TexasCHLforum.com

Skiprr wrote: The single-minded hammer with which you accost this Forum does not bespeak someone who is passive about a "cause."

I enjoy discussing a number of completely different issues on internet forums. No matter how you spin it, I don't have cause. As if the fact that I had a cause would have any rational bearing on anything I've said in this thread.

RKBA must live at the very heart of your being. It must, given your obvious passion for the issue.

This is all just one big long ad hominem poisoning the well spiel. Wasn't your complaint that my position was irrational?

You blasted the DPS saying they were denying you your fundamental rights indefinitely. Oops; your CHL arrived in the mail last week.

Yes, that's right, after an indefinite delay of almost four months and intervention from two legislators, I finally got permission to exercise my fundamental right. I have every reason to voice my complaints about it, and no, there's no oops. Indefinite still means indefinite.

Why don't you come clean and tell us all who you really are, and fully disclose your affiliation with OpenCarry.org?

As if I was a member of OpenCarry.org that would poison the well of anything I've said here in this thread.

I think that just about covers is Skippy. It's been nice chatting with you.

mr.72 wrote: I think it probably is the other way around. In fact the discussion about OC of handguns and the relationship to the civil rights movement may have a lot more in common than we are letting on. We fail to recall history if we believe that the prohibition on carrying handguns openly in TX was intended to apply equally to whites as blacks in the 1870s. I would like to see a reasoned, accurate accounting of this gun law history in Texas. Remember this was well over 200 years ago!

Of course it does relate to the civil rights movement. It's the one fundamental right that wasn't restored during the 60s.

Here's a very interesting article by Stephen Halbrook on the history of these Texas laws http://www.guncite.com/journals/haltex.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. In 1868, the constitution said "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the state, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe." That last clause is where we lost our rights, and immediately after:

The elections of 1869 were characterized by massive fraud and force. Gen. Reynolds relinquished military authority to the new governor, E.J. Davis, who assumed extraordinary powers to make arrests, suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and declare martial law. Legislators who opposed his policies were arrested so that Radicals could obtain majorities to pass their bills.[141] A state police force was organized which promoted "official murder and legalized oppression."[142]

"An Act Regulating the Right to Keep and Bear Arms," approved on August 13, 1870, made it illegal for one to "have about his person a bowie-knife, dirk or butcher-knife, or fire-arms, whether known as a six-shooter, gun or pistol of any kind" at any church or religious assembly, school, ball room "or other social gathering composed of ladies and gentlemen," or election precinct.[143] The act was fairly limited, although its effect on cooks with butcher knives at social gatherings is unclear.

The far more draconian statute was passed on April 12, 1871, entitled "An Act to regulate the keeping and bearing of deadly weapons."[144] For the first time, Texas prohibited the bearing of all arms (p.658)other than rifles and shotguns at any place off of one's premises. Today's statute derives from the 1871 act passed by the Reconstruction legislature.

Section 1 of the act provided in part:

Any person carrying on or about his person, saddle, or in his saddle-bags, any pistol, dirk, dagger, sling-shot, sword-cane, spear, brass knuckles, bowie knife, or any other kind of knife, manufactured or sold, for the purpose of offense or defense, unless he has reasonable grounds for fearing an unlawful attack on his person, and that such ground of attack shall be immediate and pressing; or unless having or carrying the same on or about his person for the lawful defense of the State, as a militiaman in actual service, or as a peace officer or policeman, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor .... Provided, That this section shall not be so construed as to prohibit any person from keeping or having arms on his or her own premises, or at his or her own place of business, nor to prohibit sheriffs or revenue officers, and other civil officers, from keeping or having arms, while engaged in the discharge of their official duties, nor to prohibit persons traveling in the State from keeping or carrying arms with their baggage....[145]"

Punishment for a first offense was a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $100 and forfeiture of the weapon. A subsequent offense was punishable by a maximum of sixty days in jail.

The act was one of a series of controversial measures passed by the Reconstruction legislature in 1871, a year in which Republicans were consolidating their political power over disenfranchised ex-Confederates. A taxpayers' convention in Austin undertook to investigate general grievances of the people. The Report of the Subcommittee on Violations of [the] Constitution and Laws, chaired by W.M. Walton, was submitted on September 25, 1871 to Senator A.J. Hamilton, Chairman of the General Committee. It complained that the arms act and other acts rendered the majority helpless in the grasp of a military dictatorship:(p.659)

17. The people have been disarmed throughout the State, notwithstanding their constitutional right "to keep and bear arms." (Constitution, section 13, article 1. Laws 1871, p. 75.)

The police and State guards are armed, and lord it over the land, while the citizen dare not, under heavy pain and penalties, bear arms to defend himself, unless he has reasonable grounds for fearing an unlawful attack on his person, and that such grounds of attack shall be immediate and pressing. The citizen is at the mercy of the policeman and the men of the State Guard, and that too, when these bodies of men embrace in them some of the most lawless and abandoned men in the State, many of whom are adventurers--strangers to the soil--discharged or pardoned criminals ....

18. The election order ... forbids the assembling of the people on the days of election; it prohibits free speech; it is the unlawful will of the executive, enforced by him through the power of an armed police upon an unarmed people; it is the will of a despot and the act of tyrant overriding the supreme law of the land....

19. By orders executed through his armed bodies of police, the executive has taken control of peaceable assemblies of the people ... and there suppressed free speech under threats of arrest and subjection to punishment as criminals.[146]"

The grievances were reprinted in the minority report of the U.S. Congress' Joint Select Committee on the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States. The report noted that Governor E.J. Davis placed armed police at all voting places for the Congressional election in October 1871, and observed, "[t]he effect of putting such a military force in possession of the ballot box, with the citizens disarmed, is easily seen...."[147]

In 1873, the Democrats defeated Govenor Davis, but armed citizens had to take over the capital to remove him from office. It's just a minor little issue right? Nothing like real civil rights issues huh? How petty of us to want to correct this slight little Texas problem! They then repealed many of the "obnoxious acts," but not the gun law.

In 1875, we had another constitutional convention to address the problems since 1870. They re-wrote the constitutional right:
"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."

Under the 1876 guarantee, the legislature (but not a locality) could regulate how arms were to be worn, i.e., openly or concealed, but could not bar the wearing of weapons per se. It was intended to repeal the broad legislative power in the 1869 Constitution and in particular the unpopular 1871 act which prohibited the bearing of arms anywhere but on one's premises.[192] The 1871 act was used to disarm and oppress the people and to set up a police state.[193]

The address of the convention to the people promised that the language of the new Bill of Rights protected the citizens' liberties "by every safeguard known to constitutional law."[194] The constitution was submitted to a popular vote and ratified in early 1876.[195] Those who thought that the new guarantee would restore the right to bear arms in Texas were in for a rude awakening.

Then he goes on to talk about the court cases that nailed us in our coffin up until now.

BTW, check out Stephen Halbrook's web page at http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. He's also got some interesting articles on the Nazis and gun control.

But whomever made the suggestion that it is the TX Constitution that needs changing and not the Penal Code is spot on.

Read the entire article. It's fascinating.

NcongruNt wrote: You're suggesting that the issues are even near the same caliber and require such drastic measures. Equating action required to ensure the rights of millions of people of color to have a chance to vote and enjoy all the other freedoms and protections of the law... to a fight for open carry of handguns.

Others have said that even introducing an open carry bill is a nuclear option. Charles was saying there would be a huge backlash. I'm suggesting that even if the backlash is huge and the measures are nuclear that doesn't mean we should necessarily avoid those in order to prevent damage to our cause. I've given a perfectly legitimate example of that. I never suggested that open carry in our modern society is the same caliber of suffering and civil rights impact to society as what Rosa Parks faced in the fifties. That is a strawman argument you're re-iterating. Maybe you need to get your irrational house in order before you continue to complain about mine.

Secondly, this is not a "hotly contested issue". Maybe it is for you, but the vast majority of the state doesn't care at this point. We don't have threats of lynching, burning churches, assassinations and the like over Open Carry. And I sincerely doubt you'd get more than a handful of folks willing to blatantly violate the law by openly carrying handguns in a march to the Capitol, let alone 30.000. And then you'd all go to jail for either UCW or IFC. You seem to be living in a fantasy here.

Charles and others are saying open carry will be a hotly contested issue. That's what we're discussing. If the majority of the state doesn't care, good. There shouldn't be any problem with the open carry bill. Only, we know that won't be the case. Hence the discussion. I also said "for example," on the 30,000 OC march. It's not a fantasy I have. That's just more of your strawman/ad hom habit. It's an example of how not worrying about the backlash could be a more effective means for change than piecemeal and quiet legislation at a snail's pace.

Your comparison of the fight for OC to the fight for Civil Rights isn't equally ridiculous.

It's your strawman. Continue to beat the snot out of it all you want.

Just because an action works on a bigger issue, doesn't mean it is appropriate for a more minor one.

That's just the point. The bus issue was a minor issue in the scheme of things in 1955.

Skiprr wrote: My only observation here is that the playing field keeps shifting as I read arguments for the "cause," and at some point someone needs to decide if what is being so passionately sought is a change to the Texas Penal Code so that open carry is permitted, or if the demand is the "restoration" and securing of "fundamental rights."

I support the 2nd amendment, and I believe that both open carry and the other infringements anywhere else in the penal code should be repealed. I'll support any legislation that attempts to do any part that.

If the belief is that it is the latter that is required, you don't need to worry about a bill changing the Penal Code; you need to be working toward an amendment to the Texas Constitution. Unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Texas Constitution expressly says that the state may regulate the wearing of arms. Article 1., Section 23. was written into the Texas Constitution on February 15, 1876, and has not been amended in the intervening 202 years.

I've come to the same conclusion. The constitution should be changed back to keep and bear shall not be infringed just like it was before 1868. The laws will still have to be changed as well.

Texas Constitution, Bill of Rights wrote:Section 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

The legislature can, in any session, pass laws that regulate the wearing of arms. If unlicensed open carry is a fundamental right, it can be secured with practical permanence only by an amendment that modifies the wording of Section 23 of the Texas Bill of Rights.[/quote]

The original wording only lasted what 37 years from 1831 to 1868 if I got my years right. There's nothing permanent about our state constitution, but it would definitely be better than being subject to the whim of every legislative session.

NcongruNt wrote: Did you just equate your inability to openly carry your handgun to the suffering and injustice endured by people of color in this nation prior to the civil rights movements? Really?

Here we go with the strawmen. No, I didn't. I equated the means of achieving change on civil rights not the suffering and injustice. It's certainly a legitimate argument to look at our history for what has been effective at achieving change on hotly contested political issues. The civil rights movement of the 60s is a good example of that. War triggered by gun confiscation would be another, especially for Texas. For example, would it be better to only seek incremental change for CHL in order to minimize public backlash, or would it be better to organize a march of 30,000 people openly carrying handguns on the state capital to go along with the introduction of this bill? Would that help all gun rights issues around the country or hurt it? Would it matter if the bill ever got passed or even introduced?

As it is, you're pushing people away from your cause.

I don't have a cause. I have a point of view in one OC thread on one Internet forum.

You've essentially invoked Godwin's Law (EDIT: actually, it's Dodd's Corollary) on this argument with me.

Nazis? Who said anything about Nazis?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:As for public reaction, there was tremendous media coverage in 1995 and there was a huge negative backlash against people carrying "hidden guns" even after an extensive background check and a training course.

I hear Rosa Parks caused quite a ruckus in 1955 when she refused to give up her seat in the front of the bus. You might even say there was a huge backlash for that act and the events that followed for the next decade. A lot of people didn't think that was such a good idea either. In fact where would we be on concealed carry if avoiding media coverage and a huge backlash were a priority?

jimlongley wrote: Concealed carry licensing is a privilege granted by the state, not a right.

This has been sticking with me for a few days. To keep and bear arms has been the right of the people long before the Texas legislature ever came around. The legislature came to existence while Texans died fighting Santa Anna for that right. All they can do is to limit, infringe, and tread on that right, and that's what they've been doing since 1870. The Inalienable rights of the people are not and will not ever be privileges granted by the state of Texas.

Skiprr wrote: The answer, in my opinion, is because it is not the correct battle.

If tens of thousands of people think it's a worthy issue to raise with their representatives in the legislature, who are you to say it isn't?

Conversely, if thousands of people contact their representatives requesting support of an RKBA-related concept that will be, let's face it, a political hot-potato for any senator or member of congress, we're flooding the aisles with noise and running the risk of desensitizing our legislators to RKBA-related measures that have a realistic chance of passing, that would improve our lives and the state of RKBA in Texas, and that have been in the works for months and years.

Tens of thousands of constituents flooding their representatives demanding their fundamental rights be restored is considered noise and desensitizes them to the issues? What's wrong with that picture?

Charles L. Cotton wrote: No it can't. "Ordinary observation" means a normal person must be able to look at you and say "there is a gun;" not "there is a bulge that could be a gun;" or "I think he has a gun."

The CHL must intentionally fail to conceal. Intentional conduct is very hard to prove, that's why I could only find two cases where a CHL was convicted for violating 46.035(a). If it were as gray an area as many seem to fear, there would be a lot of convictions folks. If you support open-carry fine, but don't let unintentional failure to conceal be the reason.

Chas.

Perhaps if I were a lawyer, and I had an intricate understanding of what the legal term intentional meant, I'd feel better about it. Your explanation is reassuring, but I'm not sure that beating the rap saves me from the ride. Do you have any stats on the number of arrests that have been made for failure to conceal?

Just to clarify, you're assuring me that if I go out wearing a T-shirt where standing normally the gun is perfectly concealed, but leaning forward and stretching it prints like the devil, there's no chance of me getting arrested or hassled? I was in a restaurant the other day wearing a cotton dress shirt. I spent a bunch of the meal leaning forward, and I was looking at that spot on my hip thinking about how that big gun was going to look there. I suspected it wasn't going to leave much to the imagination. I'm still feeling that "intentional" doesn't entirely cover up that vulnerability.

In any event, it's a significant infringement of my rights that potentially puts me in jeopardy of a Class A misdemeanor just for exercising a fundamental right. Even if you're completely right that it's nothing to worry about, it's perfectly legitimate reason for supporting open carry. I support open carry, any political movement for open carry, and even the less than ideal bill for open carry. I see any representation I can get in the legislature on the issue as a good thing.

Skiprr wrote:As you yourself said, Sun Tzu wrote, "The wise general will not engage in battle unless and until the battle is already won."

If thousands of people contact their representatives supporting open carry, I don't see where we lose the battle even if the bill never even gets introduced.

CainA wrote:I think Charles made a (good) point about this (I didn't feel like searching the post for it though) about how many people have been prosecued about "intentionally failing to conceal".

That was very informative, but Charles didn't answer the question completely. The question I asked was how is the law being interpreted by law enforcement, DAs, and the courts. Charles said he knew of two cases where someone was convicted. That was informative, but it left me wondering how many other people have been questioned, warned, harassed, arrested, charged, or tried.

I don't think I would lose too much sleep about it.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, but now that I've just received my CHL, it's definitely going to cross my mind as I tuck my .45 with holster under a shirt. Just how far can I lean forward before I unintentionally let the grip print through enough for an ordinary person to recognize the bump as a gun? Just how big of a bump would be considered intentional failure to conceal with a Class A misdemeanor, up to a $4000 fine and up to one year in jail as the consequence. I'll worry just enough to at least let my representatives know that I support the provision in this bill that would eliminate that infringement of my rights.

kw5kw wrote: This is the part that bothers me--"it's presence cannot be discernible through ordinary observation." An unintentional "flash" at a gas pump could be considered by some: "I saw it through ordinary observation of this person filling up his car, the wind blew his shirt open and there it was...."Brvroom in plain sight!... a GUN!"

It doesn't even have to be a flash. It could be a suspicious bump under your shirt. What does "ordinary observation" mean?

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Okay, I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were saying large counties were preventing CHLs from carrying in public places. Ike caused tremendous damage in Galveston so I'm not surprised the portion of the background checks that must be done "on location" were delayed. The Galveston County Courthouse was not operational for many weeks. I don't know about Brazoria County and Harris County wasn't damaged.

No, I'm saying that large counties in Texas are preventing citizens from getting a CHL. In that way, they certainly are preventing people from carrying in public places. Even if Galveston county was wiped off the face of the earth, the citizens that escaped from Galveston shouldn't be denied access to self defense with a handgun, especially when they may need it the most. There is definitely a problem with the law when these counties can just say they're not processing the CHLs indefinitely. Harris county is one of the big offenders, and they haven't even had to offer up an explanation. There is no explanation. They are denying their citizens of a fundamental constitutional right, indefinitely.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:There are delays to be sure and this has been discussed in detail in several different threads. However, DPS hasn't interpreted the current CHL laws as allowing indefinite delays. In fact, DPS has admitted in meetings with Chairman Driver and a representative of Governor Perry that they are "out of statute" (meaning they are late) by as much as 100 days, due to a shortage of personnel. DPS has acknowledged they are not complying with the law, they are not interpreting current law as allowing indefinite delays.

There are unreasonable delays to be sure because of the onerous administrative infringements on our rights that shouldn't be there. I can assure you I have an official letter in my hand from the DPS that states unequivocally that my application has been delayed indefinitely. It uses that word exactly. It has been posted here and on their web site. I have been told unequivocally over the phone by DPS clerks that as a representative of the DPS, their interpretation of Gov Code 411.177 allows just such delays. I had similar sentiments re-iterated by the staff of my senator, Mike Jackson and and the staff of Joe Driver chair of the law enforcement committee. They told me the DPS' hands were tied until the county got good and ready to process the background check.

What you must be talking about is delays due to DPS outside of the background check. There are no laws that govern how long the counties can take to complete the backgound check. Since there is no law that governs the county, the only thing the DPS could do is to issue the CHL prior to the background check being completed, and they claim the law does prevent them from doing that. I'm not privy to the meetings you've attended, but I can only tell you that it hasn't changed their policy one iota. People are posting here about 200+ days of delay. I'm at almost 120, and there's no end in sight. There's no doubt about it. I'm experiencing an indefinite delay of a fundamental civil right. Rather than denying it and making excuses for it, you should recognize just how intolerable it is.

"I want to see an elimination of the student loan and taxes requirement."

I have felt this way for a long time.

Let me know when your bill hits the legislature floor. In the mean time, I look forward to supporting any bill that will accomplish this.

"I want to see an end to the $140 charge plus $100+ for the training, . . ."

It'll never happen, but there is no harm in wanting. For clarity, only the initial license fee is $140 and this is reduced by 50% if you qualify for a fee reduction. Renewals are only $70, unless you qualify for the 50% reduction.

It will certainly never happen if our representatives in the legislature and elsewhere never even propose it. On the other hand, we have a proposed bill that will end this infringement.

There are delays, but again there are no indefinite delays in the context you are using the term. Overstating the problem doesn't help the open-carry cause. It's much like the absurd statement in the article, "As Texans realize how restrictive their rights are . . . there will be an awakening. Get ready for a showdown in Austin come January.". Texas does not allow open-carry, but otherwise Texas law on guns is very liberal. Grossly inaccurate and purely emotional statements like the one quoted will not garner support in Austin.

Let me ask you this Charles. When it comes to a fundamental constitutional right, how long does the state have to delay before you will recognize that I'm being denied my rights? Would you tolerate your first amendment rights being delayed 120 days? How about over 200 days, when even these statutes recognize that amount of delay as an implicit denial? How would you feel if Opencarry.org couldn't get a license to advertise on billboards or the radio for 120 days? Plus, despite your denials, it's not a fixed delay. There's nothing fixed about it. The word the DPS is using officially is indefinite. Look it up. There is no other context in which that word means anything different. That's not a grossly inaccurate and purely emotional statement. It's just simply a fact.

Because 1) I’m far more concerned about preventing a Virginia Tech in Texas than I am people being able to wear their guns in the open; 2) I am far more interested in people not being disarmed going to and from their places of employment; 3) it affects far more people than those in two or three counties for a limited period of time; 4) there are no “indefinite delays” in the context in which you have repeatedly used the term; 5) because unlicensed open-carry isn’t going to pass and we will not let these two bills that are so important to tens of thousands of CHLs die because OpenCarry.org can’t get their own bill introduced and/or doesn't have the horsepower to get it passed.

Citizens of Texas can't protect society from massacres unless they're armed. People can't be armed effectively while travelling in their car unless they can at least legally step out of their car with it. Read the thread here in this forum today of the Houston woman that was murdered while she filled up with gas. Without a CHL, she couldn't even step out of her car to fill up with gas. A gun concealed in her car wouldn't have helped her. 4) There definitely are indefinite delays in any context you want to look at it. 5) No bills will pass to eliminate these problems if no one proposes them. I'm willing to put my support behind anyone who will propose it.

Finally, you seem to represent the small percentage of people that already have a CHL and those that will tolerate the current situation, and that's fine. I want the laws changed regardless of who supports them. That's why I think the only solution to the problem is in the courts. From that point of view, it's probably better that we not appease anyone. It's better to have a complete ban in order to drive enough support for challenging in the courts. In the courts, it's more likely that the open carry laws will get hit first.

I want to note that although I personally oppose open-carry because of the backlash I believe we would face, I still have a link to OpenCarry.org in the links thread here on TexasCHLforum.com. I have read that board and I must say that open-carry supporters are incredibly vicious in their attacks on opponents of open-carry. I went there to invite some of the members to come to TexasCHLforum.com and discuss their views and plans. But when I saw the way they described pro-gun people who disagreed with their position, I decided not to post. As others have noted in another thread, the last thing pro-gun people need now is a divisive fight over open-carry, or any other firearms issue.

Despite the recent success in the legislature, I and countless other people are being indefinitely denied the right to defend myself, my family, and my community with the most popular firearm for self defense. You support the legislation that infringes on my rights in such a fundamental way. That's a divisive issue, and if that's the last thing we need, I suggest you stop supporting the infringement of my rights. That doesn't sound very pro gun to me. It sounds a lot more like supporting reasonable gun control.

Sorry Charles, but if you were sitting in my shoes, I suspect you'd feel the same way. I'll support any bill you get introduced, but what you're supporting is just not enough. I thought it was in August when I applied for the CHL, but clearly now, it's not. I don't accept that this is a take it or leave it proposition. I seriously believe that this isn't going to get resolved until we get court cases filed. I believe we need to be pursuing this in both the legislature and the courts. The TSRA and opencarry.org don't agree with me, but maybe when the open carry bill fails we'll get the court cases. Maybe that's just what we need is to continue to deny the rights of more people just like me. Eventually, the court cases will come.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Are you aware of any other cases where a CHL was convicted of intentionally failing to conceal? There may be more, I'm just not aware of them and none other than McDermott were reported as recently as about 18 to 24 months ago.

No, I'm not aware of any. Thanks for this information.

Most penal statutes have a mens rea (mental state) requirement of "intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly" in order to get a conviction. TPC §46.035(a) requires the much tougher standard of "intentionally" failing to conceal. This was not an accident. In fact, the precise reason I gave for this unique mens rea during my testimony on SB60 was to prevent prosecution of a CHL because the wind blew open his/her coat, or because the bottom of their holster was inadvertently exposed when they reached for the top shelf at the supermarket, or for any other inadvertent exposure.

I have never seen a case of inadvertent exposure resulting in an arrest, prosecution or conviction. If I'm mistaken, please show me the case.
Chas.

I would like to know I'm secure from harassment by police officers. I appreciate your explanation here, but the wording still leaves me concerned that there's room for false arrest. I will support any legislation that eliminates this as an infringement of my 2nd amendment rights.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about. I live in Galveston County and my law office is in Harris County. Could you tell me how and where this is being done?

I have a letter in my possession where DPS has stated that my CHL application is being delayed indefinitely due to hurricane IKE. As I understand, my application is tied up, indefinitely, in Brazoria and Harris counties on background checks. In my opinion, when you delay a fundamental right indefinitely, you don't have the right. We wouldn't tolerate this on our first amendment rights, and we shouldn't tolerate it on the 2nd.

There are delays to be sure and this has been discussed in detail in several different threads. However, DPS hasn't interpreted the current CHL laws as allowing indefinite delays. In fact, DPS has admitted in meetings with Chairman Driver and a representative of Governor Perry that they are "out of statute" (meaning they are late) by as much as 100 days, due to a shortage of personnel. DPS has acknowledged they are not complying with the law, they are not interpreting current law as allowing indefinite delays.

I have been told personally by the DPS on several occasions that they interpret Gov Code 411.177 as allowing them to delay issuance of CHLs indefinitely waiting on background checks. According to the DPS, the law allows Harris county to delay background checks indefinitely, and all DPS has to do is send a letter stating that fact to be in compliance with 411.177. They are interpreting the law as allowing indefinite delays, hence the letter I and countless others have received stating that my application has been delayed indefinitely.

HGWC wrote:I have already drafted two bills to streamline the processing of CHL applications and that should help everyone including DPS, CHL instructors and CHL applicants. If it passes, it should help DPS issue licenses much faster.

That's great. I'd like to hear more about this. I want to see an elimination of the student loan and taxes requirement. I want to see an end to the $140 charge plus $100+ for the training, and I want to see an end to the indefinite delays. Until then, I'm going to support any legislation that will eliminate these restrictions on my fundamental rights. I will simultaneously support legislation that eases restrictions on concealed carry.

We will not risk losing campus-carry, employee parking lots, or other important bills, because someone decided to tack on open-carry.
Chas.

I understand your point about not tying the issues together. However, when the most populace counties in the state are delaying all CHLs indefinitely, I don't see why campus carry and employee parking lots are the top priority. Frankly, if I can't step foot outside of my car with a handgun, I don't see much value in taking it out of the house. If I could get a CHL, then, yes, I would like to know I could at least leave it in my employer's parking lot. If my son could get a CHL, I'd like to know he could carry it with him on campus. Only, I can't get a CHL and nothing in the law is going to change that indefinitely. Until then, I'm supporting the open carry law. I encourage everyone else to as well.