TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man

Statesmanship is the act of a sober mind, and it is not possible at all without it. I still maintain that OCT could be a force for good in the struggle, but it is not currently because its leadership has put personal issues ahead of the cause. If they step down, specifically CJ, because like it or not he has become a lightning rod for the left media AND for those of us who think the cause is more important than self—then OCT has a chance. The person who wants to be the head of something and cannot willingly relinquish if there are good reasons, is also the person who cannot be trusted with it. If he won't step down, then OCT is doomed.

This thread has been locked: viewtopic.php?f=133&t=75122;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; but in it an OCT insider has revealed that CJ's visit here was an orchestrated part of a fund-raising campaign for the OCT cool-aid drinkers. Pure cynicism. They really aren't interested in peace-making at all. They just want to ride the popularity of this forum to their own financial benefit. Character counts, and its lack is a drowning pool.

I reiterate my above post about the definition and symptoms of narcissism. OCT desperately needs new leadership. CJ Grisham needs to allow his group's more sober-minded members to cloister themselves to appoint a new president of OCT, and then he needs to step down and give that organization the opportunity to meet its potential with honor. If he can't do that, then he reinforces my point about narcissism, and relegates the future of OCT to that of a personality cult instead of a force for good in the expansion of our gun rights.

My mind is firmly made up.

The Annoyed Man

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.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
CJ Grisham wrote:
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.

It's not merely an age difference CJ, it's a world of difference in political/legislative experience, the years of service to gun owners and my ability to create relationships that get pro-gun bills passed. It's the difference between a man who has worked for the benefit of others and one who seeks only to gain fame for himself and get the law changed to avoid the consequences of his irresponsible acts. [BINGO!!! - TAM]

CJ, when you can claim Charles' consulting experience in Supreme Court litigation on behalf of gun rights, come back and make that assertion. Otherwise, this is pathetic.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
CJ Grisham wrote:
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 Resisting Arrest is not a crime? Who knew? - TAM. 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." Maybe not legal problems, but certainly there's a history of psychiatric ones.... - TAM

You went way off the reservation CJ. I wasn't talking about these events and I didn't even know about them. I was talking about your arrest and conviction for interfering with the duty of a peace officer.

CJ Grisham wrote:By the way, when did you ever work on my behalf in either of my cases? BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA! - TAM

Are you claiming I owed you a duty to represent you? The day will never come when I represent a hothead whose problems are of their own making. DING DING DING DING DING!!!! - TAM We want plaintiffs/clients who make a good impression on the court because it increases the likelihood of getting a favorable opinion that will benefit all gun owners. There an old saying in the law, bad facts make bad law. There's another equally accurate saying among lawyers, "don't violate the Fat Ugly Plaintiff Rule." Since I'm sure you will try to twist the meaning of this old saying, it's not referring to a party's size or beauty, it refers to a plaintiff/client that will not be well received by a jury.

I think your arrest was unlawful. Had you gone to jail quietly, you may well have had a great §1983 civil rights case against the officer and his agency. This is a result that would have greatly helped the open-carry cause. But no, you decided to resist arrest in spite of Tex. Penal Code §9.31(b)(2) that expressly states that you cannot resist even an unlawful arrest. EXACTLY! Discretion is the better part of valor. Faked outrage for the camera's benefit is just theatre, lacking all substance, and it is the refuge of those either who lack depth of understanding, or who are deliberately obtuse. - TAM

Here is an interesting link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissist ... y_disorder

Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is a Cluster B personality disorder[1] in which a person is excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity, mentally unable to see the destructive damage they are causing to themselves and to others in the process. It is estimated that this condition affects one percent of the population.[2][3] First formulated in 1968, NPD was historically called megalomania, and is a form of severe egocentrism.[4]

Symptoms
People who are diagnosed with a narcissistic personality disorder are characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance. They have a sense of entitlement and demonstrate grandiosity in their beliefs and behavior. They have a strong need for admiration, but lack feelings of empathy.[5]

————SNIP————

DSM-5
Symptoms of this disorder, as defined by the DSM-5, include:[6]

B. Pathological personality traits in the following domain:
Antagonism, characterized by:
Grandiosity: Feelings of entitlement, either overt or covert; self-centeredness; firmly holding to the belief that one is better than others; condescending toward others.

Attention seeking: Excessive attempts to attract and be the focus of the attention of others; admiration seeking.

CJ, you really need to step down as head of OCT and seek counseling. So long as you are the head of OCT, then all of its actions and direction will be devoted to enabling your pathology. It will never be a serious gun rights group until it has responsible direction, provided by capable people for whom leadership is a service, and not an unrequitable and never ending quest to satisfy narcissism.

When you turn OCT over to leadership with stable personalities, it will then be able to flourish as a viable organization, and more importantly, it will begin having success in the legislative arena. But until you step down, none of this is going to happen.

You need help.

The Annoyed Man

CJ Grisham wrote:
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?

Cry me a river. If it's that hard, then quit. And you couldn't be further from the truth. You will find literally hundreds of posts I've written in favor of Constitutional Carry, both on this forum and on FaceBook. I just really object to you, because as your post above eminently demonstrates, you consistently ignore the facts and speak falsehoods. You make the mistake of conflating your selfish interests with the interests of OCT. IF you'd quit, I'd stop trashing the group. But unfortunately for them, YOU are their face, and that is a disaster for OCT.

Your organization literally suffers under your leadership, and I said as much to your man in Houston. I stand by that. YOU personally are the reason your organization will never be more than a smallish group of bomb-throwers. It is a shame. We need responsible activism. Because of your leadership, OCT's activism is not responsible. You don't have to like that, but it is true. Deal with it.

The very best thing that you can do for Open Carry/Constitutional Carry in Texas is to resign from leadership of OCT. Allow OCT to become mainstream instead of being a bunch of outside-the-wire bomb-throwers. Allow some of the more rational men (and women) in your organization to assume its control and direction, so that it can work with NRA/TSRA instead of against them. If you are that worn out by the slings and arrows, then quit and let someone else take up the cudgel. That is the only way OCT has a prayer of getting the "access" to the inner workings of the Texas political process valno600 spoke of in a previous post.

As far as the Oklahoma thing goes, you dodged questions, refused to answer, accused the curious of being "anti-gun" (your very tired and worn out fallback mantra). You danced around and pussyfooted around the issue because you knew you got your butt caught in the wringer with another one of your indiscretions......because you can't help yourself....and you started making up stuff to explain it. It's just so "high school".

An honest person with a valid license would have just said, "yeah, I still have active licenses from XYZ states" and been done with it. You did not......most likely because you could not, because you knew it would catch up with you if you did. So you jiggered around and made up stories about unnamed carry licenses and carrying toys.

Gimme a break.

Step down. Let OCT recover from your leadership. Stop dragging it down. Return to private life.

The Annoyed Man

valno600, I won't say I agree with your commitment to OCT, but you sound more reasonable than CJ Grisham. I will tell you this: as long as your leader is not firmly grounded in reality, I can never be a part of, or work alongside OCT. Ever.

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.

The Annoyed Man

CJ Grisham wrote: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

You got a lot of nerve.

What you proved by open carrying long guns into businesses is that they will in fact, with the assistance of soccer-moms who might have stayed home, make it harder to carry openly OR concealed in public. You want to know who gave rise to Moms Demand Action? Exactly people who allied with Bloomberg funding in reaction to Open Carry Texas's tactics. We need friends like OCT like we need a hole in the head.

You'll find that almost every single member of this forum supports OC in some form or other, with Constitutional Carry being the odds on favorite, but almost none of them can abide by OCT's lies and cheap tactics, and willingness, as Bladed said on page three of this thread, to demand the keys to the kingdom, or "If I can't be king, I'll burn the kingdom to the ground."

The NRA is a national organization, run by seasoned and mature men and women, who represent—NOT the couple of thousand OCT members—but the 5 MILLION NRA members...... and TSRA is its state level counterpart with tens of thousands of members. These people devote their lives and careers to the advancement of firearms rights in this state, and they do it with remarkable humility and service. The leadership of most of OC militancy is by contrast megalomaniacal and prideful. I have personally met and know people who were generally favorably disposed to the 2nd Amendment, concealed carry, and firearms ownership, and who reconsidered their viewpoints because they did not want to be in any way associated with egomaniacal firebrands, and your organization's OC protests with long guns frankly scared the crap out of them when my friends saw them in person.

Like I said, we need that like we need a hole in the head. Thank you very much. And now that you've driven fence sitters over to the other side, remember that these people VOTE.

The wilfully blind stupidity of OCT makes me want to tear my hair out. We might have had OC 2 years ago if your organization had learned how to behave like adults on the political landscape.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 5 matches

Re: HB195 v. HB??/SB??: Are storm clouds gathering?

Re: HB195 v. HB??/SB??: Are storm clouds gathering?

Re: HB195 v. HB??/SB??: Are storm clouds gathering?

Re: HB195 v. HB??/SB??: Are storm clouds gathering?

Re: HB195 v. HB??/SB??: Are storm clouds gathering?