TexasCHLforum.com

The current bill stinks, without a change to the 30.06 part (IMHO). Besides staying "neutral" what has the TSRA/NRA done to address the concerns of CHL holders?

steveincowtown wrote:The current bill stinks, without a change to the 30.06 part (IMHO). Besides staying "neutral" what has the TSRA/NRA done to address the concerns of CHL holders?

They have their agenda committed to gun rights and that's their priority. I certainly can't speak for either, but when someone else introduces a bill that turns out to be a train wreck waiting to happen, if they can do anything, it's to protect us, whatever that may mean. If it looks like it does make it on the calendar, in the least the changes need to be pulled out so concealed carry is not jeopardized. It's almost unfair to expect them to do anything when they're scrambling to get their primary agenda worked, which from the looks of it, they may get it done this session (both campus carry and parking lot).

I asked another member in another post, it's easy to expect someone else to do something, but what have YOU done?

NEB wrote:

I envy you. I am awash in folks that are appalled that people "need" to have those nasty guns. I admit that I know a lot of folks who are the opposite, but they are simply a significant minority in my experience.

Well, that's because you live in Houston where there tends to be a higher concentration of transplanted yanks and loons who moved to this great land following the scent of money.

That is entirely and unfortunately true.

JKTex wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:The current bill stinks, without a change to the 30.06 part (IMHO). Besides staying "neutral" what has the TSRA/NRA done to address the concerns of CHL holders?

They have their agenda committed to gun rights and that's their priority. I certainly can't speak for either, but when someone else introduces a bill that turns out to be a train wreck waiting to happen, if they can do anything, it's to protect us, whatever that may mean. If it looks like it does make it on the calendar, in the least the changes need to be pulled out so concealed carry is not jeopardized. It's almost unfair to expect them to do anything when they're scrambling to get their primary agenda worked, which from the looks of it, they may get it done this session (both campus carry and parking lot).

I asked another member in another post, it's easy to expect someone else to do something, but what have YOU done?

I have written my reps encouraging them to support the 2nd Amendment and bills that come before them that expand these rights, but warning them that the portion of this bill which has to do with 30.06 could be detrimental to the rights already enjoyed by CHL holders.

My question wasn’t “why isn’t NRA/TSRA supporting this bill” my question is what are they actively doing prevent the 30.06 portion from going forward if the bill hits the floor. I know that they already have an agenda, game plan, etc.

Teams also have an agenda/game plane at the beginning of every ball game. Unfortunately this has to be flexible and adapt to what the other team is doing.
Thinking about it more, I am sure that Mr. Cotton is smart enough to have some sort of plan (with regards to the 30.06 portion of this bill), but wise enough not to share it in a public forum.

It's ashamed that everyone could not have gotten together for this bill and helped modify it and we could have had a double win this session. It's too long between sessions if you ask me to possibly get a bill past next time. It may not happen then either. So, it could be years from now if this chance get's passed by.

steveincowtown wrote:My question wasn’t “why isn’t NRA/TSRA supporting this bill” my question is what are they actively doing prevent the 30.06 portion from going forward if the bill hits the floor. I know that they already have an agenda, game plan, etc.

I bet they've already got an amendment written and legislators primed to support it. That's probably not a top secret plan, just common sense.

pcgizzmo wrote:It's ashamed that everyone could not have gotten together for this bill and helped modify it and we could have had a double win this session. It's too long between sessions if you ask me to possibly get a bill past next time. It may not happen then either. So, it could be years from now if this chance get's passed by.

I don't see how that could have happened. In my opinion the majority of "everyone's" in Texas were pushing for Campus Carry and Parking Lot during this years session. Open Carry was simply an item being wished for until the priority items were passed.

I imagine that my take on this might annoy some, but I fall strongly into the category of taking things one step at a time. In this particular case it looks like Open Carry might actually be able to slip its way into fruition, simply by pure luck. If that happens, and it doesn't take us a step-back on our current CHL situation, I am all for it. If it does push us back, I am not.

steveincowtown wrote:
...

My question wasn’t “why isn’t NRA/TSRA supporting this bill” my question is what are they actively doing prevent the 30.06 portion from going forward if the bill hits the floor. I know that they already have an agenda, game plan, etc.

Teams also have an agenda/game plane at the beginning of every ball game. Unfortunately this has to be flexible and adapt to what the other team is doing.
Thinking about it more, I am sure that Mr. Cotton is smart enough to have some sort of plan (with regards to the 30.06 portion of this bill), but wise enough not to share it in a public forum.

We'll know soon. Like others, I hate the thought of waiting until the next session. The current projection is the next session's House will probably contain FEWER Republicans -- though that doesn't necessarily mean fewer pro-2A members, it might -- and probably less than a 2/3 majority. That means that the quorum busting, chubbing, and points of order on technicalities could resume.

Charles, this could be a great icing-on-the-cake achievement for the session. It isn't an NRA/TSRA bill, but if it could be amended to remove the changes to 30.06, wouldn't this be an advancement for liberty and gun carry in Texas? I agree with your prior post -- why wouldn't this be supported by CHLs and those who want open carry alike?

That being the case, if parking lot carry and campus carry are either passed or 100% dead -- thus TSRA would have some additional bandwidth -- I hope TSRA will consider moving beyond neutrality and helping some form of open carry across the finish line. If the organization is willing to engage to stop something bad from happening -- and I agree that it should -- I would hope that the reverse would also be true and you would advocate and/or work for passage of an acceptable bill. IMHO, passing HB 2756 isn't the goal; expanding 2A rights for Texans to include some form of open carry is. Therefore if there is an opportunity to do so, whether in the form of HB 2756 or some other vehicle, I hope TSRA will avail themselves of the opportunity.

SA-TX

Charles L. Cotton wrote:As for bringing an end to personal animosity, you need to talk to Lone Star Civil Defense League President Shane McCrary and post something on OpenCarry.org. MR REDNECK's track record on TexasCHLforum, TexasGunTalk and on OpenCarry.org clearly shows he is a driving force behind the personal attacks and lies.

Done, by me, in the Texas section of OpenCarry.org.

SA-TX

SA-TX wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:As for bringing an end to personal animosity, you need to talk to Lone Star Civil Defense League President Shane McCrary and post something on OpenCarry.org. MR REDNECK's track record on TexasCHLforum, TexasGunTalk and on OpenCarry.org clearly shows he is a driving force behind the personal attacks and lies.

Done, by me, in the Texas section of OpenCarry.org.

SA-TX

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

I had to kind of after reading mrrednecks contention that Charles changed 30.06 signs every session because he was sneaky.

If you're going to be mad at the fact that TSRA and NRA didn't back a bill written by an outside party, fine. At least that is factual. But to simply make things up to be mad about... I can't stomach liars, and I certainly won't support any initiative run by one.

steveincowtown wrote:I am sure that Mr. Cotton is smart enough to have some sort of plan (with regards to the 30.06 portion of this bill), but wise enough not to share it in a public forum.

mgood wrote: That's probably not a top secret plan, just common sense.

Who said it was top secret?

Many on here have questioned why the NRA/TSRA hasn't backed an open carry law. Also, as Mr. Cotton mentioned previously, there is no guarantee they will in the future. My take on it is why do they need too? Is the only way to get a 2A law passed in Texas is with a PAC leading the charge? How many pro 2A laws have got passed in this country without a PAC? The NRA/TSRA doesn't have limitless resources. I definitely see their need to tackle the more controversial issues. What controversial is varies from state to state and without a doubt campus carry is controversial. In a state like Texas though, you'd think going from licensed CC only to licensed CC/OC wouldn't be that great of a leap. As long as we're united and vocal, in my opinion it it shouldn't be. Hopefully one day I'll find out if I'm right or if somebody will have to do it for us.

SA-TX wrote:

steveincowtown wrote: My question wasn’t “why isn’t NRA/TSRA supporting this bill” my question is what are they actively doing prevent the 30.06 portion from going forward if the bill hits the floor. I know that they already have an agenda, game plan, etc.

Teams also have an agenda/game plane at the beginning of every ball game. Unfortunately this has to be flexible and adapt to what the other team is doing.
Thinking about it more, I am sure that Mr. Cotton is smart enough to have some sort of plan (with regards to the 30.06 portion of this bill), but wise enough not to share it in a public forum.

We'll know soon. Like others, I hate the thought of waiting until the next session. The current projection is the next session's House will probably contain FEWER Republicans -- though that doesn't necessarily mean fewer pro-2A members, it might -- and probably less than a 2/3 majority. That means that the quorum busting, chubbing, and points of order on technicalities could resume.

Charles, this could be a great icing-on-the-cake achievement for the session. It isn't an NRA/TSRA bill, but if it could be amended to remove the changes to 30.06, wouldn't this be an advancement for liberty and gun carry in Texas? I agree with your prior post -- why wouldn't this be supported by CHLs and those who want open carry alike?

That being the case, if parking lot carry and campus carry are either passed or 100% dead -- thus TSRA would have some additional bandwidth -- I hope TSRA will consider moving beyond neutrality and helping some form of open carry across the finish line. If the organization is willing to engage to stop something bad from happening -- and I agree that it should -- I would hope that the reverse would also be true and you would advocate and/or work for passage of an acceptable bill. IMHO, passing HB 2756 isn't the goal; expanding 2A rights for Texans to include some form of open carry is. Therefore if there is an opportunity to do so, whether in the form of HB 2756 or some other vehicle, I hope TSRA will avail themselves of the opportunity.

SA-TX

Because of my respect for you SA-TX and the way you have supported open-carry, I'm going way out on a limb here and I'm old enough to know better. First let me say I'm giving my personal opinion that in no way represents the position of the NRA. I make my opinions known in NRA meetings and strategy sessions, sometimes forcefully but tactfully, but at the end of the day I'm a good soldier and I know the value in unity. Each of us gives our opinion, then we reach a consensus, a plan is developed and we work toward a successful legislative session. None of us gets everything we want the first time we ask. This is something most of us learn by age 6, but unfortunately some never learn and they go through life blaming others for ills real and imagined.

Presuming employer parking lots passes, then in my view we will have room on our dance card for another high profile, emotionally charged bill. This is what I call a "Flagship Bill." If campus-carry passes also, then we're in even better shape for 2013. I have at least three bills I want to file next session, but none of them are high-profile bills, although one will certainly garner opposition. (That bill would make CHL's exempt from TPC §46.03 as well as TPC §46.02.) This would leave room to promote open-carry.

There is absolutely no chance to pass unlicensed open-carry, so our open-carry bill would be for CHLs. TPC §30.06 will remain applicable only to concealed-carry by CHLs while people carrying openly will be covered by TPC §30.05. This means property owners (almost exclusively businesses) will have the option to ban open-carry but still allow concealed-carry. If they do want to ban both open and concealed carry, they won't have to post two "big ugly signs," just the 30.06 sign and a generic "no guns" decal. This will give people carrying openly the option to cover the gun and enter the business, or go elsewhere. Amending TPC §30.06 to cover both open and concealed carry is and always will be deal breaker! Our sponsors would understand this and would be willing to pull down (kill) their own bill if an amendment gets on. I wish we could get a different "big ugly sign" for open-carry, but that's politically impossible. We will be in for a fight to simply leave trespass laws as they are now.

People seem to think there is no opposition to open-carry in the legislature and that couldn't be more wrong. So the education program I mentioned in other posts and threads applies primarily but not exclusively to the general public. We have some work to do with legislators. Open-carry supporters need to resign themselves to the fact that there will be some locations where open-carry is prohibited while concealed carry is not. It likely won't be in the bill as it is initially filed, but you can bet the farm that they will be required in a committee substitute or the bill will never get out of committee. I and others have already heard negative comments like, "Can't you just see someone walking through a ________ with a gun on their hip!?" I cannot and will not go into this area in any greater detail, but this is the reality of what we are facing in Austin and around the State. We had to accept things we didn't want to get CHL passed in 1995, then we set out repealing or amending those offensive provisions in almost every session since. Open-carry will require the same.

People need to look how far we've come in only 16 years. We passed concealed carry in 1995, adopted TPC §30.06 in 1997 and made other changes. 2001 saw passage of a bill preventing politically motivated law suits against gun and ammo manufacturers and sellers. In 2003 we passed SB501 that prohibits governmental entities from using TPC §30.06 to bar armed CHLs. In 2005, the first attempt at unlicensed car-carry passed, but the presumption it established was problematic. In 2007 we passed 8 of 9 pro-gun bills. We used the Rosenthal fiasco as a launching pad to pass unlicensed car-carry by changing TPC §46.02 so that having a handgun in your car, or one under your control, simply was not illegal. That way we bypass defenses to prosecution, presumptions, and having to prove your defense in court. Also in 2007, we were able to pass the most sweeping changes to self-defense law anywhere in the country in the form of our version of a "Castle Doctrine." Those who have attended my seminars know that repealing the retreat requirement pales in comparison to the other changes we made in that Bill. 2007 was also the year we passed a bill to prohibit New Orleans type firearm confiscation during emergencies -- the so-called "emergency powers bill." There many other improvements we've made since 1995 that don't make the headlines with gun owners and that's fine. For example, they include, sweeping changes to the way CHL applications are handled, changes to CHL eligibility requirements, extension of CHL license periods from 4 to 5 years (effectively a 25% fee reduction), expansion of fee discounts to more people, and many many other improvements. The fact is we have made tremendous progress, but the militant open-carry supporters don't care. If fact, they either deny that progress has been made, or they minimize its impact on gun owners. Open-carry will one day pass in spite of those folks, not because of them.

Between now and 2013, there is a lot of work to be done. I will do everything I can to make open-carry acceptable to the public and elected officials and if the NRA and/or TSRA takes on open-carry, I'll do everything I can to get it passed. I will also protect what will then be 650,000 CHLs.

Chas.

SA-TX wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:As for bringing an end to personal animosity, you need to talk to Lone Star Civil Defense League President Shane McCrary and post something on OpenCarry.org. MR REDNECK's track record on TexasCHLforum, TexasGunTalk and on OpenCarry.org clearly shows he is a driving force behind the personal attacks and lies.

Done, by me, in the Texas section of OpenCarry.org.

SA-TX

Thanks for trying; it's a very good post even though you don't agree with me on everything. (See, Shane McCrary, you can disagree with me and not get banned. )

Unfortunately, the response is pretty much what I expected and I suspect it will be worse in 6 hrs when HB2756 is dead. Shane is the President of Lone Star Citizens Defense League and he is adamant that when open-carry passes, it will include an amendment to TPC §30.06 making it apply to open and concealed carry. All is can say is, "hide and watch sport!"

His argument against letting Tex. Penal Code §30.05 apply to open-carry is the erroneous belief that the penalties are different under TPC §30.06. Had he read §§ 30.05 and 30.06 he would have realized that violation of §30.05 while carrying a deadly weapon is a Class A Misdemeanor and so is violating TPC §30.06. Once again he's wrong. I would not suggest a bill that would leave people carrying openly subject to a harsher penalty. In fact, I think that criminal trespass should be a Class C Misdemeanor under all circumstances, so long as there is no property damage or personal injury caused by the trespasser. What earthly good comes from spreading misinformation?

Chas.

Tex. Penal Code §30.05 wrote:(d) An offense under this section is:

(3) a Class A misdemeanor if:

• (A) the offense is committed:
  
  • (i) in a habitation or a shelter center;
    
    (ii) on a Superfund site; or
    
    (iii) on or in a critical infrastructure facility; or
  (B) the person carries a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.

Tex. Penal Code §30.06 wrote:(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

Charles, any chance once of your bills being a concealed carry in primary and secondary schools for teachers and staff? Perhaps the parents, as well?

I'm working on something I was contemplating brnging to our school board, but I think it could be adapted for a catch-all statewide.

I'm sure TEA would TOTALLY be on board.