TexasCHLforum.com

frazzled wrote:

With all the great ground work laid for these two bills over the last few years hopefully we will have smooth sailing this next session.

Hardly. Private business associations are generally against the parking lot bill. It will be rough sledding indeed to get this passed in the next five years, much less the next session.

But are you saying we shouldn't pursue it with a high priority because of that?

Actually, SA-TX and Cohagher have so eloquently stated their position, that I am more favorably disposed to their cause than I was. Even so, I still think things like the parking lot bill should have some primacy of position before the legislature because that legislation will more directly affect those very CHL holders whom both of you admit will mostly not OC. In other words, it is a more immediately pressing issue for a majority of those who carry guns legally; and therefore, it should be addressed first.

The reason I believe this is that, if you move OC up to the top priority position, and even if it passes, it will likely still permit employers to bar any employee who carries concealed or openly from disarming and securing their weapon in the parking lot before entering the premises. So what you are then left with is a situation in which a right which you both readily admit most CHLers won't practice has been enabled, but for whom they still have to be disarmed on the way to and from work — a net setback for those who choose to obtain a CHL — and another legislative session squandered.

So how do you address that possibility?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:It hasn't happened. I've never seen a concealed-carry proponent argue that CC is constitutionally protected, but OC isn't. OC supporters are just mad that TSRA and NRA haven't taken up the OC banner. Not supporting an issue is not the same as opposing it and it certainly doesn't constitute throwing them under the bus. OC supporters repeatedly contend that OC is protected by the Second Amendment, but CC isn't. That's throwing CC under the bus.

Chas.

Charles is good, isn't he?

That bill also says:

The bill would, subject to exceptions, make it a misdemeanor,
punishable as specified, to openly carry an unloaded handgun on the
person in specified public areas.

Further down, it says (apparently with the Taurus Judge specifically in mind):

Nothing shall prevent a device defined as a "handgun,"
"pistol," "revolver," or "firearm capable of being concealed upon the
person" from also being found to be a short-barreled shotgun or a
short-barreled rifle, as defined in Section 12020

And again - for any forum member considering moving to California (there is at least one):

(n) As used in this chapter, a "personal handgun importer" means
an individual who meets all of the following criteria:
(1) He or she is not a person licensed pursuant to Section 12071.
(2) He or she is not a licensed manufacturer of firearms pursuant
to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United
States Code.
(3) He or she is not a licensed importer of firearms pursuant to
Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United
States Code and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(4) He or she is the owner of a handgun.
(5) He or she acquired that handgun outside of California.
(6) He or she moves into this state on or after January 1, 1998,
as a resident of this state.
(7) He or she intends to possess that handgun within this state on
or after January 1, 1998.

You see that? California, if it adopts this bill, will suddenly criminalize every single person who moved there in possession of a handgun for the previous 12-13 years for not having "registered" their gun. That is how California rolls.

So much for California being an example for OC advocates. I hate that state.

And mind you, I'm not against OC, per se. I just see a lot of unwisdom on the part of some activists in pursuit of OC as a primary goal. That unwisdom can do more to hurt the cause of RKBA than help it.

And beyond that, it does more to hurt the cause of more pressing matters here in Texas. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We lost the free exercise of our rights incrementally. That's why the opposition was so effective! They were incrementalists by stacking on "reasonable" gun laws, one at a time. The most effective way to regain the free exercise thereof is to beat the opposition at their own game: incrementally unstacking the laws. Right now, parking lot carry, and campus carry — in that order — are more pressing issues here in Texas. CHL law has, by virtue of disproving the notion that the streets would run red if blood if implemented, bolstered the case for those two bills. It is called a buildup of political capital. The most unwise of OC advocates would have us deplete that political capital on a quixotic effort which has already offended the very people whose support they need to get it passed (if it can ever be passed at all). That would be a net loss to the RKBA, whereas a successful campaign to permit parking lot and campus carry would be a net gain.

There just isn't any other way to proceed that makes any kind of political sense, and this is ALL about politics, the Constitution not withstanding.