TexasCHLforum.com

Tracker wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I see absolutely no utility to open-carry whatsoever. Some people want it for various reasons, none of which I've heard have anything to do with utility. The testimony today that open-carry reduces crime is utterly without any support or evidence. The testimony that someone carrying concealed would not have time to respond to a deadly attach whereas one carrying openly would be able to respond was laughable! My cover garment adds less than 1/2 second to my draw, if that.

I'm supporting it because I'm a good soldier and the decision was made to promote open-carry.
Chas.

I'm sure you'd be in favor of reducing the charge for display from a Class A to a Class C but I don't understand why that has never been brought to the legislature. That Class A would still apply at universities if campus carry passes.

It's a timing issue. That's not a bill to bring when open-carry is being considered. Reducing the minimum age for a CHL to 18 has gone nowhere in large part because of its impact on campus-carry. My primary bill is HB308 and it's DOA because of the political capital being poured into open-carry and campus-carry. Lest someone accuse me of complaining, I'm just reporting facts without editorial comment.

Timing and tactics are as important in the political and legislative arenas as they are on the battlefield.

Chas.

Ruark wrote:

mojo84 wrote: I like OC for the occasional time that I need or want to remove my cover garment or not have to worry about tucking my shirt over my gun. In other words, convenience and comfort, is why I like it.

Same here. I'm not an OC fanatic, but I do want the freedom to OC when I need or want to. As the guy said back during the early hearings, "sometimes I want to tuck in my shirt, or give my jacket to my wife because it's cold." Maybe I'm working on our place out here, driving the tractor or whatever, in the regulation jeans and t-shirt, and I want to take a break and run to the cafe for lunch, without having to go inside and put on a tropical shirt to cover up my firearm, or run down to the HEB to pick up something. Lots of reasons. I just don't want to have to constantly think about it.

These are excellent examples how open-carry can be convenient in limited circumstances. This approach along with pointing out that there's no reason to prohibit open-carry are how to pass this type of legislation. You will note that neither the NRA nor TSRA have made false claims of reducing crime, greater personal safety, etc. and that is why both organizations have credibility with Senators and Representatives.

Chas.

TexasCajun wrote:And so it begins. A pretty good oc bill is 2/3 of the way to becoming law (passed in the Senate with the governor on board to sign it), ending a restriction that's been in place for 125 years. But rather than see it for the victory that it is, some are going to myopicly bash it because of a few minor concessions. I hope it's not the case, but I suppose this will be the drum beat for the next 2yrs.

You are so right! I can't believe I got involved in this rabbit trail; no more for me.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: It's a timing issue. That's not a bill to bring when open-carry is being considered. Reducing the minimum age for a CHL to 18 has gone nowhere in large part because of its impact on campus-carry. My primary bill is HB308 and it's DOA because of the political capital being poured into open-carry and campus-carry. Lest someone accuse me of complaining, I'm just reporting facts without editorial comment.

Timing and tactics are as important in the political and legislative arenas as they are on the battlefield.

Chas.

I'm sad to hear that HB308 is DOA if given then choice I would much rather it than open-carry but I guess you can't have everything all at once.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Ruark wrote:

mojo84 wrote: I like OC for the occasional time that I need or want to remove my cover garment or not have to worry about tucking my shirt over my gun. In other words, convenience and comfort, is why I like it.

Same here. I'm not an OC fanatic, but I do want the freedom to OC when I need or want to. As the guy said back during the early hearings, "sometimes I want to tuck in my shirt, or give my jacket to my wife because it's cold." Maybe I'm working on our place out here, driving the tractor or whatever, in the regulation jeans and t-shirt, and I want to take a break and run to the cafe for lunch, without having to go inside and put on a tropical shirt to cover up my firearm, or run down to the HEB to pick up something. Lots of reasons. I just don't want to have to constantly think about it.

These are excellent examples how open-carry can be convenient in limited circumstances. This approach along with pointing out that there's no reason to prohibit open-carry are how to pass this type of legislation. You will note that neither the NRA nor TSRA have made false claims of reducing crime, greater personal safety, etc. and that is why both organizations have credibility with Senators and Representatives.

Chas.

New thread to discuss this topic, if so desired. http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=129&t=76754

texasgirl wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: It's a timing issue. That's not a bill to bring when open-carry is being considered. Reducing the minimum age for a CHL to 18 has gone nowhere in large part because of its impact on campus-carry. My primary bill is HB308 and it's DOA because of the political capital being poured into open-carry and campus-carry. Lest someone accuse me of complaining, I'm just reporting facts without editorial comment.'

Timing and tactics are as important in the political and legislative arenas as they are on the battlefield.

Chas.

I'm sad to hear that HB308 is DOA if given then choice I would much rather it than open-carry but I guess you can't have everything all at once.

I totally agree texasgirl. I believe that is the single most important bill for CHL holders in this session. Charles, no chance at all for this bill to progress?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Tracker wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I see absolutely no utility to open-carry whatsoever. Some people want it for various reasons, none of which I've heard have anything to do with utility. The testimony today that open-carry reduces crime is utterly without any support or evidence. The testimony that someone carrying concealed would not have time to respond to a deadly attach whereas one carrying openly would be able to respond was laughable! My cover garment adds less than 1/2 second to my draw, if that.

I'm supporting it because I'm a good soldier and the decision was made to promote open-carry.
Chas.

I'm sure you'd be in favor of reducing the charge for display from a Class A to a Class C but I don't understand why that has never been brought to the legislature. That Class A would still apply at universities if campus carry passes.

It's a timing issue. That's not a bill to bring when open-carry is being considered. Reducing the minimum age for a CHL to 18 has gone nowhere in large part because of its impact on campus-carry. My primary bill is HB308 and it's DOA because of the political capital being poured into open-carry and campus-carry. Lest someone accuse me of complaining, I'm just reporting facts without editorial comment.

Timing and tactics are as important in the political and legislative arenas as they are on the battlefield.

Chas.

I am not happy if HB308 is dead. This is the off limit area bill?

SB11 will come to the floor today and the session recently began.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

RogueUSMC wrote:I don't see trading strategic advantage for tactical speed to be and even trade tho...

This is the voice of experience. Theory is great, right up to the point one learns the theory was wrong.

Chas.

Exactly.

Battles won by denying intel to your enemy FAR outnumber those won by the speed of your tanks. USN's CVN battle groups can project an awesome presence, but most of the time, they disappear. When other countries know that presence is out there but don't know where, it keeps them from feeling like they can get froggy.

As I have said before, in ANY self-defense situation, you start out playing catch-up ball. Why make an unknown known when it puts your opponent at a disadvantage when it is an unknown variable?

All of the above is assuming that the BGs use logical thought processes. The fact that they don't a lot of times makes THAT the unknown variable WE have to deal with.

I, personally, am not going to give up a strategic advantage for a possible tactical advantage. Just because I have a gun in a given situation doesn't mean I have to use it. If it is known by all that I have it, the chances of it being necessary to deploy it go up steeply.

Very well put RogueUSMC! Thank you for putting it that way, which makes perfect sense!

C-dub wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:A half a second can be the difference between living and dying.

It can be faster for most people. but that 0.5 second difference is negligible to meaningless for most people. I suspect the number of folks that are of Jerry Miculek competency with a handgun is extremely small so that 0.5 seconds would make a difference. Most all the theories about OC preventing a crime are just that. Theories without any stats to support them. Same as all the blood in the streets theories from the left when any pro-gun rights laws are passed.

actually I think that half a second is in bigger play when you are in a life threatening situation. What if your handgun gets caught up in your cover garment or it interferes with your grasp? We can do this all day long. Crime goes down when people carry openly or concealed. Please show me the statistics where individuals have been shot first or killed in a robbery because they were openly carrying in states that permit it.

I would like anyone to provide data on how many individuals have been killed while openly carrying.

SB273 on floor now

CJD wrote:SB273 on floor now

W00t!!

SB 273 is up right now in the Senate.

SB273 passed to engrossment!