TexasCHLforum.com

para driver wrote:

PATHFINDER wrote:" - who is the cracker going to target???

that's a good question, and I can answer it, as I work in one of 'those' neighborhoods frequently..
they target other druggies for the most part... otherwise I'm just the freindly, non-threatening, computer
guy who drives a 15+ year old truck(who has a loaded 38 in his pocket).. IF I open carried in this area, it would SURELY draw much more attention than I want...

Who said you have to OC? OC bill is for choice, carry how you feel comfortble.

74novaman wrote:
Nice post. If someone like you were in charge of this push, I'd have a lot less hesitation working with the cdl.

Politics is politics. I bet Mr. Cotton and Alice and TSRA and NRA work every day with people who are not nice people, lying sacks of fertilizer who are against us on almost everything. If you take it personal you can't work wtih people and you lose.

Seems like both groups here know that, but its funny how people supposed to be on the same team get in big fights about what color the uniforms should be. Baptists and Catholics can sit down and fellowship and not worry about their differences, Christians and Jews can do the same thing, but one congregation that believes 99.999% the same can split over the littlest thing when it turns personal.

I think CHLforum and OCDO and TSRA and LSCDL and NRA and GOA are on the same team. Theres different positions on the team but the team needs all the players to win. Offense has to pull for the defense and the other way around. Receivers and running backs gotta work together so the other team doesn' tknow what's coming next. Wishbone only works for so long until the other team finds a weak spot. You gotta be able to run and throw.

Too much football? Sorry, this NBA nonsense makes me miss a real sport

Let's just move the ball. Sometimes you go long on 1st & 10 just to throw the other guy off. That would be a "constitutional carry" bill and "we" (all of those groups above) should chunk one down the field ever once in a while just ot shake 'em up.

JKTex wrote: You might want to look at FLA. Things didn't go quite like they'd hoped, and they're actually still stuck with unintentional exposure being a crime. They are a good example of a poorly written bill as they got what they asked for, and it's not want they wanted.

The Florida law isnt' what FL Open Carry wrote and requested, it got amended every which way and wound up just opposite of what they wanted. Too many thumbs in that pot of soup.

I havnt' been on the forum in a couple of days, lot ofpages to catch up with. Somebody talked about people carrying illegally. I dont' have any proof but common sense and reading the news every day tells me theres a good chance there are more criminals illegally carrying guns on any given day than people with licenses. CHLs are less than 2% of the population and not all of them even carry all the time.

hirundo82 wrote:

74novaman wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:

74novaman wrote:Yes, having California style open carry is certainly worth pushing for.

Maybe we shouldn't count states where you have to carry a gun without ammo in it. Just a thought.

You can open carry legally (loaded) outside of city limits in California. Counties do have the option to prohibit it, but not all do.

So you can open carry a useful (i.e. loaded) gun in some counties in Cali. Yep, they should be on the list of states that are better on gun rights than Texas. Sheesh.

Limiting the discussion to open carry, I think it is valid to list California as one of the states with better laws than Texas.

Yup, there are legal ways to open carry in Texas (traveler, sporting activity), but most poeple are scared to try.

In the legal places in CA you dont' have to prove you're "doing something" that makes it legal. It's just legal because its not illegal.

texasjeep44 wrote:I never heard it during Lavenders campaign, but I am told from others that this was something he promised he would do if elected. Being that he, and the people who report he campaigned on this are from my town, I have no reason to think they are telling anything but the truth.

I never heard it. I'm not in his town but I'm in his district. I never heard anyone say he campaigned on it. He had some yard sings and adds in the paper, not a big campaign. Frost was good on guns but stuck to his party line on other stuff, his bad luck to be a dem in 2010.

The Lavender bill might not be very good but I like that he introduced it even if its not perfect. The Riverbend crap takes up all his time (big mess of corruption right there). He seems like a good pro gun guy, should be able to work with all the gun groups.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:I'm too tired to search out the current bill, but now I'm curious. Would a kind soul be willing to post a link or the text of the bill's absurd 30.06 provision?

Here is a link to the Bill. http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 02756I.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The amendment to TPC §30.06 is in Section 34 of the Bill. It makes a 30.06 sign applicable to open-carry; in fact, it would be required to prohibit open or concealed carry. This provision creates a worst case scenario for CHL's. There was no reason whatsoever to do this. Had this provision not been included, then any "no guns" sign would have been enough to ban open-carry, but prohibiting concealed-carry would still require a 30.06 sign. As currently written, if HB2756 passes, any business wanting to ban open-carry will have to ban concealed-carry as well.

Chas.

I'm no kind of legal guy, just a country mechanic. I don't see the problem with having one sign for concealed and open carry. Can you explain it for the bumpkins like me?

If I'm reading this bill right, it makes sure that open carry folks can't be busted for class a trespassing just because they don't see some little no guns signs on a convencience store window coverd with all kinds of other signs. I thought that was why we passed 30.06 in the first place, wasn't it? Why hang hte open carry folks out there to risk that kind of charge when they have CHLs too? Remember this bill is only for CHLs, do we want to burn fellow CHLers?