TexasCHLforum.com

I think I'm just going to sit back and let SA-TX keep making my points for me. He's much more diplomatic about it than I might be, plus by the time I get home from shift work, he's usually beaten me to the punch.

In every other state (with the exception of the California "UOC" movement), OC just doesn't cause a problem for gun owners in general, or CC in particular. The Virginia OC folks actually fought for improved conditions for CCers, but trying to legalize CC in restaurants that serve alcohol (unlicensed OC is legal there, but licensed CC isn't).

Conagher wrote: “idiot OC supporters” from last session:

I would like to try to close this and move forward. I hereby publically and humbly apologize to any and all that were offended, angered, slighted or otherwise disturbed by any and all OC supporters from last session. In all sincerity I ask that you accept this apology and allow this issue to be put to bed. I have spoken with my senator and representative, neither of which feel in the lease bit put-off on the Texas OC effort. If you have a legislator that feels otherwise, please send me a PM and I will personally contact them and apologize. Thank you.

People don't forget. The politicians you burned won't forget it and they have other issues to deal with that are much more pressing.

SA-TX wrote:Like Conagher, I recognize that OC could lead to more 30.06 signs. I've thought about this quite a bit and I take the argument very seriously. As a CHL-holder that's the last thing that I want. Out-of-sight, out-of-mind is a powerful thing and even some legit 30.06 signs that went up have come down because business owners heard from CHLs who said "I'll go elsewhere with my money". We certainly need to keep that momentum going.

For me the key question is: what is the likelihood that OC would bring about a significant increase in 30.06 postings?

In order to get an OC law passed, just like any other bill, there would more than likely be compromises that would have to be made. In this case, there would more than likely be a method for preventing carry in private business by signage. Since that already exists today 30.06, that would probably be the method they would want used.

I could also see the potential of the state allowing cities to preempt open carry, so you would have the plethora of scattered municipalities where it would be off limits and without a program, you would never know where you could and couldn't carry openly. (See my note below on my home state.)

SA-TX wrote:I travel quite a bit for business so I've had a chance to visit most states in the country. Some that I visit the most frequently are WA, NC, and NV. All 3 are OC states. In the last 3 years I have probably racked up 25 one-week trips to those states alone, so I have a pretty good sample size. With the exception of a gun shop employee on lunch break going next door to a convenience store to get a soda, I've never seen an open carrier.

So, would that be different in Texas? When CC opponents said "there will be problems!", we said "the evidance from other states says otherwise". I believe that CHLers proved themselves to be like other lawfully armed folks: very law abiding. When that fact set in and the media wasn't running gun stories due to the novelity of the new law, the controversy evaporated. I predict the same thing with OC. It will be a big non-event once the news cycle has moved on to something else. OK should serve as a valuable example. If they have big problems, I'll be the first one to offer a mea culpa. Since they went with licensed OC, I simply won't believe that those good certified folks will all of a sudden become irresponsible until I see the evidance.

Your difference here is it would be something new (vs many other states where it has always been legal) and highly publicized by the media. And, as with everything, if it was unlicensed open carry, there would be a major surge of unlicensed folks 'trying it out'. This would lead to the media following people around, just like the have done in California and Virginia (aka Starbucks, etc.) And all this media coverage would lead to the postings. And who in Texas doesn't want to wear a really nice six-shooter on their hip when they go out with their hat and boots??

I grew up in an open carry state (Missouri.) I too rarely saw people carrying there in town, but it was not uncommon to see it in the country when folks were hunting. The other thing is Missouri allows cities to preempt open carry, so without looking at the ordinances, you can't tell if it is legal or not.

SA-TX wrote:Notice the number of folks in this pro-gun, pro-carry audience who say "I'll never OC!" You are talking about a small percentage of gun carriers, who are a small percentage of handgun owners, who are a subset of gun owners, who are a subset of the population as a whole. The amount of OCing that would occur would be very, very minimal and thus there just won't be many business owners being scared into posting 30.06 signs. Statistically speaking, it will be absolutely insignificant.

Why then undertake the effort of changing the law? Because I believe in restoring as much God-given freedom as possible in a day and age where government is growing and liberty is shrinking. Not just for gun carriers; I'm for business owner freedom too and have no problem with them asking an OCer to leave. For that matter, if a business owner who truly doesn't approve of guns and doesn't want them on his property but is ignorant of the 30.06 law finds out about it, whether by someone OCing or some other means, and posts, I'm not concerned by this.

SA-TX

Here you are talking about those that are licensed. Like I stated above, there will be many folks who are not licensed that would immediately start open carrying because the could (assuming your full 2A rights restored.)

Now, is all of what I stated the actual future if open carry was established in Texas? We wouldn't know until it happens. However, I can guarantee you it is probably a pretty solid theory on how it would go down.

SA-TX wrote:

mr surveyor wrote:hhhmmmm.... are Six Flags and Government meetings "off limits" due to statute or due to 30.06 postings?

One of us needs to brush up on our knowledge of the Texas CHL laws in order to be more persuasive in our arguments.....maybe it's me


surv

eta: nope..it's not me.....I just checked, and the little item "i" is still in the code

Good point. You're are right about (i). That illustrates something I described in another post: general prohibitions with a million little exceptions. I don't think you have be a pie-in-the-sky idealist to point out that the section 46 of the Penal Code could be much simpler than it currently is. Instead of adding (i), why not remove (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c)?

That emphasizes my main point: I love Texas but our gun laws are not even close to the best in the country.

Other than no open-carry and not being able to carry in a bar, where do you feel Texas gun laws are worse than other states?

Chas.

chabouk wrote:In every other state (with the exception of the California "UOC" movement), OC just doesn't cause a problem for gun owners in general, or CC in particular. The Virginia OC folks actually fought for improved conditions for CCers, but trying to legalize CC in restaurants that serve alcohol (unlicensed OC is legal there, but licensed CC isn't).

If OC was not a problem in states where it is technically legal, then there wouldn't be an OpenCarry.org. Read their website and see the complaints about how OC'ers are being treated.

OpenCarry.org was hardly carrying the ball to get restaurant carry reformed.

Chas.

SA-TX wrote:So, would that be different in Texas? When CC opponents said "there will be problems!", we said "the evidance from other states says otherwise". I believe that CHLers proved themselves to be like other lawfully armed folks: very law abiding. When that fact set in and the media wasn't running gun stories due to the novelity of the new law, the controversy evaporated. I predict the same thing with OC. It will be a big non-event once the news cycle has moved on to something else. OK should serve as a valuable example. If they have big problems, I'll be the first one to offer a mea culpa. Since they went with licensed OC, I simply won't believe that those good certified folks will all of a sudden become irresponsible until I see the evidance.

I agree; CHL's are law-abiding and this will not change if OC were to pass in Texas. My concern is not that CHL's would act unlawfully or irresponsibly, but that both anti-gunners and those who currently are ambivalent about carrying handguns will react emotionally and demand businesses post 30.06 signs. (I can almost promise that TPC §30.06 would be amended to cover both OC and CC.)

SA-TX wrote:Notice the number of folks in this pro-gun, pro-carry audience who say "I'll never OC!" You are talking about a small percentage of gun carriers, who are a small percentage of handgun owners, who are a subset of gun owners, who are a subset of the population as a whole. The amount of OCing that would occur would be very, very minimal and thus there just won't be many business owners being scared into posting 30.06 signs. Statistically speaking, it will be absolutely insignificant.

We agree here too. I understand your argument as to why we should work for passage of OC, but since it will affect very few CHL's, it would be a lower priority to the hundreds of thousands of CHL's who are defenseless commuting to and from work, because of an employers' policy of no guns in parking lots. It would also take a lower priority to adult CHL's who are college students and are disarmed and defenseless while on college campuses. Championing their rights is more than just principal, it's a matter of giving them both the means as well as the right to preserve their own rights.

Contrary to what many have said about me, I do not oppose open-carry; I do have one and only one concern, and that's the expansion of businesses posting 30.06 signs. The fact that I do not support OC does not mean I would oppose it. In fact, I absolutely would not oppose it, unless a horrendous bill like the one proposed last session is offered again. My opposition would be based upon the dangerous construction of the bill, not the concept of OC. I openly offered suggestions for simplifying and improving the bill, but the author had every right to ignore them as he did.

In the end, open-carry deals with how Texans can carry defensive handguns; I'm far more concerned with empowering more people to carry in more places. In my view, that should be our priority.

Chas.

Keith B wrote: In order to get an OC law passed, just like any other bill, there would more than likely be compromises that would have to be made. In this case, there would more than likely be a method for preventing carry in private business by signage. Since that already exists today 30.06, that would probably be the method they would want used.

I could also see the potential of the state allowing cities to preempt open carry, so you would have the plethora of scattered municipalities where it would be off limits and without a program, you would never know where you could and couldn't carry openly. (See my note below on my home state.)

I diagree on signage. Not necessary with OC. Business owners can see you are carrying so there is no need for a sign. If they don't like it, they ask you to leave. Signage is for when they CANNOT see if their wishes are being honored. As far as compromises go, you take what you can get and then come back and remove it when blood doesn't run in the streets. Same as CHL. Even if every big city in Texas made OC illegal by ordinance, there's a bunch of this state that would be left. The reality is that even all the big cities wouldn't go to the trouble.

Keith B wrote:Your difference here is it would be something new (vs many other states where it has always been legal) and highly publicized by the media. And, as with everything, if it was unlicensed open carry, there would be a major surge of unlicensed folks 'trying it out'. This would lead to the media following people around, just like the have done in California and Virginia (aka Starbucks, etc.) And all this media coverage would lead to the postings. And who in Texas doesn't want to wear a really nice six-shooter on their hip when they go out with their hat and boots??

I grew up in an open carry state (Missouri.) I too rarely saw people carrying there in town, but it was not uncommon to see it in the country when folks were hunting. The other thing is Missouri allows cities to preempt open carry, so without looking at the ordinances, you can't tell if it is legal or not.

True, my post focused on licensed OC but I support unlicensed OC. I disagree that there would be a major surge of unlicensed folks "'trying it out". Gun carriers are a special breed. We all know it is a heavy responsibility. It isn't something that you take on lightly. Sure, you might have the occasional person but statistically speaking anyone who OCs is likely a CHL-holder now. Heck, when people CC for the first few times they are terribly paranoid about people knowing. Strapping on a sidearm and heading out to Wal-Mart just isn't something a non-gun carrier is very likely to do. Again, we have the unlicensed OC states to look to. Where are the problems in AZ? Where are the problems in VA? WA? They just aren't there. Most businesses get along just fine and never see an OCer. Even those that do encounter one once in a while usually don't care. It is a very, very small percentage who are fearful and want to banish them.

Keith B wrote:Here you are talking about those that are licensed. Like I stated above, there will be many folks who are not licensed that would immediately start open carrying because the could (assuming your full 2A rights restored.)

Now, is all of what I stated the actual future if open carry was established in Texas? We wouldn't know until it happens. However, I can guarantee you it is probably a pretty solid theory on how it would go down.

Again, I disagree that people who don't have a CHL (or other recognized license/permit) would all of a sudden strap on hog leg and head to the favorite retailer. How about this: we both work HARD for OC in Texas and place a small wager on what will happen. At our celebration of the 1 year anniversary of its passage, the beer is on me if I'm wrong, same for you.

I predict it will be like everywhere else (and OK is about to demonstrate for us): there will be news stories at first but very little actual OCing. From what little OCing there is you'll have the occasional man-with-a-gun call from someone who doesn't know the law has changed. That's it. Very, very few additional 30.06 signs. Most CHLers will continue to CC. It will be a big non-event. 10 years hence if you stop a random person on the street and ask them if they've seen an OCer they'll say "No! Isn't that illegal?"

SA-TX

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Starbucks is only one company; how can we view the action of one company as indicative of what others will do? It's more revealing to look at the many hundreds of companies that posted generic "no gun" signs from May, 1995 until Sept. 1, 1997. That was the period before TPC §30.06 was created along with the 30.06 "big, ugly sign." With passage of HB2909, the small generic "no gun" sign was no longer effective and businesses would have to post the "big, ugly sign" if they wanted to exclude armed CHL's. The combination of the big, ugly sign and the "out of sight, out of mind" phenomenon brought an end to posting by most businesses. The conduct of one business is not indicative of the whole, but the conduct of hundreds of businesses just might be. I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge the risk exists; many OC supporters don't.

Chas.

Thank you for the response Charles. I did highlight Starbucks since they have been very visible as of late directly relating to this issue. However my intent was to express my believe that not just one store, but that all national chains would continue to adhere to their current corporate policies which for the most part will be to abide by the resident State laws. As an example, I do not anticipate that Wal-Mart, Albertsons, Bass Pro, McDonalds, Home Depot and on and on, will suddenly change corporate policy because Oklahoma legalized OC. I hope this helps to clarify my intent.

I really appreciate your explanation of the “big, ugly sign”. So in summary; a risk materialized, resolutions were planned and implemented, and the risk was mitigated. Great Job! I have not doubt and complete confidence that this activity could be repeated and effective risk mitigating action(s) could again be implemented.

Thanks & Have a Nice Day!

SA-TX wrote:

Keith B wrote: In order to get an OC law passed, just like any other bill, there would more than likely be compromises that would have to be made. In this case, there would more than likely be a method for preventing carry in private business by signage. Since that already exists today 30.06, that would probably be the method they would want used.

I could also see the potential of the state allowing cities to preempt open carry, so you would have the plethora of scattered municipalities where it would be off limits and without a program, you would never know where you could and couldn't carry openly. (See my note below on my home state.)

I diagree on signage. Not necessary with OC. Business owners can see you are carrying so there is no need for a sign. If they don't like it, they ask you to leave. Signage is for when they CANNOT see if their wishes are being honored. As far as compromises go, you take what you can get and then come back and remove it when blood doesn't run in the streets. Same as CHL. Even if every big city in Texas made OC illegal by ordinance, there's a bunch of this state that would be left. The reality is that even all the big cities wouldn't go to the trouble.

Keith B wrote:Your difference here is it would be something new (vs many other states where it has always been legal) and highly publicized by the media. And, as with everything, if it was unlicensed open carry, there would be a major surge of unlicensed folks 'trying it out'. This would lead to the media following people around, just like the have done in California and Virginia (aka Starbucks, etc.) And all this media coverage would lead to the postings. And who in Texas doesn't want to wear a really nice six-shooter on their hip when they go out with their hat and boots??

I grew up in an open carry state (Missouri.) I too rarely saw people carrying there in town, but it was not uncommon to see it in the country when folks were hunting. The other thing is Missouri allows cities to preempt open carry, so without looking at the ordinances, you can't tell if it is legal or not.

True, my post focused on licensed OC but I support unlicensed OC. I disagree that there would be a major surge of unlicensed folks "'trying it out". Gun carriers are a special breed. We all know it is a heavy responsibility. It isn't something that you take on lightly. Sure, you might have the occasional person but statistically speaking anyone who OCs is likely a CHL-holder now. Heck, when people CC for the first few times they are terribly paranoid about people knowing. Strapping on a sidearm and heading out to Wal-Mart just isn't something a non-gun carrier is very likely to do. Again, we have the unlicensed OC states to look to. Where are the problems in AZ? Where are the problems in VA? WA? They just aren't there. Most businesses get along just fine and never see an OCer. Even those that do encounter one once in a while usually don't care. It is a very, very small percentage who are fearful and want to banish them.

Keith B wrote:Here you are talking about those that are licensed. Like I stated above, there will be many folks who are not licensed that would immediately start open carrying because the could (assuming your full 2A rights restored.)

Now, is all of what I stated the actual future if open carry was established in Texas? We wouldn't know until it happens. However, I can guarantee you it is probably a pretty solid theory on how it would go down.

Again, I disagree that people who don't have a CHL (or other recognized license/permit) would all of a sudden strap on hog leg and head to the favorite retailer. How about this: we both work HARD for OC in Texas and place a small wager on what will happen. At our celebration of the 1 year anniversary of its passage, the beer is on me if I'm wrong, same for you.

I predict it will be like everywhere else (and OK is about to demonstrate for us): there will be news stories at first but very little actual OCing. From what little OCing there is you'll have the occasional man-with-a-gun call from someone who doesn't know the law has changed. That's it. Very, very few additional 30.06 signs. Most CHLers will continue to CC. It will be a big non-event. 10 years hence if you stop a random person on the street and ask them if they've seen an OCer they'll say "No! Isn't that illegal?"

SA-TX

OK, here are my last comments and then I will stop responding:

We disagree on signage, and we will never agree. I have heard your argument before about the business having to tell everyone, but don't think that will be the case. Business owners will want a non-verbal method, and 30.06 is it IMO.

OK will be 'licensed open carry', so you have those that can already conceal being able to open carry, and as you have already stated, they will want to continue to conceal. Big difference in what you are proposing for unlicensed open carry.

I have seen too many 'commando' types around to think you won't have mall ninjas and the like trying to open carry. My opinion and yours disagree.

So, we totally disagree. you have your points, and I have mine, so we have to leave it there.

As for wagering, i don't like taking advantage of people, so I won't wager.

So, bottom line, you can believe your theory and I will believe mine (and Charles'), and you continue to strive in a business like manner to get OC carry legislation introduced and passed. If you succeed in getting it done without compromising CC, I will and concede I was wrong.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

SA-TX wrote:

mr surveyor wrote:hhhmmmm.... are Six Flags and Government meetings "off limits" due to statute or due to 30.06 postings?

One of us needs to brush up on our knowledge of the Texas CHL laws in order to be more persuasive in our arguments.....maybe it's me


surv

eta: nope..it's not me.....I just checked, and the little item "i" is still in the code

Good point. You're are right about (i). That illustrates something I described in another post: general prohibitions with a million little exceptions. I don't think you have be a pie-in-the-sky idealist to point out that the section 46 of the Penal Code could be much simpler than it currently is. Instead of adding (i), why not remove (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c)?

That emphasizes my main point: I love Texas but our gun laws are not even close to the best in the country.

Other than no open-carry and not being able to carry in a bar, where do you feel Texas gun laws are worse than other states?

Chas.

I'm going to point out where I think Texas is worse and also differences (where I'm not necessary saying we are worse, but that we should consider what others are doing).

1) Cost. Texas has one of the most expensive licenses in the country between DPS fees and the mandated training. Some states are as cheap as $20. Worse.

2) Requirements.

SSN. A federal court in PA threw out their SSN requirement as a violation of federal law which only grants the use of SSN for limited purposes. In TX, this is used to check for child support or student loan delinquencies. People shouldn't dodge either obligation but should those be disqualifiers for a CHL? Gun carry licenses, unlike hunting or fishing licenses, also aren't on the list of "recreational or professional" licenses for which federal law insists that child support records be checked and this is how other states avoid it. Remember that even when buying a gun your SSN is OPTIONAL on the federal forms. Worse.

Must have a Texas ID or DL. This keep the number of out-of-state licenses issues to far less than FL or UT. Worse.

Picture. Believe it or not, many states don't have pictures on their carry licenses. They find it unnecessary and it drives up cost. PA and IA don't, to name 2 that I know of. Might also speed up processing times. No opinion.

Fingerprints. Many states require them, but not all. Presumably this aids in the background check. Might speed up processing times. No opinion.

3) Eduacation. Texas has one of the longest classes and it doesn't change quickly for renewals (on the 3rd renewal???). I'm not opposed to education on the law and safe gun handling but other states don't think it is necessary (IN, VA, WA, as examples) or at least not as much. Worse.

3) Off-limits places. Professional/college/high school sporting events, bars, non-public police area (and that one was just added). Then there are those that technically aren't CHL-specific but are still unnecessary: polling place on election day, buildings in which there is a court or court office, race track, site of an execution, etc.

I'm not in favor of drinking and carrying but many states don't exclude bars (PA and IN are examples). Do they have drunken shoot-em ups? Not very often. Obviously there are other crimes when they do. Rather than off-limits places, why don't we criminalize behavior? If you use your gun in a bad way, no matter where you are, you face charges. The only truly off-limits places I think are reasonable are IN a courtroom, correctional facility, and the secured area of an airport. We could strip away all the other restrictions and we wouldn't have wild mayhem ensue. Worse.

4) License categories. I know that nearly everyone gets SA so as a practical matter its irrevelant, but no other state that I know of licenses by action. Worse.

5) Officer ability to disarm. They are supposed to have a reasonable sense you are danger to yourself or someone else. In practice, "officer safety" seems to be good enough. Worse.

6) Reciprocity. Many states simply recognize ALL valid permits/licenses by other states. The new IA law does this. Very easy. We have agreements, governor makes proclimations, etc. Where's our recognition of MN for instance? They recognize TX but we don't them and I don't know why. Where's the report that the AG's office is suppose to provide to the legislative leaders every year on other states? Worse.

7) Texas laws are way too confusing. Take the classic "church" example. Carrying here used to be off-limits and still appears to be but actually isn't because of (i). We seem to take the approach of sweeping prohibitions, outlawing the carrying of a handgun, then create many exemptions. Wouldn't we be better off if the law was cleaned up?

Here's a bonus question: even with a CHL can you carry/possess a pistol on MURVAUL LAKE in Panola County or is this prima facie evidance you've committed a crime? Hint: see Parks & Wildlife 283.022.

These are the ones that come to mind. I do appreciate you asking and I hope we'll work on these.

SA-TX

Actually, SA-TX and Cohagher have so eloquently stated their position, that I am more favorably disposed to their cause than I was. Even so, I still think things like the parking lot bill should have some primacy of position before the legislature because that legislation will more directly affect those very CHL holders whom both of you admit will mostly not OC. In other words, it is a more immediately pressing issue for a majority of those who carry guns legally; and therefore, it should be addressed first.

The reason I believe this is that, if you move OC up to the top priority position, and even if it passes, it will likely still permit employers to bar any employee who carries concealed or openly from disarming and securing their weapon in the parking lot before entering the premises. So what you are then left with is a situation in which a right which you both readily admit most CHLers won't practice has been enabled, but for whom they still have to be disarmed on the way to and from work — a net setback for those who choose to obtain a CHL — and another legislative session squandered.

So how do you address that possibility?

The Annoyed Man wrote:Actually, SA-TX and Cohagher have so eloquently stated their position, that I am more favorably disposed to their cause than I was. Even so, I still think things like the parking lot bill should have some primacy of position before the legislature because that legislation will more directly affect those very CHL holders whom both of you admit will mostly not OC. In other words, it is a more immediately pressing issue for a majority of those who carry guns legally; and therefore, it should be addressed first.

The reason I believe this is that, if you move OC up to the top priority position, and even if it passes, it will likely still permit employers to bar any employee who carries concealed or openly from disarming and securing their weapon in the parking lot before entering the premises. So what you are then left with is a situation in which a right which you both readily admit most CHLers won't practice has been enabled, but for whom they still have to be disarmed on the way to and from work — a net setback for those who choose to obtain a CHL — and another legislative session squandered.

So how do you address that possibility?

Hello T.A.M.,

Thank you for your question.

I cannot speak for SA-TX, but I honestly do not see this as an either/or situation. I have no issue with the parking lot bill and even campus carry taking priority over an OC bill. With all the great ground work laid for these two bills over the last few years hopefully we will have smooth sailing this next session. I do not believe OC had anything to do with either of these bills failure to advance last session – but rather more to do with demo’s antics on the voter id bill.

Please understand I am not asking for OC to be “the top priority position”, I’m just appealing to have it on the list; and I do not believe that having the other two bills as priority necessitates the exclusion of OC.

I hope this addresses your question.

Thanks & Have a Nice Day!

I wasn't going to respond, but this thread seems better than the usual "I'll never OC, so I don't care" responses.

Starbucks isn't only "one", it's just the one that got picked on by the nutjobs at the VPC. Home Depot, Walmart, Best Buy, and another 1 or 2 that I can't recall have the same policy as Starbucks. The media attention escalated because of a Starbucks in California (what else would you expect) that was getting frequented by OC'ers. I guess not enough people that are scared of guns frequent Home Depot, Walmart, and Best Buy.

The public sentiment is not the same now as it was in '95. The "backlash" of signs that happened back then will not happen today for that reason, and also because most business owners know that there are guns all around them already, just concealed. Heck, most retail business owners are gun owners themselves, and probably carrying or at least have them in the business somewhere. My wife's boss recently gave his two front office employees guns to have in their drawer, and he voted for Obama! So I believe that while Charles is wise and experienced, he's not factoring in that the public mentality today is not what it was 15 years ago. It's come far in our favor not only in the public's mind, but in legal circles as well. I'd venture to say that now's a better time than ever, but we know all know about chubbing.

To say that opencarry.org exists because of all the problems OC'ers encounter is like saying that texaschlforum.com exists because of all the problems we encounter. There's some problems, but many many positive stories.

I've OC'd in Louisiana and Kentucky, and much to my amazement, no on notices.

Unfortunately, I belive that if we want to work on this, it will have to be without the TSRA again. Without the TSRA, we have slim chances. They have on their list to fine tune CHL regulations and that's it. Nevertheless, I'm open to work hard on this, and am currently writing to Lois Kolkorst on the issue to start. If we get organized (and stay civil), you never know. I'd say that most we can expect is to make enough positive work in 2011 that we might actually get the TSRA interested for OC in 2013.

That's my worthess $.02.......

With all the great ground work laid for these two bills over the last few years hopefully we will have smooth sailing this next session.

Hardly. Private business associations are generally against the parking lot bill. It will be rough sledding indeed to get this passed in the next five years, much less the next session.

OC has absolutely no chance on its own. This is not Arizona, Louisiana, or any of those states. You have large metropolitan areas-larger than the total populations of the states mentioned. There is very little history of non-long gun OC in this state in urban areas. Absent long term preparation, baby steps to improve the environment, any thought of OC is fantasy in this state.

frazzled wrote:

With all the great ground work laid for these two bills over the last few years hopefully we will have smooth sailing this next session.

Hardly. Private business associations are generally against the parking lot bill. It will be rough sledding indeed to get this passed in the next five years, much less the next session.

But are you saying we shouldn't pursue it with a high priority because of that?