TexasCHLforum.com

treadlightly wrote:I emailed TSRA about this, and got a nice reply. HB560 is old legislation that has never gotten any support.

My wild guess is that legislators must look at HB560 as going too far, and CC is just eliminating government prejudice against the unlicensed.

My wild guess. TSRA didn't say that, I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning.

Edited to add: I am going to sign up for TSRA. I may not agree with them on this point of strategy and timing, but I think overall they do a lot of good.

I had asked her about HB560 on Twitter. She ignored me. While posting about the wonderful reduction bill. Its one thing to brag about successes, but I don't understand the silence of the failures. It's one thing for a bill to get beat in a fair fight, but this one went down without a wimper. no discussion no nothing. The TSRA seems to be covering up for some RINOs that killed the bill. We don't know who to blame cause, nobodys talking. We have had the worst session in 15 years (or is it 20), All I can see is we get some permission for some folks to shoot ferral hogs from balloons. Oh and reductions for some people to get a reduction in fees. But TSRA seems to be bragging about all the wonderful things it has accomplished. I understand that some sessions are better than others and that we don't always get everything we want. What I don't understand is the who what and why of things? It's as though we are trying to protect a few backstabbing Reps. How come we didn't have a similar bill in the Senate as a backup? Why all the silence? can we out some legeslators? How many of these backstabbers a 'A' or better rtated?
Who killed this thing?
Why did it fail?
What happened?

Liberty wrote:

treadlightly wrote:I emailed TSRA about this, and got a nice reply. HB560 is old legislation that has never gotten any support.

My wild guess is that legislators must look at HB560 as going too far, and CC is just eliminating government prejudice against the unlicensed.

My wild guess. TSRA didn't say that, I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning.

Edited to add: I am going to sign up for TSRA. I may not agree with them on this point of strategy and timing, but I think overall they do a lot of good.

I had asked her about HB560 on Twitter. She ignored me. While posting about the wonderful reduction bill. Its one thing to brag about successes, but I don't understand the silence of the failures. It's one thing for a bill to get beat in a fair fight, but this one went down without a wimper. no discussion no nothing. The TSRA seems to be covering up for some RINOs that killed the bill. We don't know who to blame cause, nobodys talking. We have had the worst session in 15 years (or is it 20), All I can see is we get some permission for some folks to shoot ferral hogs from balloons. Oh and reductions for some people to get a reduction in fees. But TSRA seems to be bragging about all the wonderful things it has accomplished. I understand that some sessions are better than others and that we don't always get everything we want. What I don't understand is the who what and why of things? It's as though we are trying to protect a few backstabbing Reps. How come we didn't have a similar bill in the Senate as a backup? Why all the silence? can we out some legeslators? How many of these backstabbers a 'A' or better rtated?
Who killed this thing?
Why did it fail?
What happened?

That is probably the $64,000 question. All of my reps, gave indications that they were in support of 560, but then refused to co-sponsor, or file a companion Senate bill. I believe that this was simply to appease, local government entities, and allow them to continue to prohibit carry in their government buildings/property at their discretion. When they dumped enforcement, in the lap of the AG last session, they knew full well, that not only was his office too understaffed, to be able to "bird dog" every complaint, but that he had no real authority, and would be stymied at every turn, by "temporary" sign removal, and a confusing mish-mash of legalese that would make it unenforceable.
Any tax supported entity, should be required to obey State law, they should not have the right to usurp authority, based on the whim of their elected officials. JMHO

I have come to the conclusion that Constitutional Carry (CC) and licensed carry (LTC) need to be separate. Not as a law, but as to what they honor. LTC people should have the right to carry everywhere that is not within a secure area. Face it, I think LTC's have proven themselves. CC has not proven itself to be as law abiding as LTC and that makes some people unsure as to possible criminal actions or intimidation. Where a CC person cannot carry a firearm needs to be spelled out like it was for LTC's in the early days of concealed carry. There needs to be CC restrictions with a LTC option out clause.

Will CC be able to carry where they want? For instance why should a CC person be able to carry into a hospital, the Texas State Capital (I can understand that making lawmakers nervous), churches, school grounds, or government buildings without proving themselves. Not to beat a dead horse, but CC does need to prove themselves and not ride on the shirt tails of LTC like so many proponents of CC are trying to do.

Will CC persons be able to carry however they want? Will they be able to carry concealed? Will they be able to pocket carry with just the handle visible? How about stuck down in their waist band with no holster or just a clip?

No carry sign for CC persons. It must be unique to CC and not 30.06 or 30.07. Use something different like a gun buster sign with special requirements. Maybe a red circle with a diagonal slash, starting at the upper left to bottom right, through it. The circle being 10 inches I.D. and 12 inches O.D. with a semi-auto pistol pictured in the white portion of the inner 10 inch circle with the diagonal slash. In the red circle specify Texas Code 30.08 or some such. Specify that the sign must be displayed on all entry doors above the operating handle but not more than 5 feet above the threshold.

Possibly then we could get things like HB 560 passed.

Constitutional carry would not be infringed.

Unlicensed carry will likely be watered down by Straus and his crew, assuming they don't simply keep on killing it in back room shenanigans.

Let's not forget that we currently have constitutional carry. The only topics for debate are how and where carry should be restricted for LTC as well as non-LTC holders.

Currently constitutional carry in Texas allows an unlicensed person to carry a handgun in their home, in a business or other location that they control, at a shooting range, while hunting, in their rented hotel room, in their vehicle, and between their vehicle and any of these other locations. LTC holders are allowed to carry in all of these places, and are also allowed to carry in some other places, such as certain government buildings, businesses that choose to allow guns (by not posting signs), and while walking down the street.

If I think about my typical day, as an LTC holder, I spend 8 hours sleeping with my gun a few feet away, I spend 8 hours at work at a business that has decided to not allow guns, and I spend most of the remaining 8 hours at home, awake, or at a restaurant / store. I can legally carry for basically 2/3 of my day (while not at work).

If I was relying on constitutional carry alone, the only difference would be the 1-2 hours a day where I am not in my car, at work, or at my home. So instead of being able to carry 16 hours a day, I could carry 14-15 hours a day. This is not a significant difference, IMHO, and expanding CC to cover everywhere an LTC can currently carry would not result in "blood in the streets".

I would like to see CC expanded to cover everywhere an LTC can currently carry, and LTC expanded to cover every location that would have been allowed by HB 560. I would also like to see the de-criminalization of 30.06 signs for LTC holders.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Snip....
I would like to see CC expanded to cover everywhere an LTC can currently carry, and LTC expanded to cover every location that would have been allowed by HB 560. I would also like to see the de-criminalization of 30.06 signs for LTC holders.

This right here. Although it will never happen. The rest will probably never happen either.

More than half of the states allow citizens to carry a handgun without a license but I learned to accept that Texas Republicans are not pro gun enough to support mainstream gun legislation like that.

Ameer wrote:More than half of the states allow citizens to carry a handgun without a license but I learned to accept that Texas Republicans are not pro gun enough to support mainstream gun legislation like that.

They are not Republicans.

Ameer wrote:More than half of the states allow citizens to carry a handgun without a license but I learned to accept that Texas Republicans are not pro gun enough to support mainstream gun legislation like that.

You are saying that more than 25 states have so-called constitutional-carry?

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Ameer wrote:More than half of the states allow citizens to carry a handgun without a license but I learned to accept that Texas Republicans are not pro gun enough to support mainstream gun legislation like that.

You are saying that more than 25 states have so-called constitutional-carry?

Chas.

I think 25 states have some type of unlicensed handgun carry, usually open carry. But only 4 or 5 have unlicensed concealed carry.

http://www.gunlaws.com/ConstitutionalCarryIndex.htm

Looks like the number may be 15, in varying levels

I'd still like to know who killed 560. Who. Name, please. Not "somebody who talked to somebody..." Who. SOMEBODY's hands are bloody here. Whose?

bblhd672 wrote:http://www.gunlaws.com/ConstitutionalCarryIndex.htm

Looks like the number may be 15, in varying levels

That sounds more realistic.
Chas.

Ruark wrote:I'd still like to know who killed 560. Who. Name, please. Not "somebody who talked to somebody..." Who. SOMEBODY's hands are bloody here. Whose?

I don''t think there is any one person who can be singled out for the death of HB560. I think, and I have no proof, that it was simply "allowed" to die, by silent consent.

I think that there were very few, if any, who were willing to risk, losing their voting base, in cities, and counties, in their districts, by pushing forward on a bill, which would remove local authority, to prohibit carry, in government buildings.
We will have to work to change this, not so much at the State level, but at the local level. That includes, school boards, County Judges, County Commissioners, Sheriff, City Council, etc.

I know that larger cities, controlled by the left, will be almost impossible to make much of a difference, but, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Talk to candidates, who are running for these offices, to see where they stand, on LTC carry. Better yet, run for offices ourselves. If the State Legislature, sees, a true grassroots, movement, on these issues, at the local level, we will have a much better chance, of getting it pushed through next session.

I am fortunate, in that I live in Johnson, County, and nearly all of the office holders, in the spots, I mentioned, are pro LTC, I am personal friends with the Sheriff, since we worked together, at the PD. The same for the school board, I have many former classmates, in office there. I personally know three of the County Commissioners. To my knowledge, Johnson County, has no government buildings, posted unlawfully. I know that is not the case in a lot of places, and that is where we need to focus, our political strength.

We also need to work as much as possible to elect State reps, who we feel, will push through this type of legislation. Get out and help campaign, make phone calls, donate, time and money to campaigns. Talk to people at gun ranges, and gun stores, and explain what we are trying to do, and why. There are a lot of gun owners, who do not keep up with current legislation, or don't get involved, in the process.

I know that I am on a rant, but I am still venting about the last Legislative session. Thanks for putting up with it.

Jusme wrote:

Ruark wrote:I'd still like to know who killed 560. Who. Name, please. Not "somebody who talked to somebody..." Who. SOMEBODY's hands are bloody here. Whose?

I don''t think there is any one person who can be singled out for the death of HB560. I think, and I have no proof, that it was simply "allowed" to die, by silent consent.

It died in committee (Homeland Security?). It was never put up for discussion. What is frustrating, is that there was no explanation nor discussion on why it met its demise.