TexasCHLforum.com

I'll be honest I don't like the way this bill came about, I don't particularly like the way it's going, however I know enough to tell when I am not getting the full picture and we are not getting the full picture. The TSRA, and Charles, have worked too long and too hard to get us where we are and I know that they are not going to leave this alone. I assure you that Charles and the TSRA are not going to throw a majority of CHLs under the bus in order to help a privileged few. There is a strategy here and I can't tell what it is, but there is something being set into motion and you can bet it will benefit all CHLs at some point.

If I understand it correctly, the bill only allows current legislators the defense to prosecution when carrying in a bar that isn't 30.06 posted and in governmental meetings. The current legislators are said to need this for convenience due to their legislative demands while in office, but the bill covers them until 2020 (not until out of office) and future legislators are not covered at all--they have to be serving in this session for it to apply to them. It seems like a bill written to cover what? Maybe one person in the entire state? And maybe 10 more would benefit?

It appears like it had such a tiny scope of influence that a large number of legislators didn't care and it was a good political trade-off (I'll do this in return for that), but it also appears that the strong backlash from the CHL community was not anticipated for such a "small" bill. Well, by their votes, I think two senators did anticipate it.

Making lemonade out of the lemons, they can add this stipulation of 3 renewals which will cover what? A dozen more people? And enough will still sign on that the proponents get to claim it is a foot-in-the-door measure for all citizens to reclaim their 2A rights.

It's not exactly a good base--defense to prosecution for carrying in a 51% location or a governmental meeting when neither is 30.06 posted after 15 consecutive years of TX CHLs--but the argument that it can be used to expand upon is an accurate one and a good angle if you're stuck with it anyway. The prediction that the next legislature will be less 2A-friendly and the built-in sunset of 2020 make it highly unlikely that this would be amended favorably or significantly next session, and it doesn't seem like an intermediate step worth expending efforts over knowing that to me. I won't do anything to try to oppose it (like asking my senator to vote against it), but I don't want my name associated with promoting it, either. That's just my 2 cents. I understand and respect why others have the viewpoint that anything is better than nothing and to keep moving forward and to do what you can with what you have.

Quote/Question: "they can add this stipulation of 3 renewals which will cover what? A dozen more people?"

Get real! The number of license holders in this category is far more than that. I can think of at least a dozen people in my little market area alone who have fallen into this category since the "exempt from class" change was made in the last session of the legislature.

Agree w/ Graybeard.
I have had several too & I am in Angelina county. Population of Graybeard's precint is probably 1/2 my whole county. There are more CHLs than many think.

As a little history, at the inception of the CHL program in 1995, 50% of all applicants got a 2-year license and 50% got a 4 year license. In simplified terms, this could have rather prompt impact (Sept. 1?) for every one of those people who got a 2-year license initially. And it won't be long before impacting those who got a 4 year license. At least for the "die hards" who have maintained the license continuously. Heck, I probably have at least "a dozen" of those just in my cell phone contacts! And am forwarding this link to even more in my e-mail contact list.

Those who've maintained a CHL for most of the time but let the renewal grace period pass so that they didn't get a renewal but got a new license wouldn't be eligible as it would be three renewals. I would be happy to be corrected (hopefully not tediously one person at a time) on the percentage of CHL holders who fit this category. If it is a significant number, I will amend my thoughts on the matter accordingly.

I bet it's tens of thousands but not hundreds of thousands.

I still think it's worthwhile as a foot-in-the-door measure.

It won't apply to me. I took the class in . . I believe it was January '96. But didn't have the $70 to send to the state for my 2-year license. It was actually two or three years later when I got around to sending it in, after I called to ask if it was still good. My first license was a 2-year license which expired in 2001. (I may have had the last active 2-year license ) I didn't take the class again until 2008.

Licenses issued in:

1996 - 114,017 (half 2 year, half 4 year)
1997 - 50,130 (2001, 2005, 2010)
1998 - 51,186 (2002, 2006, 2011)
1999 - 48,765 (2003, 2007, 2012)

So, for those likely in a position to take advantage, I see 264,098 licenses issued in this span.

If we assumed the short term and long term attrition to be 50%, we'd be talking about 132,000.

I'm just guessing here, but I think 25% attrition would be closer, yielding 198,087.

G26ster wrote:I'm really, really tired of all the special classes of people when it come to gun laws. This is just another example.

I have to agree. Though I first got mine in '96, I've always considered it a 'necessary evil', at best.
The notion that I (or anyone else) need a license to protect and defend .... is elitist nonsense!

Ok, I know I am going to be labeled something that I am not, but then again it really doesn't matter...

The question you have to ask yourself is this...

"What is the difference between someone who has had their license since say, ohhhhh, 1996...And someone who just got their plastic yesterday???"

This website, which is the best thing I've seen on gun and carry issues since the mid 90's, is a testament to the knowledge base of a wide range of experience levels on guns, carry methods, political and social experiences, law enforcement, military, etc etc etc...

I personally do not find much difference in the level of CHL knowledge and proficiency between myself, and anyone else "new" on the scene...I believe there is an instant mindset increase after just a few hours of reading, and commenting on this website...It's like playing golf, you play much better of you played with Michelson or some other pro, if you are new to the game, you increase your knowledge and try ideas you may, or may never have thought of...But the bottom line is, we all "hit the ball"...

So, in a sense I do not see a difference in the need to elevate people, like myself, over those new to the whole licensing thing...

I see no downside in including everyone in this deal...I do not agree in excluding those who are new to the CHL community...We have strength as equals in this fight, and to relegate those new to the system to some second grade CHL'ers, in my opinion is an insult, and devisive to our cause...

Either we all get this "tweek", or shelve it till we get a clearer idea on how this will really play out...

Just my opinion...

Hoi Polloi wrote:If I understand it correctly, the bill only allows current legislators the defense to prosecution when carrying in a bar that isn't 30.06 posted and in governmental meetings. The current legislators are said to need this for convenience due to their legislative demands while in office, but the bill covers them until 2020 (not until out of office) and future legislators are not covered at all--they have to be serving in this session for it to apply to them. It seems like a bill written to cover what? Maybe one person in the entire state? And maybe 10 more would benefit?

You are mistaken; it applies to all members of the legislature, per the amendment to (h-1). The new subsection (h-2) applies to people who are legislators now, but who cease to be thereafter. Only (h-2) sunsets.

SB905 wrote:(h-2) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsections
(b)(1), (2), and (4)-(6), and (c) that at the time of the commission
of the offense, the actor was a person who on September 1, 2011, was
serving as a member of the legislature and possessed a concealed
handgun license under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
if the person is no longer a member at the time of the offense and if
the license has not yet been subject to renewal since the person
ceased to be a member. This subsection expires on September 1,
2020.

Hoi Polloi wrote:It's not exactly a good base--defense to prosecution for carrying in a 51% location or a governmental meeting when neither is 30.06 posted after 15 consecutive years of TX CHLs . . .

Everything that is not listed as an "exception" is a defense to prosecution, regardless of the label. All of the "not applicable" provisions set out in TPC §46.15 are actually defenses to prosecution and this includes LEO, CHL's, everyone in those categories. Thus, a COP on duty in uniform can be arrested for unlawful carrying of a weapon. It doesn't happen because he/she will win (and the DA won't accept charges). The same can be said for CHL's.

Hoi Polloi wrote:The prediction that the next legislature will be less 2A-friendly . . .

This was the prediction for the 2008/2009 election/session as it was for the 2010/2011 election/session. Predictions were right for 2008/2009 and grossly wrong for 2010/1011. I see no basis for a claim that the Texas Legislature will be less friendly to gun rights in 2013. It could happen, but there's no reason to think it will, especially with the President up for reelection in 2012.

Chas.

Mike1951 wrote:Licenses issued in:

1996 - 114,017 (half 2 year, half 4 year)
1997 - 50,130 (2001, 2005, 2010)
1998 - 51,186 (2002, 2006, 2011)
1999 - 48,765 (2003, 2007, 2012)

So, for those likely in a position to take advantage, I see 264,098 licenses issued in this span.

If we assumed the short term and long term attrition to be 50%, we'd be talking about 132,000.

I'm just guessing here, but I think 25% attrition would be closer, yielding 198,087.

I suspect your numbers are pretty close to right, if not understated. In the last 5 years at the PSC Shooting Club, I think I've had 3 or 4 people tell me they previously had a CHL and let it expire.

Chas.

Initial license 1998
Renewal 1 - 2002
Renewal 2 - 2006
Renewal 3 - 2011 (just completed last month)

So this amendment definitely will help me.

I fully understand the frustration of those who would be "left out". But I do think there is huge political upside with this move for RKBA cause in general ... if for nothing else it gets people talking, why is a legislator better qualified to carry than someone average Joe who's been doing so lawfully for more than a decade? For that matter, why is ANY legislator more entitled to protection than any other average law-abiding citizen?

Think of it this way, there are two possible outcomes:


1. Bill passes and some CHLs rights are immediately expanded, while others will wait til third renewal or future change in law

2. Amendment sours many legislators on this bill, they vote against the whole bill, it DOES NOT PASS, thus no special class for legislators AND their hypocrisy is exposed publicly.

Supporting this seems like a win-win.

The thing is - everyone is applying rational thought to something that is frequently completely irrational - politics and politicians!

Sometimes you can go for the jugular move - but more frequently politics is a chess game - small moves that appear disconnected come together later to get what you wanted from the get go.

Yes, we all know that folks that have renewed 3 times are the same law abiding folks as people that got their license yesterday. But if the coalition of politicians that we have to work with won't go for the jugular approach - all CHL holders exempt now - is it better to give up and get nothing, or set the moves in play to be finished next session?

In 2013, It is easier to say in a bill, "we've had all 3rd renewal chl holders exempt, and like we said, there have been no issues. This bill removes the renewal restriction"

Human emotion wants to slam any bill that doesn't do something for me personally - fight down that feeling and look at the endgame.

Also remember that we're seeing a possible pathway to all chl holders getting restrictions lessened in time - this is a testament to Charles, Alice and TSRA to get something from a bill that was A) going to pass no matter what anyway and B) almost universally slammed here.

Carrying in a 51% location is a big deal - it has taken other states several sessions and a lot of public blowback - this is a quieter way that can get us there.

Could the third renewal requirement, roughly 10 years of "experience" carrying a gun, be some attempt at equivalency to the 10 years of service requirement for a retired LEO under LEOSA? Basically saying after anyone - LEO or otherwise - has proven for 10 years they can carry a gun without incident, then that's good enough to let them carry in these "more sensitive" locations?

Just a thought