CALL TO ACTION: SB905

Discussions about relevant bills filed and their status.

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton

Locked
User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 26796
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

#91

Post by The Annoyed Man »

M2K wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Our newly joined members who have focused on this thread and bill need to look at my earlier post. I'm not saying SB905 is a good bill; I'm asking people to support the Kleinschmidt amendment to SB905. As many have said, there is a reason for this but I can't say at this time.

Chas.
I've read your earlier posts and most everything on this board for the last few years. It is one of the better boards on the internet consisting of a very intelligent membership. I’m usually not a “joiner” but I joined this board because I just couldn't stand the implied arrogance and elitism of this bill and the Kleinschmidt amendment.

Why should I accept your hidden reason at face value?

Mike
Mike, first, welcome to the board. You don't know me, and perhaps this answer will not sufficiently satisfy your question, but here is how I respond to it.....

Based on his resumé:
If we had to assign credit for having CHL in Texas today in the first place to the efforts of one person above all others, that person would be Charles Cotton. Charles has steadfastly stood—in every instance—for the steady (and intelligently applied) advancement of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Because of his national stature as a member of the NRA board, and because of his previous experience as the Executive Director of the TSRA, and because of his ongoing stature as an experienced lobbyist in the halls of the state Legislature, and because of his being an attorney who actually wrote large swaths of the currently existing law, Charles has more than earned both my respect, and my trust as a champion of my rights.

Charles has consistently sought to advance gun rights in various areas while wisely not trampling on gains already made on behalf of gun rights in other areas. He is able to do this because of the depth and breadth of his experience in legislative matters. This is not something which can be said about bomb-throwers (folks like the most vituperative of the Open Carry crowd), nor is it even something that can be said about the rest of the RKBA activist community who lack his experience.

Pretty much every single member of this board, you included, currently enjoys greater expression of the RKBA than was allowed prior to 1992, directly because of the efforts of Charles Cotton. We all owe him a debt of gratitude, and on that basis alone, you should accept his word at face value. If Charles says there is a good reason for not publicly revealing the tactics behind why you should support the Kleinschmidt amendment to SB905, then you are certainly free to decline, but the odds are that you would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Personally, I don't think that Charles needs to prove why he can't discuss it. He has never misled the larger constituency of gun owners. There is no good reason to believe that he would start doing so now.

Based on his personal integrity:
I wish I knew Charles well enough to call him a close friend. I don't. Perhaps over time I will have that privilege. However, I have met him personally and spoken with him on several occasions, I've had a number of conversations on the phone with him, and I have done work for him on a website. He is a 100% straight shooter. If he said something was going to happen, it happened. He didn't argue about my fees, and I got paid in a timely manner. I have also attended a couple of his seminars on the use of deadly force in self-defense in Texas. As a lawyer, and as the guy who wrote most of the CHL law, it was an eye-opening perspective. I seriously doubt there are many other people with his understanding of it, and, he is more than willing to share that understanding with as many people as he can...... .....for FREE. He's not in it for the advancement of his own career, or for money, or some other hidden agenda. He's in it strictly because he believes the RKBA is a sacred thing, and he feels personally called to advance it.

I hope these two reasons are good enough for you to accept what Charles has said at face value, and to trust him.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT
User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 26796
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

#92

Post by The Annoyed Man »

TexasBill wrote:But there are CHL holders who do go to bars, do go to sporting events and do want to carry in church and they are exposed to exactly the same threats as a Texas Senator (except for political opponents -- a couple of legislators were killed by their opponents). Why shouldn't the citizens of the state enjoy the same right of self-defense our Senate wants to appropriate for itself?
Just a reminder.... they can carry in church now if they want to, unless the church is posted with a 30.06 sign. I certainly can't speak for all churches in Texas, but it is my experience so far that I've only ever seen one church with a compliant 30.06 sign. Naturally, I wouldn't attend a church that doesn't accept my right to self-defense by means of a firearm, or that doesn't think that a mass-shooting can't happen in their church. Fortunately for me, my church has no such sign, and there are a number of us who do carry in church.

I agree that Constitutional Carry is the desired ultimate goal, but I am a political realist, and I understand that it can only happen in an incremental manner......for the simple reason that there are other voters in this state who oppose it. Their objections will have to be overcome one point at a time. Charles provides this forum for discussion of these issues, and he doesn't ban people with whom he disagrees on how best to expand the RKBA, so long as they disagree within the behavioral guidelines called for in the forum rules. I think that Charles has more than earned our trust. If he says there is a good reason which he cannot disclose right now for why we should support the Kleinschmidt amendment to SB905, then that is good enough for me.

Maybe that makes me a suck-up. Maybe not. I don't care. It's what I think is right.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT
User avatar

stevie_d_64
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 7590
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:17 pm
Location: 77504

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

#93

Post by stevie_d_64 »

viewtopic.php?f=94&t=45084" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I even left the option to change your vote, if you are so inclined...(At least I hope I picked that option correctly, :biggrinjester: )

With the way the discussion is going now, I think its a good thing to guage the membership and get a good, anonymous headcount on where it stands now...

For the record...I do not often, as a matter of fact I don't even recall, ever disagreeing with Charles, or most of the particpants in this forum, but I have to make a principled stand based upon the evidence, as I see it...That certainly doesn't mean anyone I dissagree with has no principles, far from it...We are all going to digest this eventually, and the more the folks in Austin see and hear what we have to say about it, the better...I believe they are waiting to hear from us...As ironic as it sounds, let's not let them down...They need our input, whether they agree with us or not...
"Perseverance and Preparedness triumph over Procrastination and Paranoia every time.” -- Steve
NRA - Life Member
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Μολών λαβέ!
User avatar

mgood
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 964
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:07 am
Location: Snyder, Texas
Contact:

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

#94

Post by mgood »

The Annoyed Man wrote: . . . Charles has more than earned both my respect, and my trust as a champion of my rights.
:iagree:
But when I joined this forum, I didn't know Charles from Adam. He was just some dude who had a CHL forum.
Over time, I've come to feel much the same way about him as does The Annoyed Man.
User avatar

JJVP
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 11
Posts: 2093
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:34 pm
Location: League City, TX

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

#95

Post by JJVP »

The Annoyed Man wrote:
TexasBill wrote:But there are CHL holders who do go to bars, do go to sporting events and do want to carry in church and they are exposed to exactly the same threats as a Texas Senator (except for political opponents -- a couple of legislators were killed by their opponents). Why shouldn't the citizens of the state enjoy the same right of self-defense our Senate wants to appropriate for itself?
Just a reminder.... they can carry in church now if they want to, unless the church is posted with a 30.06 sign. I certainly can't speak for all churches in Texas, but it is my experience so far that I've only ever seen one church with a compliant 30.06 sign. Naturally, I wouldn't attend a church that doesn't accept my right to self-defense by means of a firearm, or that doesn't think that a mass-shooting can't happen in their church. Fortunately for me, my church has no such sign, and there are a number of us who do carry in church.

I agree that Constitutional Carry is the desired ultimate goal, but I am a political realist, and I understand that it can only happen in an incremental manner......for the simple reason that there are other voters in this state who oppose it. Their objections will have to be overcome one point at a time. Charles provides this forum for discussion of these issues, and he doesn't ban people with whom he disagrees on how best to expand the RKBA, so long as they disagree within the behavioral guidelines called for in the forum rules. I think that Charles has more than earned our trust. If he says there is a good reason which he cannot disclose right now for why we should support the Kleinschmidt amendment to SB905, then that is good enough for me.

Maybe that makes me a suck-up. Maybe not. I don't care. It's what I think is right.
I keep hearing that the ALL or Nothing approach will get us nothing. That we need baby steps to get us there. Fine, here is my proposal for baby steps. First remove the restrictions for Churches, for ALL CHL's. Next time they can remove the restrictions on profesional sporting events, for ALL CHL's. Then they can go for the 51%, again for ALL CHL's. Baby steps.

I will not support in any way a piece of legislation that exempts politicians from the laws we are expected to obey. I will also not support legislation that gives "special privileges" to some CHL's, but no others. Whatever is done should apply to ALL CHL's or to none.

I have great respect to what Charles has done for guns rights in Texas. This, however is a case where we will never see eye to eye.
2nd Amendment. America's Original Homeland Security.
Alcohol, Tobacco , Firearms. Who's Bringing the Chips?
No Guns. No Freedom. Know Guns. Know Freedom.
User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 26796
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

#96

Post by The Annoyed Man »

JJVP wrote:I keep hearing that the ALL or Nothing approach will get us nothing. That we need baby steps to get us there. Fine, here is my proposal for baby steps. First remove the restrictions for Churches, for ALL CHL's. Next time they can remove the restrictions on profesional sporting events, for ALL CHL's. Then they can go for the 51%, again for ALL CHL's. Baby steps.

I will not support in any way a piece of legislation that exempts politicians from the laws we are expected to obey. I will also not support legislation that gives "special privileges" to some CHL's, but no others. Whatever is done should apply to ALL CHL's or to none.

I have great respect to what Charles has done for guns rights in Texas. This, however is a case where we will never see eye to eye.
How will you feel about it after his method has proven successful?
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT

GrillKing
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 615
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 12:35 pm

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

#97

Post by GrillKing »

The Annoyed Man wrote:
JJVP wrote:I keep hearing that the ALL or Nothing approach will get us nothing. That we need baby steps to get us there. Fine, here is my proposal for baby steps. First remove the restrictions for Churches, for ALL CHL's. Next time they can remove the restrictions on profesional sporting events, for ALL CHL's. Then they can go for the 51%, again for ALL CHL's. Baby steps.

I will not support in any way a piece of legislation that exempts politicians from the laws we are expected to obey. I will also not support legislation that gives "special privileges" to some CHL's, but no others. Whatever is done should apply to ALL CHL's or to none.

I have great respect to what Charles has done for guns rights in Texas. This, however is a case where we will never see eye to eye.
How will you feel about it after his method has proven successful?
And it will prove SUCCESSFUL. One step at a time got us where we are today and one step at a time will continue to get us where we want to be. I believe "all or nothing" will land us closer to nothing. I completely trust Charles, I appreciate his work on Texas RKBA, and will go with his suggestions on how we should proceed. I will do so even when some details cannot be made public at the time. His track record is PROVEN!


EDITED: Changed unsuccessful to SUCCESSFUL (which is what I meant!!!)
Last edited by GrillKing on Sun May 15, 2011 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

mgood
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 964
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:07 am
Location: Snyder, Texas
Contact:

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

#98

Post by mgood »

JJVP wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:
TexasBill wrote:But there are CHL holders who do go to bars, do go to sporting events and do want to carry in church. . .
Just a reminder.... they can carry in church now if they want to, unless the church is posted with a 30.06 sign. . . .
. . . Fine, here is my proposal for baby steps. First remove the restrictions for Churches, for ALL CHL's.
Church carry is ok.
Churches are no different from grocery stores. CHLs may carry there unless they're posted 30.06.
User avatar

sjfcontrol
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 6267
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:14 am
Location: Flint, TX

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

#99

Post by sjfcontrol »

mgood wrote: Church carry is ok.
Churches are no different from grocery stores. CHLs may carry there unless they're posted 30.06.
Hmm, not strictly true. There is a difference between church carry and grocery stores.

If you carry beyond a 30.06 sign on a grocery store, you are guilty of violating PC 30.06 (obviously).
If you carry beyond a 30.06 sign on a church, you are guilty of violating PC 30.06 AND PC 46.035(b)(6), since the exception in PC 46.035(i) would not apply.

A minor difference, perhaps, but you'd have committed two class A misdemeanors instead of just one.
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target."
Never Forget. Image

blue
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 249
Joined: Sat Jan 24, 2009 8:37 pm
Location: DFW

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

#100

Post by blue »

SB905 will HURT the CHL forward progress for years. It will NOT be forgotten.

The orig establishes a "elite" class of CHL. The amended would divide the peons into 3rd renewal and not 3rd renewal classes.

- So going FROM "one for all, all for one" CHL to 3 different classes of CHL helps us HOW???

-Why is a "elite" instantly, upon receiving plastic, deserving extra privileges that a citizen has to wait years and years? Why should they? How is their family safety even a tiny bit more important than the rest of us?

-What of the future? with Three different CHLs classes the peons will no longer matter?

-Three classes WILL complicate them baby steps in the future.

- LEO now has their job three times as hard trying to sort it all out.

-"muddy the water", "divide and conquer"

- Baby steps toward a swimming pool or BBQ , OR BACKWARDS, are NOT GOOD.
--------------------------------------

With all due respect, I cannot support SB 905 in any way.

---------------------------------------
ON THE GOOD NEWS SIDE- 6 are standing up for what is right with Mr. Birdwell really standing tall. THANK YOU!
User avatar

MasterOfNone
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1276
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:00 am
Location: Dallas
Contact:

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

#101

Post by MasterOfNone »

I'm all for baby steps when that concept is applied to making incremental changes for all. But incrementally adding different classes of people tends to be divisive, especially if it gets stopped part way through the process. Consider the idea of reducing taxes by first reducing them for one group while promising to do the same for the rest.
I'm concerned that any argument used to justify expanding this bill to include third-renewers could be turned around and used to prevent expanding it to all other CHLers.
However, I believe I see an approach that would make this work for all. Alas, on the chance that I am thinking the same as those in the know, it would be unwise to discuss it here. I hope this goes as I expect.
http://www.PersonalPerimeter.com
DFW area LTC Instructor
NRA Pistol Instructor, Range Safety Officer, Recruiter

Dave2
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3166
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:39 am
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

#102

Post by Dave2 »

mgood wrote:
Bullwhip wrote: . . . I've heard of plenty of people who go to bars and don't drink. Some aren't even customers, theyr'e Employees, delivery people, band members, designated drivers.

Why should anyone lose their gun rights because of the business license, when they're not even drinking?
:clapping:
I used to work as a sound man. I've spent many a 12-hour day in bars without drinking, setting up, running sound for, then loading out a local band. Then we'd hit Denny's at 4:00 am because we hadn't had a chance to eat since about 4:00 the previous afternoon.
I still do work as a sound man, though these days it's usually for the venue rather than the band. If I was doing much freelance work, I'd follow the advice that someone here gave me and call my local DA to ask him or her if the 51% rule applied after the bar was closed, and explain why I was asking (I don't drink... $30k worth of gear... 3am in a bad part of town... usually by myself... so on and so forth).
I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor should anything I say be taken as legal advice. If it is important that any information be accurate, do not use me as the only source.
User avatar

tacticool
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1486
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 2:41 pm

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

#103

Post by tacticool »

The Annoyed Man wrote:How will you feel about it after his method has proven successful?
I honestly don't know how I would feel because I have never seen it happen.

I have seen lots of times where it didn't work. For example LEOSA still doesn't apply to all CHL nationwide. Like SB905, they sold LEOSA as a foot in the door that would be expanded "next time" to include the rest of us. However, once they got theirs they promptly forgot about us.
When in doubt
Vote them out!

TexasBill
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:01 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

#104

Post by TexasBill »

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
TexasBill wrote:Yes, as far as SB905 goes, I am for "all or nothing." Every holder of a CHL should be treated the same, legislator or not.
Your "I want it all now" attitude isn't limited to SB905, as is easily seen in your ranting posts.

Chas.
Rants? How about debating points? I have not engaged in insults or ad hominem attacks against you or any member of this forum. When presented with an opposing argument, I have presented verifiable sources to support my contentions. Passionate? Yes, indeedy: I believe what's happening is wrong and I advocate a proper way for those who agree with my position to oppose it.

The "all" I want isn't going to happen anytime soon. But the Act of April 12, 1871 wasn't a baby step: it was a giant leap to an absolute prohibition on the citizens of Texas carrying handguns outside of their homes or places of business or "traveling" (a term so poorly defined it took two sessions of the legislature over a hundred years later to set it straight). I believe we should strive to take more than "baby steps" to regain the rights we once enjoyed: at the very least, we should graduate to toddling.

Furthermore, I know the Legislature is the last step. We need to do a better job of marshaling public opinion. We need to set a long-term goal and devise strategies and tactics to achieve it. But long-term doesn't mean "sometime, never."

Bill
A government truly of the people, by the people and for the people has no need to disarm the people.
User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 26796
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

#105

Post by The Annoyed Man »

GrillKing wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:
JJVP wrote:I keep hearing that the ALL or Nothing approach will get us nothing. That we need baby steps to get us there. Fine, here is my proposal for baby steps. First remove the restrictions for Churches, for ALL CHL's. Next time they can remove the restrictions on profesional sporting events, for ALL CHL's. Then they can go for the 51%, again for ALL CHL's. Baby steps.

I will not support in any way a piece of legislation that exempts politicians from the laws we are expected to obey. I will also not support legislation that gives "special privileges" to some CHL's, but no others. Whatever is done should apply to ALL CHL's or to none.

I have great respect to what Charles has done for guns rights in Texas. This, however is a case where we will never see eye to eye.
How will you feel about it after his method has proven successful?
And it will prove unsuccessful. One step at a time got us where we are today and one step at a time will continue to get us where we want to be. I believe "all or nothing" will land us closer to nothing. I completely trust Charles, I appreciate his work on Texas RKBA, and will go with his suggestions on how we should proceed. I will do so even when some details cannot be made public at the time. His track record is PROVEN!
I think you misread my previous posts. I trust Charles too. I was the one urging others to trust him. SEE THIS POST FROM PAJAMAS MEDIA.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT
Locked

Return to “2011 Texas Legislative Session”