OC v. CC -- Hatfields v. McCoys All Over Again

[Charles L. Cotton]

Okay...now, maybe I'm fixin' to get my back up over nothing, but frankly I'm a bit tired of feeling like I'm on the defensive here. I've tried to ask questions politely and without rancor, and get (IMO) talked down to in return.

I don't see any response talking down to you.

Charles, you've repeatedly said that there's been no indication from the members that OC was an issue to them. I asked about the last poll....and got no response.

Look back a few posts and you'll see my response.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Surveymonkey would cost-effectively fit the need for contacting that number of people securely.

I didn't spend much time on their website, but I don't see how this would work for TSRA or any organization that has membership security concerns.

To poll the members, contact must be made directly with them either by mail or some other means. An Internet poll is not secure unless we were to code our own poll and list every single one of the 37,000 to 40,000 membership numbers, allowing a response only from people with those numbers. The cost of that programming would make the mailing cost look cheap.

Again, I don't have the time to talk with the Surverymonkey people, but I do know the security elements that have to be in place. I've been briefed on this issue at NRA HQ when we wanted to see of computer voting would be possible. (New York not-for-profit law doesn't allow it anyway, as we later learned.)

Chas.

[baldeagle]

I think you can stop holding your breath on the parking lot bill. I believe, based on what Joe Driver told me, that a parking lot bill will pass this session. It may not be perfect. It may have provisions that some don't like to placate the private property rights crowd to some degree (like a designated parking area, for example),

Sort of a "Break into these cars first because they have guns" section????

This is a TERRIBLE idea.

Which is why it would probably pass. Politicians specialize in terrible ideas with unforeseen (by them) consequences.

[sjfcontrol]

I think you can stop holding your breath on the parking lot bill. I believe, based on what Joe Driver told me, that a parking lot bill will pass this session. It may not be perfect. It may have provisions that some don't like to placate the private property rights crowd to some degree (like a designated parking area, for example),

Sort of a "Break into these cars first because they have guns" section????

This is a TERRIBLE idea.

Which is why it would probably pass. Politicians specialize in terrible ideas with unforeseen (by them) consequences.

Well, I think that for security purposes, each automobile in the "armed" lot should be labeled with a sticker on the windshield that specifies type of firearm, and its storage location. That way if a vehicle is broken into, the police can check to see if the firearm has been stolen.

[Charles L. Cotton]

baldeagle wrote:

It may be just my impression, but it appears that some people think the TSRA speaks for them. It does not.

Well....actually it does on certain matters, not on others.

It speaks for its membership - all the members

.
Huh? ALL the members (or for that matter...even the majority)! Please tell me how they determine that... if ALL the members have not been contacted (or called of their own volition). Charles just stated they NEVER poll their members, right?

All this discussion about polls and "does the TSRA represent it members" is nothing but a smoke screen to hide an overall lack of support for open-carry. TSRA doesn't poll its membership for the reasons I've already stated. We gets calls, emails and even snail mail letters from members telling us what is important to them and their positions on those issues. As I already said we also have direct contact with members at various events around the State including the TSRA Annual meetings. I personally ask members (and non-members for that matter) how they feel about OC when I am at speaking engagements. At the very best, it's about 60%/40% against OC either because they simply don't want to see people openly carrying, or because they feel there are other gun issues of greater importance. Remember, the overwhelming majority of OC supporters we hear from claim very few people will actually carry openly, so the general response I'm seeing is consistent with this view. A factor I think is missed by many OC supporters is that the vast majority of gun owners are not what I call "active" gun owners. They own guns but they don't shoot much, don't train much if at all, don't get involved politically and don't follow gun forums like the TexasCHLforum. Quite often when such people are asked about OC, their response is something like, "No! Why would anyone want to do that?"

While TSRA has significant contact with its members, it doesn't communicate with all of them, nor does any organization of significant size. But the sad truth for OC supporters is the number of calls, emails and letters from people supporting OC is minuscule in comparison to those calling on other issues, especially campus-carry and parking lots. During the one year I served as TSRA Executive Director, we received very few calls about supporting OC. I instructed the staff to ask callers if they were TSRA members and if they said yes, get their TSRA Member Number. Guess what, few were members. We get more calls and emails from people wanting us to change the definition of "conviction" so that it doesn't include successfully completed deferred adjudications than we do from people wanting TSRA to promote OC.

At the end of the day, it is my belief that open-carry is of great importance to only a very vocal few. It think a much larger number of people would like to see OC pass, but only after other bills pass that are of a higher priority. A third group exists that doesn't want OC to pass without laying the groundwork to prevent an increase in the number of 30.06 signs being posted on businesses.

Chas.

[RHenriksen]

Regarding the feasibility of TSRA polling, I just got an email from NRA a little bit ago. Here is a screen snapshot of it (below). Notice that it contains a "click here to vote in poll" button. I'm wondering if that is something TSRA has the funds to do. Perhaps not, but if they do, there is no technical reason not to. It's only a matter of the will to do it.

I'm all in favor of leveraging the inter-tubes to facilitate better communication w. the *RAs, but I think your example above is not really germane. It's a fun topic, something to pull in some interaction by the membership, but nothing that's going to drive legislative agendas by the NRA. An email solicitation to click a voting link can be forwarded on by anyone; and I imagine it'd also be easy to script something to hit that link repeatedly, skewing results.

Picture a Brady Center volunteer joining the NRA to get info on what 'the enemy' is up to. They receive those emails, too. They then send the email (or a link to the webpage) to 5,000 Brady Center listserv members. Heck, we do the same thing to affect the results of polls on news websites all the time.

If you use a forum environment like this one, only lock it down so that only people who log in can see any of the forums, and restrict registrations to only those who can enter an NRA-generated username & password, or supply an appropriate PIN, etc, you've got a shot at a valid (secure) polling mechanism.

That's not to say it's going to be invulnerable to hackers, etc. As always, you have to make a judgment call on how much security you're willing to buy. Even if not 100% perfect, I would think it'd be an improvement in communications. If TSRA/NRA/etc should establish such an infrastructure to ask things like, 'how do you rate the following legislative goals in the next 2 year term', you can evaluate the results with an x% fudge factor. Polls in the real world are usually assumed to have a 3% degree of error, right?

IMO, there's no need for a state level group like TSRA to take on the cost of such an infrastructure alone, since all 50 states would benefit from it. I don't know what obstacles would prevent the NRA from establishing such an environment and then having 50 state-level forums within it. Or, heck - if there's some law, policy, tax reason, etc, that blocks the NRA from doing it, could all 50 *RA orgs form a foundation and each chip in 2% of the cost of setting up such a secure forum?

[EconDoc]

At this point, I would like to see all of it pass, the Parking Lot bill, to protect employees who have a gun in their car, Campus Carry, and Open Carry. Let's pass all of it. But, if I have to pick and choose, I want Campus Carry and the Parking Lot bill first. I will admit that I have selfish reasons for that. I teach at a private college and would love to be able to carry on campus legally and without fear of losing my job. And, Open Carry that leaves college campuses as "defenseless victim zones" seems to be of less utility in makeing our society safer than Campus Carry and a Parking Lot bill would.

What some people don't realize is that we may not be able to get all of it at once. Each step will make the next more likely.

[TexasRedneck]

I don't see your reasons as selfish - not a bit. In my mind, CC and PL are issues that affect not only a greater number of folks, but completely restrict their ability to defend themselves.

I keep tryin' ta tell ya'll that I ain't an OCDO type... Sure, I'd love to see the OC yesterday - but I've been around enough politics to understand that there are priorities and ways to do things. The LSCDL folks are, imo, kinda victims of their own idea - it looks good, it's something to aspire to - unfortunately, others that have come before left a bad taste in folks' mouths. I get that - really do. I think folks now are realizing that they are NOT lock-stepped w/OCDO, but are instead just who they say they are - some Texans with an idea and a goal. They aren't politicians or even all that familiar with the political arena, so when they say/do something "dumb", it's simply an honest gaffe - and they're ready and willing to listen to other input/ideas. I know that because I've had some pretty long discussions with their 3 key leaders, and all they want to do is figure out how to bring OC to Texas.

Anyways, I'm feelin' better after my little diatribe the other day. Nothing any one person said or did set it off - those of you that felt that it did and felt you needed to somehow apologize, it wasn't you. It just kinda got to the point that all the little things had kinda built up, and I figured that I either needed to let off some steam or it was gonna get really ugly.

Like I said - at first, I thought "Wow - what a buncha jerks!" Then I read up on some of the history BEHIND the feelings being expressed, and I understood it. Then it became a point of kinda feeling like I was getting painted w/the same brush, and I needed to somehow get across that I was NOT some carpet-bagger comin' in to stir stuff up.

I'm a Texas boy, guys - honest. If you are familiar w/St. Joseph's church in DT San Antonio - my Great-Grandfather donated the land it sits on. My grandparents were shootin' buddies w/the Toepperwein's - some of the records my Grandmother set at the SA Gun Club still stand, and I've got the Model 97 she used to set 'em with. I love this state and country - I try hard to do the Right Thing, but like anyone else I've got my "hot buttons".

Thanks for readin' this drivel....just wanted to try and set the record straight.

[The Annoyed Man]

@ RHENRIKSEN...

The polling modules that I am familiar with can easily be hidden behind a login, whether or not you are using an Internet forum. Furthermore, they can be set so that a member can vote only once every 10 years. I am familiar with the TSRA website because I helped build part of it, and I can categorically state that it is possible to do exactly that with the CMS they are using. All that would be required would be for the members to provide their membership numbers, which are controlled by TSRA, and which are tied to a specific email address, at the point of login.

So what if a Brady Bunch membership allows them to login and register a vote? It is only ONE vote, because that membership ID number will not be allowed to vote again. So if there are 27,000 members, and 7,000 vote against the TSRA's support of OC, that Brady vote makes it 7,001 — not enough to significantly skew the results.

I'm not saying that they should conduct such polling; but I am saying that there is no technical reason not to.

[flintknapper]

@ RHENRIKSEN...

The polling modules that I am familiar with can easily be hidden behind a login, whether or not you are using an Internet forum. Furthermore, they can be set so that a member can vote only once every 10 years. I am familiar with the TSRA website because I helped build part of it, and I can categorically state that it is possible to do exactly that with the CMS they are using. All that would be required would be for the members to provide their membership numbers, which are controlled by TSRA, and which are tied to a specific email address, at the point of login.

So what if a Brady Bunch membership allows them to login and register a vote? It is only ONE vote, because that membership ID number will not be allowed to vote again. So if there are 27,000 members, and 7,000 vote against the TSRA's support of OC, that Brady vote makes it 7,001 — not enough to significantly skew the results.

I'm not saying that they should conduct such polling; but I am saying that there is no technical reason not to.

I am not saying that most issues should be polled either, but I think concerning matters (OC) that are guaranteed to be high profile...and which involve some disagreement among members, extra effort should be made by the TSRA to gather as much opinion as is possible.

Using the old fashioned (thats the way we've always done it) Squeaky Wheel method will NEVER give a complete or accurate picture. But I will address that in responses to Charles and Baldeagle's posts later.

The OC issue is not going to go away. At some point the TSRA will need to start looking at it seriously. Hopefully, they will be receptive to the idea of soliciting it's members opinions (in a proactive way) and not just waiting to hear from a few. In the same vein...I would hope the leadership there is capable of recognizing a "good idea" even if comes from just ONE member (or non-member for that matter).

There are some folks...who simply will not acknowledge or implement a good idea if it wasn't their own (I am not accusing the TSRA of this). These folks often feel bullied, pressured...and will spend enormous amounts of time coming up with reasons NOT to find a solution.

There may be valid reasons NOT to do certain things, but surely this OC issue is worth taking a good hard look at whether you are for it or against it. All decisions should be informed decisions and I don't see how you can do that without first gathering as much information (including members opinions on the subject) as possible.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Using the old fashioned (thats the way we've always done it) Squeaky Wheel method will NEVER give a complete or accurate picture. But I will address that in responses to Charles and Baldeagle's posts later.

The OC issue is not going to go away. At some point the TSRA will need to start looking at it seriously. Hopefully, they will be receptive to the idea of soliciting it's members opinions (in a proactive way) and not just waiting to hear from a few. In the same vein...I would hope the leadership there is capable of recognizing a "good idea" even if comes from just ONE member (or non-member for that matter).

Let me ask a hypothetical question. If there was an economically feasible and secure way to poll TSRA Members on the open-carry issue, would you still want TSRA to champion OC if the majority of the Members responding opposed OC? What if the poll indicated an even split 50/50 for/against OC?

Here is an interesting question. If the majority of TSRA Members oppose OC, would you want TSRA to oppose an open-carry bill if one was introduced?

Chas.

[lonewolf]

I would not want TSRA to oppose it, but would rather continue the focus on the agenda as outlined for itself. Its unfortunate if the tactics of one group of lobbyists sullies the work of others. If the OC group is distracting attention from the bills on the floor, and causing some legislators to steer clear of anything firearms related, there is an issue. Focus on the Campus Carry, focus on the Parking Lot Bill......Open Carry can wait for the time being. Use whatever resources are available to further the agenda as it stands, win the votes needed in the legislature regarding what is on the table, then at some point later, when resources are available OC may be an option to consider.

I go back to an old saying I heard many years ago: How do you eat an elephant? One bite at time.......

On a personal level, I don't see OC being an important issue. The crooks are not going to carry that way, but it will give them a clue as to who they need to shoot first. At most it may dissuade some BG from making you a target in the first place. My concern, should I be carrying OC is that the BG may be tempted to go ahead and shoot it out and be done with it. I'd like to avoid that if possible. At least if I'm carrying concealed, ducking, running, evading and such may be an option. I'd rather not get shot at. I'm sure an open carry proponent would use the dissuasion argument...

Best case scenario---CC statutes (using Texas' as an example?) are made uniform across the country, with reciprocity automatic.

As a side note, I have travelled all over this country and have NEVER encountered anyone open carrying. Ever. In my opinion it would be a novelty. You would see it regularly for a period of time, then it would all but disappear. Of course there would be the die hard cowboy romantics out there who would strap on the old shootin' iron. I believe there would be some that open carried and went looking for trouble, rather than carrying concealed for self preservation/protection.

In the meantime, to Charles and all others who work on the front lines and behind the scenes of TSRA, keep up the good work!

[flintknapper]

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Let me ask a hypothetical question. If there was an economically feasible and secure way to poll TSRA Members on the open-carry issue, would you still want TSRA to champion OC if the majority of the Members responding opposed OC?

What if the poll indicated an even split 50/50 for/against OC?

Here is an interesting question. If the majority of TSRA Members oppose OC, would you want TSRA to oppose an open-carry bill if one was introduced?

Charles...I will state my position and expectations of both the TSRA and the NRA. Hopefully, it will answer all three of your questions.

I believe both organizations should pursue any and every gun rights issue that strengthens, advances or solidifies the RKBA, if NOT to the detriment of existing law.

The questions you pose above concerning OC relate ONLY to what time-line this legislation should occur... not IF it should happen. (Caveat above applies).

Now...I have few questions for you, and I ask them with all due respect.

1. If there was an economically feasible and secure way to poll TSRA Members on the open-carry issue (or other high profile issue), would you support using that method to better establish the wants of the membership?

2. Has the TSRA ever conducted a poll, questionnaire or study (soliciting the entire membership) AND actually recorded the results?

3. Can you point me to an instance where a significant number (25%) of the membership has ever expressed opposition to an issue being considered by the TSRA or discussed?

Thank you Charles,

Flint.

[Mike1951]

I'm against open carry.

But I strongly disagree with the idea that the TSRA represents me!

The fact that it has, generally, is a result of passing the CHL legislation and its ongoing 'fixes'.

When the major CHL issues are settled, I have no faith whatsoever that the TSRA will represent me. Why? Because they have never made any attempt to hear my thoughts on anything. They would rather base their actions on the vocal 1% (just guessing). It is outrageously 'high minded' to operate this way.

TAM suggested that secure polling could be implemented on the TSRA site.

What about including a poll in the spline of the already mailed magazine? The members would still need to mail it back, but it would represent an attempt.

Until the TSRA does make the effort, don't assume it represents the majority of its members.

[Keith B]

I'm against open carry.

But I strongly disagree with the idea that the TSRA represents me!

The fact that it has, generally, is a result of passing the CHL legislation and its ongoing 'fixes'.

When the major CHL issues are settled, I have no faith whatsoever that the TSRA will represent me. Why? Because they have never made any attempt to hear my thoughts on anything. They would rather base their actions on the vocal 1% (just guessing). It is outrageously 'high minded' to operate this way.

TAM suggested that secure polling could be implemented on the TSRA site.

What about including a poll in the spline of the already mailed magazine? The members would still need to mail it back, but it would represent an attempt.

Until the TSRA does make the effort, don't assume it represents the majority of its members.

Have YOU made the effort to contact them and they ignored you? You imply they have, but I have never experienced it.

I personally have contacted TSRA PAC and talked to them and provided my thoughts and opinions on legislation both proposed and pending, and they have always taken my input. I have talked to Alice about issues and she has always been willing to discuss them.

It is a two way street. I say pick up the phone or send and email and let them know what you want. Unless we take the initiative to communicate, then we have no right to fuss.