Search found 14 matches

by jmra
Sun May 31, 2015 7:34 am
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: HB 910 Conference Committee
Replies: 518
Views: 118319

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

Vol Texan wrote:
jmra wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
Glockster wrote:
TrueFlog wrote:
fickman wrote: 2) I hope the big box and chain businesses will focus on 30.07 to avoid visible firearms in their establishment and choose to forego the 30.06 signs. They only have so much real estate at entrances and its a valuable marketing and branding location. How great would it be for them to turn it into an either/or decision instead of a both/and?
I expect that most big box stores will not be posting signage of any kind. Wal-mart has a company-wide policy of not banning guns at any of their stores - whatever local laws allow for, Wal-mart allows and does not add any additional restrictions. Keep in mind also that a few years ago, the Brady Campaign put alot of pressure on Starbucks to forbid open carry at their stores in Seattle. Starbucks stood firm and refused to give in. If a company based in a liberal town like Seattle stood up to the Bradys and refuse to outlaw open carry, I'm optimistic that other companies will be unlikely to prohibit open carry. And, of course, we haven't seen a rash of no-gun signs in other states (like Oklahoma), so I don't expect it to be an issue here.
Unless something has changed with Starbucks that I'm not aware of, I disagree with saying that they didn't give in. While they make it clear that they claim to not be anti gun or anti 2A, they have said that they do not want guns in any Starbucks:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... z/2829937/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"After months of wrangling over the highly emotional issue, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz on Wednesday announced that guns are no longer permitted in Starbucks stores — or in Starbucks outdoor seating areas."

They requested people not carry in their stores. They have not banned carry in their stores. This quote is from the same article.
"At this point we'll sit and monitor the situation," says Schultz. "We're hoping that most people will honor the request." But even if gun-carrying customers don't honor the request, says Schultz, "We'll serve them with a smile and not confront them."
Was this in response to handgun carry in other states or the long gun carry in Texas?
I believe specifically to long gun carry.
In that case I wouldn't think handgun OC would be viewed the same way.
by jmra
Sun May 31, 2015 7:05 am
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: HB 910 Conference Committee
Replies: 518
Views: 118319

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

mojo84 wrote:
Glockster wrote:
TrueFlog wrote:
fickman wrote: 2) I hope the big box and chain businesses will focus on 30.07 to avoid visible firearms in their establishment and choose to forego the 30.06 signs. They only have so much real estate at entrances and its a valuable marketing and branding location. How great would it be for them to turn it into an either/or decision instead of a both/and?
I expect that most big box stores will not be posting signage of any kind. Wal-mart has a company-wide policy of not banning guns at any of their stores - whatever local laws allow for, Wal-mart allows and does not add any additional restrictions. Keep in mind also that a few years ago, the Brady Campaign put alot of pressure on Starbucks to forbid open carry at their stores in Seattle. Starbucks stood firm and refused to give in. If a company based in a liberal town like Seattle stood up to the Bradys and refuse to outlaw open carry, I'm optimistic that other companies will be unlikely to prohibit open carry. And, of course, we haven't seen a rash of no-gun signs in other states (like Oklahoma), so I don't expect it to be an issue here.
Unless something has changed with Starbucks that I'm not aware of, I disagree with saying that they didn't give in. While they make it clear that they claim to not be anti gun or anti 2A, they have said that they do not want guns in any Starbucks:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/bus ... z/2829937/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"After months of wrangling over the highly emotional issue, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz on Wednesday announced that guns are no longer permitted in Starbucks stores — or in Starbucks outdoor seating areas."

They requested people not carry in their stores. They have not banned carry in their stores. This quote is from the same article.
"At this point we'll sit and monitor the situation," says Schultz. "We're hoping that most people will honor the request." But even if gun-carrying customers don't honor the request, says Schultz, "We'll serve them with a smile and not confront them."
Was this in response to handgun carry in other states or the long gun carry in Texas?
by jmra
Sat May 30, 2015 2:27 pm
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: HB 910 Conference Committee
Replies: 518
Views: 118319

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

fickman wrote:As a visually impaired CHLer who will soon be legally blind, I'm glad my right to self defense is not in jeopardy and would hope you all support my rights just as vigorously as your own.

It's about personal responsibility. You have to know which shots are within your capability and not take the ones that are beyond your ability. It's the same standard I'd expect for all responsible shooters.

:patriot:
:txflag:
Carry on!
by jmra
Sat May 30, 2015 12:47 pm
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: HB 910 Conference Committee
Replies: 518
Views: 118319

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

pdxmale wrote:
The Wall wrote:It seems to me they go out of their way to make things more difficult and confusing. Maybe a 30.06 1/2 sign would work for those that want to ban both CC & OC.
What if the person entering the premises is blind? Shouldn't these signs also be in Braille? What would be better is a anti-gun greeter at every door to tell people guns aren't allowed. They could claim it as job creation also. Don't you just love sarcasm? :lol: Actually not too far from some of the anti-gun folks ideas.

I hope THAT THERE AREEN'T TOO MANY blind guys with guns going to the movies.
Actually I read a post on the forum a few weeks ago about a blind woman who used clicking "sonar" to pass the shooting portion and obtained her CHL. Many theaters now have headphones for the visually impaired that provides alternate audio to help the "viewer" understand the setting. So, it's possible...
by jmra
Fri May 29, 2015 9:05 pm
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: HB 910 Conference Committee
Replies: 518
Views: 118319

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

mulfjohn wrote::hurry: :biggrinjester: :patriot: :woohoo :anamatedbanana :txflag: :thewave :cheers2:
Yee haaaaaw. It finally passed. Thanks to all that had input in this cause and thanks to the legislatures that pushed it through the house and Senate. Without their dedication and will power,we wouldn't have the option to choose between oc or not. Also the changing of the 30.06 penalty is awesome. Keep up the good work.
I'm more excited about the change in the penalty and the fact that on Jan 1 all existing 30.06 signs have incorrect wording than I am about open carry itself.
by jmra
Fri May 29, 2015 8:27 pm
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: HB 910 Conference Committee
Replies: 518
Views: 118319

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

Alekks wrote:As many have already stated, a big "Thank You" to Charles, Alice and everyone else both in the spotlight and behind the scenes that worked long and hard to get us to this moment. A Great Day for Texas!
:iagree: :iagree: :iagree:
by jmra
Fri May 29, 2015 7:46 pm
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: HB 910 Conference Committee
Replies: 518
Views: 118319

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

AJSully421 wrote:Very nice. Hail Mary from the 50 yard line and the wide receiver caught it in the back of the end zone!

Nice work to all involved!
And we got the two point conversion!
by jmra
Fri May 29, 2015 3:09 pm
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: HB 910 Conference Committee
Replies: 518
Views: 118319

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

hovercat wrote:I wish that the amendment would stay. The big advantage I see in OC is normalizing seeing a citizen carrying a firearm. As a practical, effective, but out of the way tool. I do not want places like Austin to be questioning OC, because that is detrimental. And even a lawsuit to stop continuous harassment is not good PR.
I would rather see OC perceived as the mark of someone who society has determined, by issuing a license, to be trustworthy. Unlicensed OC will wait until that perception builds.
If OC is often stopped, to the point where it is avoided, it will become like long gun OC. Not done in polite society. I like the LGOC law, use it about every year walking from camp down the road to where I enter the woods hunting public land. But it is unnecessary in the city, would be an uncomfortable PITA, and if I crave attention wearing a clown hat is easier. I do not want OC to be seen that way, and police stops, and public avoidance, would make it that way.
The amendment won't do what you desire because even with the amendment OC would still be extremely rare in the areas where LEO would be inclined to stop people. Look at the states where OC is legal and it simply isn't done for the most part in city settings. Another reason OC will not become common place is that most of us realize that OC is a tactical disadvantage. I think passing OC is a good thing in theory, but believing that it is ever going to be something seen by everyone everyday on the streets of major cities is simply fantasy.
by jmra
Thu May 28, 2015 6:03 pm
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: HB 910 Conference Committee
Replies: 518
Views: 118319

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

juno106 wrote:Ok, I guess I can see your point.

I respectfully disagree, but I can see the argument to be made.

I will continue to argue that this is all Huffman's fault, as if the Dutton amendment was left in, the full Senate would have passed HB910 (as evidenced by the fact that they passed HB910 with the Huffines amendment), and it would have been off to the Governor, with no stops needed back at the House.

I guess that is where we differ: whether the Senators knew of the differences between the Dutton and Huffines amendments andor wanted HB910 to go back to the House. I believe no. You believe yes, and the stripping of Dutton and differing wording of the Huffines amendment was the vehicle with which to do that.
jmra wrote:Of course the amendment would not have passed if Huffines would have been smart enough to use the correct wording because they knew it would then not have gone back to the house
We will never know because Huffines is an idiot.
by jmra
Thu May 28, 2015 5:50 pm
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: HB 910 Conference Committee
Replies: 518
Views: 118319

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

juno106 wrote:You mean like the virtually identical Huffines amendment in the Senate, which did pass?

Please explain why you believe the Huffines amendment passed the full Senate, and the Dutton amendment would have failed the full Senate.

I'd sincerely like to know this.
NorthTexas wrote:Charles has suggested multiple times that Huffman stripped the Dutton amendment in committee because, due to LEO opposition that materialized after the House vote, there would be strong opposition to open carry with the Dutton amendment in the Senate and it might not get enough votes.
For the same reason the amendment passed overwhelmingly in the house the first time and failed to concur the second time -many who were against OC voted for the amendment and for passage of the bill because they already knew what was brewing in the house. Of course the amendment would not have passed if Huffines would have been smart enough to use the correct wording because they knew it would then not have gone back to the house
by jmra
Thu May 28, 2015 5:31 pm
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: HB 910 Conference Committee
Replies: 518
Views: 118319

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

Ruark wrote:If I'm understanding it correctly, it's dead meat. It will never survive the filibusters. Tell me I'm wrong.
This session has been very unpredictable
by jmra
Thu May 28, 2015 5:24 pm
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: HB 910 Conference Committee
Replies: 518
Views: 118319

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

mojo84 wrote:
jmra wrote:
mojo84 wrote:
DMN Politics ‏@DMNPolitics 2m2 minutes ago
Open carry's passage seems likely, after key lawmakers strip amendment opposed by police | @tombenning http://share.d-news.co/OHY1TUS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; #txlege
Man this has been a roller coaster ride!

Yes sir, it sure has. I'm pretty much numb about it now. Won't get too up or down until the session ends or the Governor signs it.
:iagree:
by jmra
Thu May 28, 2015 5:23 pm
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: HB 910 Conference Committee
Replies: 518
Views: 118319

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

mojo84 wrote:
DMN Politics ‏@DMNPolitics 2m2 minutes ago
Open carry's passage seems likely, after key lawmakers strip amendment opposed by police | @tombenning http://share.d-news.co/OHY1TUS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; #txlege
Man this has been a roller coaster ride!
by jmra
Thu May 28, 2015 5:19 pm
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: HB 910 Conference Committee
Replies: 518
Views: 118319

Re: HB 910 Conference Committee

juno106 wrote:...or

Huffman could have left in the Dutton amendment, there would have been no need for the Huffines amendment, and HB910 would have gone straight to the Gov instead of House concurrence.

Hate seeing Huffines being blamed for Huffman's blunder...
And it may have well suffered the same fate it did in the house.

Return to “HB 910 Conference Committee”