is not so cut-n-dried that they are singularly causative. That is, admittedly, my own suspicion.

          As said above and previously, if OC in TX was this easy to kill, it was not standing very strong to begin with, and it would be fair to ask if it could have gone through without OC activist shenanigans. Seems possible the pols just found a convenient scapegoat for something they did not want to support anyway.

        8. avatar Unknown Prosecutor says:

          Obviously you cannot prove a negative, but consider this:

          — Wendy Davis, the democratic candidate for governor, felt the need to support open carry during her campaign (she recanted after she lost, but she thought it important enough while running to support it)…

          — Lt. Gov Dan Patrick, who presides over the Texas Senate, went on TV a couple of years ago to argue with Piers Morgan about gun control — If I recall correctly, he took Morgan to the range where they shot AR-15s. His campaign website says he would fight for open carry.

          — Governor Abbott also mentioned open carry as something he backed and wanted to see an open carry bill. He said 5 weeks ago: “I respect the legislative process and anticipates a thorough and robust debate on this issue and others. I will sign whichever open carry bill withstands the legislative process and makes it to my desk.”

          You tell me what has changed. Let’s hear from the original author of Texas’s concealed carry statute, Jerry Patterson: “Former Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, the original author of the state’s concealed handgun law, said the tangle in [State Representative] Nevárez’s office, which ended with a call to police and the representative tossing the activists out, was an example of the group ‘trying to pick a fight’ and exploit it on the Internet…’That episode might have killed constitutional carry,’ Patterson said, using another term for openly carrying firearms without any kind of permit. ‘I wouldn’t call it grandstanding. I’d just call it stupidity.’”

          Because of the incident in the office, the legislature voted to install “panic buttons” so that security could be summoned if unruly visitors won’t behave. So, a bunch of guys were so scary that they legislature created a special rule, decided to spend money, and the guys that scared them are advocates for the open carrying of firearms — but I’m sure they have had absolutely no effect on the ability to get this law passed. (sarc).

          Remember, Patrick and Abbott both won by more than 20 points in November – their ONLY credible opposition was during the primary. They have no reason to worry about being outflanked by a gun controller, so why would Dan Patrick now say that the votes aren’t there? Because the votes aren’t there…

        9. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          You tell me what has changed.

          To be fair: the start of the legislative session.

          For comparison: consider Boehner during an election, and Boehner on the first day of session.

        10. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          You tell me what has changed. Let’s hear from the original author of Texas’s concealed carry statute, Jerry Patterson: “Former Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, the original author of the state’s concealed handgun law, said the tangle in [State Representative] Nevárez’s office, which ended with a call to police and the representative tossing the activists out, was an example of the group ‘trying to pick a fight’ and exploit it on the Internet…’That episode might have killed constitutional carry,’ Patterson said, using another term for openly carrying firearms without any kind of permit. ‘I wouldn’t call it grandstanding. I’d just call it stupidity.’”

          I would give credence to this quote. But it sounds like it was one incident, in the office of one legislator, that was the real issue. Which would – again – mean that the portrayal of what actually happened that day was sensationalized and blown out of proportion (just like the Chipotle thing).

        11. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I’m sorry, this defies all logic. We have elected representatives to the TX government who decide to break campaign promises and EXPLETIVE DELETED 10 million Texans because of a few fools demonstrating at the lege? No way that is true, what they really mean is that OC was dead the moment the final vote was cast, it was for campaign purposes only, “OOops, sorry we seem to have lied! BWAAAhahaha! Suckers!”

    2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      Ex hoc ergo propter hoc much?

      Where is the evidence that OCT is the direct and only cause for the Texas legislature not moving on the issue?

  18. avatar Kevin says:

    Whether you support open carry on concealed only carry (or both), the 2nd Amendment states that your “right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Just because you as an individual prefer one over the other should not keep another person from exercising that right in the opposite way.

    That right should not be infringed as to HOW you exercise that right – open or concealed. Or using a shoulder fired SIG brace on your AR pistol. 🙂

    1. avatar 2A PA says:

      +1 Billion. I wish this was the top comment on every OC story, so everyone would read it.

  19. avatar Lfshtr says:

    Great picture, but how do you carry two carbines! Maybe SOB? Take care of your flank, and have one of your buds watch your six.

  20. avatar Lfshtr says:

    Let’s see I carry a 40 w/9 as a bu, but like rule one says, bring a Long gun and friends with guns. You sure got it covered. Nice looking kid! Be cool out there, and be aware.

  21. avatar Bill Baker says:

    I’m curious, brandishing being to display with intent to threaten or intimidate, how does one do that with an empty holster? I’ve often read stories like this here and am starting to believe TTAG is wolves in sheeps clothing, hiding that they support gun control.

    1. avatar Red in Texas says:

      That’s a looooooooong stretch.

    2. avatar Michelle says:

      …Avoid chemtrails, bro.

    3. avatar bobmcd says:

      The word “brandishing” was inside a quote from a Texas Tribune article. It was not TTAG’s terminology. Same thing with “constitutional carry.” The quoted article defines it as “open carry of handguns without a permit,” while I tend to think of it as carrying handguns openly or concealed without a permit.

      All they needed to really complete the story was a few references to high-powered .9mm guns with large capacity assault clipazines and shoulder things that go up.

    1. avatar 2A PA says:

      They already have, numerous times. The article had different headlines, different authors, and different dates, but rest assured that same article has been published numerous times before, and will be published ad infinitum in the future.

      1. avatar rsalaud says:

        Some of the studies referenced in this one are actually recent and cited. Which certainly puts it in the minority of anti-gun articles.

  22. avatar Timmy! says:

    “…unless not doing so helps the cause of gun rights (e.g., Texas’ AR-toting Chipotle Ninjas).”

    “I do have a problem with newspapers (and bloggers) who manipulate their editorial or photographic coverage…”

    As Chip Bennett pointed out elsewhere, the misrepresentation of the Chipotle event just keeps being spread, even by those on our side!

  23. avatar Texas Anomaly says:

    This is another prime case of TTAG blowing a story out of proportion. The Texas Tribune story is hardy biased. in fact its really very even handed. And the picture its self may be “inflammatory” to some, but that’s not the intent of it. In fact I would make the case that if anything it is an aid to our cause. A well dressed, respectable looking man holding his cute kid. The fact that he has an AR around his neck is showing that he is not your stereotypical Texas redneck/cowboy. This helps us.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email