Previous Post
Next Post

Screen Shot 2015-01-13 at 3.48.49 PM

Today is an exciting day down here in the Lone Star State. Our legislative session opened up for the first day and unlike other states, Texas limits both the duration and frequency of that meeting. Some say that it keeps the lawmakers from doing too much harm, but I couldn’t possibly comment. From Wikipedia, “The Texas Legislature meets in regular session on the second Tuesday in January of each odd-numbered year. The Texas Constitution limits the regular session to 140 calendar days.” While this is certainly an interesting way to get it done, it condenses all the normal drama of a legislative session into a 20 week pressure cooker. Today, being the second Tuesday of January saw the first shot across the bow coming from Open Carry Activists protesting…something…anything . . .

Where to start? First, members of Come and Take It Texas manufactured AR 15 lowers at the Capitol using Cody Wilson’s Ghost Gunner machine. Which, logistics aside, is a pretty impressive feat. That machine isn’t publicly available yet, and when it goes live, the damn thing will cost $1200 or so. Further complicating things is that it requires power and programming and such. But really the biggest feat is how a group could look at what’s going on at the Capitol, look around at what a PR nightmare the Open Carry Movement has been, and decide that manufacturing lower receivers on the grounds of the Capitol on the first day of the session is the best tactical move.

Now before you crucify me in the comments, look at what CJ Grisham of Open Carry Texas had to say.

Screen Shot 2015-01-13 at 3.57.46 PM

CJ Grisham, whose group Open Carry Texas basically coined the phrase gun bullies [not really, MDA did that] is an ARDENT supporter of the Second Amendment, gun rights, and is about as in-your-face as it gets. We’ve covered him in depth here over the years, and if you’re reading this, odds are that you know his name. I’ve never met the guy, but I’d love to interview him. So CJ, if you’re reading this, shoot us an email.

As I said, CJ has never backed down from a confrontation, going toe-to toe-with the big money and PR pedigrees of Everytown, MAIG, MDA, and assorted other organizations including the NRA. So for him to be pissed at gun guys, it must be something special.

To add more color to CJ’s brief Facebook post, let’s go to his quote in the Texas Tribune regarding the manufacture of AR lowers at the Capitol.

“I don’t understand the purpose of it,” Grisham said. “It seems confrontational, and really, needless. I mean, it’s the first day of the Legislature, we are this close to getting open carry passed, and now these guys want to come and manufacture a firearm on the steps of the Capitol? I just don’t get it.

Here’s a pro tip: if CJ Grisham thinks that you’re being confrontational, you’re being confrontational. But OC advocates weren’t done yet. The next stop was to go door-to-door asking members of the legislature if they’d vote in favor of OC. Click here to view it.

I’ll leave you to form your own opinion of the activities of those involved in the video. I’m certain that some of our readers are fans of this sort of thing. Others, myself included, are not. OCT and Grisham have spent the afternoon on Twitter distancing themselves from the whole spectacle which should give you some frame of reference since both parties have NEVER shied away from confrontation in the past few years.

Screen Shot 2015-01-13 at 3.51.33 PM

Maybe I’m too young, too dumb, too naive, and not ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ enough, but I don’t think this was a step forward for gun rights, gun owners, or the open carry movement. The whole thing is a bit of a head scratcher really. We’ve got a governor that has vowed to sign OC legislation, a legislature that has already put up bills with a great shot of passing, and generally speaking, a positive gun climate. So to watch a group of what the Moms are only too happy to call “gun bullies” march door-to-door and outright threaten members of the state legislature on their first day on the job presents me with a great big WTF moment.

All that said, I’m no fan of politicians. And I definitely believe in a vibrant and thriving constitutional republic. And I also believe that the behavior portrayed in the video should be allowed to happen. If those men and women had been jailed for speaking their mind, I’d be the first one in line to protest their incarceration. But just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. And behavior like that portrayed in that video is out of hand.

When a man asks you to leave his office, you leave. Easy enough. When you stay and berate him, shove your foot in his door, and generally act threatening, you look like an ass. You also become a trespasser. When you do it as an ambassador for gun rights, you make yourself, and me, and RF, and Dan, and Nick, and the rest of everyone who’s a gun owner look like asses, too.

My parents gave me a warning on my first day of school, and a similar message was relayed by my first boss when I headed off to my first public engagement representing our company. They both boiled down to this: “What you say, and how you carry yourself reflects on you and the company you keep.” Happy first day of the legislative session, Texas. Only 139 more to go.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. This is interesting. I guess the lack of trust in the politicians made them over act a little? Maybe most of these advocates were reminding those that were voted into office to keep the promises they made.

    • We need to be clear here. The one interview you see where the guy acts like an @ss was one small group. There were a number of different groups at the capital, and many had great exchanges with the incoming legislature. Of course with anything, optics is everything. One group, in one office, and that is all you hear about.

      There were well over a 100 politicians who were spoken to, but a few different groups. Those exchanges all went well, and were polite and informative.

      • I do not doubt that in the least. I was speaking of those that were going office to office acting like jack wagons. I believe that “shall not be infringed” means what it cleary means. I think it is ridiculous we are even having this discussion in the first place. I know what a few bad apples can do given the right circumstances (Ohio State last night).

        • The label “jack wagon” seems to roll out right along with the “they’ll ruin it for the rest of us!” squeal. lol

          Please use the same standard that you use for others before you type, okay?

        • John I didn’t label the people, I labeled the action “acting like”. Just like those 2 guys in the Chipotle photo, I think they made a mistake just in the way they held their weapons. I believe in constitutional carry, but sometimes people do things that hurt their cause more than help. Yes it only takes one person to crap in the pool to ruin all the fun.

        • I can agree with you that some activities might not appear to some as kosher. However, I firmly believe that the “cause” is screwed so badly that people simply exercising their rights in ways others might be shocked or dismayed isn’t going to hurt all that much. The greater harm is that government doesn’t follow its limits and the People allow it. Until Americans understand what being free is all about again, these little hiccups are nothing. Complaining about people exercising their rights in unpopular ways is akin to complaining about butterflies flapping their wings while ignoring the gale force winds being stirred up by the dragon. It amounts to nothing more than people bitching and being timid about the exercise of rights, IMHO.

    • Our benevolent government has defined the lower receiver of a firearm to be the firearm. Thus anyone parading around with a lower receiver in plain view was openly carrying a “firearm” according to government definition.

      It was both an act of Free Speech and an act of mockery of the government definition of a firearm. In many respects it was quite brilliant in my opinion.

      • Seems a bit of an esoteric topic, even to gun folks… and I’m still not clear on the purpose. The federal government defines them that way anyway, so not like it matters that much. Presumably open carry is coming to TX so… I guess I’m just missing it.

    • It doesn’t have anything to do with it, other than a hearty eric-cartman “FU”.

      As the article stated, when the tides are strongly in your favor, don’t rock the boat to see who else you can get wet. Ride it out, celebrate the victory, and plan your next step. Otherwise, this small group of OC activists are going to say/do something that turns the boat around and give a new meaning to the term “shooting one’s self in their own foot”.

  2. I cant see anything productive about open carry folks acting like idiots.
    Providing evidence of what irresponsible open carry users can be.
    Most helpful to their cause………………….NOT.

    • The same used to be said of blatantly absurd “gay pride” parades… Look how that worked out…

      • The “gay rights” movement is winning their fight in spite of “gay pride” parades, not because of them.

        When the pro-gun freedom side can count on a compliant media and Hollywood to ignore the excesses of some on our side, maybe we can pull stunts like this. Or until we finally ditch this curse of a universal suffrage democracy. Until then? It’s all about the optics, folks.

        • Oh, is that why I’d be fired or sued for refusing to work with/for a guy in drag with a curious, flambouant demeanor? Is that why many straight mayors feel compelled to make appearances at these silly events to show faux solidarity?

        • I think you’re more likely to be fired because you’re an asshole.

          And in many states are “at will” states.

        • @barnbwt: I did say they were winning, didn’t I? If we can get to where the “gay rights” movement is today, then your coworker could be fired for not wanting to work with someone who OCs a Krink at work. We are a long, long, long way from that.

        • I’m pretty sure any reason that starts out with “refuses to work with…” can get you fired.

  3. You know what would have made a much better show? The public tarring and feathering of every MDA Texas member who preaches sedition against the Constitution of the United States. That would have been loads better. Possibly a flogging of the ring leaders as an example to others.

  4. You’re right, you’re not Molon Labe enough. The actions of these Patriots are in line to correct an egregious 140 year old anti-gun overreach. There can be no limits whatsoever on guns. No background checks, no waiting periods; Nothing. I’m with the Hestonian faction of the NRA, “From my cold dead hands!!”

    • I don’t think that the author is questioning their goal – just their methods. There are effective ways to accomplish a political goal – trespassing and making threats aren’t good examples. As the author said, OC WAS going to be a shoe in – but now, our side has (metaphorically) shot ourselves in the collective foot.

        • Safe bet that what they were doing did qualify as trespassing, hence the ‘Call DPS’ comment from the legislator. I can only assume DPS is Capitol Police?

          Notice everybody rolled out after he said that

        • I can’t watch videos on this slow system so I didn’t see the video. Still, it isn’t trespass until being told to leave and refusing to do so (in front of an officer no less in Ohio but IDK about Texas). It’s a tough sell that the public can be trespassed from a public area in a public building (a politician’s waiting area would be a gray area, IMHO) during regular business hours. In Ohio, one cannot be trespassed from a non-restricted area of a public office during regular hours. A friend of mine was attorney for the government when he lost that Ohio case. From what I’m reading, they might have gotten near trespassing but didn’t actually trespass by that point.

        • while that is the people’s house the person in charge say leave you leave or it is trespassing. Don’t matter who’s in there but as a legally elected representative he’s the house boss

        • @Terry Williams: Perhaps in Texas. Then again, Texas doesn’t even recognize the right to bear a handgun so it wouldn’t surprise me. 😉

          In some respects, it’s New Jersey in ten gallon hats. 😀

      • I’m still waiting to see/hear an example of these threats.

        From what I’ve been able to dig up, it’s a total fabrication on Tyler’s part…

        • The word threat is a gray zone in this particular case. I’ll completely concede that. Black and white would be one of these guys shouting, “Vote my way or eat my GLOCK!” But put yourself in the shoes of the legislator or his staff. Someone is in your office, very much in your space, where you have every right to be and says the following things.

          “You’re a tyrant”
          “You won’t be here very long. We the people are here to take Texas back.”

          When asked to leave, those same folks refuse to leave and start to raise their voices. And then start asking members of the staff:

          “What are you going to do?”
          “What are you going to do? Touch me or something?”

          Followed by:

          “That’d be one wrong move bro.”
          “I’ll show you mean.”

          I don’t think its a far leap to call that behavior threatening. You might not be threatened by it, but I imagine it wouldn’t be hard to find a group of people who would be.

          I don’t necessarily have a problem with lowers being made on the capitol steps. Truth be told, I think its an interesting thing to show John Q Public. But OC in Texas is (was) as good as done. But this stuff, this is the kind of thing that makes it to the 10:00 o’clock news. This is what gets the centrists fired up to call their legislator in opposition.

          Freedom sure is messy. But it didn’t have to come about in this way. The damn thing was done. Signed, sealed, delivered. But for some reason, these guys felt it necessary to go stir things up. If I put my tinfoil hat on, I’d swear that MDA was behind it.

          And my FUDD isn’t showing. That’s my holiday belly.

        • DPS is the Dept of Public Safety (State Troopers). They have responsibility for the Capitol area and after the shenanigans in the special sessions (ala Wendy Davis and Co.) they are much less tolerant than before.

        • @Tyler

          I appreciate your reply even though we’ll have to agree to disagree, very classy response to barbs and bait. Thumbs up.

      • According to media ‘authorities’ we’ve shot ourselves so many times we shouldn’t have feet left. Somehow, it keeps on not mattering. Heck, TTAG has heap rebuke on OC people countless times this last year, each time saying “before this, OC was a shoe in.” So was it still a sure thing before this last gaffe? Because that would mean the gaffe before that wasn’t all that important. When will we realize that the people telling us that we are damaging ourselves (like MDA in this case) are not our allies, and perennial liars? “Yeah Republicans, you should also let as many non-citizens in as you can, since that’s the only way to them from all voting Democrat. It totally won’t backfire and scatter your base while bloating the ranks of urban Democrat opposition. Trust us, we’re only trying to help you, our opposition, not make fools of yourselves”

        • I agree that questioning the worst PR excesses of the Open Carry folks is exactly like supporting the importation of a vast political voting bank for the people who are spending my children’s inheritance and urinating on my culture.

        • I love it when the left tells us that a candidate is too conservative to win and then suggests that Jeb Bush is what we need.

    • I agree with you, but sometimes you need to win a few battles before you can win the whole war. Gun control has had a long history and is deeply rooted in society. It will take time to restore

  5. “Pro-tip: if you’re an… …extremist who wants to get a Texas lawmaker on your side, bullying and intimidation tactics are NOT the way to go.”

    MDA heal thyself!

  6. If the Moms disarmament crew wanted to stage something to make open carry supporters look like idiots, they couldn’t have done much better.

  7. Technically those lowers weren’t long guns, right? Not until a barrel and stock are attached. I also fail to see how a black box making buzzing noises for a few hours until a metal widget is presented to confused onlookers is more shocking than actual, factual gunz being open carried as is increasingly becoming the norm at protest spots like the capital. And even those guys are so “shocking” that more people than ever are aware of the current state of law, and oppose its contradiction, and on the side of open carry. So counterproductive we’ve got the governor and both houses spoiling to introduce this legislation, more so as the issue was ginned up by MDA’ers and TTAG’ers alike.

    I say it was more creative than most pro gun demonstrations, and was possibly less offensive (assuming assembled guns were not present). That article has some massive fail (suggesting this is a 1500$ metal printer) but still manages to give MDA a fairly unbiased microphone which they use to sound senseless (“see how we can’t control this? Without laws, we won’t be able to control them even more, again. Still”)

    BTW, the 1200$ is quite low for what is basically a small volume CNC Foredom tool. Considering how many AR builds surpass that number, suggesting it is some impossibly expensive novelty is deceptive. I wonder if manufacturing to make a statement falls under the ATF’s jurisdiction as far as licensing. All sorts of stuff to protest in this area, so you OC/CCW’ers need to stop being so greedy by demanding a cease of indignation once your pet issue is resolved.

  8. OC Guys are going to piss this away….Newsflash …IT HAS TO GET TO THE GOVERNORS DESK!!! That means it’s got to get through committee and on to the floor. The only thing that is going to do that is calm, data and fact based discussion to counter the emotional hysteria used by the anti’s.

    Sometimes I believe these guys are Bloomberg shills.

    BTW…Reps Stickland, Krause and Leach…three authors of gun friendly bills on file, were part of the unsuccessful attempt to unseat Speaker Strauss today. Getting on the speaker’s bad side on day one isn’t helpful to the cause. And Rep Kleinschmidt, resigned to take a position with the Dept of Agriculture.

    • Not that actually *gasp* being free is okay. Look, that method of hush-hush, let’s see what mommy will allow us produces a government giveth and government taketh away society. Screw that. Be free and invite government come along for the constitutional ride or let it be dissolved and reformed into something better reflective of Liberty.

      Try being a free people whether the government likes it or not. If the People believe in individual Liberty strongly enough, then freedom will prevail. If not, the problems are deeper than any hush-hush politics will solve and you’re going to need those guns.

      • That’s nice, but it’s time to discuss some realpolitik here in Texas.

        OC did not pass last session…in fact it never left committtee. It met significant resistance from the anti’s and pretty much zero endorsement from law enforcement and died on the table. It’s going to meet even greater resistance this time from the anti’s and no more support from LE than it did last time.

        Virtually all of the remaining Dems in both houses are against it. Even the GOP caucus leader in the Senate was lukewarm on it and didn’t seem optimistic. If the Lt Gov, recinds the 2/3s rule it may stand a better chance…if it gets to the floor to begin with.

        Stickland, who filed the constitutional carry bill they were there supporting, was one of the 19 insurrectionists that tried to unseat the speaker today. That won’t be forgotten. I’d be surprised if it gets sent to committee.

        So while the lofty ideals are great…Getting it through is going to require finese. Antagonizing the legislature or getting bad press…like being escorted out of the Dem rep from Eagle Pass’s office doesn’t help the cause. The next 60 days are the time for playing smart, or the anti’s will be handed a big victory…because they have the advantage right now. The harder part is getting a law passed.

        BTW…just because I’m not a big fan, doesn’t mean I don’t want OC to succeed.

        • You’re living on your own terms. No problem. But don’t expect others to approve of living by government’s leave. You want to beg government for that which is rightfully already yours. I don’t approve but I understand. Carry on.

      • “If the People believe in individual Liberty strongly enough, then freedom will prevail.”

        Have you noticed that not many people believe in individual liberty as you define it? The incredible force that is Progressivism endorsed some forms of individual liberty for some people for about 100 years, during which time our country was founded. Then the underlying anti-authority nature of Progressivism turned on the authorities that it had created (like the Constitution and the free market and the rule of law) and is currently in the process of eating them all alive on the table in front of us.

        If you like individual liberty, I suggest that you reconsider your support of popular rule.

        • Don’t confuse me trying to point the herd with me supporting popular rule. 😉

          Government screwed the constitutional pooch when it created Judicial Review for the Supreme Court of the United States. It took a long time but the rot began there. It cannot be properly fixed without reversing that major fundamental error.

          At some point, a person who truly understands and loves Liberty that’s living under an oppressive government becomes a criminal; popular notions be damned.

        • @John in Ohio: let me know how that goes for you. In the mean time, I don’t get my salsa from New York City or advice on Texas politics from someone in Ohio.

        • @dh34: It’s working out just fine for me. But then again, I carried concealed for years before concealed handgun licensing laws in Ohio and I still don’t have to beg my state government’s permission to bear arms here. How does that manure covered cowboy boot taste anyway. Nevermind… don’t care. 😉

  9. Lets face it, a vast majority of gun owners are conservative, mild mannered, live and let live kind of people that tend to shy away from open confrontation.

    To them…this is just to radical.

    Milling a receiver on the capital steps shows the lawmakers that they can never fully regulate arms. I think its a great demonstration that any “gun control” is a fallacy both logically and practically. See: France.

  10. “Some say that it keeps the lawmakers from doing too much harm, but I couldn’t possibly comment.”

    Those are only evil people. Who are opposed to democracy. And probably eat babies.

  11. “But just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”.
    But just because you can draw cartoons of Mohamed, doesn’t mean you should.
    See, I can do this too.

  12. New Hampshire now allows concealed carry in the NH House. Before 2011 is was not allowed, but when the Republicans took control they allowed it. Then the Democrats took control in 2013 and outlawed it. With Republican control in 2015 it is again OK. No shootings yet due to overheated arguments in the House, but say tuned. Everyone knows that gun nuts just live for the day they can punctuate their arguments with a bullet. /s

    • This is the problem with a large segment of America erroneous believing that government gets to decide such things. Government ultimately relies upon it’s perceived superior force to keep everybody in that mindset. If enough people did it anyway, eventually government would realize that it is truly powerless to stop it. The government giveth and the government taketh away model is dangerous to Liberty.

      • “If enough people did it anyway, eventually government would realize that it is truly powerless to stop it.”

        John, you implied above that you don’t believe in popular rule. Can you please explain to me the difference between what you say here and popular rule?

        This is a serious question.

        • erroneous believing that government gets to decide such things

          As the Constitution protects the People from infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, some people erroneously believe that government gets to decide such things.

          Our government was created by and is restrained by constitutions. Since the 2A is part of the contract, government doesn’t get to decide about arms. That is constitutional rule and not popular rule. The People are merely keeping government in check on a constitutional matter.

          Since this is a constitutional republic, I can live under a minarchist arrangement. However, if it wasn’t, I would be advocating something different.

          In earnest, I hope that clarifies my comment.

        • @John in Ohio: That does clarify. Thanks.

          According to the Constitution, where does the Constitution derive its authority?

        • I’m no constitutional scholar (apparently Barry is though 😉 ) but, AFAIK, it doesn’t directly state. A common view is that authority is derived from consent of those governed because it starts out with “We the people” and that three branches of government were established (as opposed to a monarchy, dictatorship, etc). At least, that’s how I understand it.

          We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

          Does the Constitution of the United States directly state from whence it derives authority?

        • @John in Ohio: You nailed it. The Constitution claims its authority from We the People. Rule in the name of The People is the core tenet of Progressivism and has been since long before 1789.

          The same Constitution that starts out “We the People” also contains “shall not be infringed.” One of those sentiments is alive and well after 200 years, and the other is a dead letter. Once you turn your government over to the mob, the mob will not stop until they rule how far back from the street your house has to be built, how you can use your bug spray, how you educate your kids and how you can defend yourself. The mob won’t be bound by a “rule of law,” they won’t be bound by a “free market” and they won’t be bound by any Constitution.

          So where does that leave us?

  13. Tuck in your shirt Tyler, your Fudd is showing…

    Milling lowers at the capitol isn’t a big deal at all. Everybody here preaches firearm education, I see cranking out a few lower receivers as an EXCELLENT opportunity to educate people about gun ownership, use, etc. It may sound strange to all of us, but there ARE a lot of people out there that still don’t even realize that the average person can own an AR to begin with, let alone produce their own. Ignorance is the tool of the grabbers, ours is knowledge.

    As far as barging into people’s offices and refusing to leave, I think everyone would agree that should probably be considered trespassing but it crosses over into blatant douchebaggery. On the other hand keeping elected representatives firmly under the collective thumb of their constituency is a GOOD thing. The recent US House Speaker election is a great example of what happens when the electorate stops respecting the people who put them in office. Reminding these people, sometimes rudely, who they work for is good for all of us in the long run.

    Lastly, I recommend you exercise a little more caution when you toss about terms such as “threaten.” I didn’t see a single example of “threat” used in the articles you linked, nor did I see/hear any threats made in the MDA video linked aside from the dude letting the obvious “muscle” who was trying to chest bump with him where he stood. Your repeated use of the term led me to believe that threats of violence were made as opposed to the threat of unemployment. Saying these guys were “outright threatening” anyone is flirting with outright lying.

  14. Perhaps I’m missing something but…

    People manufactured lowers in a public place which is a legal act. People asked their politicians how they will vote which is a legal act. Problem? Nope.

    What are they supposed to do, hide like they are getting away with something?

  15. OMG! Those bullies! They were printing uppers in public! Uppers! In public! In Texas! OMG!

    I’m clutching my pearls while I type this as I prepare to reupholster my fainting couch. Because freedom is messy and loud and yucky.

  16. What the heck does making an AR 15 on the capital steps make? Open Carry of long guns is already legal!

    Open carry of a handgun is not currently legal and purpose of Carry To The Capitol is to encourage support of legal open carry of handguns. Empty Holster event is on for January the Capitol (south entry) beginning 1:00 PM (PST) . Sure hope everyone participating will comply with organizers request that only empty holsters are displayed. As usual, you can carry concealed.

  17. All these guys did was give RINO Joe Strauss one more reason to block any pro-gun bills from the House. He is on record about it. make no mistake. I said at the very beginning of this whole OCT movement that it was needlessly provocative. Now we will reap the whirlwind. Hate away guys but this was exactly the wrong thing to do.

    • Did they “ruin it for the rest of us!”? *there go my eyes rolling down the street*

      Wasn’t this RINO opposed anyway? LOL

      “needlessly provocative” Huh?!?

    • Straus is a Republican in a very blue Bexar County. Home of Cisneros, the Castro Bros and possibly Van de Putte as the next mayor of San Antonio. The state may be red, but parts are deep blue.

      If OC gets to floor, I still believe it will be in the form of a modification to the CHL laws. It’s simply a revenue issue disguised as a public safety/training issue. Transportation needs more funding and the easiest way is to end all non-education diversion from the highway fund. That means DPS will have to be funded through general revenue. CHL is a steady revenue stream, OC would add to that…not much, but revenue is revenue.

      • So you anticipate an expansion of government privilege and a continuation of infringement on the right to bear arms in the form of handguns? That’s not a restoration of the right and ought to be rejected. Something like that is an expansion of government infringement and fixes nothing.

  18. This doesn’t help, but it isn’t going to hurt anything, either. At this late stage, it’s but an irrelevant sideshow by the latest militant dissident to seek out a T.V. camera.

    On C.J.’s part, though, on one level he’s irked that he got out-O.C.’d, sort of, by these guys. On another level, he’s actually pleased.

    After all, if a bill gets signed, he can claim credit, since he was out there all along and this will be forgotten. If nothing gets signed, he can blame these guys, since they were the last ones to pull a stunt, and he’ll make sure no one forgets.

    As a nice plus, I’m sure it just feels good when it comes to buses to be the thrower, for once, instead of the throwee.

  19. What, isn’t Texas supposed to be a gun lover’s utopia?

    I guess if OC Texas says you’re too extreme it’s equivalent of Al Qaeda in Iraq saying ISIS is too extreme. Ha!

  20. I really fear for those guys since polite people are the only people with rights. Oh, wait …

  21. Okay, in my own parochial bubble, the gas station/party store next-door to my apartment (conveniently just steps away from my front door) just put up a “No Guns Allowed” sign. I asked why (wearing my “NRA Certified Firearms Instructor” hat). The clerk, who knows me well, said that the owner was in when an open carry guy came in. He asked the guy to cover up his gun as he was being a jerk and scaring his customers, but the guy refused and they got into a “big fight.” (I’m guessing it amounted to a bunch of yellin’ and hollerin’.) After that, the signs went up. The clerk said, “Oh, but you guys with concealed carry permits are OK, you can carry your guns.” I had to explain that a blanket “No Guns Allowed” sign shuts ALL of us out. I left one of my “no guns = no cash” cards, but don’t think it’ll change anything. Instead, I’m thinking of making them a “No Open Carry! Licensed concealed carry welcome” sign. Better than a blanket prohibition and more likely they’ll go for it.

    • Well, at least you and the store owner make it clear where you stand on gun rights. You both are against the right to bear arms and for government privileges only. Thanks for making that clear.

        • Nice name calling. I re-read it…

          I asked why (wearing my “NRA Certified Firearms Instructor” hat).

          This doesn’t guarantee that you support actual rights. Sometimes, it’s indicative of the opposite. Not always but sometimes.

          The clerk said, “Oh, but you guys with concealed carry permits are OK, you can carry your guns.” I had to explain that a blanket “No Guns Allowed” sign shuts ALL of us out. I left one of my “no guns = no cash” cards,

          You’re doing great here.

          Instead, I’m thinking of making them a “No Open Carry! Licensed concealed carry welcome” sign.

          You lost it here. That’s promoting a privilege over an actual right. The owner of the property benefits from the government privilege while denying everyone the ability to exercise their right to bear arms. You, sir, are encouraging this. So you, sir, are complicit in the action.

          Better than a blanket prohibition and more likely they’ll go for it.

          It’s better that he ban all firearms. What you are attempting to do is encourage people to support the privilege while denying the actual right. It doesn’t surprise me that you were wearing your “NRA Certified Firearms Instructor” hat because you have a vested interest in people being forced to pay for training prior to exercising a natural right in the form of a government sanctioned privilege. You, sir, are supporting a privilege to the detriment of a right.

          Hence, my comment stands:

          Well, at least you and the store owner make it clear where you stand on gun rights. You both are against the right to bear arms and for government privileges only. Thanks for making that clear.

          Notice how I did that without resorting to name calling. Your classes must be a hoot!

          • You, of course, are missing the forest, trees and the whole damned jungle. You talk about rights; this owner has effectively canceled ANY “gun rights” by asserting HIS PROPERTY RIGHTS. Get it? When you own the property, you have ultimate say as to what goes on there. In my state, a “no guns” sign opens you up to trespassing charges. This owner, having had a run-in with an open carry advocate who acted like a JERK to him is NOT going to tolerate open carry. Hence my thinking of a modified sign so that at least permit holders aren’t shut out and it doesn’t become a free-fire zone for any would-be robber to take advantage of. Get off your absolutist high horse and think politics: the art of the possible.

        • You obviously didn’t carefully read what I wrote. No worries, I won’t call you an idiot. 😉

          I’m not missing anything. I don’t respect your position or proposed action because you are promoting a privilege in place of a right. Out of fear and an idea of appeasement, you are selling out the right to bear arms in favor of the privilege to bear them. Just because your statist mind can’t figure that out, please don’t take it out on the messenger.

          Get off your absolutist high horse and think politics: the art of the possible.

          Glad to know where you stand so I don’t purchase your books. I’ll make it a point to spread my recommendation to many others as well.

          • Again, you’re a boob; if you actually cracked OPEN my book, you’d know how right I am. Property rights are the issue here. I’m guessing that you and I are on the same page in our opinion of this gas station owner’s stance. But HE is the one calling the shots. Having informed him of the error in his thinking, and my impression that his mind will not be changed re: open carry, my efforts are to help the man express himself better. Having said that he has no problem with legal CCW permitees, his signs STILL shut them out. Unless they come down (fat chance) or are changed (possible), then it will STAY that way.

            So your solution is to stick to your absolutist guns and ignore it? Really? Well, I’ll simply disagree and take a more pragmatic approach. (I will STILL remind this owner every chance I get on his error in thinking, however. Maybe one day he’ll see reason. Not so sure about you.) 🙂

        • No, I won’t waste my time reading your books. I mean, come on, the author can’t even explain his stance without resorting to name calling. ROTFLMAO.

          Keep shoveling your books and pushing your training industry. Line those pockets and to hell with the right. I’ll make sure I do level my best to let people know what I think about it.

          • SO… you can make smarmy accusations and innuendo, but bristle when somebody calls you a name? Here’s one more for you: hypocrite. And by all means, do what you can to cripple the gun rights movement. Dumbass.

        • I answered your initial query with tact and specific reasoning; line by line. This, in spite of your initial and continued low-brow attacks.

          It’s simple, I perceive that you are more concerned with potential crime while crime rates are, overall, going down than you are about what is at greater risk, the right to keep and bear arms. If the store owner allows only concealed carry then that has the potential to divide gun owning customers on any resolve to not spend money at a business that denies them bearing arms. Remember, YOU were the one who started off with the no guns=no money stance. That’s great. Hopefully the business owner would feel it in his bottom line. Then, you had the notion to compromise with no open carry but allow concealed carry. You’ve just successfully split the power of any effort by gun owners to have the economic consequences convince the business that banning guns might not be the best thing financially.

          It’s really that simple but you didn’t even seem to try to understand it. And yet you call me the idiot, moron, and dumbass. You claim to support the right to bear arms but are willing to throw the actual right under the bus to in favor of the privilege of licensed carry. And yet you call me the hypocrite.

          Why in the world would I even consider purchasing, reading, or recommending books authored by the likes of you? Surely if I was the idiotic-moronic-dumbass that you claim I am, I would. However, I’m not so I won’t.

          • Whatever Mr. Fudd. You’re hallucinating; I never posted anything about “crime rates” under this topic. I simply told you (and anyone else) the situation as I encountered it; the sudden appearance of a “no guns allowed” sign at a place I frequent. I then related two things:
            1. The owner had tangled with an open carry guy who acted like a total jerk and made said owner feel the need to put up the sign, and
            2. That he told me that “you are OK” and that he didn’t mean to shut out legal concealed carriers.

            My reaction was to hand him one of the ubiquitous “no guns = no money” cards, the back of which explains why such prohibitions are a bad idea.

            That is the reality of the situation. None of it involved me, other than my all too brief exchange with the owner. I then related this:
            a. He doesn’t seem about to change his mind anytime soon. While I’ll certainly encourage it at every opportunity, I can tell by his attitude that it’s doubtful.
            b. To remedy his poorly communicated sign which DOES shut out ALL carry, I suggested a revised sign which I think preferable to the one currently in place.

            That’s it. But according to you, now I’m somehow the antichrist. That’s kinda douchy, dude. Sorry, but it just IS. And this whole thing is another example of open carry advocates hurting our own cause.

        • I never posted anything about “crime rates” under this topic.

          Sorry, I didn’t realize that you needed assistance with context and inference.

          at least permit holders aren’t shut out and it doesn’t become a free-fire zone for any would-be robber to take advantage of.(


          And this whole thing is another example of open carry advocates hurting our own cause.

          I didn’t advocate open carry at all. I was advocating for a right over a privilege. That would be a swing and a miss for you batter.

          • There’s a difference between non-sequitur and context; your comment was the former.

            Your point in referring me back to my own post is missing as well. If your implication is that legal CCW is less prevalent than open carry, then you obviously don’t know anything about the area where I live.

            Nowhere did I say you advocated for anything, specifically. Given that open carry is the TOPIC OF THE DAMNED THREAD, my post was in reply to IT. It’s a natural progression, then, to think that your comments were somehow germane to the topic at hand as well. I’m betting that everybody on this forum understands the differences between rights and privileges, and that our attitude toward them, especially concerning our 2nd Amendment rights, are fairly uniform. I’m also willing to bet that we all understand OWNERSHIP and PROPERTY rights as well. That said, I simply suggested a doable, pragmatic approach. While you’re certainly free to disagree, you took the low road and attacked my character. I hope you’re not a real umpire. 🙂

        • The approach with the business owner that you were attempting undercuts the economic effect of gun owners not spending their money at a business choosing to prohibit firearms.

          You alluded to self defense against criminals (i.e. crime) as a reason. That got shot down. You tried to deflect by bringing property rights into the discussion. That failed because I wasn’t anywhere suggesting that the owner couldn’t post. Now, you are using a sly progressive tactic by claiming that most would agree with you. Even if they might, it still doesn’t make your approach correct. By offering up compromise to the owner whereby those exercising a privilege can patronize the business while at the same time those exercising a right cannot is divisive for gun rights. That isn’t about open carry at all, yet you still tried the ‘open carry advocate is ruining it for the rest of us canard’.

          Admittedly, my initial response was a tad harsh, however, you didn’t even attempt any high road. You began with name calling and persisted throughout this exchange. It is all here as a transcript and your chosen method of discussion has been lower than a progressive snake’s belly. There is no denying that. The fact that you are a paid provider of training speaks to some of your motivation. You have an interest in people carrying under a restricted license; you make money. As an author, your mannerism in written communication is telling. It speaks to the way you process information and then write about it. As a reader, I cannot help but wonder how much of your professional writing is just more of the same.

          • 1. If gun owners were unified and numerous enough, you might have a point re: “undercuts the economic effect of gun owners.” I’m guessing, though, that a silent protest/boycot would not register a blip.

            2. How, pray tell, did what I said to the owner about a “gun-free zone” becoming a free-fire zone for criminals get “shot down”? It’s a FACT that signs/prohibitons ONLY impact the law abiding.

            3. There was no “deflection” — it was a statement of FACT; you began bellowing about “rights,” totally forgetting the property rights of the owner. Guess who calls the shots there? Not me. Not you. Not Obama. THE OWNER. He is the one who posted the sign, and if it is to come down, then he is the one we must convince. If he refuses (likely), then what? My idea is to get as close as possible. Yours?

            4. Calling what I said “A sly progressive tactic” is a sly SMEAR, attempting to deflect another statement of fact: that most of us here are of one mind re: gun rights and again impugn my character. Douch-y, dude. Very douchy.

            5. “…you still tried the ‘open carry advocate is ruining it for the rest of us canard’.” ASSHOLE: SCROLL UP TO THE TOP OF THE DAMNED THREAD! What does it SAY??? What CAUSED the whole mess I posted IN THE FIRST PLACE? (HINT: An open carry jagoff who totally set off an owner who beforehand had NO PROBLEM with ANY kind of carry there! I know, as I’ve both open and conceald carried there for years.) What other facts to you label “canards” on your planet?

            6. Awww… so you’re all bent that I called you some names? Want your mommy? Sheesh, what a putz! And a STUPID one for calling an NRA certified firearms instructor a “progressive.” What a dipstick! You know ZIP about my writing and, I gather, aren’t likely to, and you have the total vapid ignorance to lob potshots at me and then wonder WHY I might retaliate? What kind of moron DOES that? Oh, wait… YOUR kind. Here’s some free advice: if you want to be treated nicer, then try doing it yourself. When you blurt insults at people, you lose the right to whimper about getting it back in your face. Dig?

      • The owner just doesn’t want the OC people scaring away his customers and from the description given, the OC guy was an idiot. Just because you have a right to do something doesn’t mean there isn’t a wise way to go about it. If you want to open carry when the population is conditioned to view it as frightening and extreme, you have to ease them into it. Otherwise, it can easily backfire.

        If you are gay and fighting for gay rights in a conservative area, would it be wise to start making out with another guy in a public area? While you have the right to, it isn’t going to help your cause.

    • I’ve loudly criticized OC in Texas and every more loudly criticized the Tarrant County ninja fools. I fully realize, however, that grassroots political movements tend to be uneven. But you’ve developed a far better sense of how to present the critical issues surrounding open carry in Texas than before. Nobody expected you to be a professional P.R. outfit like Shannon and the Moms but you’re now getting to the point where you can meet them head on. Open Carry in Texas has a strong moral imperative that, as the Mom’s have found, is hard to overcome. Repudiating the Tarrant Co. idiots was a smart move. Let’s hope that Joe Strauss and the legislature listen to you and not them.

      • Respectfully, ANYONE willing to loudly and forcefully demand and defend their rights as individuals should be respected not demeaned. They’re standing in the face of the tyranny of plurality while so many others who are on “their side” sit back and insult them.

        While their methods don’t always leave the best of tastes in my mouth I’d venture to say they’re true patriots and those denigrating them are, in fact, cowards. These people raising their voices and making a scene are standing up in defense of not just their freedoms, but yours as well.

    • @CJ

      You’ll find a well-mixed bag of support and disdain here on TTAG. Both the commentariat and the editorial staff seem pretty evenly split on open carry overall, and the rhetoric can get pretty strong on both sides in regards to OC activism.

      I thankfully live in a state where OC is perfectly legal and doesn’t require a permit. As a result I do not have to take part in rallies such as those you organize. In fairness, my feelings are mixed as far as rallies involving rifle-carrying individuals. That said I’d probably be a loud and perhaps “threatening” member of the movement if I had to fight for OC the way that you do so I do my best not to criticize and I certainly do NOT question your motives.

      Long story short, while some may raise eyebrows and voices at your methods, I’d venture to say we ALL generally support what you’ve set out to accomplish. Keep up the good work, and best of luck! Let me know if us lowly folks out here in North Carolina can help in any way (solidarity is a good thing, and I know plenty of people who would/do support you.) I plan to be out in Austin this summer at some point, maybe I can join you for an outing/rally if the timing is right.

  22. Oh the horror!

    Doesn’t matter. I know neoconservatives, it doesn’t matter how you act. As long as they’re in power you’ll be lucky to get licensed OC with a lot of restrictions.

  23. tyler kee

    “Which, logistics aside, is a pretty impressive feat. That machine isn’t publicly available yet, and when it goes live, the damn thing will cost $1200 or so. Further complicating things is that it requires power and programming and such.”

    Not that hard really. If someone preordered the machine they might have already got it. $1200 for a super tiny cnc(7″x3″x2.5″ max machinable envelope)? thats is cheap. really cheap. for a comparison a tormach pcnc 770 (not production grade. bench/ home/ teaching use only) the travels are 14″ x 7.5″ x 13.25″. yeah its alot bigger but you only need so big to mill an AR. down side? its 6 times the price, 18 times the weight, you have to learn G&M coding, program it yourself (by hand in a .txt file), and get tooling.

    the ghost gunner? buy the thing, plug it in to a regular outlet, install the software, download the file, transfer it to the machine by usb, print out the jigs, load the supplied end mills, load the part, and press start. all for $1200. easy. if they had it all loaded with the file all they had to do was pull it out, plug it in, load the part and press start.

    i work as a cnc machinist and went to a community college to learn how to run the things. i could program the fire control group from a blueprint in less than 30 minutes. i run haas machines making oilfield coring drill bits. our cheapest machine was a used lathe for $30,000 all the way up to our $300,000 (+$30,000 or so in tooling) 5 axis mill.

    do i think its smart that they did that where they did and when? no.

  24. I smell a rat. What if these people are actually there to derail the open carry legislation etc. with their antics? I wouldn’t put it past a Bloomberg funded group.

  25. Okay, I am with you on manufacturing useless hunks of metal on the steps of the capitol. It really serves no purpose, and is a distraction.

    But I don’t understand the problem with going door-to-door to the legislator’s offices, to inquire about support for specific legislation. In a representative republic, isn’t that exactly what we’re supposed to do?

    • I think Tyler is ultimately falling into the MDA trap. Even he has conceded that “threatening” was a bad choice of words, but he hasn’t backed down otherwise.

      Whilst certainly on accident, the narrative that gun owners are “bullies” is being pushed even here on TTAG. Tyler and I kinda settled the fact that we’ll have to disagree, though I still feel (PASSIONATELY) that he is wrong in a way that is dangerous and possibly damning to his fellow firearms enthusiasts.

  26. I’m a little tired of the ad populum, poisoning the well-esq argument of “making us look bad”. When someone wearing a red shirt does something stupid it has no effect on the other people wearing red shirts. It’s childish and slugheaded, assholes are assholes, and stupid assholes are…

    When someone use a gun in the commission of a crime we are all quick to remind everyone that the vast majority of gun owners aren’t representative of that behavior, yet so many are quick to put an entire movement down because of the actions of a small majority of people.

Comments are closed.