Texas Representative Debbie Riddle Still Supports Open Carry!

imported post

paragod49 wrote:

I emailed State Representative Debbie Riddle Feb 18, 2009. I got a response back from her Chief of Staff Jon English, Sunday, February 22, 2009. Attached is the email i received.

Michael Wiren
Dear Mr. Wiren,

Thank you so much for your e-mail. It is unfortunately true that Rep. Riddle does not believe it is likely that she will file an Open Carry bill this session. It's not because of a fear that there is a such thing as too many Second Amendment bills, but rather the nature of Open Carry.

First of all, Open Carry is unlikely to pass this session. Even amongst Second Amendment supporters, it takes things a step further than most members appear to be comfortable with. It does not seem rational to set aside other important legislation to wage a losing battle to expand your already existing ability to carry a handgun.

Secondly, the bill has already caused damage to other Second Amendment legislation. Confusion over Open Carry and opposition to it has made it more difficult to get momentum on other important bills. It would definitely be in the best interest of other Second Amendment legislation to shift support for Open Carry into other bills such as allowing students to carry on campus and the right to have a gun in your car at work. These bills do have a good chance this session, but the Open Carry controversies and confusions are cramping those chances.

Finally, there is a smaller concern that existing CHL rights are not as secure as we might believe them to be in the currently changing political climate. While it remains unlikely, an Open Carry debate carries the possibility of inviting amendments to current CHL statutes that could complicate your existing right to carry a handgun, most especially if the legislature continues to trend to the left. The simplest way to put it is there is very real risk but practically no chance of any reward for pushing the bill. There is absolutely a time and a place to introduce a bill simply on principle, but this session represents neither.

In the meantime, HB 1301, HB 410, HB 267, and SB 729, all important Second Amendment bills, can use all the support they can get this session! Please encourage your friends and neighbors to show their support for these bills, and let me know if you need any more information on them. They're excellent pieces of legislation and I think we can get all of them passed if we work together.

Thank you again for your e-mail. Please always feel free to contact us regarding this or any other issue. Our door is always open to you!

Sincerely,

Jon English
Chief of Staff
State Representative Debbie Riddle
phone: (512)-463-0572
fax: (512-463-1908
P.O. Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768-2910
jon.english@house.state.tx.us


Well, there is always next year. Keep our heads together and go with the flow and we'll get what we want. If we push, we will just make our friends regret helping us.

Click to expand...

imported post

My opinion, we got thrown under the bus by TSRA and SCCC. They didn't like our bill. It was too much too fast for them and they didn't want to see anything happen to theirs in the confusion. It's might convenient that Rep. Riddles office felt there were more important 2nd amendment bills to consider first.

imported post

I dont suppose that we will find someone else to sponser the bill

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

My opinion, we got thrown under the bus by TSRA and SCCC. They didn't like our bill. It was too much too fast for them and they didn't want to see anything happen to theirs in the confusion. It's might convenient that Rep. Riddles office felt there were more important 2nd amendment bills to consider first.

Click to expand...

In some ways it is true that open carry was "thrown under the bus" but really I don't see what choice TSRA and SCCC had. We didn't work within the process and so if it was going to come down to an "ours or theirs", they -- rightly -- weren't going to let their bills be damaged. I still debate just how much actual damage the discussion of OC really did, but there was some PERCEPTION of damage and some confusion about what various bills would allow. Basically, I think TSRA and SCCC viewed OC as an anchor the they didn't want associated with their bills. They did all they could to distance themselves from the effort and said so when asked.

The lesson to learn is how to win. TSRA knows how to win. SCCC knows how to win because they engaged TSRA and got their endorsement and support. We tried to bypass the gatekeeper that's not wise. Like it or not, TSRA plays that role. We should have been working with them for months. We should have been gently pursuading them to do all that they could for us. After all, when we can't get solid A+ pro-2A legislators to support us and carry a bill, you can't call it anything but abject failure. We needed TSRA's tacit approval if not outright blessing and we didn't get it.

If we want open carry in Texas, we'll understand the rules of the game and play to win next time. I'm not criticizing anyone in particular. I'm a novice at this too and didn't know any better. :banghead:

Now isn't the time for blame. We need join the TSRA and work to ensure that the next thing that they take on after campus carry and parking lot carry is open carry (licensed open carry if necessary). Even if we have to take baby steps like making intentional failure to conceal a Class C misdomeanor or not even a crime while the license is still nominally a "concealed" license is an improvement. Liberals know that incrementalism works and in Texas, it has been a proven winning formula for better a better CHL environment, too.

Just my view, SA-TX

imported post

I agree.:exclaim:

imported post

Finally, there is a smaller concern that existing CHL rights are not as secure as we might believe them to be in the currently changing political climate. While it remains unlikely, an Open Carry debate carries the possibility of inviting amendments to current CHL statutes that could complicate your existing right to carry a handgun, most especially if the legislature continues to trend to the left. The simplest way to put it is there is very real risk but practically no chance of any reward for pushing the bill. There is absolutely a time and a place to introduce a bill simply on principle, but this session represents neither.

Click to expand...

Please,I invite everyone to read this paragraph very carefully. To me it screams I am more interested in keeping my job than doing the right thing. All they are doing is throwing us the bone of advancing gun privleges, which are not 2A and do nothing to advance it in Texas. When I see statements like "changing political climate", "trend to the left' and "no chance of any reward for pushing the bill" I have to wonder. Plus I did see an attempt to intimidate by alluding to the possibility of our CHL privilege, not right as stated, being adversly affected.:cuss::banghead:

imported post

SA-TX wrote:

In some ways it is true that open carry was "thrown under the bus" but really I don't see what choice TSRA and SCCC had. We didn't work within the process and so if it was going to come down to an "ours or theirs", they -- rightly -- weren't going to let their bills be damaged.

Click to expand...

Only if "work within the process" means gun bills can only be introduced by begging TSRA to propose them, instead of using the time-honored and constitutional method of asking our own reps to sponsor bills.

I still debate just how much actual damage the discussion of OC really did, but there was some PERCEPTION of damage and some confusion about what various bills would allow. Basically, I think TSRA and SCCC viewed OC as an anchor the they didn't want associated with their bills. They did all they could to distance themselves from the effort and said so when asked.

Click to expand...

I think you're exactly right. I seriously doubt there were any representatives wavering over whether or not to support a parking lot or college classroom bill, simply because there also happened to be a totaly separate bill legalizing open carry.

I mean it: I seriously doubt that. But I do believe some in the TSRA heirarchy were really afraid of that. They seem to be afraid of any changes that they didn't initiate.

I celebrate TSRA for having brought gun rights so far in the last 14 years in Texas, but they are not the sole and exclusive arbiters of what Texas gun owners want.

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

SA-TX wrote:

In some ways it is true that open carry was "thrown under the bus" but really I don't see what choice TSRA and SCCC had. We didn't work within the process and so if it was going to come down to an "ours or theirs", they -- rightly -- weren't going to let their bills be damaged.

Click to expand...

Only if "work within the process" means gun bills can only be introduced by begging TSRA to propose them, instead of using the time-honored and constitutional method of asking our own reps to sponsor bills.

I still debate just how much actual damage the discussion of OC really did, but there was some PERCEPTION of damage and some confusion about what various bills would allow. Basically, I think TSRA and SCCC viewed OC as an anchor the they didn't want associated with their bills. They did all they could to distance themselves from the effort and said so when asked.

Click to expand...

I think you're exactly right. I seriously doubt there were any representatives wavering over whether or not to support a parking lot or college classroom bill, simply because there also happened to be a totaly separate bill legalizing open carry.

I mean it: I seriously doubt that. But I do believe some in the TSRA heirarchy were really afraid of that. They seem to be afraid of any changes that they didn't initiate.

I celebrate TSRA for having brought gun rights so far in the last 14 years in Texas, but they are not the sole and exclusive arbiters of what Texas gun owners want.

Click to expand...

Like I said, I'm not saying that I like that TSRA has great influence and acts as a gatekeeper but it is the way that it is. Open carry is a radical concept to some. Pro-gun legislators know that the media is generally anti-gun and loves to bushwhack them. Like any controversial topic, members don't want to be depicted as some crazy loon that is far outside the mainstream. Imagine this scenario:

Reporter: Rep Riddle, you just introduced your open carry bill, correct?

Riddle: Yes.

Reporter: We interviewed TSRA, SCCC, and Sen. Wentworth. None of them support this idea. Why would you propose something that even gun lobby groups and pro-gun Legislators don't agree with?

Sadly, pro-gun legislation is tough to pass because it draws attention. The anti's always scream from the rooftops how terrible it will be and the media dutifully quotes them. As long as all pro-gun groups and legislators stick together, bills can pass anyway. Without solid, unified support no gun legislation stands a chance. Remember, the Senate requires a 2/3rds majority to move ANY legislation (okay, with one irrevelant exception this session).

As for not-invented-here by TSRA and SCCC, I'm not ready to say that as much as they have their agenda and open carry was a late breaking thunder clap. No one outside of OpenCarry.org saw it coming. They weren't prepared. They are not used to getting calls from the media about gun bills that they don't know anything about. Yes I think that they "circled the wagons" somewhat unnecessarily. I've said so. I've said that I think both can and should be voted on. We don't have to rob Peter (kill open carry) to pay Paul (get parking lot carry and campus carry). Unfortunately, I haven't been able to convince them yet.

Say what you want, but Riddle said in her press release what her reasons are and that's a) open carry is controversial and b) it might distract from other important gun legislation this session. We don't have to like it or agree, but she's telling us what influenced her. How much TSRA had to do with it is unknown.

Again, I urge people not to get too caught up in the post mortem but instead to get energized and get connected to TSRA and SCCC. Give them help now and maybe we can get some next session. If not, at least we will have gotten better CHL rules. No matter what, we can't force open carry on them or an unwilling legislature. Pursuasion is the ONLY way.

SA-TX

imported post

SA, I would find it extremely distasteful to go to the TSRA in what would seem to be a groveling sort of way after the past events.

imported post

I have a meeting with Representative Riddle tomorrow at 1:30. I'm going to bring up John's argument of, "should we be sacrificing a right for a privilege?

imported post

SA-TX wrote:

As for not-invented-here by TSRA and SCCC, I'm not ready to say that as much as they have their agenda and open carry was a late breaking thunder clap. No one outside of OpenCarry.org saw it coming.

Click to expand...

They should have, since I know they were asked to work for OC in the 2007 Session.

I'm not trying to be argumentative with you, SA-TX... I think you're doing a great job as ambassador between OCDO and the Texas CHL forum, and I know you're equally frustrated over this situation.

imported post

DKSuddeth wrote:

SA, I would find it extremely distasteful to go to the TSRA in what would seem to be a groveling sort of way after the past events.

Click to expand...

DK, I understand. As you can see from my status, I'm a great supporter of OC. I want it very, very much. I HATE that TSRA and other groups aren't working for it. Nevertheless, I see no other alternative that to look to the long run and engage with those who can make it happen. To use a poker analogy, even if you start with pocket aces, you have to throw them away after the flop if you are convinced that you are beaten.

imported post

Ianmtx wrote:

I have a meeting with Representative Riddle tomorrow at 1:30. I'm going to bring up John's argument of, "should we be sacrificing a right for a privilege?

Click to expand...

Excellent Ian, please do. I'd suggest the following points:

1) OC is the true right that the Constitution speaks of and the SCOTUS discussed in Heller.

2) Where OC is practiced and where the law enforcement community is very aware that it is legal (AZ, VA, NH, PA, etc.) there do not tend to be many problems. Yes, you have an isolated incident from time to time but in general the public isn't terrorized, cops are spending time on bogus calls, and citizens simply go about their business. NM and LA, our direct neighbors, have OC. Where are the issues?

3) Texas should allow OC simply as a practical matter. It is darn hot here much of the year and concealing is an unnecessary hassle. Most who hold a CHL will still conceal, at least partially, but it would make life much easier for everyone.

4) Ask her for the bill that she had drafted. We need to look at it. Perhaps we can pursuade another member to introduce it and that would be easier with access to the bill.

5) Finally, if all else fails, try to get her to introduce a bill that simply repeals the crime of "Unlawful Carrying of a Handgun by a License Holder". That wouldn't change a CHL to a "handgun license" or give full legitimacy to open carry, but it would decriminalize it. Even though a CHL is still a "concealed carry license" there would be no crime for failing to conceal.

Best wishes and let me know if I can be of assistance!

SA-TX

imported post

Ianmtx wrote:

I have a meeting with Representative Riddle tomorrow at 1:30. I'm going to bring up John's argument of, "should we be sacrificing a right for a privilege?

Click to expand...

Update?

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

Ianmtx wrote:

I have a meeting with Representative Riddle tomorrow at 1:30. I'm going to bring up John's argument of, "should we be sacrificing a right for a privilege?

Click to expand...

Update?

Click to expand...

Well, being this late in the session, most legislators have a "full plate" and are unwilling to introduce a bill, but of course they all say, "oh sure we'd support it, just don't expect us to file it." :banghead:

I'm going to try and get in touch with Suzanna Hupp and see if she can pull some strings. I'm going to try and speak with her replacement in the House.