View Poll Results: Which bill do you support?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • HB164

    0 0%
  • HB195

    10 100.00%
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Bill vs. bill

  1. #1
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318

    Bill vs. bill

    Here are two OC bills that are filed. I hesitated to even mention the licensed OC bill because I don't want to draw any support toward it, but whatevs. Let's do a poll. Which one looks better?

    Adding unconcealed carry to current CHL http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLoo...84R&Bill=HB164
    Unlicensed carry, concealed or open http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLoo...84R&Bill=HB195
    Advocate freedom please

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Voting for either would signify that we need permission.

  3. #3
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Voting for either would signify that we need permission.
    Pft no it most certainly does not. what's signified by me is my words, verbatim. I will use tools available to me to help restore and protect my ability to exercise my rights uninhibited.
    Advocate freedom please

  4. #4
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Licensed OC bill is bad. They define OC as carry in a shoulder or belt holster.

    Carry using a drop leg? You're going to jail, homes.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Preyn2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Burnet, Tx
    Posts
    13
    Also prefiled: HB 106. I dislike this bill because it requires a license and a "shoulder or belt holster withat least dual points of resistance that is wholly or partiallyvisible."

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Tejas
    Posts
    24
    Gut check:
    Would you support licensed OC as an interim step if unlicensed OC could not muster the votes to pass in 2015?

    Of course unlicensed OC (and CC) is preferred.
    Last edited by RoyGBiv; 11-12-2014 at 04:42 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyGBiv View Post
    Gut check:
    Would you support licensed OC as an interim step if unlicensed OC could not muster the votes to pass in 2015?

    Of course unlicensed OC (and CC) is preferred.
    I would not "support" it but I'd "take" it Am I just mincing words?
    Advocate freedom please

  8. #8
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    I would not "support" it but I'd "take" it Am I just mincing words?
    I oppose it.

    Bill 164
    (8)

    AA
    "Unconcealed handgun" means a loaded or unloaded

    handgun carried upon the person in a shoulder or belt holster that

    is wholly or partially visible.

    Bill 106
    (8)

    AA

    "Unconcealed handgun" means a loaded or unloaded

    handgun carried upon the person in a shoulder or belt holster with

    at least dual points of resistance that is wholly or partially

    visible.




    These two bills are very similar. I'd like to know who is behind them.

  9. #9
    Regular Member qednick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Bandera, TX
    Posts
    524
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    I would not "support" it but I'd "take" it Am I just mincing words?
    +1

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by RoyGBiv View Post
    Gut check:
    Would you support licensed OC as an interim step if unlicensed OC could not muster the votes to pass in 2015?

    Of course unlicensed OC (and CC) is preferred.
    If you do, then you are admitting that they can regulate it .. making "constitutional" carry argument void.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    San Antonio, ,
    Posts
    181
    What do they mean by "dual points of resistance"?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by jsimmons View Post
    What do they mean by "dual points of resistance"?
    They probably 'mean' "dual points of retention" which is a way to describe a holster design that includes snaps, locks, straps, etc. that must be un-snapped, un-locked, un-strapped, etc. before the gun will come out of the holster. I think most uniformed LEOs are issued those types of holsters to make it harder for a bad guy (or a bad child) to grab the weapon. I'm not sure why the bill author(s) use the term 'resistance' instead of 'retention'. The 'retention holster' should also minimize the chances of a gun falling out of the holster if the user gets in an awkward position, like on the back, upside down, running and jumping.

    I also don't understand lots of other confusing phrases and terms used when referring to a firearm topic, like saying 'clip' when they're talking about a 'magazine', and saying 'automatic' when the mean 'semi-automatic', etc. The lawmakers need feedback to address things like this. I also noticed some bills introduced that still refer to the old requirement (Texas) of attending a class for CHL renewals.
    Last edited by papabling; 11-22-2014 at 03:55 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155
    Only politicians make things more complicated than they need to be.

    Simply remove the prohibition on open carry.

    End result? License need for concealed carry, no license needed for open carry. The control people still retain what they presently have, and the freedom people get what they want. Seems to work that way in about 35 of the 57 states.

  14. #14
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by papabling View Post
    They probably 'mean' "dual points of retention" which is a way to describe a holster design that includes snaps, locks, straps, etc. that must be un-snapped, un-locked, un-strapped, etc. before the gun will come out of the holster. I think most uniformed LEOs are issued those types of holsters to make it harder for a bad guy (or a bad child) to grab the weapon. I'm not sure why the bill author(s) use the term 'resistance' instead of 'retention'. The 'retention holster' should also minimize the chances of a gun falling out of the holster if the user gets in an awkward position, like on the back, upside down, running and jumping.

    I also don't understand lots of other confusing phrases and terms used when referring to a firearm topic, like saying 'clip' when they're talking about a 'magazine', and saying 'automatic' when the mean 'semi-automatic', etc. The lawmakers need feedback to address things like this. I also noticed some bills introduced that still refer to the old requirement (Texas) of attending a class for CHL renewals.
    I could be wrong, but I believe it's basically the same language that was in George Lavender's open carry bill, and it was my understanding that it meant the holster had to attach at 2 points. So, for instance, a holster that had just 1 clip that clipped to a belt wouldn't qualify, but a holster with 2 belt loops would qualify. Also, obviously, just sticking the pistol in your pants wouldn't qualify.
    Advocate freedom please

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    22

    Holster resistance wording...

    Quote Originally Posted by stealthyeliminator View Post
    I could be wrong, but I believe it's basically the same language that was in George Lavender's open carry bill, and it was my understanding that it meant the holster had to attach at 2 points. So, for instance, a holster that had just 1 clip that clipped to a belt wouldn't qualify, but a holster with 2 belt loops would qualify. Also, obviously, just sticking the pistol in your pants wouldn't qualify.
    Regarding the "points of resistance" wording, I have sent Dan Flynn (HB 106) an email asking for clarification. When I hear something I'll post.

    I found he article at http://www.gundigest.com/concealed-c...ster-retention informative.

    Holster retention is an important concept to grasp, whether you open or concealed carry.
    Last edited by papabling; 11-23-2014 at 03:38 PM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Quote Originally Posted by Statkowski View Post
    Only politicians make things more complicated than they need to be.

    Simply remove the prohibition on open carry.

    End result? License need for concealed carry, no license needed for open carry. The control people still retain what they presently have, and the freedom people get what they want. Seems to work that way in about 35 of the 57 states.
    That is the constitutional carry bill that has been proposed.

    It is the simplest of all the bills and merely removes the prohibition against lawful carry.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •