TexasCHLforum.com

LSUTiger wrote:With all the talk of all the political capitol spent on OC blah blah blah nonsense I wonder if some misguided souls are out there making deals to torpedo OC to progress HB 308 or other legislation?

At this point what seemed like a sure thing, OC,is fading fast and my conspiracy theory wheels are turning.

What doesnt make sense is how campus carry could torpedo OC and still be included in hb308 and pass. Unless its a kill OC and get hb308 deal. A potential shot at HB 308 even with out campus carry would still be a worth it for some IMHO even at the expense of sacrificing a sure OC victory.

So my theory is that by design OC is going to be sacrificed, no OC or OC on campus but remove off limits CC including Campus carry.

I still feel like something is amiss and we will end up with nothing.

It's just a theory. I hope I am wrong or just delusional and all goes well.

Such an act would waste a lot of political capital. What you are seeing is the hedging of bets. If HB910 is some how killed but we manage to pass HB308 we get campus carry and the reduction in penalty for 30.06, but if we also manage to pass SB17 then we get it all. It also makes it easier to pass SB17 since the additional amendments HB910 has can also be found in HB308. But if we get HB910 and and HB308 then there is some duplication between the bills that was not needed. Essentially we are flanking the opposition AND performing a full frontal assault at the same time while dropping special forces behind enemy lines. We have the opposition surrounded but they are well entrenched and will put up a good fight.

steveincowtown wrote:

ELB wrote:I still have hope, but I tell you what, if OC and CC do not pass at this point, it will be a real kick in the teeth to NRA/TSRA and a tremendous boost to OCT/OCTC/etc. It will make Grisham and Watkins look dead-on target .....

That is a mighty broad brush! Grisham and Watkins are light years apart, especially at this point in the game.

Whether he has helped are not, Grisham has been articulate in his arguments for OC and has been great on camera. Watkins is a child. He speaks like a child. He acts like a child.

OCT supports both SB11 and SB 17. From their Facebook page:

SB11, Campus Carry, and SB 17, Licensed Open Carry, have both been referred to committee in the House. This is an interesting development, but a step in the process. These bills will go through the same process as the House versions, though probably go a little quicker than the first go around. It is preferable, however, that the House version be the one pushed to the governor from the Senate as it has only minor changes and already incorporated Senate language. It would be a quicker, more streamlined vote!

But, alas: Progress is progress.

At one point, Alice Tripp (TSRA for those that don't know) even thanked CJ.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not trying to be argumentative, just getting a little tired of people lumping OCT in with the former OCTC (Watkins) and other groups.


Back to the OP. I think this is a genius move against Straus, and lets hope it works!

In regards to OCT supporting SB17 and HB910, they claim to support it, but they still attack licensed OC. In truth OCT only started to support SB17/HB910 instead of oppose it AFTER it became obvious that unlicensed carry was dead for this session. As for Alice thanking CJ, she has her reasons for doing so but keep in mind one can thank someone for helping just as they can thank someone for for not complicating matters. OCT is led by a narcissist as demonstrated when CJ testified in the senate committee hearing for SB17 that he was the one to thank or to blame for all the open carry efforts. Nevermind the fact that we had several earlier attempts to pass open carry before CJ inserted himself into the debate. As for lumping OCT in with the others you do realize that OCT spawned OCTC. OCT spawned or was spawned by CATI depending on who tells the story of those groups forming. The thing is that OCT, OCTC, and CATI all have common points that unify them so they get justifiably get lumped together:
1. Leadership that for the most part will not or (in the case of the majority) can not get a Texas CHL.
2. They are Anti-NRA and Anti-TSRA.
3. Demanded Constitutional Carry at the expense of all other pro-gun legislation.
4. Uses in your face tactics and claims PR defeats as victories.
5. Participated in last summers "Lets go to the capital and get arrested" game.

I suspect that the language prohibiting OC on campus made both issues germane to each other. If you will notice bills for both issues had language added to prohibit OC being part of Campus Carry, earlier I thought it odd that the language would have been added to both bills when one could do it but now it makes sense when viewed for making both bills germane to the other issue.