TexasCHLforum.com

jmra wrote:

harrycallahan wrote:

jmra wrote:

harrycallahan wrote:

jmra wrote:

harrycallahan wrote:In 204 days 17 hours and 32 minutes we will find out.

I doubt we will discover much on Jan 1. It will take some time to figure out how common place OC will become in TX. IMHO after the dust settles the average Joe will rarely see OC. With only about 3% of the population licensed to carry and only about half that number carrying on a regular basis and only a fraction of that number willing to OC it simply isn't going to be that big a deal.
When it's all said and done we will have spent a great amount of political capital on principle with little practical life application.

I can't dispute your math as it relates to OC. However, I believe that Open Carry's importance should not be measured by the methods you've prescribed. To do so actually subscribes to the anti-2A logic, to a point. I agree the percentages are small at this time, but that number will only grow. A powerful, voting group of people that are 800,000 strong is nothing to dismiss. That is nearly a million households, some with children and all with family and friends that are being exposed to lawful citizens exercising their 2A rights. There is no doubt much political capital were spent on this. But on whose side? Why? The anti-2A philosophy understands this and that is why they fought as hard as they did against Open Carry. Make no mistake, the campaign that they mounted against Open Carry was on many fronts and was in the form of in your face attacks, fronts, moles and misinformation. I have my views on Open Carry and so do all of us. But if you want to really know how important something actually is, just take a look at what the opposition is doing. They almost killed it by agreeing with it! I am referring to the Dutton/Huffines amendment. That tactic was genius and it was executed right under our nose.

The flaw in your logic is that all 800,000 supported spending the political capital to pass OC - they didn't.

I did not say that all 800,000 supported OC and it wouldn't be accurate to say anyway. I was only drawing a correlation between those with Texas CHLs and the opposition's willingness to defeat legislation aimed towards that end. I hope that once you've had a chance to think it over, HB 910 that is, that you'll moderate even just a bit. Because when you describe it as a bill "with little practical life application" as you did here, others will read it and think the same. HB 910 doesn't just apply to Open Carry. The reduction in penalties applies to us all and that alone makes this bill worth it. I know it was expensive, but so was everything. This session was painful to watch. Much like watching paint dry, a root canal or listening to a Hilary Clinton speech.

I've stated many times that the very best thing about this bill is the reduction in penalty, but if I could trade OC and the reduction in penalty for a reduction in off limit areas (carry anywhere an off duty office can) I would do it in a heartbeat.
Again, I am in no way opposed to OC, I just think there were more important things.
But this is just MHO, not something I'm trying to be argumentative about. I hope I'm not coming across otherwise.

jmra wrote:

harrycallahan wrote:

jmra wrote:

harrycallahan wrote:In 204 days 17 hours and 32 minutes we will find out.

I doubt we will discover much on Jan 1. It will take some time to figure out how common place OC will become in TX. IMHO after the dust settles the average Joe will rarely see OC. With only about 3% of the population licensed to carry and only about half that number carrying on a regular basis and only a fraction of that number willing to OC it simply isn't going to be that big a deal.
When it's all said and done we will have spent a great amount of political capital on principle with little practical life application.

I can't dispute your math as it relates to OC. However, I believe that Open Carry's importance should not be measured by the methods you've prescribed. To do so actually subscribes to the anti-2A logic, to a point. I agree the percentages are small at this time, but that number will only grow. A powerful, voting group of people that are 800,000 strong is nothing to dismiss. That is nearly a million households, some with children and all with family and friends that are being exposed to lawful citizens exercising their 2A rights. There is no doubt much political capital were spent on this. But on whose side? Why? The anti-2A philosophy understands this and that is why they fought as hard as they did against Open Carry. Make no mistake, the campaign that they mounted against Open Carry was on many fronts and was in the form of in your face attacks, fronts, moles and misinformation. I have my views on Open Carry and so do all of us. But if you want to really know how important something actually is, just take a look at what the opposition is doing. They almost killed it by agreeing with it! I am referring to the Dutton/Huffines amendment. That tactic was genius and it was executed right under our nose.

The flaw in your logic is that all 800,000 supported spending the political capital to pass OC - they didn't.

jmra wrote:

harrycallahan wrote:In 204 days 17 hours and 32 minutes we will find out.

I doubt we will discover much on Jan 1. It will take some time to figure out how common place OC will become in TX. IMHO after the dust settles the average Joe will rarely see OC. With only about 3% of the population licensed to carry and only about half that number carrying on a regular basis and only a fraction of that number willing to OC it simply isn't going to be that big a deal.
When it's all said and done we will have spent a great amount of political capital on principle with little practical life application.

dk523 wrote:

FormerTSgt wrote:

nitrogen wrote:Coming out of hibernation again. I called both my senator and rep (van taylor and jodie laubenberg) who told me they are both behind open carry.

is there any way I can see who voted for and against the conf committee report in case I need to call back and cal them on male bovine excrement?

There is a list floating around somewhere in this section of the forum. Laudenberg voted yes on concurrence so no worries there. No idea on van Taylor.

Found it:

Here's the list of Republican Representatives that voted against the report. Give them a call and let them know you are not happy. These are RINOs that voted AGAINST Open Carry.

"Hello my name is... I am disappointed with the representative's no vote on HB910 "

Rep. Anderson, Charles (512) 463-0135
Rep. Ashby, Trent (512) 463-0508
Rep. Aycock, Jimmie Don (512) 463-0684
Rep. Bonnen, Dennis (512) 463-0564
Rep. Bonnen, Greg (512) 463-0729
Rep. Burkett, Cindy (512) 463-0464
Rep. Cook, Byron (512) 463-0730
Rep. Dale, Tony (512) 463-0696
Rep. Davis, Sarah (512) 463-0389
Rep. Farney, Marsha (512) 463-0309
Rep. Fletcher, Allen (512) 463-0661
Rep. Frank, James (512) 463-0534
Rep. Galindo, Rick (512) 463-0269
Rep. Geren, Charlie (512) 463-0610
Rep. Goldman, Craig (512) 463-0608
Rep. Gonzales, Larry (512) 463-0670
Rep. Harless, Patricia (512) 463-0496
Rep. King, Susan Lewis (512) 463-0718
Rep. King, Phil (512) 463-0738
Rep. Koop, Linda (512) 463-0454
Rep. Larson, Lyle (512) 463-0646
Rep. Meyer, Morgan (512) 463-0367
Rep. Miller, Doug (512) 463-0325
Rep. Miller, Rick (512) 463-0710
Rep. Morrison, Geanie W.(512) 463-0456
Rep. Murphy, Jim (512) 463-0514
Rep. Price, Four (512) 463-0470
Rep. Riddle, Debbie (512) 463-0572
Rep. Sheets, Kenneth (512) 463-0244
Rep. Sheffield, J. D. (512) 463-0628
Rep. Smith, Wayne (512) 463-0733
Rep. Smithee, John T. (512) 463-0702
Rep. Stephenson, Phil (512) 463-0604
Rep. Thompson, Ed (512) 463-0707
Rep. VanDeaver, Gary (512) 463-0692
Rep. Villalba, Jason (512) 463-0576
Rep. Zerwas, John (512) 463-0657