TexasCHLforum.com

TexasGal wrote:Put yourself in the place of a business owner. For now, he can have people who are pro carry and people who are anti come in to do business with him without incident. With open carry, he has to consider the reaction of his customers who don't want to be around visible guns. He has to consider the possible arguments and complaints.

What about arguments and complaints from people who object to Muslims or homosexuals?

Strike that.

Many UT students testified against campus carry. They don't want to be around concealed guns.
Should the legislators listen to their arguments and complaints and keep campus carry illegal?
Why or why not?

Shoot Straight wrote:

TexasGal wrote:Put yourself in the place of a business owner. For now, he can have people who are pro carry and people who are anti come in to do business with him without incident. With open carry, he has to consider the reaction of his customers who don't want to be around visible guns. He has to consider the possible arguments and complaints.

What about arguments and complaints from people who object to Muslims or homosexuals?

Businesses can't exclude people in protected classes and Islam falls into one of them - religion.

Shoot Straight wrote:Many UT students testified against campus carry. They don't want to be around concealed guns.
Should the legislators listen to their arguments and complaints and keep campus carry illegal?
Why or why not?

This is a completely different issue and it is not analogous. Business owners or managers make business decisions they believe will impact their ability to make a profit or earn a living. A legislator's decision on campus-carry is not a business decision by a private property owner. It is a political decision dealing with the public policy of this State as it relates to self-defense at colleges and universities that derive much of their funding from the taxpayers.

Chas.

Prejudice is prejudice.

Shoot Straight wrote:Prejudice is prejudice.

But only CERTAIN KINDS of prejudice is legally protected!

Well, I'm certainly not trying to dodge exercising our rights or trying to encourage Prejudice. I did not see how my post would sound that way, but if it did--that's not what I was trying to convey. I think we are exercising our rights with concealed carry and we are changing the prejudice against guns being carried among the public by citizens by leaps and bounds. Every CHL issued in Texas represents one more person who will support the right to bear arms and will help convert more people to the idea of responsible citizens carrying. I'm not holding myself up as some kind of expert. Just an average older person who remembers quite well the years before we had concealed carry in Texas and what it felt like to be a person unfamiliar with guns. A lot has changed already in a fairly short time. We have a tremendous warrior for the right to carry in Charles Cotten. I see no reason not to trust him to understand better than most how the political and social atmosphere in Texas is evolving regarding OC. He has worked tirelessly for us and sometimes it seems in spite of hecklers.

texasjeep44 wrote:I never heard it during Lavenders campaign, but I am told from others that this was something he promised he would do if elected. Being that he, and the people who report he campaigned on this are from my town, I have no reason to think they are telling anything but the truth.

I never heard it. I'm not in his town but I'm in his district. I never heard anyone say he campaigned on it. He had some yard sings and adds in the paper, not a big campaign. Frost was good on guns but stuck to his party line on other stuff, his bad luck to be a dem in 2010.

The Lavender bill might not be very good but I like that he introduced it even if its not perfect. The Riverbend crap takes up all his time (big mess of corruption right there). He seems like a good pro gun guy, should be able to work with all the gun groups.

WOW! Just proves the simplest things get complicated as soon as lawyers get involved. I'm reading this and more confused and pessimistic than ever. No wonder we can't get oc passed in this state, even the pro-gun crowd is trying to do each other in. I've been waiting and looking forward to getting a oc passed but there's people on here that would rather shelved it because of wording or personal preference than see our 2nd amendment rights expanded. The law may not be perfect, what law is, but you'd thing the least we could do is back it even if it needs tweaked later. You think the gun-grabbers would shelf a law prohibiting our rights because it wasn't perfect?
Just the thoughts of a lowly trashman!
(I know I'll get flamed, its ok! I have 2 exes, I'm used too it) LOL

johnferg69 wrote:WOW! Just proves the simplest things get complicated as soon as lawyers get involved. I'm reading this and more confused and pessimistic than ever. No wonder we can't get oc passed in this state, even the pro-gun crowd is trying to do each other in. I've been waiting and looking forward to getting a oc passed but there's people on here that would rather shelved it because of wording or personal preference than see our 2nd amendment rights expanded. The law may not be perfect, what law is, but you'd thing the least we could do is back it even if it needs tweaked later. You think the gun-grabbers would shelf a law prohibiting our rights because it wasn't perfect?
Just the thoughts of a lowly trashman!
(I know I'll get flamed, its ok! I have 2 exes, I'm used too it) LOL

Your position is that I shouldn't care about the wording or effect of a law, but should get behind it as long as it has people with good intent behind it?

That's a position I haven't heard since Congress explained why they couldn't read the Obamacare bill before it was passed. It was scary then and is scary now. Words have meanings and consequences, especially words that are codified into law. Anyone attempting to propose words which will affect the regulation and administration of justice to entire populations should recognize and respect that fact.

My position is libs don't shelf a law because its not their idea of perfect. I'd rather us compromise our preferences and have a law expanding our rights than none at all.

johnferg69 wrote:My position is libs don't shelf a law because its not their idea of perfect. I'd rather us comprise our preferences and have a law expanding our rights than none at all.

Some of us propose taking smaller steps on the same path. Compromising too much at a given-time only sets you further back...

There is a time to tackle a subject, a time to haggle over it, and a time to avoid it. Timing is everything.

johnferg69 wrote:WOW! Just proves the simplest things get complicated as soon as lawyers get involved. I'm reading this and more confused and pessimistic than ever. No wonder we can't get oc passed in this state, even the pro-gun crowd is trying to do each other in. I've been waiting and looking forward to getting a oc passed but there's people on here that would rather shelved it because of wording or personal preference than see our 2nd amendment rights expanded. The law may not be perfect, what law is, but you'd thing the least we could do is back it even if it needs tweaked later. You think the gun-grabbers would shelf a law prohibiting our rights because it wasn't perfect?
Just the thoughts of a lowly trashman!
(I know I'll get flamed, its ok! I have 2 exes, I'm used too it) LOL

We want to see our rights expanded, or better yet restored, here in Texas. I will say that a badly written bill that expands our rights slightly is a danger when it can be amended to restrict our rights further, and this bill can be amended to do so. So lets say that HB356 (would require Texas Residents to have a Texas License) was attached to the OC bill as an amendment, would you still support it? Or lets say someone found a creative way to attach HB2807 (Assault Weapons Ban) as an amendment to this bill, would you still support it? Or lets say that in an effort to kill the bill by the anti-gun crowd it is amended so that the minimum age to qualify for a license becomes 35 years of age, would you still want it passed? After all it may not be perfect but it does expanded our rights slightly in some areas at the expense of restricting them in others.

Would you shelf a oc bill because the word "concealed" is dropped from the 30.06 sign? Would you drop oc because a business could use a gun buster sign to keep you out? That's the type of things I'm talking about. Not that you have to hop around on one leg with a banana in your ear to oc.

At this time I'm neutral on the bill. I would prefer it if 30.06 was left alone, but I will not oppose the bill as it currently stands. Keep in mind that does not mean that I will support it because I don't, its still a step backwards regarding 30.06. Now if the bill gets amended in a negative manner (which is possible) then I will oppose it. They way this bill is written we could see a lot of potentially bad amendments being attached to it so it needs to be watched for that.

johnferg69 wrote:WOW! Just proves the simplest things get complicated as soon as lawyers get involved.

How is HB2756 the lawyers' fault?

johnferg69 wrote:I've been waiting and looking forward to getting a oc passed but there's people on here that would rather shelved it because of wording or personal preference than see our 2nd amendment rights expanded.

If you really mean this statement, then I don't think you understand the scope of the problem. It has nothing to do with "personal preference" other than 461,000+ CHLs would prefer that TPC §30.06 not be amended so they would not be barred from entering business establishments that wanted to ban only open-carry. This is not a minor issue.

johnferg69 wrote:The law may not be perfect, what law is, but you'd thing the least we could do is back it even if it needs tweaked later.

I agree with accepting some, but not all, provisions in bills that are necessary to pass them, then amending them in later sessions. However, when making such tactical decisions, you must be capable of recognizing provisions that you will not be able to change later and not let them get into a final bill. In the case of HB2756, amending TPC §30.06 should not have been in the bill and it would be politically impossible to change it later.

Let's look at the 30.06 issue from a practical real world standpoint. Remember, HB2756 would authorize open-carry only by CHL's. If TPC §30.06 is amended as currently written, any business that wants to prohibit open-carry will be forced to prohibit concealed-carry also, even if that is not what they want to do. However, if TPC §30.06 is not amended and open-carry is subject to the "regular" trespass code provisions in TPC §30.05, then a business can post a generic "no guns" sign or decal to ban open-carry. This gives both the business owner and CHL's options. If one is carrying openly and sees a generic "no guns" sign/decal, they can simply cover their gun with their shirt or other garment and continue into the building. Why would any open-carry supporters oppose having this option?

Chas.

Purplehood wrote:There is a time to tackle a subject, a time to haggle over it, and a time to avoid it. Timing is everything.

This is a critical point to understand when doing legislative work!

Chas.