TexasCHLforum.com

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?

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.

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!

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"

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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?

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?

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.