Page 5 of 5
Re: OC v CHL
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:31 am
by baseballguy2001
So, as I take my first renewal class, my next renewal five years from now may be a bit shorter, or even eliminated. Fine. Maybe in those years, and two more legislative sessions, the citizens of this great state will remove the barriers to advancements to our rights. In the twenty years since Texans were "allowed" to carry concealed firearms, the statistics speak for themselves. There are no shoot outs on the streets, no rivers of blood, the percentage of CHL's losing their licenses for infractions of the law are so small, that alone should guarantee an open or campus carry law. Instead, the ruling class, or rather a few members of that class, have decided there is no reason to act. I have personally written and placed phone calls to all my reps, they all say "we are against an infringement of our second amendment rights". Great. And then what are you prepared to do? We were fooled. Again. Somebody please, point to where I'm wrong.
Re: OC v CHL
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:34 am
by C-dub
I don't know. Will renewals be even shorter? They already are only about half the full class at about 4-5 hours.
Re: OC v CHL
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:05 pm
by tacticool
Pelosi is probably cackling in her lair at the infighting and how we'll get crumbs because we weren't willing to ask for the whole cake like she and her crones do.
Re: OC v CHL
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 2:48 pm
by srothstein
One thing we did that was important this session is to prevent loss. It might be seen as a slight gain, or more likely revealing how much we have gained over the years, but there was no major attempt to reduce our gun rights this session.
Yes, there were some attempts, but I don't think anyone took them seriously. Well TSRA took them seriously enough to fight them and make sure they were not real problems, but you know what I mean.
Look at the fight in the US Senate. I was surprised at the outcome there because I expected to see that become a major House fight also. At least we did not have problems like that in our legislature, which is a gain in and of itself.
And yes, I am looking for the silver lining of an otherwise dismal (so far) session.
Re: OC v CHL
Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 1:36 pm
by JKTex
tacticool wrote:Pelosi is probably cackling in her lair at the infighting and how we'll get crumbs because we weren't willing to ask for the whole cake like she and her crones do.
Pelosi has nothing to do with Texas legislation.

Re: OC v CHL
Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 9:41 am
by baseballguy2001
I was in renewal class Saturday afternoon so I missed the Gun Bill Saturday. I did pass the written and shooting portions, the paperwork is on it's way to Austin. My instructor did mention some possible changes in the law this session, but as we all know, open carry is dead. I would say Campus Carry is on serious life support, the only likely change is the Campus Parking Lot bill. Maybe a licensed open carry bill in 2017?
Re: OC v CHL
Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 11:40 am
by CJD
baseballguy2001 wrote:I was in renewal class Saturday afternoon so I missed the Gun Bill Saturday. I did pass the written and shooting portions, the paperwork is on it's way to Austin. My instructor did mention some possible changes in the law this session, but as we all know, open carry is dead. I would say Campus Carry is on serious life support, the only likely change is the Campus Parking Lot bill. Maybe a licensed open carry bill in 2017?
A watered down campus carry passed the house.
Re: OC v CHL
Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 5:03 pm
by AEA
C-dub wrote:I don't know. Will renewals be even shorter? They already are only about half the full class at about 4-5 hours.
What happened to the bill to eliminate the class and qual for renewals?
Re: OC v CHL
Posted: Mon May 06, 2013 5:42 pm
by CJD
AEA wrote:C-dub wrote:I don't know. Will renewals be even shorter? They already are only about half the full class at about 4-5 hours.
What happened to the bill to eliminate the class and qual for renewals?
Passed the house
Re: OC v CHL
Posted: Thu May 09, 2013 5:26 pm
by jerry_r60
tacticool wrote:Pelosi is probably cackling in her lair at the infighting and how we'll get crumbs because we weren't willing to ask for the whole cake like she and her crones do.
Why do you think she's asking for the whole thing? I dont' think so. She wants much more than she's asking for too but i think she was thining she could get this part now and continue to push for mor over time.
Just an opinion for what that's worth.
Re: OC v CHL
Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 1:17 pm
by JKTex
jerry_r60 wrote:tacticool wrote:Pelosi is probably cackling in her lair at the infighting and how we'll get crumbs because we weren't willing to ask for the whole cake like she and her crones do.
Why do you think she's asking for the whole thing? I dont' think so. She wants much more than she's asking for too but i think she was thining she could get this part now and continue to push for mor over time.
Just an opinion for what that's worth.
Pelosi still has nothing to do with Texas Legislation.

Re: OC v CHL
Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 5:22 pm
by snorri
I have nothing to do with New York legislation but I have an opinion about the high capacity soft drink law.

Re: OC v CHL
Posted: Fri May 10, 2013 5:32 pm
by sjfcontrol
JKTex wrote:jerry_r60 wrote:tacticool wrote:Pelosi is probably cackling in her lair at the infighting and how we'll get crumbs because we weren't willing to ask for the whole cake like she and her crones do.
Why do you think she's asking for the whole thing? I dont' think so. She wants much more than she's asking for too but i think she was thining she could get this part now and continue to push for mor over time.
Just an opinion for what that's worth.
Pelosi still has nothing to do with Texas Legislation.

Well, maybe not, but she does sponsor and vote for legislation that DOES affect Texans!

Re: OC v CHL
Posted: Mon May 13, 2013 1:28 pm
by jerry_r60
JKTex wrote:jerry_r60 wrote:tacticool wrote:Pelosi is probably cackling in her lair at the infighting and how we'll get crumbs because we weren't willing to ask for the whole cake like she and her crones do.
Why do you think she's asking for the whole thing? I dont' think so. She wants much more than she's asking for too but i think she was thining she could get this part now and continue to push for mor over time.
Just an opinion for what that's worth.
Pelosi still has nothing to do with Texas Legislation.

I didn't take tacticool's comment to imply that Pelosi was affecting TX legislation. What i was responding to was what I took as his contrasting of legistlative approaches.