TexasCHLforum.com

Ruark wrote:I'd still like to know who killed 560. Who. Name, please. Not "somebody who talked to somebody..." Who. SOMEBODY's hands are bloody here. Whose?

I don''t think there is any one person who can be singled out for the death of HB560. I think, and I have no proof, that it was simply "allowed" to die, by silent consent.

I think that there were very few, if any, who were willing to risk, losing their voting base, in cities, and counties, in their districts, by pushing forward on a bill, which would remove local authority, to prohibit carry, in government buildings.
We will have to work to change this, not so much at the State level, but at the local level. That includes, school boards, County Judges, County Commissioners, Sheriff, City Council, etc.

I know that larger cities, controlled by the left, will be almost impossible to make much of a difference, but, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Talk to candidates, who are running for these offices, to see where they stand, on LTC carry. Better yet, run for offices ourselves. If the State Legislature, sees, a true grassroots, movement, on these issues, at the local level, we will have a much better chance, of getting it pushed through next session.

I am fortunate, in that I live in Johnson, County, and nearly all of the office holders, in the spots, I mentioned, are pro LTC, I am personal friends with the Sheriff, since we worked together, at the PD. The same for the school board, I have many former classmates, in office there. I personally know three of the County Commissioners. To my knowledge, Johnson County, has no government buildings, posted unlawfully. I know that is not the case in a lot of places, and that is where we need to focus, our political strength.

We also need to work as much as possible to elect State reps, who we feel, will push through this type of legislation. Get out and help campaign, make phone calls, donate, time and money to campaigns. Talk to people at gun ranges, and gun stores, and explain what we are trying to do, and why. There are a lot of gun owners, who do not keep up with current legislation, or don't get involved, in the process.

I know that I am on a rant, but I am still venting about the last Legislative session. Thanks for putting up with it.

Liberty wrote:

treadlightly wrote:I emailed TSRA about this, and got a nice reply. HB560 is old legislation that has never gotten any support.

My wild guess is that legislators must look at HB560 as going too far, and CC is just eliminating government prejudice against the unlicensed.

My wild guess. TSRA didn't say that, I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning.

Edited to add: I am going to sign up for TSRA. I may not agree with them on this point of strategy and timing, but I think overall they do a lot of good.

I had asked her about HB560 on Twitter. She ignored me. While posting about the wonderful reduction bill. Its one thing to brag about successes, but I don't understand the silence of the failures. It's one thing for a bill to get beat in a fair fight, but this one went down without a wimper. no discussion no nothing. The TSRA seems to be covering up for some RINOs that killed the bill. We don't know who to blame cause, nobodys talking. We have had the worst session in 15 years (or is it 20), All I can see is we get some permission for some folks to shoot ferral hogs from balloons. Oh and reductions for some people to get a reduction in fees. But TSRA seems to be bragging about all the wonderful things it has accomplished. I understand that some sessions are better than others and that we don't always get everything we want. What I don't understand is the who what and why of things? It's as though we are trying to protect a few backstabbing Reps. How come we didn't have a similar bill in the Senate as a backup? Why all the silence? can we out some legeslators? How many of these backstabbers a 'A' or better rtated?
Who killed this thing?
Why did it fail?
What happened?

That is probably the $64,000 question. All of my reps, gave indications that they were in support of 560, but then refused to co-sponsor, or file a companion Senate bill. I believe that this was simply to appease, local government entities, and allow them to continue to prohibit carry in their government buildings/property at their discretion. When they dumped enforcement, in the lap of the AG last session, they knew full well, that not only was his office too understaffed, to be able to "bird dog" every complaint, but that he had no real authority, and would be stymied at every turn, by "temporary" sign removal, and a confusing mish-mash of legalese that would make it unenforceable.
Any tax supported entity, should be required to obey State law, they should not have the right to usurp authority, based on the whim of their elected officials. JMHO

Lynyrd wrote:

Jusme wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The only way to pursue "constitutional carry" is with the bill I've already written for 2019. It 1) moves all of TPC §46.035 to §46.03 so as to apply it to unlicensed carry; 2) renders LTC exempt from not only TPC §46.02, but §46.03 as well; and 3) makes anyone who can lawfully possess firearms under state and federal law eligible for a LTC. The Legislature will not pass constitutional-carry unless people are prohibited from carrying in locations currently in TPC §46.035. Removing off-limits areas for LTCs by exempting us from §§46.02 and 46.03 will give a strong incentive to get a license even though it is not required. This will give the Legislature a measure of comfort in supporting constitutional-carry.

This is the bill I'm going to promote, whether or not TSRA backs it or something else. I'm sick of HB560 being ignored for 10 years and I'm not about to support a constitutional-carry bill without providing relief for LTCs that they have deserved for years. I too am tired of "maybe next session."

Chas.

Please keep us updated Charles, also let us know exactly how we can help, beyond just contacting current Legislators. I want to be all in on this, and will do whatever I can. Feel free to PM, email, or even call me, to let me know what I can do. I have no doubt there are others, here, who feel the same.

This will also bring in non-LTC holders, and add more voices to, speak in the ears of the Lege.

Maybe if a thousand of us showed up at the capitol and stood with Mr. Cotton, and get that on the evening news, the legislature wouldn't be so quick to push it aside.

Let me know when. I'll take off work. Also a list of reps the we can contact with extra influence, I know we will have to wait until after some elections. Plus we need to list those running, who need to be supported, or not re-elected.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The only way to pursue "constitutional carry" is with the bill I've already written for 2019. It 1) moves all of TPC §46.035 to §46.03 so as to apply it to unlicensed carry; 2) renders LTC exempt from not only TPC §46.02, but §46.03 as well; and 3) makes anyone who can lawfully possess firearms under state and federal law eligible for a LTC. The Legislature will not pass constitutional-carry unless people are prohibited from carrying in locations currently in TPC §46.035. Removing off-limits areas for LTCs by exempting us from §§46.02 and 46.03 will give a strong incentive to get a license even though it is not required. This will give the Legislature a measure of comfort in supporting constitutional-carry.

This is the bill I'm going to promote, whether or not TSRA backs it or something else. I'm sick of HB560 being ignored for 10 years and I'm not about to support a constitutional-carry bill without providing relief for LTCs that they have deserved for years. I too am tired of "maybe next session."

Chas.

Please keep us updated Charles, also let us know exactly how we can help, beyond just contacting current Legislators. I want to be all in on this, and will do whatever I can. Feel free to PM, email, or even call me, to let me know what I can do. I have no doubt there are others, here, who feel the same.

This will also bring in non-LTC holders, and add more voices to, speak in the ears of the Lege.

bblhd672 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

Lynyrd wrote: There are over one million LTC holders in Texas now. Is that a big enough group to pay a lobbyist? I don't know. Would a paid lobbyist even help our cause? I don't know. But I do know that even among pro 2A Texans, non LTC holders are not terribly concerned or terribly sympathetic to these issues. And that my friends, is something our legislators know as well.

This brings up a thought. If CC was to pass, that number of 1 million legal gun carriers would instantly increase to almost the entire adult population of the state. How many of the non-LTC holders will start to carry? Who knows. Probably most of the non-LTC folks that are currently carrying their cars under MPA. But the point is that we would see an increase in the number of people who would have a dog in this hunt with regard to the rights of folks who carry guns. That definitely wouldn't hurt.

My biggest concern about CC passing is the possibility of greater restrictions on where carrying is permitted, thus ending up with steps backwards for LTC holders.

But, if you say we can have both CC and the eased restrictions of HB560 on where LTC holders can carry then I could probably get behind that.

That was the death knell for both bills this session. No one wanted to try to explain the differences to the Legislature, or at least none that I have heard about. When it was clear that permitless carry, was going to be the bell cow, no one wanted to touch 560.
Despite our understanding of the difference, as well as our track record, if a legislator backed one, there was fear of the other.
A lobbying group for our cause may been able to make a difference, but, with the apathy, of those who only want to increase the number of people able to carry, in public, I don't know that it would have made much difference. Especially, when TSRA threw all of their support behind CC, it silenced, or at least moved to the back of the room, those who were more concerned with 560. I can't speak for Charles, but I believe he feels our disappointment, and predicted just such a scenario, at the beginning if the session. JMHO

1911 10MM wrote:If incremental steps is what is necessary this seems backwards as HB 560 should be the priority not Constitutional Carry. It is apparent that the gun groups who I will not name are in control. I guess the squeaky wheel does get the oil!

I think it has to do more with the idea, that the Legislators can sign on to a bill, that they know will not pass, but they can say well, we tried, while not addressing the main topics. The same issues with campus carry, where they left so many decisions up to college administrators, and then after a year in place, did not clarify, or modify anything. It's like telling your kids, you will buy them a brand new expensive vehicle, with the, provision, that the other parent agrees, knowing full well, that it will be nixed. JMHO

To further expand upon my theory, I point to the previous session, where they put the enforcement, and even the actual legal authority, for government owned property carry restrictions, totally in the hands of the AG, rather than expressly clarify, and define,what, areas, portions, or premises, or even whether they are owned or leased, can be prohibited. That prevented them from actually having to face blowback in their districts, and put the bad guy tag on the AG, who has managed to anger both sides of the issue.
As a consequence, we are for the most part still at the mercy, of the powers that be in individual cities and counties, with no true law, that can be enforced. HB560 would have done exactly that, and once again the Legislators ran from it, like it was a rabid dog. The bill did not require opposition from the left, it was killed by lack of backbone. JMHO

locke_n_load wrote:My opinion - if CC passes first, any 560 type bill will no longer be achievable.

The reasoning is that there will be no real support behind the bill anymore, and the argument will be that there is no reason that license holders should be able to carry where regular law abiding citizens without a license can't.

To an extent I agree, but I think for slightly different reasons. I believe that if they somehow manage to pass permit less carry, with the huge amount of negativity attached to it, from the left, any removal of restrictions, even as a "carve out" for LTC holders, will be viewed as an attempt at unfettered, unrestricted carry for everyone (Which for the record I am not totally opposed to) and will terrify even the more conservative legislators. The folks on this forum, will be able to easily discern the difference, but the general public won't. We have seen that during the OC debates where there was confusion about the difference in LTC handguns and long guns.

I think the problem lies with the weak kneed RHINOS, refusing to address a bill like 560 because they would have to go against City and County authorities in their districts who want to retain the authority to prohibit carry at their discretion. Judges, Commissioners, and others, can bring a lot of pressure, and voting blocs, into play. JMHO

Pawpaw wrote:I'm disappointed about HB 560, but to be honest I wanted it for selfish reasons. I believe the same can be said for all of us.

In truth, HB 1911 has the potential of helping many more Texans than 560 ever would. It could particularly help lower income folks who have no choice but to live in some of the most crime-ridden neighborhoods in the state.

I agree, and as Charles stated, there are still bills that we need to get behind. I get the feeling that most non-LTC gun owners, have been sitting on their hands this session. Maybe because of the outcome of the Presidential election, I don't know, but there is definitely an apathetic attitude out there. In fact, several gun owners, I have spoken with, even some LTC holders, are of the opinion, that with the win in the White House, we don't have anything to worry about. They believe that with OC, and Campus Carry, all of our issues are resolved. I have already sent more e-mails to my reps.