TexasCHLforum.com

Jasonw560 wrote:Ironic, since they're saying people can have guns in cars and boats around kids, but not on campuses around adults.

Very good point!!!

viewtopic.php?f=94&t=45084" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I even left the option to change your vote, if you are so inclined...(At least I hope I picked that option correctly, )

With the way the discussion is going now, I think its a good thing to guage the membership and get a good, anonymous headcount on where it stands now...

For the record...I do not often, as a matter of fact I don't even recall, ever disagreeing with Charles, or most of the particpants in this forum, but I have to make a principled stand based upon the evidence, as I see it...That certainly doesn't mean anyone I dissagree with has no principles, far from it...We are all going to digest this eventually, and the more the folks in Austin see and hear what we have to say about it, the better...I believe they are waiting to hear from us...As ironic as it sounds, let's not let them down...They need our input, whether they agree with us or not...

A few more things...

I also see how divisive this issue has already become...

For all the reasons for some to accept the methodology of a "baby step" measure to get us closer to some unspecified, unclarified goal...

Some of us see the conservative principle of NOT creating special classes of citizenry...

Obtaining a Texas CHL is a considerable accomplishment and commitment for citizens of this state, their is no mention of any special considerations due to tenure or experience levels...The only thing I can see is the extention of breaks on the fees associated with a personal military, judicial, or other feduciary condition...Ohhh, your fees are reduced when you renew, but that still does not support the argument because of your experience or knowledge in self-defense or the law...All of those feduciary breaks came as "baby steps", and those did not effect the methodology of carrying in this state, we were all still under the provisions and restrictions of the law in where we can go, and not go...

All I am saying is that we are ALL in this together, and that this particular community is an ALL or Nothing group...We should advance as a community, and not accept one sub-group within to be given more considerations than another...

I believe the bill should proceed, and if we can get an amendment to cover ALL CHL's, then I believe that is where we need to go...If it succeeds, everyone succeeds...Politicians and CHL'ers...If it does not, then we have lost nothing...Some may argue with that, and I am ready to debate it...

Over the many years this law has been in place, it seems increasingly hard to get these "pro-good-tweeks" that impact the methodology of carrying in this state...We are heading towards a goal (I hope) of unrestricted and lawful carrying of a firearm for self-defensive purposes...But this path is filled with political landmines so cleverly laid out there, that all parties, regardless of where you fall on this "step" need to be very careful, I most certainly, and not at the expense or sacrifice of those new to the CHL community...

"Politics is the Art of Pursuasion..." Ben Franklin (long time ago)

I counsel that we all need to be together on something like this to paint a pretty picture at the end off the day...

Just my opinion...

I agree with CWOODS, that an ALL or Nothing amendment would serve our purposes on both sides of the issue...

#1 It would give ALL CHL's the fair shake that was initially extended to those voting on their own little "perk"...

#2 It will very quickly identify those who were initially for it (ironically the gun-control minority in favor of this elitist perk for them), and who will reverse their opinion and vote this particular thing down now that someone else heard the people and offers the ALL INCLUSIVE amendment...I bet we'll see a lot of crawfishing by most on this if we can get this on the original bill...I bet anyone a Buffalo Nickle that Senator Wentworth would be all for an amendment like this...

Then we'll know the "real" political intent, the one I was not (and still not) going to bet on, at that point...The mere introduction and potential rejection of an amendment like that will speak volumes...

The reason I am not in support of the "baby steps" methodology, which I know has worked in the past for us, in this case, is because in my opinion there is absolutely NO reason to extend this "down' to the rest of us anytime soon...I don't believe the general CHL community, 3 renewals or initial licensees should have to wait for something like this, when it is apparent that the politicians believe they are in greater need more than us mear serfs...

Just my opinion...

Bullwhip wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote: Besides, what elitist politician is going to go into a bar, armed, for any reason??? I don't know too many that would feel the need to do so, to socialize, drink, cut loose, whatever you want to call it, and be a little loose on the control of his/her weapon...I believe the consumption of alcohol and the carrying of firearms is something the Texas CHL community as a whole frowns upon, and that alone gives almost enough pause to keep that from being too much of a problem...

I don't go to bars (no bars in my county or the neighboring counties, I don't drink in public anyway bars or not) but I've heard of plenty of people who go to bars and don't drink. Some aren't even customers, theyr'e Employees, delivery people, band members, designated drivers.

Why should anyone lose their gun rights because of the business license, when they're not even drinking?

Good point, and one that I am glad you brought up...I didn't feel like I needed to bring up this particular facet when I posted my comment...Gracias!!!

artx wrote:The thing is - everyone is applying rational thought to something that is frequently completely irrational - politics and politicians!

emotion wants to slam any bill that doesn't do something for me personally - fight down that feeling and look at the endgame.

I actually am looking at the possibility of this bill coming to law...And I am still opposed on several fronts...One of them you just illuded to...

I am actually qualified as the bill is written now to take advantage of the provisions...My longevity as a Texas CHL licensee is ripe of history and ardent support for all of the "tweeks", "baby steps" we have helped support and lobby intensly for, for YEARS...We have also been stalwart in the defense of the provisions when our overall right to keep and bear arms is attacked...That goes for those of us who have been in this game for quite some time, and those who are new to the process...I believe people who are new to the "plastic" have just as much a play, and a role, in this as some of us "more seasoned" citizens...(I know, for some silly reason I am going to catch flak for that comment...But I believe most will know why I said it... )

Emotion should have NO play in this at all...If anything, this is a gut feeling I have, that this bill will create and emotional void we DO NOT NEED in our CHL community in the state of Texas...I am no better than you, or anyone else when it comes to your right to keep and bear arms, and I see this as an un-necessary "baby-step" to "eventually" getting everyone who has a Texas CHL up to this "level" (for lack of a better term)...This is a political play of monsterous liberal and moderate faction within certain political affiliations, and being deep into the political party I am affiliated with, it flies in the face of conservative values, and I am not impressed...That's as harsh as I can be...

I will never hedge my bets on the future based upon political intent...

Like you said, it is irrational...And I really like that analysis...

mgood wrote:Easier to pass.
They can say, "Here are folks who have passed a 10-15 year probationary period without shooting up the shopping mall. We are now going to allow them to carry in bars."
That's a much easier sale than, "Here is a 21 year old about to enter a bar for the first time. We're going to allow him to do so while packing a concealed handgun."
And it does get a foot in the door. Assuming these CHLs on their third renewal don't go shoot up the bars, in the near future we should be able to persuade them to reduce or eliminate the "probationary period."

That is actually a fair statement, I agree, it is exactly the same kind of logic my Dad and I discussed this morning...But a 21 year old who has passed and obtained the license will have been through the same class and discussion that we have had, or thought about to ourselves about the combination of drugs, alcohol and firearms...WE all know that it is a bad combination, and that there will not be anything stopping you or I, or that 21 year old from patronizing that place...But good judgement...

Besides, what elitist politician is going to go into a bar, armed, for any reason??? I don't know too many that would feel the need to do so, to socialize, drink, cut loose, whatever you want to call it, and be a little loose on the control of his/her weapon...I believe the consumption of alcohol and the carrying of firearms is something the Texas CHL community as a whole frowns upon, and that alone gives almost enough pause to keep that from being too much of a problem...I'm sure some would say I would be wrong, and they are probably right, but we have seen no statistics on this...So I only speculate based upon years of discussion, here, and other venues, both live and on the internet on this issue...

I believe the Texas CHL delivers a dose of maturity, that turns most of us into tea-totallers, and old fuddy-duddies...I'm kinda ok with that premise...And if you still desire to go out and drink yourself into oblivion, thats ok as well, I think most of us would hang the hogleg up on the wall, just to keep it from becoming an issue before heading out on that adventure...

Just my opinion...

Ok, I know I am going to be labeled something that I am not, but then again it really doesn't matter...

The question you have to ask yourself is this...

"What is the difference between someone who has had their license since say, ohhhhh, 1996...And someone who just got their plastic yesterday???"

This website, which is the best thing I've seen on gun and carry issues since the mid 90's, is a testament to the knowledge base of a wide range of experience levels on guns, carry methods, political and social experiences, law enforcement, military, etc etc etc...

I personally do not find much difference in the level of CHL knowledge and proficiency between myself, and anyone else "new" on the scene...I believe there is an instant mindset increase after just a few hours of reading, and commenting on this website...It's like playing golf, you play much better of you played with Michelson or some other pro, if you are new to the game, you increase your knowledge and try ideas you may, or may never have thought of...But the bottom line is, we all "hit the ball"...

So, in a sense I do not see a difference in the need to elevate people, like myself, over those new to the whole licensing thing...

I see no downside in including everyone in this deal...I do not agree in excluding those who are new to the CHL community...We have strength as equals in this fight, and to relegate those new to the system to some second grade CHL'ers, in my opinion is an insult, and devisive to our cause...

Either we all get this "tweek", or shelve it till we get a clearer idea on how this will really play out...

Just my opinion...