TexasCHLforum.com

lrb111 wrote:

nedmoore wrote:Texas Monthly did a piece on him this month. It is the issue with "The Red Headed Stranger" on the cover.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/2008-05-01/feature4.php

This is a very good article. Coming from the Texas Monthly, I'm shocked!

Chas.

Just when you'd nearly lost all faith in our public officials, one comes along and surprises us.

Way to go, Jerry!

That is really a great article! I only have a beef with one statement: "The fact that, other than a few blue quail, there is virtually no game in the Christmas Mountains does not deter him from this view." At least at one time there were a lot of desert mule deer in those mountains, and I have the proof of one such buck hanging in my office. DMG.

DMG wrote:That is really a great article! I only have a beef with one statement: "The fact that, other than a few blue quail, there is virtually no game in the Christmas Mountains does not deter him from this view." At least at one time there were a lot of desert mule deer in those mountains, and I have the proof of one such buck hanging in my office. DMG.

You don't actually expect any journalist to have any knowledge about what they are writing about, do you?

I think they stopped teaching that decades ago.

Anygunanywhere

I also sent a thank you to Commissioner Patterson. Thank you for the link.

I sent him a thanks also ,thanks for the link.

I often feel disenfranchised when it comes to modern politics, because when I head to the polls I usually have to decide which candidate I disagree with least. I hope to have an alternative to that in the future with Mr. Patterson.

I wonder if Commissioner Patterson is a Member of this Forum? If he is not, it would be nice to have him here.
Maybe someone with some contacts (NOT Me) could offer an invitation to him?

Glad 1) that he is protecting the God given right to keep and bear arms and 2) that he is not going to give land owned by the State of Texas to the Federal government. (Government has too much land already) Personally I'd rather it be in private hands that state or federal...but since whoever donated it wished it to be public lands well, that was the agreement. Better state than federal. I trust the state to defend my rights better than the feds.

Doug.38PR wrote:Glad 1) that he is protecting the God given right to keep and bear arms and 2) that he is not going to give land owned by the State of Texas to the Federal government. (Government has too much land already) Personally I'd rather it be in private hands that state or federal...but since whoever donated it wished it to be public lands well, that was the agreement. Better state than federal. I trust the state to defend my rights better than the feds.

I feel the same way, but their is a rules change under concideration for the Bureau of Land Management, to allow state rules for CHL carry. Issues like this, can be a carrot that tempts the bureaucratic undecided to see things our way. Patterson is a clever politician and is smarter than most. He knows how to win friends to his cause and influence others to see things his way. He also understands the importance of timing. If we get the rules change and the park falls to the Feds hands, I would credit Jerry with a good trade, and excellent statesmanship.

I guess you can just call me an old-fashioned believer in the wisdom of those who penned the Bill of Rights and not much of a believer in the wisdom of editorial boards.

I loved that quote by Patterson. It's great to see a politician stand up for his principles instead of yielding to a newspaper.

I sent him a thank you.

I looked up some other articles in other papers about this. I really don't appreciate the slant they're putting on it. They're trying to make Mr. Patterson out to be nothing more than a pain in the backside. They're making the issue guns for hunting as opposed to the RKBA for protection. They give me the impression that think "redneck hunters just want to be able to have their guns and hunt the land". Which, in my opinion, is not entirely if at all the case. It seems to me that Mr. Patterson's goal is to allow people to carry firearms for protection, not neccessarily hunting. As a hunter, I have no problem not being able to hunt on lands like that. I have the utmost respect for wildlife and nature, and I'm all for conservation. But dog gone it, if I'm out with my family and a rabid coyote, or a mountain lion or something else becomes a threat, I want to be able to do something more than throw my baloney sandwich at it! It's an issue of our right to protect ourselves. Hunting has little or nothing to do with carrying in a place like that.