TexasCHLforum.com

All this is giving me a headache!

I stated my list earlier on what is important to me.
Campus Carry
Parking lot
...and way down the list, OC.
I am a TSRA member and this is my single vote.

Why would you expect the TSRA to be "responsible" to the General Public? I don't get that one at all.

I do not and cannot speak for the TSRA.

During the 25 years I have worked with TSRA as free legislative counsel, and during the one year I served as Executive Director, we have approached legislative issues in much the same way as then-Senator Jerry Patterson (now Texas Land Commissioner) expressed his feelings about supporting or opposing bills. Senator Patterson was speaking during a hearing on a bill (can't recall if it was SB60 or not) when he made the following statement;

• I believe that I have both discretionary and nondiscretionary votes. If my constituents have have contacted me and told me how they want me to vote on a bill or issue, then it's a nondiscretionary vote for me because I feel it is my duty to support the wishes of the people I represent. If my constituents have not contacted me on a bill or issue, or if the people I represent are pretty evenly split on an issue, then I have the discretion to vote on the bill as I see fit.

TSRA gathers information from several different sources and this information is used in setting its legislative agenda. One of the primary information sources is its Members, the people who support the organization with their money, and with some members their labor as well. Other information sources include reports from non-members, input from legislators and public employees, news reports, and some I cannot disclose.

After gathering all of this information, TSRA identifies issues that are candidates for appearing on the legislative agenda. From this beginning point, the issues that will be addressed are identified and the input from Members is of great significance. Following what I call the "Patterson Principle," issues that are of great importance to our Members as determined from their input are evaluated and a decision is made as to how TSRA should approach passing a bill (or repealing a law). Some issues are more emotional and have greater opposition, thus they require much more work and the expenditure of a lot of money and political capital. Some issues can be flown under the radar and don't require as much labor and resources.

Other critical factors in setting a legislative agenda are the make-up of the legislature, committees, chairmen and committee members. Often an issue that would pass the House and Senate will never get to the floor because the subject matter of the bill will send it to an unfavorable committee or committee chairman and the bill will never get a hearing. The House Calendars Committee is another major hurdle to getting a bill to the House Floor for a debate. If we know the Chairman is against the bill, or that the Speaker of the House opposes it and/or will not pressure the Chairman of Calendars, then that knowledge is factored into if or when we get a bill introduced. If there is a lot of opposition as there was for the original concealed-carry bill, unlicensed car-carry, employer parking lots, or campus-carry just to name recent bills, then we do a lot more ground work preparing for the session when we introduce a bill. (Sorry, I can't disclose what we do.)

Once a decision is made on TSRA/NRA “Flagship Bills,” attention is turned to deciding what other issues should be and can be addressed. Our information gathering procedures often identify issues that warrant our involvement, but we haven’t heard from our Members one way or the other. Following the “Patterson Principle,” these are what I refer to as discretionary issues; ones that we can take on in good conscience, so long as doing so won’t detract from passing our “Flagship bills.” Much of the CHL clean-up work fell into this category, as well as numerous other bills.

While “Flagship bills” are TSRA’s and NRA’s primary focus during a session, not all such bills are controversial or face stiff opposition. When there is little opposition TSRA/NRA can promote a larger Legislative Agenda, but the converse is also true. When “Flagship Bills” face stiff opposition, then there simply isn’t enough time, money and political capital to take on a large Legislative Agenda. We try not to have more than one controversial “Flagship Bill” but it sometimes happens as it has with employer parking lots and campus-carry. However, when you designate bills as “Flagship Bills,” you must continue to push then in subsequent sessions, or legislators will come to think you are crying wolf and the bills weren’t as important as you claimed. This is why we have both employer parking lots and campus-carry on our agenda.

This is a very broad overview and many details are not included in this narrative. Some have been left out in the interest of brevity and some I simply cannot disclose. There are also exceptions to the general rules that govern our approach. Nevertheless, I hope this explanation shows that a great deal of thought and planning goes into determining what, when and how issues are placed on the NRA and TSRA legislative agendas. More importantly, I hope it shows why high profile, emotionally charged issues that are of importance only to a few people don’t find they way into the legislative agenda. There is only so much that can be accomplished in any given session (they are all different) and when we get past the “Flagship Bills” TSRA must spend its remaining money, political capital and time on issues that will provide the greatest benefit for the most people.

I’m not foolish enough to think this is going to satisfy the most ardent OC supporters, but this is how the system works. It has worked well for many years and experienced activists and lobbyists aren’t going to abandon proven tactics and approaches. Those OC supporters who cannot accept this should try something different; perhaps we’ll all learn something new. Then again, perhaps we won’t. One thing is certain, ridiculing those pro-gun people who don’t share your passion for open-carry does not advance your cause. I'm a good soldier and if an organization I represent decides to promote open-carry, then I will champion the cause as vigorously as I did concealed-carry and every other bill I have supported in the last 25 years. But until then, all of the obnoxious, insulting, condescending and juvenile attacks on the TSRA, NRA and me personally won't get me into the fight for open-carry. I suspect most rational pro-gun people feel the same way.

Chas.

Thank you for sharing that information Charles.

It answers many of the questions I had.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:...all of the obnoxious, insulting, condescending and juvenile attacks on the TSRA, NRA and me personally won't get me into the fight for open-carry. I suspect most rational pro-gun people feel the same way.

Chas.

Yep - same here. And I still don't like the idea of open carry for the same reason stated on Mr. Cotton's first post in this thread.

Thanks Charles! Keep fighting the good fight.
We have a lot of work to do and I know you will do your part to protect our rights.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:But until then, all of the obnoxious, insulting, condescending and juvenile attacks on the TSRA, NRA and me personally won't get me into the fight for open-carry.

Who did this?

Bullwhip wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:But until then, all of the obnoxious, insulting, condescending and juvenile attacks on the TSRA, NRA and me personally won't get me into the fight for open-carry.

Who did this?

There were a lot of Open Carry proponents last session that were VERY nasty and bullying in their talking about the TSRA, and even Charles personally, for not taking up with them and championing open carry legislation.

And, all you have to do is just read through this thread and you can see that there are some who are chastising the TSRA, NRA, and Charles personally for not reading their minds and taking on their personal agenda (open carry or other items). Don't need to quote names, you can see who they are when you read it.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

jsimmons wrote:Wow - I'm famous. :)

I want constitutional carry. Period. <SNIP>

You're out of line, calling more rational heads "afraid." We're not afraid. We're just political realists. And by the way, we are political realists who share long term goals with OC militants, but who also understand that this is a process, and that other humans whose passions may not equal your own are involved, and they have to be persuaded rather than browbeaten if we want them to react favorably to the pro gun rights proposals. That is just the boots on the ground reality of the thing, and OCDO's refusal to understand and accept that reality is the political equivalent of stamping their little feet and threatening to have a tantrum if they don't get their way.... ...and everyone else can go to hades.

And you think that will turn legislators who have doubts or are undecided into supporters who will vote in favor of OC? Please.

I am with TAM here. Though I believe that licensing law abiding citizens to carry is an infringement; I am pragmatic. Our rights have been eroded and the legislature and citizenry have a certain conditioning that are part and parcel that must be overcome; but not by shock and awe. We have a REAL chance to pass campus carry and the parking lot bill. Let's boil that frog, gain ground, and quit being belligerent.

Concealed has many advantages, social and tactical. Open carry has its place though limited as a practical mode. A more realistic move would be to remove the failure to conceal penalties, like they did for failing to exhibit the license.

Dragonfighter wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

jsimmons wrote:Wow - I'm famous. :)


Concealed has many advantages, social and tactical. Open carry has its place though limited as a practical mode. A more realistic move would be to remove the failure to conceal penalties, like they did for failing to exhibit the license.

I couldn't have stated it better ! OC is sort of like driving a convertible with the top down. Just can't do it all of the time, or even for very long if you are engaged in commerce or social intercourse of any sort. It is still educational and beneficial to strengthening respect for the RTKBA to show the general public that a holstered handgun on the belt of a mature, responsible, polite, and respectful citizen is no cause for alarm.

I call for a cease-fire from both positions. This "OC" movement may have gotten off to a bad start 2 years ago. That is unfortunate, but does not justify continuation of all of the antagonism. I spend 1/2 of my time in Colorado - the other half in Texas. I can display to my hearts content in Colorado during the Summer months. To be honest I can't say that I display any more in CO than in TX. And when I have displayed in CO - quite frankly it was a bit of a novelty for me. The bottom line (if there be one) is that the sight of a holstered handgun peacefully displayed in a mature, responsible, and respectful manner is probably LESS ALARMING to most people than a .30/.30 cradled in the hand. And neither should be "criminal" offenses unless section 42.01 (a)(8) is violated (disorderly conduct resulting from display of a firearm in public with intent to alarm).

I think there is less actual disagreement on this display issue than might be deduced from some of the rhetoric exchanged, and the revisiting of the past offenses. When I got my first CHL in the Spring of 1996 - I recall a classroom topic being covered called non-violent conflict resolution - ring any bells ? If WE can get CCC, parking lots, and just maybe 46.035 (a) deleted that would be good. The McDonald decision has brought the notion that Texas law may exclude the handgun from the extended federal protection of the 2A RTKBA under serious question and clear grounds for scrutiny.

The Texas constitutional protection of the RTKBA must now be blended with the federal RTKBA. - which makes no distinction between rifles, shotguns, and handguns. The Texas AG worked hard for the successful incorporation in McDonald. Texas never has "banned" handguns , or prohibited them in one's home, but an unconstitutional disparity now exists under Texas law selectively restricting the carry of a handgun everywhere else. This is a constitutional conflict - that deserves attention by the Legislature.

A final thought -The "open carry" terminology may be counter-productive - if its use engenders a similar emotional response to that received by the terms like "open borders", "open-marriage", "open house"- you name it - all allude to a bit of EXCESS and lack of ORDER. I prefer to use the term DISPLAY. The term "Open carry" may play well in most other states, but I think it can potentially conjure up negative visions- particularly in Texas. I'm not suggesting a "name change" is in order -but there are other English terms in the dictionary that address the subject.

PATHFINDER wrote:

Dragonfighter wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

jsimmons wrote:Wow - I'm famous. :)


Concealed has many advantages, social and tactical. Open carry has its place though limited as a practical mode. A more realistic move would be to remove the failure to conceal penalties, like they did for failing to exhibit the license.

I couldn't have stated it better ! OC is sort of like driving a convertible with the top down. Just can't do it all of the time, or even for very long if you are engaged in commerce or social intercourse of any sort. It is still educational and beneficial to strengthening respect for the RTKBA to show the general public that a holstered handgun on the belt of a mature, responsible, polite, and respectful citizen is no cause for alarm.

I call for a cease-fire from both positions. This "OC" movement may have gotten off to a bad start 2 years ago. That is unfortunate, but does not justify continuation of all of the antagonism. I spend 1/2 of my time in Colorado - the other half in Texas. I can display to my hearts content in Colorado during the Summer months. To be honest I can't say that I display any more in CO than in TX. And when I have displayed in CO - quite frankly it was a bit of a novelty for me. The bottom line (if there be one) is that the sight of a holstered handgun peacefully displayed in a mature, responsible, and respectful manner is probably LESS ALARMING to most people than a .30/.30 cradled in the hand. And neither should be "criminal" offenses unless section 42.01 (a)(8) is violated (disorderly conduct resulting from display of a firearm in public with intent to alarm).

I think there is less actual disagreement on this display issue than might be deduced from some of the rhetoric exchanged, and the revisiting of the past offenses. When I got my first CHL in the Spring of 1996 - I recall a classroom topic being covered called non-violent conflict resolution - ring any bells ? If WE can get CCC, parking lots, and just maybe 46.035 (a) deleted that would be good. The McDonald decision has brought the notion that Texas law may exclude the handgun from the extended federal protection of the 2A RTKBA under serious question and clear grounds for scrutiny.

The Texas constitutional protection of the RTKBA must now be blended with the federal RTKBA. - which makes no distinction between rifles, shotguns, and handguns. The Texas AG worked hard for the successful incorporation in McDonald. Texas never has "banned" handguns , or prohibited them in one's home, but an unconstitutional disparity now exists under Texas law selectively restricting the carry of a handgun everywhere else. This is a constitutional conflict - that deserves attention by the Legislature.

A final thought -The "open carry" terminology may be counter-productive - if its use engenders a similar emotional response to that received by the terms like "open borders", "open-marriage", "open house"- you name it - all allude to a bit of EXCESS and lack of ORDER. I prefer to use the term DISPLAY. The term "Open carry" may play well in most other states, but I think it can potentially conjure up negative visions- particularly in Texas. I'm not suggesting a "name change" is in order -but there are other English terms in the dictionary that address the subject.

Well put! One of the most well thought out posts I've seen on the topic.

ScottDLS, I concur. Perhaps dropping the term open carry and promoting the term unconcealed carry would help. Or working to remove the penalty for failure to conceal.

Keith B wrote:

Bullwhip wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:But until then, all of the obnoxious, insulting, condescending and juvenile attacks on the TSRA, NRA and me personally won't get me into the fight for open-carry.

Who did this?

There were a lot of Open Carry proponents last session that were VERY nasty and bullying in their talking about the TSRA, and even Charles personally

Here's a great example. http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 15#p451982" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pacific Rim Job wrote:

Keith B wrote:

Bullwhip wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:But until then, all of the obnoxious, insulting, condescending and juvenile attacks on the TSRA, NRA and me personally won't get me into the fight for open-carry.

Who did this?

There were a lot of Open Carry proponents last session that were VERY nasty and bullying in their talking about the TSRA, and even Charles personally

Here's a great example. http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 15#p451982" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Huh? Sorry, I'm lost. I asked "who", Keith B didn't answer, just said "some people".

Then PRJ gave a link that didn't show anyone being nasty, wasn't about OC, was about campus carry.

I'm confused. ???

Bullwhip wrote:

Pacific Rim Job wrote:

Keith B wrote:

Bullwhip wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:But until then, all of the obnoxious, insulting, condescending and juvenile attacks on the TSRA, NRA and me personally won't get me into the fight for open-carry.

Who did this?

There were a lot of Open Carry proponents last session that were VERY nasty and bullying in their talking about the TSRA, and even Charles personally

Here's a great example. http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 15#p451982" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Huh? Sorry, I'm lost. I asked "who", Keith B didn't answer, just said "some people".

Then PRJ gave a link that didn't show anyone being nasty, wasn't about OC, was about campus carry.

I'm confused. ???

Mike Stollenwerk and John Pierce for a couple. http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum66/21471-3.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. And there were several others who were upset because the NRA and/or TSRA didn't blindly follow the Open Carry push that his organization wanted to try force into legislation. There was even a representative ready to help draft an Open Carry bill in 2008 and the tactics used on her trying to bully her into pushing it caused her to totally drop the idea.

Here are a few threads
viewtopic.php?f=92&t=21374" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?f=94&t=22578" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
viewtopic.php?f=92&t=23344" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;