TexasCHLforum.com

What if they attach an amendment to allow all CHLs on their third renewal to enjoy the same elitist perks and that gets accepted . . . then someone immediately offers another amendment to allow these same advantages to all CHLs? What if something like that is brewing and that's what he can't talk about?
Even if that proves to be just fantasy, I still think that if we let them have this now, we can get everyone included in it two years or four years down the road. Legislators will never hear the end of us asking them why they, many of whom just got their CHL, some of whom may have just gotten their first handgun, are more qualified or have a greater need for this than the average citizen with a CHL who must disarm at multiple places while going about his daily business. We'll hound them mercilously. Every time they want to talk about anything, we're going to ask them why they can carry in bars and we can not. We'll bludgeon them with it until they'll agree just to shut us up.

KC5AV wrote:

I'm new here, but I'm inclined to believe that there is much more to this than what we know. A lot of other seniors on this forum say that I should trust Charles and everything I read suggests that is the right path. What about you? Should we trust the man? This is nearly the end of the session and there are alot of initiatives that are not finished. If Charles' plan is not the best, what is?

P.S. I am certainly not saying SB905 is a good bill either.

If I had to compile a list of 10 people to trust regarding 2A issues, Charles Cotton would be #1 on my list.

It's not blind faith. It's trust in someone who has proven to be a supporter of 2nd Amendment issues and to be a canny political operator.

And it's not about supporting SB 905. It's seeing the inevitable (you saw how many votes it got) bill that we don't like and trying to at least get something we do like in trade. That's politics.

JJVP wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

TexasBill wrote:But there are CHL holders who do go to bars, do go to sporting events and do want to carry in church. . .

Just a reminder.... they can carry in church now if they want to, unless the church is posted with a 30.06 sign. . . .

. . . Fine, here is my proposal for baby steps. First remove the restrictions for Churches, for ALL CHL's.

Church carry is ok.
Churches are no different from grocery stores. CHLs may carry there unless they're posted 30.06.

The Annoyed Man wrote: . . . Charles has more than earned both my respect, and my trust as a champion of my rights.

But when I joined this forum, I didn't know Charles from Adam. He was just some dude who had a CHL forum.
Over time, I've come to feel much the same way about him as does The Annoyed Man.

Bullwhip wrote: . . . I've heard of plenty of people who go to bars and don't drink. Some aren't even customers, theyr'e Employees, delivery people, band members, designated drivers.

Why should anyone lose their gun rights because of the business license, when they're not even drinking?

I used to work as a sound man. I've spent many a 12-hour day in bars without drinking, setting up, running sound for, then loading out a local band. Then we'd hit Denny's at 4:00 am because we hadn't had a chance to eat since about 4:00 the previous afternoon.

stevie_d_64 wrote:What is the difference between someone who has had their license since say, ohhhhh, 1996...And someone who just got their plastic yesterday???

Easier to pass.
They can say, "Here are folks who have passed a 10-15 year probationary period without shooting up the shopping mall. We are now going to allow them to carry in bars."
That's a much easier sale than, "Here is a 21 year old about to enter a bar for the first time. We're going to allow him to do so while packing a concealed handgun."
And it does get a foot in the door. Assuming these CHLs on their third renewal don't go shoot up the bars, in the near future we should be able to persuade them to reduce or eliminate the "probationary period."

74novaman wrote:We've chipped away at the infringements we have placed upon us. And guess what? EVERY TIME that we take just a little bit more away, the ninnies scream and moan about mass murders, blood in the streets, etc etc....and EVERY SINGLE TIME we prove them wrong. This means that as long as we keep working hard, eventually we can get to Constitutional Carry. I would love to be able to tell my grandkids "Can you imagine when I was young that I had to pay the state to ensure my right to carry?" and have them be amazed by the very idea.

Exactly! The anti-gun movement has chipped away at our rights, little by little, for many years. They never had the power to ban guns (though many of them would have if they could have). But they could take away our rights a little at a time.
Now, we're taking back our rights. We do not have the power to take them back all at once, but we're taking them back a little at a time.

I bet it's tens of thousands but not hundreds of thousands.

I still think it's worthwhile as a foot-in-the-door measure.

It won't apply to me. I took the class in . . I believe it was January '96. But didn't have the $70 to send to the state for my 2-year license. It was actually two or three years later when I got around to sending it in, after I called to ask if it was still good. My first license was a 2-year license which expired in 2001. (I may have had the last active 2-year license ) I didn't take the class again until 2008.

74novaman wrote:Emailed support today. Fellas, I know it's not perfect but it's an incremental step towards what we want... Constitutional carry!

Yep.

blue wrote:goose.. gander..

Do we disregard if we are NOT on 3rd renewal yet? (Semi serious)

--FLUSH the abomination. PERIOD!

An all-or-nothing approach is not going to win us much.
By getting more and more CHLs into more and more places, allows us to demonstrate that we are not a threat to the public safety. That allows us to take more and more territory.
Eventually I'd like to see any adult who can legally own a firearm be able to legally carry those firearms, concealed or openly, with no need for a government issued license, just about anywhere a LEO may carry his firearms. But that ain't gonna happen this session. Baby steps will get us there.

Mike1951 wrote:

terryg wrote:Wow, third renewals. How many years would that be?

That depends. Those of us in from the beginning renewed at two years, six years, and then ten years.

But the four year term was extended to five years, so the answer could be anywhere between ten and fifteen years.

But if we get this passed, in a lot less than fifteen years from now, it'll be for every CHL and not just third renewals.

I felt something like this coming when so many were bashing 905.