TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:But don't answer this question until you answer my others, otherwise your response will be deleted.

And I'm accused of being wrapped up in a title...

The Annoyed Man wrote:You guys oust Grisham and get people in leadership who do not have their egos wrapped up in their title, who answer questions forthrightly, who can lead a horse to water without poisoning the well, who do not casually and boastfully break the law the way Grisham did in Oklahoma, and who are consistently truthful, and who are able to see where they've made mistakes, acknowledge those mistakes and move on, and I'll begin to respect OCT. But as long as he is your titular head and inspiration, your entire organization is tainted by it because he is a seriously deficient leader and spokesperson, and I and thousands of liberty-minded Texas gun owners will never agree to having that stain added to our own characters.

It really is a matter of character. My character and reputation are important to me. Until OCT stops being led by the character-deficient, I can't have anything to do with it.

Maybe this post violates rules, and will be deleted, but hopefully it will be up long enough for you to see the REAL problem you have, and to get your organization's leadership to act on it.......or your group will ultimately die off.

It's okay. Since you oppose OCT, it's ok to violate rules. Admin won't bother you. Carry on.

As for "breaking laws," see my post to Charles. you THINK you know truth, but you don't. And, believe me, I will gladly give up the reigns and along with it the stress, the baseless attacks, etc. It takes a thick skin and a lot of self confidence to subject oneself to the kinds of attacks that the leader of pro-gun organization gets on a daily basis, especially from the so-called "gun rights" crowd. I'll admit I wasn't prepared for the friendly fire, but I've adjusted. Others should get some. But, I will never give up on our constitution and truly fighting for it. If I were wrapped up in my title, why didn't I use it in my original response? Why haven't I used it anywhere in this thread? My loyalty to my beliefs, values, and principles. Those are supportive and complementary to the Constitution. But, I'm curious. To what "character deficiency" are you referring?

Before I begin, in full disclosure, approximately 70% of my criticism against the NRA/TSRA is directed at the TSRA. However, because the TSRA is the NRA...

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Show me where the NRA, TSRA or I have said OCT would only last 6 months?

I can't find this statement nor did I record every phone call I've had with NRA/TSRA.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:What achievements? All you've done is create a battle to pass open-carry when it was almost a certainty before you decided to walk into stores with long guns.

If open carry was "almost a certainty" prior to our founding, why wasn't it? We had two sessions where NOTHING was done. You told me it wasn't a priority last year. Alice Tripp open carry isn't something Texans care about. It wasn't a priority until we made it a priority, along with groups like Come and Take It Texas, Texas Carry, and Gun Rights Across America. The all-powerful "house" couldn't even make it a campaign issue, but we did.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Do you count negative TV and radio news casts an accomplishment?

We don't base our rights or our defense of those rights on what the liberal media thinks. Overall, our media coverage has been positive in Texas. We didn't cause negative media coverage. That was a result of the well-funded, anti-gun Bloomberg machine. Surely the NRA, frequently attacked in the media, understands this. Does the NRA base its effectiveness on negative/positive media? I doubt it.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Do you think the fiasco in Houston where Quanell X made you look like an incompetent novice on every major network TV station in the Houston viewing area?

The premise of this question is false. We made Q10 out to be the racist he is. In fact, our efforts there garnered a LOT of membership from the black community and emails to OCT assuring us that Q10 doesn't speak for them or their community. You love the liberal media, it appears.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Was it an accomplishment when you went to Oklahoma and openly carried a handgun, then refused to state that you had a license from some state such that your actions were not unlawful?

My right to keep and bear arms is not dependent upon government permission. I lost my TEXAS license. Being in the military for over 20 years and stationed in multiple CHL states where a license costs a mere $10-20 isn't beyond reason that I have multiple CHLs. Regardless, the ONLY people making it an issue are the gun control extremists, you and Mr. Heath. It speaks volumes that you, a "gun rights advocate" would attack the right of a man to keep and bear arms in a state where legal. It also shows that you seem to have a strange fixation on me and everything I do/say. I'm also well-known to carry toy, training, and replica firearms around in a holster, so when did I ever mention whether or not I was even carrying a real firearm in those pictures.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The only thing we did was try to get you and OCT to stop carrying long gun into private property and in your demonstrations. We expressly stated that it was causing problems with legislators in Austin and it was generating negative news coverage. This can be confirmed in the Open Carry Report podcast and in the recoding of Gun Talk Radio when I was a guest and you called in. You later made public statements that OCT would no longer demonstrate with long guns. You even stated this policy change was due to the fact that you/OCT came to realize that that type of demonstration was counterproductive.

Wrong. We stated that openly carrying rifles into businesses was shifting the discussion away from our mission, not openly carrying rifles. You practically begged us to stop exercising our rights legally, which would completely vacate our entire mission which is to reverse the public brainwashing you seem to want to perpetuate - that people should be afraid of a firearm simply because of what it looks like. This policy change about firearms occurred last year. We had issues with one of our local groups continuing to do this and we split from that group that became OCTC. Regardless, instead of attacking law abiding citizens and jumping on the Bloomberg/Moms Demand Action bandwagon, the NRA (you) passed up an opportunity to educate the public that there was nothing to be afraid of. Instead, you bolstered their fear mongering by trying to shut us down .

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Do you have anything other than your Facebook page and Facebook closed group? Both of those have shown little "growth" in months. I suspect it's your increasingly radical, hate-filled posts that are driving people away.

There you go again. If you don't know what our membership is, how can you even claim to know of anyone being driven away. If people leaving our organization is cause for labeling us radical, I could say the same about the NRA/TSRA, especially since we've collected over 1320 cut up NRA/TSRA membership cards over the past six months. You continue to confirm my original statement. No, our membership is not gauged by our Facebook. We have a membership form on our website, though currently it's down. Only about 60%% of our members are on Facebook. Our older members typically don't use Facebook or social media.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:What races were you involved in? Give some specifics.

Our members were heavily involved in the District 1, District 23, District 94 and a handful of others. We don't engage in direct lobbying, even though we're organized as a (c)(4). We are a grassroots organization whose strength is in its membership.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:You say open-carry is a "virtue [sic] certainly;" do you mean HB195 unlicensed open-carry? If you are going to claim an OCT victory, then anything other than HB195 will be a loss because you made that clear on your latest podcast.

We've also made clear that any progress in taking back our rights is a step in the right direction. But, we won't settle on anything less than full restoration of our rights. We don't start from a position of weakness by advocating for licensing away our rights. THAT is our goal and THAT is what we are fighting for. If we get something less than what we want, but more than what we have, it will always be a win.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:While some might call you a pro-gun group, there are others who think your are an anti-gun group in disguise, based upon the damage you have done to the open-carry effort and the focus you have drawn to TPC §30.06. Once again you claim success when you haven't passed a single bill, nor have you killed an anti-gun bill.

And there it is - the classic NRA belief that the lawful carry of a firearm is damaging. We haven't done any damage to the open carry effort. A real gun rights group sees that the damage was caused by the Bloomberg-funded astroturf efforts of Moms Demand Action. While businesses were being targeted at the national level, what national gun rights group was standing against it? Or, at least, what gun rights group wasn't blaming the victims of those attacks? The NRA/TSRA was the only "gun rights" group attacking us instead of the real enemy. The fact that you are perpetuating or repeating the absurd idea that we are "an anti-gun group in disguise" also says a lot about you. You seem to care a lot about that. We haven't passed a bill or killed a bill because this is our first legislative session. That's an easy claim to make to which we agree. As a counter, it's also easy to claim that you've done nothing to counter the anti-gun machine bullying businesses. Where was "the House" encouraging its members to sign a petition that would be delivered to businesses? Where was "the House" doing anything other than jumping on their bandwagon? AWOL.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Wait a minute. You have stated on a few occasions, including Gun Talk Radio, that you tore up your NRA member card and resigned from the organization. Now you claim to be a member. Which is the truth?

I did tear up my membership cards, but barring going out of my way to contact the NRA I'm still on their books as an endowment life member. That's not difficult to understand, I would think. The stickers on my car were removed, my hats and shirts were donated to Goodwill, and my license plate cover was thrown in the trash. I simply refuse to give the NRA any more money, so I don't consider myself a member any longer. Getting a little petty now, aren't you?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:This statement speaks volumes about you and OCT and I need not say more.

It does. It says we actually mean it when we say we believe in gun rights, not just some of them. I'm proud of that association and I understand how you wouldn't because they are eating into NRA support and challenging "the House."

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Again, are you talking about HB195, unlicensed open carry? You must be since you have described HB106 as a "crappy bill" and that your members should say "no no no no" to anything other than HB195.

I'm talking about any open carry legislation. It wasn't a promise from a governor and dozens of members of the legislature in the past. It is now. 106 is a crappy bill and our members should say no. Absolutely!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The only thing we tried to get you to do was stop carrying long guns into private property. You did precisely that, claiming it was your decision and it was made because you learned that that was not a good tactic.

No, it was diverting our main mission. There is nothing wrong with legally carrying any firearm into anyplace. However, our goal wasn't to fight for gun rights in private businesses.

CJ Grisham wrote: It's a sad day that Charles Cotton continues his attacks on our members without cause. He must be getting desperate and bitterly clinging to his relevance. Perhaps he should focus more on unity and gun rights and less on splintering gun owners.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I've never attacked your members, so this is just your latest lie.

You should go back and read your post that initiated this thread. You attacked OCT. Therefore, you attacked our members.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:This post of yours however is a clear indication that the gloves have come off.

The gloves came off long ago when you failed to keep your TSRA spokesmouth from targeting us in the media with name-calling and uncalled for attacks. You are the TSRA and the TSRA is you. Own it. The first salvo was fired by your organization, not ours. I was a proud NRA member until you and Tripp came along and showed your true colors. Then I started really looking into what I was associating myself with. Brady Bill. NFA. Universal Background Checks. Licensing. You and Tripp opened my eyes and the eyes of tens of thousands of people across the country. When it comes to fighting for gun rights, we don't need gloves.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I have a 35+ year history of working for gun owners and the Second Amendment and I'll put my record against your as often as you like.

Congratulations on being older than me.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The next time you attack me personally, be ready for your entire recent history and the truth about your legal problems to be fully aired here on the Forum.

My entire "legal history" involves TWO arrests - both for non-crimes and only ONE of which I was only charged for. I have never been charged in the Austin arrest because I was never breaking a law. Again, you prove here that you aren't about rights, but power and rhetoric. Instead of noting that I was not breaking laws and merely exercising my legal rights, you focus just on the arrest. I've never had legal problems prior to that, so I have no problems with you airing my "legal problems." Do you also talk this way about Heller and others? It's unbecoming of someone with "a 35+ year history of working for gun owners." By the way, when did you ever work on my behalf in either of my cases? Where is the NRA/TSRA defending unlawful arrests of open carriers in Texas? We got an acquittal out west without the help of the NRA/TSRA. We have had many other cases dropped without the help of the NRA/TSRA. In fact, the only open carry case pending is out in Beaumont and he wasn't a member of any open carry organization until after his arrest. Where is the NRA/TSRA over there?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:You called me and asked to bury the hatchet. I pointed out that I had not attacked you personally and that I wanted you to stop lying about the NRA. You agreed, but the false attacks about the NRA continued on the OCT website.

That's because you are the TSRA and the TSRA is you and you've never stopped. Maybe you personally did (until this post and I'm sure in others I'm not aware of), but your surrogates did not.

There, I responded to all of your questions. I'm done engaging you. Good luck in the 84th Legislature.

G.A. Heath wrote: I will honestly admit I have a bias against CJ, and OCT leadership. I dislike being called "supposedly progun" because I disagree with someone, I dislike receiving threats, lies, and distortions because I do not agree 100% with a cult of personality.

Now, you're claiming I or OCT leadership threatened you. Proof please because I never threaten anyone that isn't a threat to me or my family physically.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Show me that either of these men are Forum Members? Also, those names are the monikers by which they are now known and this didn't start on the Forum.

So how about answering his questions, since it is directly on point with your current claim that OCT never did in-store demonstrations.

Chas.

"Making fools of yourselves." Not making fools of themselves. That's a direct personal attack. But, I have a thick skin, so I don't care. Just enforcing the rules YOU pointed out. I didn't expect you to see it since it conforms to things you've stated over time in the media.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
When are you going to answer my straight forward questions?

Chas.

When I get around to it and have less important things to do.

Cedar Park Dad wrote:So you're denying Fatman and Snowboots are part of your crew? Were you with the guys that went into Target, or were filmed in a Chilis making fools of yourselves?

A very short list where they stopped just short of 30.06s right after these demonstrations:
Starbucks
Target

You're violating the rules of the forum with your name calling. Wouldn't want your posts to get deleted. Unless of course there are different rules for different people.

G.A. Heath wrote:

CJ Grisham wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:Interesting first posts guys, I guess CJ has called for an OC march on this forum?.

When did I do any such thing?

Don't know if you did or didn't, that's the point of "I guess" but who knows. However it's odd that a number of people show up echoing your sentiments for their first post.

Or may the same person that informed me of this post attacking OCT is informing others. Your bias is showing.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Selcouth wrote:If so, then someone would have to be able to give the date OCT started their in-store demonstrations.

We never did "in-store demonstrations." Never. That's the problem, Charles. You still have no concept of the reality behind our actions. Every place we've gone into we were invited or secured permission first. We have never used a business for a demonstration.

G.A. Heath wrote:Interesting first posts guys, I guess CJ has called for an OC march on this forum?.

When did I do any such thing?

Sigh. More NRA attacks on Texas pro-gun groups. I realize the NRA/TSRA cabal probably finds us threatening as a Texas gun rights organization (I don't speak for OCTC, not affiliated with Open Carry Texas) because it threatens their stranglehold on power. After all, these are the same organizations that said we wouldn't last six months, we were hurting any chance of open carry passing in the 84th Legislature, and continue to say we have no political clout while ignoring our achievements. These are also the same groups that have perpetuated the liberal fear mongering by attacking the public display of certain firearms.

Well, it's been 18 months and we're larger than ever. Open carry is a virtue certainty next year. We are heavily involved at both the state and grassroots level in the political game. We were heavily involved in several races around Texas that got us pro-2A candidates in primaries and general.

Charles Cotton is agitated because his and Alice Tripp's attempts to bully me and our members didn't work. It seems obvious the NRA/TSRA is dependent upon licensing away your gun rights because many states use their training and certification efforts in the CHL process.

When was the last time you heard the NRA mention "constitutional carry" as an agenda of theirs? If this legislation is already submitted, why wouldn't the NRA throw its weight behind it? And why is, yet again, the NRA attacking pro -2A groups who are (successfully) fighting to bring more gun rights to Texas? In fact, why hasn't either organization submitted such legislation themselves? Instead, they preemptively attack us for daring not to budge on our rights.

I'm an Endowment Life and Golden Eagles member of the NRA, so I'm not speaking from the outside here. I've paid my dues, so to speak. I've given thousands of dollars to the NRA over just the past two years, much more over my life. What did the NRA ever accomplish to bring open carry to Texas before we came along? Nothing. Over the past 20 years, how many bills has the NRA sponsored to lower the cost of the CHL, make it easier to obtain, or even do away with it as a requirement altogether? I'm sure there are some here and there, but if they have such clout, where are the results?

I learned pretty quickly that my money is best served supporting a national organization that isn't interested in licensing my rights away - National Association for Gun Rights. What Cotton here won't admit is that homegrown groups like Open Carry Texas, Texas Carry and Come and Take It Texas are the reason we will get open carry next year. The NRA/TSRA have done nothing but ride our coattails and try to undermine our efforts. They've virtually demanded that we stop exercising our rights because the gun control extremists weren't happy with such blatant exercising of a right. Instead of standing up to them, they stood against law abiding gun owners. It's threatening to the gunopoly to have these upstarts showing them up. We aren't multi million dollar corporations, we're member led.

Now that the pissing contest is out of the way, let's talk open carry. The FACT is that five states already have constitutional carry and it benefits those states. 31 states have UNLICENSED open carry and it isn't a problem. There is absolutely NO REASON why Texas needs to go to licensed open carry. None.

Our more than 30,000 members have worked the streets for pro gun candidates, walked thousands of miles handing out literature, spoken at hundreds of tea party and civic events, marched in parades, contacted leaders in Texas politics, held more than 2000 open carry events, secured support from hundreds of open carry friendly businesses across the state, worked tirelessly with law enforcement, and made clear all along we won't accept having our rights legislated away while standing first on our rights as protected in our state and federal constitutions.

Why should we beg for the right to carry a handgun openly with a license when we've spent the past 18 months carrying rifles and black powder revolvers (something else both the NRA and TSRA tried to stop us from doing) openly without a license. We've proven that open carry doesn't cause crime, doesn't hurt people, and can be done responsibly. No one was hurt, shot, raped, assaulted, maimed, or killed.

It's a sad day that Charles Cotton continues his attacks on our members without cause. He must be getting desperate and bitterly clinging to his relevance. Perhaps he should focus more on unity and gun rights and less on splintering gun owners.

CJ Grisham
Open Carry Texas