2013 Legislative Section is now open

This sub-forum will open for posting on Sept. 1, 2012.

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby smoothoperator » Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:08 pm

joelamosobadiah wrote:I am against the government legislating against one set of rights in favor of another.

Isn't that what the parking lot law did?

Image
smoothoperator
Senior Member
 
Posts: 579
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2011 8:15 pm

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby AJSully421 » Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:47 pm

smoothoperator wrote:
AJSully421 wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
AJSully421 wrote:I also want licensed OC. I liked last session's bill that simply deleted the word "Concealed" from every CHL law. (It also altered section 30.06 and would make any current 30.06 sign instantly unenforceable)


Last session's bill was a train wreck! It unnecessarily opened massive sections of the Government Code and Penal Code to anti-gun, anti-carry amendments. The worst part was the amendment to TPC §30.06 that would make it apply to both open and concealed carry. If the OC bill this session has the same provision, it will be DOA.

Chas.


I don't remember hearing this before. Can you elaborate on a couple of examples?

You already said the bill would have altered "every CHL law" so I don't think we need any more examples.


Well... I think that we do. I have read up on how last session's bill changed 30.06 and why that is bad, and I agree with charles that the way that HB 2756 altered 30.06 would be bad news.

However, on my own, I have not been able to see any other ways how that bill "unnecessarily opened massive sections of the Government Code and Penal Code to anti-gun, anti-carry amendments". Otherwise, I cannot understand how deleting one word from every CHL law, including 30.06, could be "massive", so I am trying to learn something that I am obviously and woefully ignorant on by politely requesting CHARLES to educate those of us who are not legal scholars.

If you are somehow offended by my asking sincere questions, then there are hundreds of other threads that you are free to explore. If you are afraid that I am some sort of troll... then let me assure that I am not.
Armed Citizen
AJSully421
Member
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2008 4:31 pm
Location: Benbrook

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby apostate » Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:18 pm

AJSully421 wrote:If you are somehow offended by my asking sincere questions, then there are hundreds of other threads that you are free to explore.

Oh, the irony! "rlol"
You better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone.
For the times they are a-changin'.
apostate
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1740
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:01 am
Location: Houston Texas

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby Liberty » Thu Nov 29, 2012 9:19 am

Open carry will be introduced. Rep. Lavender has been making noise all over the place claiming his intention to file. He also claims they will provide an out for any business. As I see it there are two tricky parts to this. 1st if it is tied to CHL 30.06 more visible guns will result in more no gun places... This is almost certain, What isn't certain is just how many places will be closed off to us.
Another certainty is this bill will never see daylight until there is consensus among us gun advocates. If the antis smell dissent amongst the troops They will be empowered to stop the Bill. No gun bill will ever pass the Texas legislative process without TSRA backing. The TSRA won't get behind any gun bill, unless they see they have consensus amonst their people. That is where this forum takes on importance. Our legislators the TSRA and the organized gun banners cruise the Texas bases social media. When it comes to guns This forum is the window on the mood of Texas gun rights advocates. Neither the TSRA nor the Legislature is going to move on an issue where there is a lot decent among the gun rights advocates.

The open carry people need to win us over before they can ever expect legislative success. To do this they might want to reconsider their agressive tactics, garner friends and advocates, and to kiss off as few people as they can. Its called diplomacy or statesmanship. A beggining would be to listen to Charles very carefully. Charles is the master at understanding and moving things through this process.
Second piece of advice is to gather support amongst some gun friendly Reps and Senators ([strike]Pay them off[-strike] donations to their campain funds) Even a couple of dollars get you on their good list. Write to them, nice polite letters, while thanking them for the good things they have done. They are powered by ego and love to hear good things about themselves.

Last thing to remember is to be patient. the Parking lot bill took about three tries.. simplifying the CHL process has been a 10 year process. Don't tolorate the hotheads on your side, they only hurt your cause. I remember thinking myself 2 years ago. "There is a person who I wish wasn't packing on our streets"
Liberty''s Blog
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy
User avatar
Liberty
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4294
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Galveston

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby warhorse10_9 » Sat Dec 01, 2012 3:02 am

On the campus carry issue, can we try to keep the discussion focused on personal protection rather than mass shootings. I think all the emphasis that this was about protection during a mass shooting is one of the things that derailed the bill last session. The focus should be kept squarely on smaller everyday acts of violence that campus carry would allow CHL holders to protect themselves from.
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters."
- Frank Lloyd Wright (1868-1959)

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
User avatar
warhorse10_9
Senior Member
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 12:15 am
Location: Plano, TX

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby Liberty » Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:14 am

We are always more effective when defending the rights of a young lady to defend herself. The mass shooter scenario is an unpleasant one where everyone knows that will always have unpleasant results. While we end up potraying ourselves as Rambo's in waiting. Focusing on defending against campus rapist and muggers makes better press.
Liberty''s Blog
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy
User avatar
Liberty
Senior Member
 
Posts: 4294
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Galveston

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby Keith B » Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:18 am

smoothoperator wrote:
joelamosobadiah wrote:I am against the government legislating against one set of rights in favor of another.

Isn't that what the parking lot law did?

[ Image ]


Nope. The parking lot law kept the employer from restricting me from keeping my gun in MY property (my vehicle). It actually restored rights that my employer was taking away. It still allows the employer to restrict me from taking it off of my property and onto theirs when I leave the vehicle.
Keith
Texas CHL Instructor, NRA Life Member, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor and RSO
Either my Spidey senses are tingling, or my butt has fallen asleep again.
User avatar
Keith B
Senior Member
 
Posts: 14270
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm
Location: Plano, TX

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby tbrown » Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:23 pm

Keith B wrote:
smoothoperator wrote:
joelamosobadiah wrote:I am against the government legislating against one set of rights in favor of another.

Isn't that what the parking lot law did?

[ Image ]


Nope. The parking lot law kept the employer from restricting me from keeping my gun in MY property (my vehicle).

Following the same logic, businesses should only be able to prohibit open carry. Why? Because if I'm carrying concealed, my gun is in my property (my clothes, my briefcase) and they have no right to restrict me from keeping my gun in MY property.
if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you

Image
tbrown
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: South Austin

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby jmra » Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:44 pm

tbrown wrote:
Keith B wrote:
smoothoperator wrote:
joelamosobadiah wrote:I am against the government legislating against one set of rights in favor of another.

Isn't that what the parking lot law did?

[ Image ]


Nope. The parking lot law kept the employer from restricting me from keeping my gun in MY property (my vehicle).

Following the same logic, businesses should only be able to prohibit open carry. Why? Because if I'm carrying concealed, my gun is in my property (my clothes, my briefcase) and they have no right to restrict me from keeping my gun in MY property.


Apples and oranges.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
User avatar
jmra
Senior Member
 
Posts: 6818
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby canvasbck » Sat Dec 01, 2012 8:17 pm

jmra wrote:
tbrown wrote:
Keith B wrote:
smoothoperator wrote:
joelamosobadiah wrote:I am against the government legislating against one set of rights in favor of another.

Isn't that what the parking lot law did?

[ Image ]


Nope. The parking lot law kept the employer from restricting me from keeping my gun in MY property (my vehicle).

Following the same logic, businesses should only be able to prohibit open carry. Why? Because if I'm carrying concealed, my gun is in my property (my clothes, my briefcase) and they have no right to restrict me from keeping my gun in MY property.


Apples and oranges.


While it is apples and oranges, I like that line of thinking
"All bleeding eventually stops.......quit whining!"
User avatar
canvasbck
Senior Member
 
Posts: 673
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:45 pm
Location: Alvin

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby tbrown » Sat Dec 01, 2012 8:23 pm

More like Golden Delicious and Granny Smith. Real property and personal property (chattel property) may be apples and oranges, but personal property (cars, bags) are all apples. If we're being logical instead of emotional.
if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you

Image
tbrown
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1300
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: South Austin

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby baldeagle » Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:22 pm

warhorse10_9 wrote:On the campus carry issue, can we try to keep the discussion focused on personal protection rather than mass shootings. I think all the emphasis that this was about protection during a mass shooting is one of the things that derailed the bill last session. The focus should be kept squarely on smaller everyday acts of violence that campus carry would allow CHL holders to protect themselves from.

That didn't help in Nevada last session, although the introduction of a CHL holder who was raped on campus may have been too late in the session to have an impact.

I do think it's a good idea to emphasize the personal protection aspect of it, but the other side is going to point to the low crime statistics to counter that argument, so you have to be prepared to counter that as well. I think the best approach is to point out that tolerating even one rape is one too many, and the police cannot be everywhere, as is proven by the fact that rapes (and other crimes) still do occur. It's perfectly fine for a student to depend on police if that's their choice, but we should be denying a student the choice to defend themselves simply because they are in a campus environment.

The left is very good at playing on people's emotions. It's time for the right to start using that weapon against them and demonstrate, through personal examples, how denying people their rights has very real consequences that can be life altering or even life destroying.
The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. James Madison
NRA Life Member Texas Firearms Coalition member
User avatar
baldeagle
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3831
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 8:26 pm
Location: Richardson, TX

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby TexasCajun » Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:32 pm

The legislature is not likely to overturn the rights of property owners. To continue along those lines is pointless. For example, they're not likely to say that my right to free speech would allow me to come into your home whenever I like to preach Catholic doctrine & Christian to you regardless of your beliefs. Without 30.06, our ability to carry concealed would be even more restricted than it currently is. Open carry could cause more 30.06 signs to go up because concealed carry means out of sight, out of mind. Seeing openly carried weapons could bring the issue to the forefront.
Opinions expressed are subject to change without notice.
NRA TSRA TFC CHL: 9/22/12, PSC Member: 10/2012
TexasCajun
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1003
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:58 pm
Location: Deer Park, TX

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby srothstein » Sun Dec 02, 2012 12:03 am

jmra wrote:
tbrown wrote:Following the same logic, businesses should only be able to prohibit open carry. Why? Because if I'm carrying concealed, my gun is in my property (my clothes, my briefcase) and they have no right to restrict me from keeping my gun in MY property.


Apples and oranges.



I disagree. This can be seen as a question of what container I carry my gun in. Under the current law, if the container is my car, the property owner cannot ban me from carrying at work, but if the container is my briefcase, he can. I only see a difference in the size of the container.

Can you explain why you see some other difference that makes the positions so different?
Steve Rothstein
srothstein
Senior Member
 
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: 2013 Legislative Section is now open

Postby MasterOfNone » Sun Dec 02, 2012 12:32 am

srothstein wrote:
jmra wrote:
tbrown wrote:Following the same logic, businesses should only be able to prohibit open carry. Why? Because if I'm carrying concealed, my gun is in my property (my clothes, my briefcase) and they have no right to restrict me from keeping my gun in MY property.


Apples and oranges.



I disagree. This can be seen as a question of what container I carry my gun in. Under the current law, if the container is my car, the property owner cannot ban me from carrying at work, but if the container is my briefcase, he can. I only see a difference in the size of the container.

Can you explain why you see some other difference that makes the positions so different?

:iagree: I frequently hear statements like "My car is my property, so I can do what I want in it." As already pointed out, the car is one's personal property, but when it is on another's real property, the real property owner is granting permission to have that car on their property. As such, the real property owner sets the terms under which that permission is granted.
http://www.PersonalPerimeter.com
DFW area CHL Instructor
NRA Pistol Instructor, Range Safety Officer, Recruiter
User avatar
MasterOfNone
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:00 am
Location: Dallas

PreviousNext

Return to 2013 Texas Legislative Session

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest