TexasCHLforum.com

I agree. HB560 doesn't stand a chance, currently.



Reason that Libs "win" even when they "lose" is within their tactics. They'll tack a multimillion pork rider for bear sex research in Montana to a bill dedicated towards funding vital infrastructure, military or education. So, when you vote against this bill because of that you are automatically labeled anti-education, anti-military etc.


They cleverly use these backwards bully tactics ALL the time. Next legislative session, I wish that "our" side would riddle bills they care about and those of vital importance for both sides of high brow legislators, with hundreds of pro-2A amendments etc.

Then, let the chips fall where they may. If you consider x bills before the lege, then load each bill with x+n (number of pro-2A add-ons) pro-2A tag alongs.

Flood them and let them then sift through that mess.

Well stated and understood Charles.

My Mediterranean European passion sometimes/oftentimes gets the best of me.

Beiruty wrote:

Ruark wrote:

When is it ever wrong to fight for the Constitution?

This is an elegant statement, but one does not generate change and progress with such global, lofty sloganeering, no matter how "right" it is. You have to deal with reality and the real world, and how it works, not how you think it should be or how you think it should work. This constant, endless whining and trumpeting about "my sekkunt 'mendment rytes" is a good example. Everybody's heard it a million times; they're tired of hearing it and will shut down the minute they do.

Simple question: We have a super majority in the 3 branches of Texas Government. What is the excuse not consider a Pro-gun bill such as 560?
Please looking forward for your thoughts.

Beiruty is 100% spot on.

Are We the People not allowed to voice our displeasure towards those we elected, those to whom checks we write, without being marginalized and frankly what I perceive right now is being talked down to?

Remember, We pay their salaries. They have been elected for the positions they made promises to deliver upon. They work for us.

I hold two degrees, one is in Applied Mathematics (who cares?) . I am certified Six Sigma Black Belt (who cares?) . I am also a certified Firefighter (who cares?) , but first and foremost, I am an American who is fed up with this nonsense. We are not dumb chickens here.

So, as far as my experience, it is irrelevant. What is relevant, to me, is how these elected officials treat me as a constituent of theirs, one who works hard with other Patriots to push them across the finish line when elections and contributions are due.

Some of us feel a bit slighted Charles, that's all.

I've talked to my rep, I have written letters, have made recommendations, all to find out that it fell as always on deaf ears.

I apologize if I come across as rude, but I'm simply fed up.

To me, from my vantage point, it appears that "our" side is playing defense heavily right now.

It is beyond frustrating.

At the State level, we control everything from the Governor to the House and Senate chambers. Yet, the maggots on the other side have put "us" on the heavy defense spectrum level.

Imagine where this will go when Libs gain control. And they will, given the shift in demographics and influx of Libs from Lib States.

So, for me, that's the crux of the issue behind the frustration. I get the benefits of being a good statesman and such, but, the time window is getting very narrow, and we better get better at learning the game of offense, quickly.

We are getting played!

I feel betrayed from all sides. Very disappointing.

I think it will go nowhere, sadly. One shred of hope was that my rep talked to me yesterday and he told me not to write it off just yet, that there is a chance still that a heavily amended version of 1911 will go through.

I'm not going to hold my breath however.

bblhd672 wrote:Good article at Breitbart Texas about HB1911.

Texas Police Chiefs Use ‘Racial Coding’ to Oppose Gun Bill, Says Black State Rep.
http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/05/ ... state-rep/

Thanks for sharing!

"They are calling my bill ‘dangerous’ in their ads because I am African-American,” State Representative James White (R-Hillister) told Breitbart Texas in a phone interview on Tuesday. “They didn’t use that language when they opposed Jerry Patterson’s concealed carry bill in 1995. They didn’t use that kind of language when Larry Phillips proposed open carry for concealed license holders in 2015, and they haven’t used it when other white legislators proposed ‘constitutional carry’ bills in previous sessions.”

bblhd672 wrote:

Jusme wrote:This is the same crowd, who claimed, that OC would cause them to have to add extra 9-1-1 operators to handle the "flood" of MWAG calls. And that the police would not be able to tell the good guys from the bad guys. If they would ever take the time to ask the officers on the street, how they feel about law abiding citizens carrying guns, they may get a different response. But then, they are all administrators who know more about the streets than the average LEO.

Statists all..interested only in maintaining power over the peons who pay their salaries, recognizing that power is threatened by an armed citizenry.

I repeat, maggots.

I think it is intentional indeed, otherwise special class exemptions wouldn't be so prolific.

Either way, I have no representation.

If you are a degenerate leftist, drug addicted self abusing idiot, "lgbtq" (did I leave anybody out? I don't care.), lobbyist etc. , you're covered. Law abiding citizens seeking their Constitutional Rights need not apply.

Maggots!

I'm really ticked off, been trying to shrug it off but it is getting harder with each blow we get, especially from our distinguished so called Republicans.

Just think how great and forthcoming this will be for LEO's. Oh boy. This is a sign makers and lawyer's paradise.

Fingers crossed the final edict will be easier to comprehend, you know, for us simpletons out here.

ScottDLS wrote:

allisji wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:Official CSHB1911 text available here: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/ ... 01911H.htm

I have not verified how accurate the filed posted by the OP is yet.

at first glance it appears to be the same.
21 sections. No changes to 30.06/30.07. They still only apply to licensed individuals.

If this goes through as worded, it would appear that a LTC holder could carry past 30.06 and 30.07 notice, because he would not be carrying "under the authority" of his license because that authority is not necessary to carry anymore. Unless the store ALSO posted some additional "notice" under 30.05. But if they did that you could still carry , because you HAD ON YOUR PERSON a LTC, even though you weren't carrying under the authority of it. If I'm wrong....then how would a cop with an LTC carry past a 30.06/7 sign?

That's what my primitive mind understood as well, unless verbal notice is given.

Papa_Tiger wrote:

AJSully421 wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:I don't see how it makes 46.035 void in any way nor do I see where it allows people to carry into schools. As far as I can tell 46.03 is left alone except for 46.03(e-1) and 46.03(e-2) where it is amended to allow unlicensed individuals a chance to leave the secure area of an airport like licensed people are given currently.

Edit to add: In 46.035 aside from making 46.035 apply to non license holders it does remove places of worship from the list of off limits locations that must post a sign to actually be off limits.

Page 13 line 8, adds 46.03 and 46.035 to the exemptions for ltc holders and authorized carriers.

I see what you are saying. Page 13, line 8 adds 46.035... but that is for cops, and everyone listed from page 13 line 8 until page 15, Line 6... at which time, page 15, line 7 starts discussing the groups for whom 46.02 do not apply (but that 46.03 and 46.035 DO STILL APPLY) and CHL holders are listed under there like they always have been.

This is the "Some animals are more equal than others" law that we have fought every time that it has come up to give exemptions to 46.035 for court employees, DAs, and other non-leo folks.

This bill does not exempt license holders from 46.03 or 46.035, unless that license holder is also a "special citizen" like a city attorney or probation officer, and others that are not TCOLE or Security licensed to carry a handgun as part of their jobs.

Licensed peace officers are special and according to our legislators should be give special protections not afforded to regular citizens. I understand the logic behind it, but I disagree with it.

One thing that I think people are missing is that churches have only been off limits to license holders if posted with a 30.06 or 30.07 for quite a while. The removal of 46.035(b)(6) means that a government owned church cannot be posted as off limits to a license holder.

Hospitals and amusement parks are off limits to non-license holders carrying a handgun by statue, but must be posted with 30.06 and 30.07 to prohibit license holders from entering with a handgun.

Now the question I have is, will the gun buster logo placed in the watermark of a 30.06 or 30.07 sign count as effective notice for a non-licensed carrier? Also means that if HEB wants to keep openly carried pistols out of their store, the only way they will be able to do that is post 30.07 AND a gun buster sign which will prohibit unlicensed concealed carriers as well.

I will definitely be keeping my license current.

I'm not sure I understand the part in bold, as it relates to US Constitution in general.


One thing is for certain, those in sign business and jurisprudence will be pleased.

I'm going to enroll into law school at the University of American Samoa just to be able to follow all of this. Esoteric reference perhaps.