The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
http://www.texaschlforum.com/
Carrying in bars will never pass, regardless how it's packaged or creative one is in coming up with sound bites. I'm not willing to risk the entire bill trying to convince Senators, Representatives and the general public that alcohol and guns do mix, in spite of what every responsible gun owner has said for a hundred years.RedRaider wrote:How about looking at it a different way. Having to leave your gun in the car causes more of a public safety issue as it is no longer under your control and could potentially be stolen by a criminal? Just food for thought.Charles L. Cotton wrote:It won't pass without keeping bars off-limits.TexasCajun wrote:I like it. Especially the idea of turning the question around -I do have one question and one point to add.The question should not be “why would you need a handgun,” it should be “is there a compelling reason to exclude handguns?”
The question: If there is already a prohibition against being intoxicated while carrying concealed, why continue to exclued concealed carry in 51% establishments?
We really don't want to argue that every time a CHL takes his/her gun out of a holster, we are risking an accidental discharge.TexasCajun wrote:And my one point: Requiring a CHL holder to disarm before entering a prohibited place actually creates more of a public safety issue. When my gun is holstered & concealed, the chance of a negligent discharge is virtually non-existant. However, when I have to unconceal and unholster my weapon to put it in secure storage, the risk of a negligent discharge goes up significantly due to the very nature of having to handle the weapon. Then re-arming after leaving the prohibited place again increases the ND risk. In these circumstances the ND risk is even higher because the weapon-handling is usually taking place in cramped & seated position within a car. Even re-holstering a micro-compact 9mm pistol IWB puts the CHL'er in an awkward, contorting position.We know what the opposition will be saying.
Chas.
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Carrying in bars will never pass, regardless how it's packaged or creative one is in coming up with sound bites. I'm not willing to risk the entire bill trying to convince Senators, Representatives and the general public that alcohol and guns do mix, in spite of what every responsible gun owner has said for a hundred years.
Come on guys; we're talking about a sea change in Texas law and you're upset because you won't be able to carry in a bar?
Chas.
getting this passed is much more important than throwing back a few with your buddies.Hey, I'm not upset! The goals outlined all sound wonderful.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Carrying in bars will never pass, regardless how it's packaged or creative one is in coming up with sound bites. I'm not willing to risk the entire bill trying to convince Senators, Representatives and the general public that alcohol and guns do mix, in spite of what every responsible gun owner has said for a hundred years.
Come on guys; we're talking about a sea change in Texas law and you're upset because you won't be able to carry in a bar?
Chas.
Charles, sorry my comment was geared towards having to unarm when entering off limit locations and how it decreases public safety, not at bars specifically, I know trying to remove bars as off limits is a losing battle. Schools need to be front and center.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Carrying in bars will never pass, regardless how it's packaged or creative one is in coming up with sound bites. I'm not willing to risk the entire bill trying to convince Senators, Representatives and the general public that alcohol and guns do mix, in spite of what every responsible gun owner has said for a hundred years.RedRaider wrote:How about looking at it a different way. Having to leave your gun in the car causes more of a public safety issue as it is no longer under your control and could potentially be stolen by a criminal? Just food for thought.Charles L. Cotton wrote:It won't pass without keeping bars off-limits.TexasCajun wrote:I like it. Especially the idea of turning the question around -I do have one question and one point to add.The question should not be “why would you need a handgun,” it should be “is there a compelling reason to exclude handguns?”
The question: If there is already a prohibition against being intoxicated while carrying concealed, why continue to exclued concealed carry in 51% establishments?
We really don't want to argue that every time a CHL takes his/her gun out of a holster, we are risking an accidental discharge.TexasCajun wrote:And my one point: Requiring a CHL holder to disarm before entering a prohibited place actually creates more of a public safety issue. When my gun is holstered & concealed, the chance of a negligent discharge is virtually non-existant. However, when I have to unconceal and unholster my weapon to put it in secure storage, the risk of a negligent discharge goes up significantly due to the very nature of having to handle the weapon. Then re-arming after leaving the prohibited place again increases the ND risk. In these circumstances the ND risk is even higher because the weapon-handling is usually taking place in cramped & seated position within a car. Even re-holstering a micro-compact 9mm pistol IWB puts the CHL'er in an awkward, contorting position.
Chas.
Come on guys; we're talking about a sea change in Texas law and you're upset because you won't be able to carry in a bar?
Chas.
Chas - as we have found in the other thread, this is definitely the case, but I'm curious if you have access to the actual numbers? The best we could in the thread get was not an apples to apples comparison and I think it was 0.3 for LE and 0.24 for CHLs - if you had better data I'd love to bookmark to share with fellow LE folks.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Not only is this an astounding statistic, it is far better than that achieved by Texas law enforcement.
You're not being greedy, you just want more than we can get through the legislature. I've been running this idea around Austin for a couple of years and the first question is usually something like "you don't want to carry in bars, do you!?"TexasCajun wrote:Sorry for sounding greedy. I figured we've got a chance to gain more ground next session than we've originally planned. Figured why not ask about the whole shebang. I don't drink, so the bar issue isn't really a big one for me. And I don't hang out in bars on a regular basis. Again, just asking.
I'm waiting on an Open Records Request to TCLEOSE to get updated numbers. When I do this, all my COP buddies and contacts fear I'm going after LEOs and that's not the case. I just want to be able to refute arguments that it's safe to let LEOs carry in _____________ but not CHLs.gigag04 wrote:Chas - as we have found in the other thread, this is definitely the case, but I'm curious if you have access to the actual numbers? The best we could in the thread get was not an apples to apples comparison and I think it was 0.3 for LE and 0.24 for CHLs - if you had better data I'd love to bookmark to share with fellow LE folks.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Not only is this an astounding statistic, it is far better than that achieved by Texas law enforcement.
Also - great article, I'm interested to follow this legislative session.
Frustrating that the law requires a response in ten days, but apparently has no teeth in the event an agency takes 30x that long?Charles L. Cotton wrote:I'm waiting on an Open Records Request to TCLEOSE to get updated numbers. When I do this, all my COP buddies and contacts fear I'm going after LEOs and that's not the case. I just want to be able to refute arguments that it's safe to let LEOs carry in _____________ but not CHLs.gigag04 wrote:Chas - as we have found in the other thread, this is definitely the case, but I'm curious if you have access to the actual numbers? The best we could in the thread get was not an apples to apples comparison and I think it was 0.3 for LE and 0.24 for CHLs - if you had better data I'd love to bookmark to share with fellow LE folks.Charles L. Cotton wrote:Not only is this an astounding statistic, it is far better than that achieved by Texas law enforcement.
Also - great article, I'm interested to follow this legislative session.
The last time I made an ORR was in 2006 for the 2007 session and the LEO record was exactly half as good as CHLs. It also took 11 months to get a response to my ORR instead of the statutorily-required 10 days. When the data is in and the comparison is run, 'll post whether or not CHLs still have a better record, but I will not post the data. I do not want anyone to think I'm going after LEOs. That would cause a huge backlash in the legislature that could cost us dearly. If anyone wants the actual numbers, they will have to do their own ORR.
Chas.
oldtexan wrote:Charles,
Are you at liberty to discuss whether the legislation being drafted/considered addresses concealed carry on the premises of educational institutions?
Thanks.