TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Saffron wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:Are you implying that it would be to our benefit to have firearm training in high school?

I think it's irresponsible for schools not to teach firearm safety at the very least.

Chas.

Mr. Cotton any plans in the future for implementing legislation to accomplish firearm safety training in Texas schools? Has that ever been discussed? I could see a pilot program to start as a possibility.

MeMelYup wrote:

paxton25 wrote:

gdanaher wrote:Hunter education might be taught in small districts in the hill country, but in the large cities it is unheard of. Even if taught, you can't presume that everyone allowed to carry in Texas also attended a Texas high school where gun safety was taught. I believe that the second amendment should apply to everyone eligible, but owning a weapon and carrying it in public are different matters. Some people just need to stick with the gun range if you know what I mean. Carrying in public presumes a higher level of knowledge and responsibility that not all gun owners share equally. OCT may have its roots in a well meaning and directed effort, but it has like a magnet, pulled the fringe elements in allowing the rest of us to see what could happen. They have some scary folks there, and having some in their group carrying openly without any sort of licensing or standardized training simply scares the bejeebers out of me.

I have been at ranges and seen enough people finishing their CHL class scare me to where there is no way I believe a license grant is anything other than at best a marginal improvement over handing out guns at random to strangers in the street. Too often I have seen a CHL lead to a dirty harry complex where someone that hasn't fired off many more shots than their CHL class required is walking around hoping a guy in a ski mask will jump out at them. I have also seen inadvertant mag drops at the shooting qualifier for a CHL class, the instructor move the target closer than what I thought would be required so a lady could actually get enough rounds on paper to qualify, even saw someone look down the barrel of their gun after a malfunction and yet all of those people are walking around with a gun and a CHL and we are supposed to think they are superior to the average Schmoe on the street? I am not buying it. Plus we all know that some unscrupulous instructors will go ahead and pass their buddies without going to the class, I know I was offered that before and I know several people who have. I was trained from youth by military veterans, I put in hundreds of hours in range time to practice proper and accurate shooting, have read numerous books and been to several classes I opted for and not because the government said I had to.

Are you implying that it would be to our benefit to have firearm training in high school?

I think offering more training to young people would be great. There used to be rifle clubs all over the country. More exposure to proper firearm training at younger ages would be a great thing for sure.

gdanaher wrote:Hunter education might be taught in small districts in the hill country, but in the large cities it is unheard of. Even if taught, you can't presume that everyone allowed to carry in Texas also attended a Texas high school where gun safety was taught. I believe that the second amendment should apply to everyone eligible, but owning a weapon and carrying it in public are different matters. Some people just need to stick with the gun range if you know what I mean. Carrying in public presumes a higher level of knowledge and responsibility that not all gun owners share equally. OCT may have its roots in a well meaning and directed effort, but it has like a magnet, pulled the fringe elements in allowing the rest of us to see what could happen. They have some scary folks there, and having some in their group carrying openly without any sort of licensing or standardized training simply scares the bejeebers out of me.

I have been at ranges and seen enough people finishing their CHL class scare me to where there is no way I believe a license grant is anything other than at best a marginal improvement over handing out guns at random to strangers in the street. Too often I have seen a CHL lead to a dirty harry complex where someone that hasn't fired off many more shots than their CHL class required is walking around hoping a guy in a ski mask will jump out at them. I have also seen inadvertant mag drops at the shooting qualifier for a CHL class, the instructor move the target closer than what I thought would be required so a lady could actually get enough rounds on paper to qualify, even saw someone look down the barrel of their gun after a malfunction and yet all of those people are walking around with a gun and a CHL and we are supposed to think they are superior to the average Schmoe on the street? I am not buying it. Plus we all know that some unscrupulous instructors will go ahead and pass their buddies without going to the class, I know I was offered that before and I know several people who have. I was trained from youth by military veterans, I put in hundreds of hours in range time to practice proper and accurate shooting, have read numerous books and been to several classes I opted for and not because the government said I had to.

MeMelYup wrote:

gdanaher wrote:Constitutional carry may or may not exist in those terms, but I believe that it far more defensible to require anyone carrying in a public location to have experienced the minimal training offered by the CHL class. Even if you required non-CHL folks to read a book, take a test, and pass it prior to open carry was allowed, it would be an improvement over no training whatsoever.

This is why they need to teach and have firearms training in high school.

Do they not do hunter safety education in school anymore? I had that in Junior High and I think it was required. Did the liberals get rid of that or what? The class was great, I still remember a lot of what I was taught. That plus the amount of training I received from my father and Uncle is far better than any required class.

RoyGBiv wrote:

paxton25 wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:I'll fight along side you, but not under the same leadership. Not until the tactics stop scaring my neighbors.

What leadership am I under? I am my own man.

I made the assumption (possibly incorrectly) that you were/are an OCT member.
I am not a fan of OCT's tactics.

Please accept my apologies if this is not the case.

No biggie, just curious why you and someone else kept talking about starbucks when addressing me.

Oh, you mean like all of the republicans that made statements they would stop Obamacare and then didn't do what it took to defund it when they had the opportunity and instead took a few dozen cover votes to repeal it knowing nothing would happen? Sorry but the landscape of politics is littered with politicians having a different policy that what their statements would lead one to believe. I am not saying Abbott doesn't personally like the idea of OC or constitutional carry, just that he doesn't want to shoulder most of the burden for sticking his neck out for it. The only real cost to a politician making a stronger stand than, "if it shows up on my desk I will sign it", is he has to fade heat from the other side. You are correct, Abbott is a very good politician. Good at trying to avoid costly controversy and trying to get both sides of an issue to believe he is with them or at least not hostile to them. Perfect example with Abbott, voters across Texas have been demanding an outright statewide red light camera ban, a statewide camera ban is part of the Texas GOP platform. But the local politicians love the camera revenue and the state gets half of it too. In fact, holding onto dedicated trauma funds from the cameras is the only reason the state could claim they had a balanced budget. So what does Abbott do? He comes out and says if the voters want to go out and petition their city (considering all that has to happen, money spent, time, resources, volunteers, lawsuits by camera vendors etc.) they should be able to do that. Bingo, the cameras get to stay for the most part pumping in revenue while violating due process rights, (which he should be defending as AG and has refused to do so) and he gets to tell the angry voters he supports them petitioning to remove the cameras. It's classic fence sitter policy. I believe he even said something like "both sides have good points" It's wishy washy leadership, I was hoping for better, not surprised, but definitely had higher hopes.

srothstein wrote:Paxton25,

I think you are asking for something that is not how politics in general works. I think when any politician makes a statement on an issue, they are telling people what their policy will be. When the governor makes a statement that he will sign a bill, he has just told all of the legislators that he expects to see the bill passed. This is especially true when the statement is made in public and to the media. Abbott just told all of the legislators that this bill is important to him, and did it in a manner that keeps them working with him on other issues also.

Think about how things could go if Abbott went to someone and said I expect this bill to be passed. He could get it done, but it would cost him some other bill. If he did like you proposed and said in public that he wants this bill passed, it would set up a situation where someone would oppose it just to set up a confrontation with him for other purposes.

This statement lets everyone know that the bill is one of his priorities while avoiding the outright costs. It also removes one argument against it, which is that it would never get signed anyway. Good politicians are rarely as blunt as you or I would be, and whether you support him or oppose him, no one can say Abbott is not a good politician.

RoyGBiv wrote:

paxton25 wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:

paxton25 wrote:And that's precisely where his leadership needs to come in. To be a full throated advocate for gun rights instead of just indicating that if it happens it happens. It's easy to do the right thing when no one is looking. Harder so when the spotlight is on you. I have great hope for Abbott as well as great concerns considering his vacillations and tendency to fence ride.

RoyGBiv wrote:

paxton25 wrote:As I said before. He is the leader of the party in Texas, as Governor he sets the tone and priorities just like the president does. Specifically, as I mentioned before, I would like him to put his full effort behind passing constitutional carry, not equivocating on his support. Instead of just saying, "I will sign the bill" say "I am asking the legislature to pass the bill so that I can sign it" or something to that effect.

If you take a look at all the things Abbott wants to accomplish, then look at how the process works, then consider how many political "chips" a first-term Governor has to work with, then prioritize and distribute those "chips" among the various priorities... The thing that makes me sad is that a year ago, before Starbucks, Chipotle and Target, Open Carry needed fewer "Chips" to get through the legislature. Now, a Governor Abbott will need to consider how many chips he can spend on OC in light of the more difficult path it's on, vs. other priorities that will have a less-contentious path through the legislature.

anygunanywhere wrote:I for one think Abbott will be the best governor in the history of this state. He is proactive and pro freedom.

I am also optimistic in this regard.

Apparently my "limited number of chips" points sailed over your head.

(aside: we generally add new comments below quoted comments here. I'm with you on commenting above as a habit, but, following local conventions makes it easier to follow along sometimes... )

OK here's a quote below. It will take some time to get used to it so please go easy until it is habit! No, the chips points didn't sail over my head. I just don't agree with the analogy, the only time politics is a zero sum game is at election time. When simply coming out and saying "these are my priorities this legislative session and I urge the legislature to pass bills in support of these priorities" he doesn't have to cash in a lot of chips. Yes there was the whole "we the people" platform when he was running but most of that was just do nothing fluff.

I read the tone of what you wrote above (full throated advocate) and lastly below (simply saying these are my priorities) as being very different. If you intended something different, I'll chalk it up to the nuances of communicating in this format... but.. to me... "full throated" would require spending chips.

Either way, it seems like we've reached an understanding, I think...

Here's MY opinion..... through whatever avenues of advocacy, OC is on the agenda this session in a way that it has not been before. I want it to pass. I want "Constitutional Carry" to pass. Just like the Speaker race, I understand it will be left up to my representatives to assess the inside baseball and make the best play they can. I'll keep phoning my rep as Charles indicates doing so would be most helpful. I'll keep feeling unsatisfied, knowing I can do more and looking for ways to do so as constructively as possible. That said, we lost our rights incrementally, we need to be prepared to win them back incrementally. As much as I want Constitutional Carry, I need to be prepared to accept licensed open carry, if that's what the people I trust tell me is the only thing that can pass. I'll push for more this year and more in the years ahead, but I won't burn bridges or do things that scare soccer moms. Open holsters is a positive message. Long guns at Starbucks is not.

I'll fight along side you, but not under the same leadership. Not until the tactics stop scaring my neighbors.

Yes they are different, I would love to see a full throated support form Abbott, having a "come to jesus" meeting with leadership in the house and senate and tell them to pass the bill. Knowing Abbott I don't expect that to happen, but at very least a public statement that he WANTS them to pass it not just that he will sign something if it happens to come across his desk would go a long way and wouldn't require any "chips" to be cashed in. My view, if constitutional carry is the real goal and if Licensed OC passes instead of constitutional carry it will be harder to get constitutional carry passed. It may never pass. I have no problem calling out the politicians that are standing in the way of that. Doesn't matter if I like them or not, doesn't matter if they are on my side 90% of the time. They are hurting not helping. What are you bringing up Starbucks for? What leadership am I under? I am my own man.

RoyGBiv wrote:

paxton25 wrote:And that's precisely where his leadership needs to come in. To be a full throated advocate for gun rights instead of just indicating that if it happens it happens. It's easy to do the right thing when no one is looking. Harder so when the spotlight is on you. I have great hope for Abbott as well as great concerns considering his vacillations and tendency to fence ride.

RoyGBiv wrote:

paxton25 wrote:As I said before. He is the leader of the party in Texas, as Governor he sets the tone and priorities just like the president does. Specifically, as I mentioned before, I would like him to put his full effort behind passing constitutional carry, not equivocating on his support. Instead of just saying, "I will sign the bill" say "I am asking the legislature to pass the bill so that I can sign it" or something to that effect.

If you take a look at all the things Abbott wants to accomplish, then look at how the process works, then consider how many political "chips" a first-term Governor has to work with, then prioritize and distribute those "chips" among the various priorities... The thing that makes me sad is that a year ago, before Starbucks, Chipotle and Target, Open Carry needed fewer "Chips" to get through the legislature. Now, a Governor Abbott will need to consider how many chips he can spend on OC in light of the more difficult path it's on, vs. other priorities that will have a less-contentious path through the legislature.

anygunanywhere wrote:I for one think Abbott will be the best governor in the history of this state. He is proactive and pro freedom.

I am also optimistic in this regard.

Apparently my "limited number of chips" points sailed over your head.

(aside: we generally add new comments below quoted comments here. I'm with you on commenting above as a habit, but, following local conventions makes it easier to follow along sometimes... )

OK here's a quote below. It will take some time to get used to it so please go easy until it is habit! No, the chips points didn't sail over my head. I just don't agree with the analogy, the only time politics is a zero sum game is at election time. When simply coming out and saying "these are my priorities this legislative session and I urge the legislature to pass bills in support of these priorities" he doesn't have to cash in a lot of chips. Yes there was the whole "we the people" platform when he was running but most of that was just do nothing fluff.

And that's precisely where his leadership needs to come in. To be a full throated advocate for gun rights instead of just indicating that if it happens it happens. It's easy to do the right thing when no one is looking. Harder so when the spotlight is on you. I have great hope for Abbott as well as great concerns considering his vacillations and tendency to fence ride.

RoyGBiv wrote:

paxton25 wrote:As I said before. He is the leader of the party in Texas, as Governor he sets the tone and priorities just like the president does. Specifically, as I mentioned before, I would like him to put his full effort behind passing constitutional carry, not equivocating on his support. Instead of just saying, "I will sign the bill" say "I am asking the legislature to pass the bill so that I can sign it" or something to that effect.

If you take a look at all the things Abbott wants to accomplish, then look at how the process works, then consider how many political "chips" a first-term Governor has to work with, then prioritize and distribute those "chips" among the various priorities... The thing that makes me sad is that a year ago, before Starbucks, Chipotle and Target, Open Carry needed fewer "Chips" to get through the legislature. Now, a Governor Abbott will need to consider how many chips he can spend on OC in light of the more difficult path it's on, vs. other priorities that will have a less-contentious path through the legislature.

anygunanywhere wrote:I for one think Abbott will be the best governor in the history of this state. He is proactive and pro freedom.

I am also optimistic in this regard.

As I said before. He is the leader of the party in Texas, as Governor he sets the tone and priorities just like the president does. Specifically, as I mentioned before, I would like him to put his full effort behind passing constitutional carry, not equivocating on his support. Instead of just saying, "I will sign the bill" say "I am asking the legislature to pass the bill so that I can sign it" or something to that effect.

mojo84 wrote:

paxton25 wrote:It's not an observation on his personal beliefs, but in several issues I have seen him be somewhat of a fence sitter or going along to get along and with his parsing of his statements about OC it is cause for concern in my view.

What specifically would you like for him to say and do as governor? He is the governor elect, not a legislator. He signs the bills, vetos them or lets them pass in time. He said he would sign the OC bill if one gets to him.

It's not an observation on his personal beliefs, but in several issues I have seen him be somewhat of a fence sitter or going along to get along and with his parsing of his statements about OC it is cause for concern in my view.

That wasn't a quote from him, and I didn't claim it was. Basically by saying I will sign a bill if it comes across my desk he is saying if someone else does the work to get it to him he won't fight it. That's different from actually going out there and stumping for it. He isn't throwing his full support behind the bill. If he was he would be saying something more encouraging like, "I urge the legislature to pass a bill" I have listened to virtually everything he has said on this issue and I have never heard him say he wants the legislature to pass the bill, only that if it comes across his desk he will sign it.

I certainly wish Abbott would come out for the party platform. There is a difference from essentially saying, I won't veto the bill if it happens to land on my desk and pushing for it to be a legislative priority. He likes to ride that political fence a lot.