TexasCHLforum.com

texasjeep44 wrote:If you don't already open carry a long gun, why don't you? I will go ahead and answer that for you. You don't want the attention you would draw when going to the local store, movie theater, restaurant or whereever. You don't want the results of what would happen after the man with gun call when into the local PD.

If you simply want your rights to be able to openly carry a handgun restored, well, it has been well over 100 years since Texans have had that right. Doing it this particular legislative session isn't going to make a big deal in the scope of things. Thinking that a law on the books that will allow for open carry will magically make things right is very narrow minded. As many have pointed out, it may very well result in limiting everyones right to carry a handgun whether or openly or concealed.

No offense, but if you had read this complete thread or my post above I think you would know this is not even close to what I think.

First, this bill is no good. When you say “narrow minded” I think you a probably referring to those folks that think this bill is great. I have said it throughout this thread, but will say it one more time. Passing OC would be great, but passing at the expense of CHL holders would be no good.

Second, just because one doesn’t exercise a right doesn’t mean it isn’t a right. Does everyone vote in every election? No. Should we all have this right, yes. Does everyone go to church each and every Sunday, not everyone I know, but I am sure they are all glad they have the right.

And as for your long gun comment, I think there is a difference between what is right and what is prudent. One should never exercise their rights in a way which would garner more attention than they are comfortable with. Some folks are comfortable with OC'ing. I did it for years in VA and never encountered any issues. Other are not comfortable with the concept, which is fine as well as well.

Bottom line...the right still exsit.

TXlaw1 wrote:
Well said. I was a peace officer for 25 years. The only time we could open carry was when in uniform. Otherwise it was concealed carry only. What is the need for citizens to open carry when they can have the advantage of concealed carry if confronted with a perp who wants to do them harm? Is there really research that shows that open carry deters crime? If so, I'd like to be pointed to it.

What is the need for free speech? People say some pretty shocking things, should we regulate that as well?

Also if the challenge is to show statistical evidence that open carry deters crime, I would put the same challenge to you about concealed carry.

I think rights outweigh feelings, and that I can prove. IMHO, this bill stinks; but let's not lose sight of our rights.

steveincowtown wrote:I am sure that Mr. Cotton is smart enough to have some sort of plan (with regards to the 30.06 portion of this bill), but wise enough not to share it in a public forum.

mgood wrote: That's probably not a top secret plan, just common sense.

Who said it was top secret?

JKTex wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:The current bill stinks, without a change to the 30.06 part (IMHO). Besides staying "neutral" what has the TSRA/NRA done to address the concerns of CHL holders?

They have their agenda committed to gun rights and that's their priority. I certainly can't speak for either, but when someone else introduces a bill that turns out to be a train wreck waiting to happen, if they can do anything, it's to protect us, whatever that may mean. If it looks like it does make it on the calendar, in the least the changes need to be pulled out so concealed carry is not jeopardized. It's almost unfair to expect them to do anything when they're scrambling to get their primary agenda worked, which from the looks of it, they may get it done this session (both campus carry and parking lot).

I asked another member in another post, it's easy to expect someone else to do something, but what have YOU done?

I have written my reps encouraging them to support the 2nd Amendment and bills that come before them that expand these rights, but warning them that the portion of this bill which has to do with 30.06 could be detrimental to the rights already enjoyed by CHL holders.

My question wasn’t “why isn’t NRA/TSRA supporting this bill” my question is what are they actively doing prevent the 30.06 portion from going forward if the bill hits the floor. I know that they already have an agenda, game plan, etc.

Teams also have an agenda/game plane at the beginning of every ball game. Unfortunately this has to be flexible and adapt to what the other team is doing.
Thinking about it more, I am sure that Mr. Cotton is smart enough to have some sort of plan (with regards to the 30.06 portion of this bill), but wise enough not to share it in a public forum.

The current bill stinks, without a change to the 30.06 part (IMHO). Besides staying "neutral" what has the TSRA/NRA done to address the concerns of CHL holders?

Purplehood wrote:
Lets stay on track. You said "lots of people", and that is what I would dispute and have seen no evidence to support that. Do I honestly think that folks carry without a license? Yes. But I doubt that "lots" of them do so.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administra ... rt2009.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unlawful Carry of a Weapon 2009 2523 Convictions
Poss of a weapon by a Felon 2009 1474 Convictions

Now, I will concede that weapon doesn't equal handgun all of the time. I don't know the conviction rate (and can't find it) for this crime, but I would think many more arrest are happening than conviction. I would also think that amount of people committing this crime and not getting caught is exponentially more.

If this bill passed in its current format (which is no beuno for CHler's IMHO) signs could increase, and probably would.

But…

Keith B wrote: And, this goes to prove the theory that IF open carry gets any steam, that the increase in 30.06 postings IS factual.

If the bill was written correctly 30.06 would not have anything to do with CHL. I don’t think the majority of OC’ers care about what affect their legislation may have on CHL’ers. However, CHL’ers better start caring soon about the affects of OC legislation, and come up with a game plan to redirect this and future legislature in a direction that make us OC’ers and CHL’ers happy.

First, thanks to Charles for yet another well thought out/informative reply. There is so much great information for CHl'ers on ths board.

Second, Flint pretty much sumed up my post with this:

flintknapper wrote:Now...I am the first to agree...there is a time, place and method to do things. But Open Carry (the issue/notion) has already arrived and will need to be addressed. IF the NRA/TSRA/Other's do not like what they have seen thus far, then they had better get started addressing the issue as they would have it done.

If the TSRA/NRA were involved next session, I think there would be a lot better of a chance of a bill being producted that protects CHL'ers current rights while reclaiming our 2A rights in general. Don't discount the OCDO folks, their good intentioned (I hope) bill this session may not get passsed this session, but there is a 100% chance they will have a new bill in 2 years if it doesn't. Who knows what that bill will look like...

Paragrouper wrote:I'm not sure I buy into HB2756.

As things stand now, I seldom encounter a 30:06 sign when I am out and about and I believe that part of that is due in part to the "concealed" aspect of the current law. I believe it is likely that more establishments would elect to post signs and "opt-out" as current law permits, if HB 2756 is passed in its current form. I'm more inclined to believe that more thought needs to be put into how to 'effectively' implement such a law before it's put forth and this last minute bill could potentially do more harm than good.



I'm more interested in the outcome of HB681 and SB354.

‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

I am not saying the bill is evil, but if TSRA/NRA/etc. (good men) do nothing on OC, someone will. We are seeing this play out right now. I am 100% for Constituional Carry, but it seems like absent the experts (lawyers and those who lead the charge for CC) crafting a bill that makes sense, bills that endanger our CHL rights will come up. Exhibit A= HB2756

The best defense is a good offense.

(One cliché free with the purchase of greater or equal cliché. Today only)

jecsd1 wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:

jecsd1 wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:Pardon my ignorance here, but can TSRA or NRA approach a Sentate member so that the companion bill (if it happens) has better language about 30.06 signs?

Had HB 2756 been left as originally drafted there would be no concern about 30.06. It was drafted as constitutional carry with no mention of 30.06 but certain "individuals" got their hands on it in League and changed it to licensed OC. Either way, this preoccupation with extra 30.06 signs is as silly as the blood in the streets talk 15 years ago when CHL got started. Think critically and stop believing everything you're fed.

This has nothing do with what I have been “fed” but what I have actual “read’ in the bill.

I am for OC, and beyond that I am for Constituional Carry. I wish someone with the minds (and lawyers) that the TSRA and the NRA would have worked out a bill before Rep. Lavender's bill came about. It surely would have been better written with fewer chances for confusion.

TSRA MEMBERS have been asking for OC support for years. Their response was that they would not push OC until the members wanted it.

When asked "how do you poll the members to see what they want?" they responded with "there us no official polling method."

So then, I ask, how do they have any clue what Texans want?

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.

Ok, now that I have been "fed" and "drank the kool aid" in one thread I am full. You can stop now.

This is what I am saying; As the bill stands today, the 30.06 language is bad. Whether it was placed there in the original bill, was placed there covertly by the TSRA, or magically appeared there through some twisted Harry Potter curse, the fact is the language is there. The purpose of the comment was to provide a productive discussion on how to remove this language, not a history lesson on how it got there.

jecsd1 wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:Pardon my ignorance here, but can TSRA or NRA approach a Sentate member so that the companion bill (if it happens) has better language about 30.06 signs?

Had HB 2756 been left as originally drafted there would be no concern about 30.06. It was drafted as constitutional carry with no mention of 30.06 but certain "individuals" got their hands on it in League and changed it to licensed OC. Either way, this preoccupation with extra 30.06 signs is as silly as the blood in the streets talk 15 years ago when CHL got started. Think critically and stop believing everything you're fed.

This has nothing do with what I have been “fed” but what I have actual “read’ in the bill.

I am for OC, and beyond that I am for Constituional Carry. I wish someone with the minds (and lawyers) that the TSRA and the NRA would have worked out a bill before Rep. Lavender's bill came about. It surely would have been better written with fewer chances for confusion.

Pardon my ignorance here, but can TSRA or NRA approach a Sentate member so that the companion bill (if it happens) has better language about 30.06 signs?