TexasCHLforum.com

DEB wrote:Open carry will probably not pass in Texas, at least in the near future. With that said, I would like to see something passed such as that suggested by Florida, i.e. HB 45, which protects concealed weapons permit holders from being prosecuted if their guns are accidentally exposed. I know Texas already has something like this, but I would like to see it strengthened, where a huge burden of proof would be required by L.E. prior to arrest and seizure. My greatest fear, and much of my money on IWB holsters, are in my concerns of L.E. arresting me just due me bending over to pick something up or through a chance gust of wind. I personally don't have the money or time to be spent on proving it was an accident, while an anti-CCW L.E. officer claims are different.

I went to my son-in-law's house yesterday. Worked all day in pants and t-shirt cutting down two trees. Climbed the trees a couple of times. Held ropes, carried limbs to the pile, went up and down tall ladders, etc., etc. Took several breaks where we all sat and drank cold waters . Ate supper with the five men and one young boy that were there. Talked to the neighbors and waved to them as they went by. Not one person noticed that I was carrying (IWB, 3 o'clock, P239). Unless you deliberately wear clothing that increases the chances of exposing your weapon (short or skin tight shirts or pants, etc.), I think the fear of exposure is greatly exaggerated. The chances of encountering a hostile LEO is higher, and as you pointed out, that is pretty low. As far as chance gusts of wind go, if it's windy outside, zip it, button it or keep your arm at your side to keep it from coming open.

jecsd1 wrote:Steveincowtown, you're right. The purpose of this is a civilized discourse. I do apologize for my tone but I despise hypocrisy. I will not however rescind anything. The information I received is from the horses mouth. No doubt in my mind as to its validity. You all are, of course, entitled to your opinions.

So, according to you, "the horse's mouth" told you that someone from TSRA edited Rep. Lavendar's bill before he filed it and he didn't notice? Because that's what had to have happened for your claim to be true.

You'll pardon me if I am skeptical.

jecsd1 wrote:And... Contrary to popular belief HB 2756 was indeed drafted as a simple constitutional OC bill with NO mention of amending 30.06. I have personally spoken face to face with the author of the bill and representative Lavender and they have told me that it was fooled with in League Committee by "people" that may or may not be associated w TSRA, to hurt it's chances of passage.

Drink the Koolaid if you like but some of us know the truth.

Prove it.

The archives of committee meetings are publicly available. Provide the link to the one where the language was changed and tell us the time on the video where someone associated with TSRA "fooled with it". I'm betting you can't do it.

Your accusation is slanderous. You'd better back it up. Otherwise you need to rescind it. And no, I'm not a TSRA member.

EDIT: Following up on this, I went to the House website and looked up HB 2756. The bill as introduced included the 30.06 language and was reported favorably without amendment. So Lavender either put the language in the bill himself or was blissfully unaware that someone had changed the language of the bill without his knowledge before he filed it.

The minutes of the committee meeting state that "The chair recognized Representative Lavender to explain HB 2756." So Rep. Lavendar explained the bill to the committee and had to be aware of the 30.06 language.

The witness list does not include anyone from TSRA.

So you've got some 'splainin' to do.

I don't know if this means anything at this late stage, but the House open carry bill was reported favorably without amendments.