You are assuming that all of the Republicans in Austin have the same degree of interest in expanding gun rights as we do.nlyric wrote: Charles, I thought I had responded already but guess I neglected to hit submit.
I certainly can not say it "will" pass. But I do believe if the NRA fully supports it, it has a very good chance. And like I've said none if they don't....
Reasons that support that have been already stated by some. Republican platform, control, and a governor who would surely sign it.
Would rather see the goal out weigh the glory and discourse for a change.
Search found 5 matches
Return to “Political Capital-Prohibited Places vs Constitutional Carry”
- Thu Nov 17, 2016 1:54 pm
- Forum: 2017 Legislative Wish List
- Topic: Political Capital-Prohibited Places vs Constitutional Carry
- Replies: 128
- Views: 52272
Re: Political Capital-Prohibited Places vs Constitutional Carry
- Mon Aug 08, 2016 12:09 pm
- Forum: 2017 Legislative Wish List
- Topic: Political Capital-Prohibited Places vs Constitutional Carry
- Replies: 128
- Views: 52272
Re: Political Capital-Prohibited Places vs Constitutional Carry
How about every place that totally prohibits licensed carry be required to provide bank-quality safety-deposit boxes for LTC holders to secure their handguns? After all, any place that is concerned about the lawful carrying of handguns should be even more concerned about theft of said handguns from the vehicles of their patrons.Jusme wrote:The only place that I feel should be treated the same as government property, are hospitals, that accept, Medicare (paid for by me) Medicaid (paid for by me) Obamacare (again, paid for by me) Or if they are designated a County hospital that is required to accept patients who have none of the listed ways to pay (once again paid for by me)
I understand your argument for property owners doing business with the public, and in most if not all cases are licensed in some way by the government, not being able to post signs prohibiting LTC holders from bringing their handguns into their business. But,I believe that government should play almost no role in determining how a business owner should conduct his business, in relation to whom he refuses service. Whether it is LTC holders or refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. That being said, I think that Charles is right in that, we would have almost certainly gotten none of the laws passed regarding LTC, if it weren't for giving in to the demand for business owners, to be allowed to prohibit carrying.JMHO
- Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:00 am
- Forum: 2017 Legislative Wish List
- Topic: Political Capital-Prohibited Places vs Constitutional Carry
- Replies: 128
- Views: 52272
Re: Political Capital-Prohibited Places vs Constitutional Carry
My basic lack of trust in government makes me say that "they" want the fingerprints to further build the data sets by having millions of people's fingerprints that they would not have gotten any other way.TXBO wrote:It would be very interesting to know how many applicants the fingerprinting has prohibited from getting their license. I bet the number is extremely low. I would think that would be good data to remove the requirement and the cost.Charles L. Cotton wrote:....
DPS must pay the FBI $23 for every fingerprint background check run on applicants. This is a significant cost to DPS that should be removed in my opinion.
......
According to Lott's statistics, a $20 decrease in cost would raise the percentage of license holders in Texas by about 1%. With a population of almost 27 Million, an additional 270,000 law abiding citizens would become license holders. That also ignores the bounce for simplifying the process. That's approximately a 25% increase in license holders. I would consider that a major victory.
- Mon Aug 08, 2016 10:55 am
- Forum: 2017 Legislative Wish List
- Topic: Political Capital-Prohibited Places vs Constitutional Carry
- Replies: 128
- Views: 52272
Re: Political Capital-Prohibited Places vs Constitutional Carry
I'd like to see more restrictions placed on public places like hotels to not post 30.06 and 30.07 signs.
A business that "sells" you a place to live for one or more days should not be allowed to endanger your life by restricting your U.S. and Texas Constitutional rights.
While traveling yesterday I overheard a conversation in a gas station about a motel in that small town on Saturday night having six rooms getting the doors kicked in the middle of the night and robbed.
A business that "sells" you a place to live for one or more days should not be allowed to endanger your life by restricting your U.S. and Texas Constitutional rights.
While traveling yesterday I overheard a conversation in a gas station about a motel in that small town on Saturday night having six rooms getting the doors kicked in the middle of the night and robbed.
- Thu Aug 04, 2016 1:59 pm
- Forum: 2017 Legislative Wish List
- Topic: Political Capital-Prohibited Places vs Constitutional Carry
- Replies: 128
- Views: 52272
Re: Political Capital-Prohibited Places vs Constitutional Carry
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Unlicensed open-carry will not pass in 2017 and it may not even be filed. Open-carry groups will focus on NRA/TSRA bills and issues trying to once again take credit for bills that we passed last session and that we will pass in 2017. They did that at the end of 2015 and they will do so again in 2017. They show up at a public hearing on NRA/TSRA bills, testify in support, then claim they got the bills passed. Thankfully, only the folks in their echo chamber buy that garbage.
Removal of off-limits areas for LTCs should be the single flagship bill in 2017 and if it is not, then a great disservice has been inflicted on the most law-abiding of Texans. The political climate is perfect to see the bill pass. Local officials are blatantly ignoring Tex. Gov't Code §411.209 (SB273), playing games with lame excuses that sound like they came from a five year old, and risking taxpayer money while doing so.
So-called "gun free zones" are a magnet for criminals whether they come to commit mass murder or to rape or rob a lone victim. With the increased threat of attacks by terrorists, the need to remove unnecessary off-limits areas is greater now than in the past. Even Harvard agrees that "gun free zones" are a magnet for violent criminals.
I don't care if we pass nothing else -- remove off-limits killing zones now!!!
Chas.
x1000