Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: HB 1893 is out of comitte and is on to the house!

  1. #1
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Euless, Texas, USA
    Posts
    141

    Post imported post

    I know there are high tensions between the open carry group and the students for conceal carry on campus... But I am a member of both and have supported both.

    Just want to give an update that the bill is out of committee and is headed to the house for a vote. I would bet on this becoming law during this session.



    Edit* Yes... I just realized that committee is misspelled in the title of the thread...It won't let me change it now..ha

  2. #2
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Texas, , USA
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    Man this is great news!! I've been tracking this bill along with its Senate companion bill, and the House and Senate bills to prohibit employers from prohibiting employees to bring their firearms to work (to leave in their cars). We're making progress.

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    good for them as well as all gun rights activists. It's too bad that their leadership has such a piss poor attitude about everyone elses gun rights.

  4. #4
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Euless, Texas, USA
    Posts
    141

    Post imported post

    DKSuddeth wrote:
    good for them as well as all gun rights activists. It's too bad that their leadership has such a piss poor attitude about everyone elses gun rights.

    Yeah... This is why I hate politics. I received a note from Michael 2 days ago.. He said he did everything he could to make sure that the open carry bill never got introduced.

    I replied that I was pissed off that he would be supporting one pro 2A bill and against another... I haven't heard back from him.

    Hopefully he will put all of that energy into open carry once this passes.

  5. #5
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    SilentKTexan wrote:
    I received a note from Michael 2 days ago.. He said he did everything he could to make sure that the open carry bill never got introduced.
    What a dick...
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  6. #6
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Euless, Texas, USA
    Posts
    141

    Post imported post

    SGT Jensen wrote:
    SilentKTexan wrote:
    I received a note from Michael 2 days ago.. He said he did everything he could to make sure that the open carry bill never got introduced.
    What a dick...*

    This is the last message I received from him after a few back and forths about the student conceal carry bill..

    "Michael Guzman
    April 7 at 10:54am
    No. I tried all I could to ensure the open carry bill wouldn't be introduced. It had no chance of passing and would have confused enough people to ensure that the campus carry bill would have died as well.

    Its safe to say that the open carry folks aren't too fond of me although I do support open carry."

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Graham, Texas
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    I understand why he did what he did, and maybe there's even some validity to it all, but the way he's gone about it... just not healthy for anything Pro-2A.

    Anyhow, I am happy that his baby is moving along. Now we can only hope that he'll get behind our wagon like we've gotten behind his.

  8. #8
    Lone Star Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Euless, Texas, USA
    Posts
    141

    Post imported post

    DopaVash wrote:
    ...Anyhow, I am happy that his baby is moving along. Now we can only hope that he'll get behind our wagon like we've gotten behind his.

    I sure hope so... Especially since he has gotten it this far he would be a great help for open carry.

  9. #9
    Accomplished Advocate
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bedford, Texas, USA
    Posts
    834

    Post imported post

    SilentKTexan wrote:
    DopaVash wrote:
    ...Anyhow, I am happy that his baby is moving along. Now we can only hope that he'll get behind our wagon like we've gotten behind his.

    I sure hope so... Especially since he has gotten it this far he would be a great help for open carry.
    with friends like that............

  10. #10
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    SilentKTexan wrote:
    DopaVash wrote:
    ...Anyhow, I am happy that his baby is moving along. Now we can only hope that he'll get behind our wagon like we've gotten behind his.

    I sure hope so... Especially since he has gotten it this far he would be a great help for open carry.
    I would rather OC never pass than to accept help from the likes of Mike Guzman. He is NOT what 2A needs. We need people that will support ALL 2A advancement, not some a**hole that will pick and choose.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  11. #11
    State Researcher Kevin Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Santaquin, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,313

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    I would rather OC never pass than to accept help from the likes of Mike Guzman.
    My biggest beef with the guy is that he will not look past his own agenda. He is putting privileges before rights.

    I decided to read HB 1893, and was surprised to find that they want topreempt private schools as well.

    Just curious what others think about this. Should the State not let private institutions decide for themselves?




    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:

    SECTION1.Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, isamended by adding Section 411.2031 to read as follows:




    Sec.411.2031.CARRYING OF HANDGUNS BY LICENSE HOLDERS ONCERTAIN CAMPUSES. (a) For purposes of this section, "institutionof higher education" and "private or independent institution ofhigher education"have the meanings assigned by Section 61.003,Education Code.


    (b)A license holder may carry a concealed handgun on orabout the license holder's person while the license holder is on thecampus of an institution of higher education or private orindependent institution of higher education in this state.


    (c)An institution of higher education or private orindependent institution of higher education in this state may notadopt any rule, regulation, or other provision prohibiting licenseholders from carrying handguns on the campus of the institution.


    (d)An institution of higher education or private orindependent institution of higher education in this state mayestablish rules, regulations, or other provisions concerning thestorage of handguns in dormitories or other residential buildingsthat are owned or operated by the institution and located on thecampus of the institution.
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life." Robert A. Heinlein

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508

    Post imported post

    SGT Jensen wrote:
    I decided to read HB 1893, and was surprised to find that they want topreempt private schools as well.

    Just curious what others think about this. Should the State not let private institutions decide for themselves?
    Yes, they should, but this is the same bunch that thinks they should control whether private property can ban guns, through their employee parking lot bill.

    Private schools, and private employers, should be free to ban whatever they see fit.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Splendora, Texas, USA
    Posts
    29

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    I would rather OC never pass than to accept help from the likes of Mike Guzman. He is NOT what 2A needs. We need people that will support ALL 2A advancement, not some a**hole that will pick and choose.
    Agreed! The 2A doesn't depend on a privilege but is a right.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    KBCraig,

    ...and people should be free to sue (and WIN) millions of dollars from said "Private schools, and private employers" EVERYTIME there is a shooting and someone is killed or wounded in those "gun free zones."

    It works both ways. Or it should.

    -- John D.
    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    hear hear. but we all know that the laws never work equally both ways. look at our criminal justice system. but a nice thought and i agree. laws only work when they are followed. now what criminal do you know that would consult a rulebook before shooting someone, in a gun free zone or elsewhere. seems fair to me. if they ban our right to defend ourselves then they should be liable when we are injured or otherwise assaulted on their gun free "property":celebrate

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508

    Post imported post

    cloudcroft wrote:
    KBCraig,

    ...and people should be free to sue (and WIN) millions of dollars from said "Private schools, and private employers" EVERYTIME there is a shooting and someone is killed or wounded in those "gun free zones."

    It works both ways. Or it should.

    -- John D.
    I absolutely agree. Of course, there is a difference between a place that you are compelled to go (government property like schools and courts), and a place that you volunarily go (private property where you work, shop, or are a guest).

    There's much less of a case to be made for places where you decide that your desire to enter the property overcomes your desire to stay armed.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    cloudcroft wrote:
    KBCraig,

    ...and people should be free to sue (and WIN) millions of dollars from said "Private schools, and private employers" EVERYTIME there is a shooting and someone is killed or wounded in those "gun free zones."

    It works both ways. Or it should.

    -- John D.
    I absolutely agree. Of course, there is a difference between a place that you are compelled to go (government property like schools and courts), and a place that you volunarily go (private property where you work, shop, or are a guest).

    There's much less of a case to be made for places where you decide that your desire to enter the property overcomes your desire to stay armed.

    true. but i was referencing primarily college campus situations. i am a 34 year old f/t college student and ex soldier and chl holder and see no reason other than misinformation from the media that panics people that should prevent me from carrying on campus. i may not be law enforcement but i HAVE had plenty of training

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    KBCraig,


    I believe ANY place one goes - private or not -- MUST exercise AT LEAST "reasonable care" for the people within. You go to a "private" house or "private" business and slip on a sidewalk and get injured, or go to MacDonalds and spill hot coffee on you, and you CAN sue them for millions. I would think that getting killed or wounded on the same properties would be MUCH more worth a lawsuit. If it is NOT, then shame on the American "justice" system.

    After a few lawsuits for many millions of dollars, you can be sure "corporate policy" will change. At the very least, the cheapskate CEOs will decide to allow CHL holders to carry on their premises if for no other reason than their bottom line: No corporate money has to be spent ("wasted") on hired armed security -- they just use "free" CHL civilians.

    Damn suits...

    -- John D.

    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

Posting Permissions

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