Poll: Do you think the Texas Legislature supports open-carry

[carlson1]

I vote NO because if they majority did support it then it would have passed.

I would like to see OC, but I sure do not want to put what we have now in danger. There are things I can think of that is more important than OC that I would like to see past.

[C-dub]

It's not really about whether or not you know they are for or against OC. It's what you THINK they are as a whole. The question isn't, "Does the Texas Legislature support open-carry?" And since it asks about the whole I would naturally figure that there are some that are for it and some that oppose it and some that want to avoid the question and not upset half of their constituents.

[Charles L. Cotton]

It's not really about whether or not you know they are for or against OC. It's what you THINK they are as a whole. The question isn't, "Does the Texas Legislature support open-carry?"

Exactly! Remember this aspect of the open-carry debate when the bomb-throwers start blaming the TSRA and/or NRA for an unfavorable outcome, should one occur. It's rare that we cram anything down the legislature's collective throats. We build support for an issue over time and we move on a bill when we think we have the votes, the right committee assignments, the right committee chairman, the right Speaker of the House, etc. That's how we passed virtually every controversial bill, including employer parking lots that took 4 sessions (8 years) to pass!

Political novices don't understand or don't appreciate the importance of this approach.

Chas.

[bizarrenormality]

I vote NO because if they majority did support it then it would have passed.

The same applies to campus carry. We also know what they think about the bill of rights, which clearly says the right of the common people to own and carry weapons shall not be infringed. They can argue against my statement if they want but the simple truth is their actions speak louder than words, so the most effective argument is to repeal the restrictions that infringe our rights.

[SA-TX]

It's not really about whether or not you know they are for or against OC. It's what you THINK they are as a whole. The question isn't, "Does the Texas Legislature support open-carry?"

Exactly! Remember this aspect of the open-carry debate when the bomb-throwers start blaming the TSRA and/or NRA for an unfavorable outcome, should one occur. It's rare that we cram anything down the legislature's collective throats. We build support for an issue over time and we move on a bill when we think we have the votes, the right committee assignments, the right committee chairman, the right Speaker of the House, etc. That's how we passed virtually every controversial bill, including employer parking lots that took 4 sessions (8 years) to pass!

Political novices don't understand or don't appreciate the importance of this approach.

Chas.

I suspect if you polled members of the Legislature their responses would look much like what we see in this audience:

[*]A small number of them would see it as a natural part of our 2A rights and be a sponsor and/or very supportive.
[*]A much greater number would be surprised at the topic ("what's wrong with concealed carry?!") but are pro-CHL and persuadable.
[*]Another portion would think that concealed carry is as far as they are willing to go (perhaps they only begrudgingly voted for it and the amendments since) and would only CONSIDER voting for it if TSRA/NRA really made it a priority.
[*]The remainder are anti-2A/CHL and highly unlikely to change. This is the only group that is probably not well represented in this forum but exists in the Legislature.

My overall view of the Legislature is this: while most members have probably never heard of open carry or given it much thought, they are pro-2A enough that with TSRA's strong support and advocacy such a change would pass both chambers if put to a final vote. With almost all R members being pro-2A/CHL and many Ds as well, general member support doesn't seem to be the blocker to progress to pro-gun legislation as much as the mechanics of the process: time in the session is precious, there are other more important issues, opposition by one or a small group of influencial members (a commitee chair, the speaker, the Lt. Gov., etc.).

I believe that we can have our will done on this issue BUT if we 2A activists, in this forum, can’t agree on if OC is a good thing, worth pursuing, its priority relative to others goals, etc. it will not happen organically in the Legislature. We need to get our own house in order first, as Charles has advocated for years, and then everyone support the effort with a united front.

Personally I'd like to see us be ambitious and try to make progress on several pro-2A topics given a strong pro-2A Legislature and governor. Yes to campus carry. Yes to reducing off-limits places. Yes to repealing good chunks of the Weapons section of the penal code. Yes to no disarming due to generic "officer safety". Yes to streamlining the CHL process. Yes to OC. These are in no particular order.

I understand the tactics that Charles and TSRA use to minimize the exposure of existing law and I support them but I hope we won't be too defensive or timid. Perhaps I'm very mistaken but the number of members truly hostile to our causes seem to be few and can only prevail when we drop the ball such as failing to comply with rules & points of order are legitimate, failing to convince the chair of relevant committee, etc. Hopefully red hot issues like redistricting, voter ID, a big budget deficit are in the past and our bill(s) won't get in the way. I'd love to see us at least try to advance several items on our agenda until we see a given one simply can't be sustained and capital must redistributed to the higher priority items.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The purpose of this thread is to get the opinion of others, not to give my own. (I do that enough elsewhere. )

I do want to make two comments. First, the Chairman of the committee to which an open-carry bill is assigned is a critical factor, along with the wishes of the Speaker of the House.

Secondly, open-carry is a very well known issue in Austin! That's because of the scorched earth tactics used by open-carry zealots during the 2009 legislative session. Although we have a lot of freshmen in the House this session, most do not bring their own staff wisely choosing to keep long-term legislative staff that know how to get things done. Every staff member who was around in 2009 is painfully aware of how Rep. Riddle was treated by the open-carry supporters. Staff talk to each other, the have lunch and often dinner together, they go to various training and functions together, so word gets around.

Okay, I lied; here's a third comment. Law enforcement opinions on matters like this carry a lot of weight with legislators.

Chas.

[nightmare]

I think they favor open carry as much as they favor open homosexuality. Carrying a gun? Gay? Don't ask. Don't tell.

[ffemt300]

I havent the slightest how they feel about it. My guess would be if there was support for it from lawmakers, then it would have already been done. This being Texas and everything.

[tarkus]

Based on recent legislative sessions, it looks like they're not as gun friendly as legislators in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma...

[C-dub]

SA-TX brings up some good points. It makes me curious about how many of the current state legislatures were there in 1995 when CHL was first passed and how much it has changed when changes have been made. I think it has become more 2A friendly, but not sure how much.

[tarkus]

SA-TX brings up some good points. It makes me curious about how many of the current state legislatures were there in 1995 when CHL was first passed and how much it has changed when changes have been made. I think it has become more 2A friendly, but not sure how much.

Probably not too many. I think the Democrats had the majority back then, and now it's 2:1 Republican, so unless a lot of them changed parties, the percentage is probably low especially when you consider gentlemen like Jerry Patterson moving to higher office.

[C-dub]

SA-TX brings up some good points. It makes me curious about how many of the current state legislatures were there in 1995 when CHL was first passed and how much it has changed when changes have been made. I think it has become more 2A friendly, but not sure how much.

Probably not too many. I think the Democrats had the majority back then, and now it's 2:1 Republican, so unless a lot of them changed parties, the percentage is probably low especially when you consider gentlemen like Jerry Patterson moving to higher office.

Is that true? A democratic majority passed CHL? I didn't know that and find it surprising if true.

[SA-TX]

Based on recent legislative sessions, it looks like they're not as gun friendly as legislators in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma...

Only judged by bills passed, perhaps, but believe most members are pro-2A. The problem is that few reach final votes. Those pro-2A bills that do pass. A few, powerful, members & others dominate issues (redistricting, budget deficits, voter ID) have consumed the precious time available in recent sessions (which only happen every 2 years).

Results ARE what ultimately matters but I think judging the membership as a whole only by this criteria might not take into account all relevant factors which normal members do not control.

[Charles L. Cotton]

The Texas Legislature is very pro-gun, allegations to the contrary notwithstanding. No other state is more gun-friendly than Texas. I know some will argue otherwise pointing to their pet issue or using their own homegrown definition of "gun friendly," but overall, no state is more favorable for gun owners. The combination of our liberal gun laws, very favorable self-defense laws, preemption statutes, and range protection law (like no where else in the country) make Texas a great place for gun owners.

Let the ranting begin.
Chas.

[smoothoperator]

Based on recent legislative sessions, it looks like they're not as gun friendly as legislators in Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado, Oklahoma...

Only judged by bills passed, perhaps, but believe most members are pro-2A. The problem is that few reach final votes. Those pro-2A bills that do pass. A few, powerful, members & others dominate issues (redistricting, budget deficits, voter ID) have consumed the precious time available in recent sessions (which only happen every 2 years).

Results ARE what ultimately matters but I think judging the membership as a whole only by this criteria might not take into account all relevant factors which normal members do not control.

They have time to pass resolutions wishing individuals happy anniversary and happy birthday, so lack of time doesn't pass the sniff test. If a bill was important to the party controlling the house, senate and executive branch, it would pass. I voted accordingly.