TexasCHLforum.com

He wasn't testifying as a member of Texas Gun Sense. Just as a private citizen and the owner of Safety Matters. He might not have permission from the other organizations he is a member of to testify, or he just might not want to.

Just because I'm a member of a church doesn't mean that I represent them if I give legal testimony.

Papa_Tiger wrote:He wasn't testifying as a member of Texas Gun Sense. Just as a private citizen and the owner of Safety Matters. He might not have permission from the other organizations he is a member of to testify, or he just might not want to.

Just because I'm a member of a church doesn't mean that I represent them if I give legal testimony.

He isn't just a member, but on the board of a group that has a direct interest in the bill/matter about which he was testifying.

TVGuy wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:He wasn't testifying as a member of Texas Gun Sense. Just as a private citizen and the owner of Safety Matters. He might not have permission from the other organizations he is a member of to testify, or he just might not want to.

Just because I'm a member of a church doesn't mean that I represent them if I give legal testimony.

He isn't just a member, but on the board of a group that has a direct interest in the bill/matter about which he was testifying.

Charles is on the NRA board. There are many times he speaks where he is not representing them. He may not be authorized to speak on their behalf in those cases. But he can speak on his own behalf and any organization he is in control of.

Maybe we should start running false flag operations like this. It seems to work for the statists.

Flightmare wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:He wasn't testifying as a member of Texas Gun Sense. Just as a private citizen and the owner of Safety Matters. He might not have permission from the other organizations he is a member of to testify, or he just might not want to.

Just because I'm a member of a church doesn't mean that I represent them if I give legal testimony.

He isn't just a member, but on the board of a group that has a direct interest in the bill/matter about which he was testifying.

Charles is on the NRA board. There are many times he speaks where he is not representing them. He may not be authorized to speak on their behalf in those cases. But he can speak on his own behalf and any organization he is in control of.

Charles also makes it clear that he does not speak for the NRA except when he is authorized to. I do not know about the by-laws and authority the Texas Gun Sense Board Member is bound by but he may have provided a similar disclaimer as Charles does (I have even joked with Charles about his disclaimer prior to recording him as a guest on my podcast).

G.A. Heath wrote:Charles also makes it clear that he does not speak for the NRA except when he is authorized to. I do not know about the by-laws and authority the Texas Gun Sense Board Member is bound by but he may have provided a similar disclaimer as Charles does (I have even joked with Charles about his disclaimer prior to recording him as a guest on my podcast).

Mr. Camacho did not make any disclaimers in his testimony. The entirety of his testimony is transcribed above. I wasn't aware he was on the board of that Bloomberg group until someone brought it up.

Cops and ex-cops are the biggest statists around. Rules for me and not for thee is SOP for that bunch. Doesn't surprise me one bit he's on the board of an anti group too.

baseballguy2001 wrote:Cops and ex-cops are the biggest statists around. Rules for me and not for thee is SOP for that bunch. Doesn't surprise me one bit he's on the board of an anti group too.

Some cops, sure. All the ones I know advocate 2nd amendment rights and actually like to see citizens carry all the time.

At least around here I don't feel the slightest bit intimidated. If I stepped out of line I'd take a ride and face a judge - but that's justice. No problem with that.

For a police officer Mr. Camacho is not very articulate. The panel may not have known he was connected to gun sense.

TVGuy wrote:I don't believe he is very intelligent. On his company's Facebook page he uses an article about a crazy man that took a LEO's gun and shot him with it as "proof" that we need background checks.

https://www.facebook.com/pg/safetymeasu ... e_internal

See post on April 4 about "New Mexico man accused of shooting deputy claims he is Jesus"

Is he proposing background checks on LEO's to make sure they have a sufficient amount of situational awareness? That is the only thing that would have helped in this case.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

TVGuy wrote:I don't believe he is very intelligent. On his company's Facebook page he uses an article about a crazy man that took a LEO's gun and shot him with it as "proof" that we need background checks.

https://www.facebook.com/pg/safetymeasu ... e_internal

See post on April 4 about "New Mexico man accused of shooting deputy claims he is Jesus"

Is he proposing background checks on LEO's to make sure they have a sufficient amount of situational awareness? That is the only thing that would have helped in this case.

Good point, very true.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

TVGuy wrote:I don't believe he is very intelligent. On his company's Facebook page he uses an article about a crazy man that took a LEO's gun and shot him with it as "proof" that we need background checks.

https://www.facebook.com/pg/safetymeasu ... e_internal

See post on April 4 about "New Mexico man accused of shooting deputy claims he is Jesus"

Is he proposing background checks on LEO's to make sure they have a sufficient amount of situational awareness? That is the only thing that would have helped in this case.

Maybe he's proposing LEO not carry guns. You can't be shot with your own gun if you don't have one.

ninjabread wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

TVGuy wrote:I don't believe he is very intelligent. On his company's Facebook page he uses an article about a crazy man that took a LEO's gun and shot him with it as "proof" that we need background checks.

https://www.facebook.com/pg/safetymeasu ... e_internal

See post on April 4 about "New Mexico man accused of shooting deputy claims he is Jesus"

Is he proposing background checks on LEO's to make sure they have a sufficient amount of situational awareness? That is the only thing that would have helped in this case.

Maybe he's proposing LEO not carry guns. You can't be shot with your own gun if you don't have one.

I think he believes that a criminal won't try to take the weapon if he knows he will have to wait until he passes a background check, to do so. Because criminals always obey the law.

The fact he's only had someone at gunpoint while on-duty twice in 8 years on the job makes me question his level of experience in the first place. That just doesn't add up to me.