TexasCHLforum.com

Liberty wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:

Liberty wrote:Most people in Texas are comfortable with an armed public, and this is why we have come so far.

I would probably disagree with that statement. At least in the dense metropolitan areas. That is why the number of 30.06/07 signs went through the roof this past year. My opinion is that posting 06 indicates an attitude of "Icky guns! why do you need that?!?" and 07 indicates "I don't care, I just don't want to see it for my sake or for the sake of my other customers."

I understand that there is still a lot of antigun sentiment, But I believe we have we have come a long way, and that while we saw a lot of signs go up, Some have come back down after they have met with customer disapproval or education. Just because a few places put up signs doesn't mean that most people aren't understanding of our cause, the vast majority of retail allow guns.
This doesn't mean that we should rush into things either, We need to mitigate negative responses before we actually pass laws. Education is the answer; Maybe we can get TV ads like NRA produced for the Trump campaign. Maybe we need more facts and figures.

That could work.
I know there seems to be a lot of gun store/gun range/ LTC class commercials both on TV and radio. I think that there is a large contingent of people, who may be interested, in learning to shoot, or obtaining their LTC, but they are not educated about guns, and may feel intimidated about asking questions, for fear of being ridiculed or denigrated. I know some of these ads try to appeal to these people especially among women, but I don't think most people feel confident enough to go in and ask questions. If there could be ads for classes, just for people to obtain general knowledge about guns, firearm laws, LTC, etc.. that weren't trying to sell guns, or even promote their use and carry, especially if it emphasised safety, it might help bring in more people. JMHO

AJSully421 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: 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.


Chas.

I think think this right here is the key to getting the ball over the goal line. Well, this and the travk record LTC have established.

I agree. Knock it down to Courtrooms, airports, and prisons for license holders.

I also agree,,,,and think that tact is the right one...
Whittle away.... All or nothing will not work, and as has been stated, privet property rights are never going to be given away , not in TX
So, while Id love to see all prohibited places removed, that is an emotional jump that will never pass.

List all of the current prohibited places. in three columns.
1:Likely not to be opposed removed
2:Likely to be opposed removed
3:Likely not a place most LTC'ers are concerned with removing from the list.

The bill address all on list one, in priority most of list 2, and none of list 3 (this session)
That gives the bill supporter something to point at to thier non 2A constituents and fellow leaders.. "See, of course we dont want guns everywhere.. who in thier right mind would want a civilian carrying concealed hand gun in the locked ward of a mental institution..."

Liberty wrote:

Syntyr wrote:

Liberty wrote:
My suggestion to compare Arizona to Texas though wasn't to imply that it should be easier to pass the implementation, but rather we that we should be able to use data from Arizona to judge the success or failure of open carry. This might not be the time to pass Constitutional Carry, but it is the time to start making the case for it.

Liberty,

Totally agree on the validity of your statement. But the problem is the very statement itself requires that legislatures and their constituents use logic and think about an issue instead of using their feels. Unfortunately a majority of people nowadays rely on their feelings and even mentioning the word gun evoks a fight or flight response in them. Dont know how we get past it but I wish we could...

. . . Most people in Texas are comfortable with an armed public, and this is why we have come so far.

This is exactly right. In order to pass any emotionally charged bill, it is first necessary to set the public at ease. We did that with concealed-carry, then the Motorist Protection act, then no renewal LTC classes, then 4 hr. classes instead of 10hr. classes, then open-carry. Each of those bills were met with opposition, but we were able to point to a good track record and no problems, thus eliminating the fears of most people even before the bills were filed. (Open-carry was a much harder battle because calming fears was a tough job as a result of counterproductive antics by others.)

Unlicensed carry is a possibility, but not in 2017. The Legislature and the general public equates unlicensed carry with in-your-face people and organizations and only time will change opinions. How much time will depend largely on whether some people and organizations have learned anything from their failures.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The Legislature and the general public equates unlicensed carry with in-your-face people and organizations and only time will change opinions. How much time will depend largely on whether some people and organizations have learned anything from their failures.

I'm not sure I'd hold my breath on that one.

Thankyou Charles for your hard work and dedication!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Unlicensed carry is a possibility, but not in 2017. The Legislature and the general public equates unlicensed carry with in-your-face people and organizations and only time will change opinions. How much time will depend largely on whether some people and organizations have learned anything from their failures.

Chas.

The biggest problem with this truthful statement is the part in bold and underlined. Those folks do not recognize they failed but think they are the ones that got open carried passed. A little honest self-relection would go a long way with those folks.

I've argued before that to me the most sensible route is to first shrink the areas where licensed carry is prohibitied to zero, based on licensed carry's fantastic record, THEN drop the license requirement. The antis, if they can't derail unlicensed carry altogether, will fall back to trying to burden it with as many restrictions as possible, and if there are still areas prohibited to licensed carry then it will be hard to argue to the general public that unlicensed carry should be allowed in them.

ELB wrote:I've argued before that to me the most sensible route is to first shrink the areas where licensed carry is prohibitied to zero, based on licensed carry's fantastic record, THEN drop the license requirement. The antis, if they can't derail unlicensed carry altogether, will fall back to trying to burden it with as many restrictions as possible, and if there are still areas prohibited to licensed carry then it will be hard to argue to the general public that unlicensed carry should be allowed in them.

nlyric wrote: Heck, west Virginia governor veto a Cc bill and it was over ridden. Missouri the same thing. Democratic governors in both. In the last year alone...There is no reason in the world we as the people of this state should not expect this bill to sail through. None !!!!!!
Texas, the gun friendly state. It is well beyond time we act like it....

The case with Missouri is that yes St. Louis and Kansas City (Jackson County not including KC leans conservative though) Is that it's a very conservative and pro gun state. Southern Missouri is VERY pro gun in the Ozarks. Most of southern Missouri democraps don't even run anyone in the house and state senate seats anymore. Missouri outside of stl and KC is a really pro gun state. Even Jefferson County the borders St. Louis county is VERY pro gun. St. Louis county also has quite a few gun shops and ranges as well. It's just a small portion of the state St. Louis and Kansas City are liberal while they rest is not. That is how it passed in Missouri.

Look at last elections. Trump only won Jackson County (KC combined it it) Boone County and St. Louis city, county. The rest of the state Trump simply destroyed Hillary with a number of counties going for 80 percent more for Trump. I believe Hillary only got 37.8 percent of the overall vote in Missouri.

Missouri also has large super majorities 117 republicans in the house and 25 republican seats in the senate. Only democrats left are from St. Louis and Kansas City area. Texas has more larger cities as well which factor into it.