Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43

Thread: New push for 2010

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    What is being done to push open carry in Texas for 2010? I have recently discovered OCDO and have started to become vary active in support of open carry. I have been emailing and calling my state Reps and passing out links to the petition. I have even donated $$ to the cause. However, I have noticed that little to nothing seems to be up to date. I seems there was a big push for 2009 and now nothing. Has everyone given up?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    300

    Post imported post

    Actually, it is because the Texas legislature will not meet again until 2011 (every other year), so most people are not too active during the off year. While continued activity would produce the best results, it is hard to keep people motivated for two years. As 2011 approaches, you will see a steady increase in activity.

    Doc

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Houston, ,
    Posts
    47

    Post imported post

    Well said Doc. Got any good ideas what we can do in the meantime?

  4. #4
    Regular Member One_Shot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Uncertain, Texas, USA
    Posts
    68

    Post imported post

    Is there someplace we can get OC yard signs. If we start now by 2011 we could have a great number of OC signs out visible; just like a mini bill-board.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Ah, I wasn't aware of the 2 year cycle. Thanks for the heads up.
    I agree we need to keep pushing and getting the idea out there. I think a big part of getting open carry passed is getting the sheeple used to the idea of it. Freedom and liberty are scary concepts to the brain washed masses. Also, it would be a good idea to get a head start on fund raising for ad campaigns.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    300

    Post imported post

    Mordare wrote:
    Ah, I wasn't aware of the 2 year cycle. Thanks for the heads up.
    I agree we need to keep pushing and getting the idea out there. I think a big part of getting open carry passed is getting the sheeple used to the idea of it. Freedom and liberty are scary concepts to the brain washed masses. Also, it would be a good idea to get a head start on fund raising for ad campaigns.
    I agree that we need to keep the push on, but the biggest problem is the hand full of legislators we have that need a new profession. We have several so-called pro-gun, NRA member, hunters that like to sell out to the corporate big-wigs and special interest rather than vote for the people they represent. For example, one senator single handedly prevented the passage of the campus carry bill by using his position as committee chairman to NOT call the bill for vote, thereby stalling the bill long enough to prevent a full vote on the floor. He did this despite high public and legislative support for it, but he is in the pocket of Texas Tech administration and he did what they wanted rather than what the people of Texas wanted. This has to stop and we need to put these guys on the unemployment line.

    Doc

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    Makes sense Doc. Both my reps for my district are Dems. But, you can trust that I'm working hard to replace them. In the meantime I have been sending them pro gun emails and calling them about conservative issues. ******* off libs has become one of my greatest pleasures in life.

  8. #8
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Threethings to remember;

    1.Texas State Rifle Association is not, I repeat, NOT open carry friendly.

    2. Mike Guzman with Students for Concealed Carry on Campus admittedlytorpedoed it in 2009.I'm fairly certain that TSRA had a hand in it as well.

    3. If you come up with an idea to help, one of the moderators here may rip it away and give it to someone else to lead without warning. I won't be helping at all, so don't ask.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    Threethings to remember;

    1.Texas State Rifle Association is not, I repeat, NOT open carry friendly.

    2. Mike Guzman with Students for Concealed Carry on Campus admittedlytorpedoed it in 2009.I'm fairly certain that TSRA had a hand in it as well.

    3. If you come up with an idea to help, one of the moderators here may rip it away and give it to someone else to lead without warning. I won't be helping at all, so don't ask.
    Sounds like TSRA should be the first objective then. It seems to me that they are probably more threatened by this site than the idea of open carry. Or, their wallets are more threatened anyways. Might come down to a beat them or join them kinda thing if thats the case. As for Mike Guzman with Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, if they aren't playing by the rules then why are we?

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    300

    Post imported post

    Mordare wrote:
    rodbender wrote:
    Threethings to remember;

    1.Texas State Rifle Association is not, I repeat, NOT open carry friendly.

    2. Mike Guzman with Students for Concealed Carry on Campus admittedlytorpedoed it in 2009.I'm fairly certain that TSRA had a hand in it as well.

    3. If you come up with an idea to help, one of the moderators here may rip it away and give it to someone else to lead without warning. I won't be helping at all, so don't ask.
    Sounds like TSRA should be the first objective then. It seems to me that they are probably more threatened by this site than the idea of open carry. Or, their wallets are more threatened anyways. Might come down to a beat them or join them kinda thing if thats the case. As for Mike Guzman with Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, if they aren't playing by the rules then why are we?
    As for the TSRA's position on open carry, it is not that they are against it as it is how they determine what to support at a given time. I talk to Mrs. Tripp (TSRA Legislative Director)regularly and she is for OC, but at the time, these simply wasn't not the needed support in the legislature and pushing for it threatened to undermine other pro-gun bills that were within reach for passing. While many feel that is not enough reason to not support the OC push,most agree that it is better to make some headway than none. It is true that there are many TSRA heads and old-timers that do not see OC as a need or even a good thing and certainly not as a priority, but the main cause for TSRA's lack of support for OC was the current attitude of the legislature toward the idea. Having a long history of dealing with the Texas legislature on both gun and non-gun related issues, I can assure you that you need to pick your fights carefully when you have more than one issue up for consideration. Where most OC movements only have that issue on their plate, the TSRA has numerous issues each session and, as such, has more to lose if the legislature turns adim eye. At the same time, the more pro-OC people we get to join TSRA and push for OC support, the better the chance we can get them to support it. So, join rather than quit and make your voice heard.

    As forMr. Guzman, I do not feel his actions had that much to do with the failure of the OC push, but I do feel the OC push had a lot to do with the strong support for the campus carry bill. I spoke to numerous legislatures during the session and I found virtually no support for OC. At the same time, all but a hand full were in support of the campus carry bill, and it would have passed had the committee chairman not sat on it in order to prevent it from moving on in time for a full vote. The votes were there, it just never made it to the floor before session ended. Mr. Guzman had his job and Mrs. Tripp has hers and whoever heads the OC push has theirs. That is why I belong to and support more than one organization. It took many years to pass concealed carry and OC will not happen in one session either, but I do believe it will happen in time. We just have to stay vigilant. Lets start now for 2011.

    As for the stolen idea thing, well, I am at a loss on that one. You will have to fill me in sometime, rodbender.:?

    Doc

  11. #11
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    There was an open carry bill drafted. Mike Guzman actually said that he did everything in his power to kill it before it was introduced. As far as it having little supprt, that is true. We were simply hoping to get it introduced to bring it to their attention. The efforts of Mike Guzman (I will not call him Mr.) saw to it that it did not get introduced.

    Alice Tripp said publicly that she did not support it. She's had plenty of time to come up with a politician's answer for it. She's hoping that we don't remember her words. Charles Cotton is no friend of open carry either. You can see what he has to say about it at

    http://www.texaschlforum.com/

    As for the stolen idea.........well I won't elaborate but ask Mike or John. If they want to elaborate they can. Mike is the one that actually did it, then tried to schmooz it over with "I didn't know" when it was rightin front of himon his own forum. He had to know.


    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    300

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    There was an open carry bill drafted. Mike Guzman actually said that he did everything in his power to kill it before it was introduced. As far as it having little support, that is true. We were simply hoping to get it introduced to bring it to their attention. The efforts of Mike Guzman (I will not call him Mr.) saw to it that it did not get introduced.

    Alice Tripp said publicly that she did not support it. She's had plenty of time to come up with a politician's answer for it. She's hoping that we don't remember her words. Charles Cotton is no friend of open carry either. You can see what he has to say about it at

    schmooz it over with "I didn't know" when it was rightin front of himon his own forum. He had to know.

    That is interesting. I never heard that about him actively trying to kill the OC bill. I did hear rumors to that effect but not that he admitted to it. I do know that he publicly stated that he did not support the OC push, opting for concealed carry, but never that he actively worked to kill the bill. If that is true, I would have issue with him over that. I do not see the purpose of working against any bill that does not directly oppose your piece of legislation. If one side feel supporting the other sidesbill would detract from their own chances, thenthey cansimply choose not to promote the other sides bill without hurting the their ownchances, but to actively work againstother sides billis foolish. These were two different bill with different merits and did not directly affect each other. Each provided a different right and could easily coexist.

    As for Mrs. Tripp, you are correct that she personally does not support OC, but it is because she feel it is not a viable option at this point and that pushing for it would severely detract from the organization's ability to pass other legislation. At the same time, she has stated on numerous occasionsthat she is a paidemployeeof the TSRA and its membership and that she will gladly promotewhatever issueor position the membership wants her to carry to Austin. If the membership can convince the TSRA leadership to push for OC, then she will gladly push for OC.

    There lies the problem, we, the membership, need to inundate the TSRA with demands that they support OC. We need to make it a point to vote people in that will listen to the members rather than dictating the direction of the organization. As with our legislators, we need to remove those who think it is their duty or right todecide what is best for us and the organization.

    Doc

  13. #13
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    You can find a note written to a member of OCDO from mike Guzman at:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...ghlight=Guzman
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    300

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    You can find a note written to a member of OCDO from mike Guzman at:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_to...ghlight=Guzman
    Oh yes, I remember that post. Personally, I think he was referring to his attempts to convince the promoters of the OC bill not to introduce it, rather than indicating he actively working behind the scene to kill it. I disagree with him that its introduction would have hurt the campus carry bills chances, in fact, I think the push to introduce an OC bill served to bolster support for the campus bill. Manylegislators saw it as a better concession and felt that by supporting the campus bill they could remove some heat for not supportingan OC bill. Then again, I could be wrong. Either way, I don't think it mattered as there was simply not enough support in the legislature to warrant introducing it at that time. We need to work on the legislator first, then intro the bill when the support is there, otherwise, we are just wasting time. Good info though.

    Doc

  15. #15
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    DocNTexas wrote:
    Oh yes, I remember that post. Personally, I think he was referring to his attempts to convince the promoters of the OC bill not to introduce it, rather than indicating he actively working behind the scene to kill it.Doc
    And the difference is.........What?
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    300

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    DocNTexas wrote:
    Oh yes, I remember that post. Personally, I think he was referring to his attempts to convince the promoters of the OC bill not to introduce it, rather than indicating he actively working behind the scene to kill it.Doc
    And the difference is.........What?


    The difference is that talking to try to someone or a group in an attempt to convince them not to take an action is an acceptable method of addressing ones concerns or position, whereas, actively working behind their back to undermine their efforts is less than upstanding.

    I support apersonsright to openly discuss their position, no matter if I agree with it or not, but as I pointed out before, if they use backdoor or underhanded methods to reach their goal, I lose respect for them.

    I am not sure what he actually did, I am just expressing my take based on the limited info available. If he did as you said, I have a big problem with him, but I simply did notreach the same conclusion on his statement asyou did. Perhaps you are correct. I certainly can not say for sure that he did not, butI simply did not take it that way and have not seen anything that makes me think otherwise. If you have more evidence to that conclusion, I would love to see it. I admit that he did not support the OC position and I agree he tried to convince the OC bill supporters to NOT file it, because he feared it would hurt the chance of passing his bill, but thatwas his personal opinion and I support his right to his opinion. At the same time, expressing his opinion did not prevent the bill from being filed. If, he did something to undermine that ability, then that is different, but so far I have not seen anything to suggest that, and I do not think he has that kind of pull. His only offense is not supporting the bill, and that, again, is his right, just as it is our right to support what we choose.

    I supported both of these bills, the OC bill and the campus carry bill. I spend a lot of time on college campuses, as do my daughters, so that bill is very important to me. At the same time, I enjoy the right to OC in other states I frequent and would love to see OC legalized in Texas. As I stated before, I do not see them as conflicting each other, but apparently he did. Either way, it really did not matter because the OC bill never had enough support to come to life in the first place.

    That is all I am saying.

    Doc



  17. #17
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    Doc, Can you read? This is from the email he sent the poster on the other thread.

    "Michael [highlight= #ffff88]Guzman[/highlight]
    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."
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,508

    Post imported post

    Guzman took a politician's stance: he condemned efforts to introduce an OC bill, claiming it would hurt his campus carry bill. And then when his campus bill failed, he was able to blame it on the OC movement.

    I took great umbrage when those of us who actually live in Texas were dismissed as "a bunch of outsiders from Virginia trying to interfere in Texas politics", just because we support OC and OCDO.

    Mike is from Virginia, but OCDO isn't a "Virginia organization".

  19. #19
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    Guzman took a politician's stance: he condemned efforts to introduce an OC bill, claiming it would hurt his campus carry bill. And then when his campus bill failed, he was able to blame it on the OC movement.

    I took great umbrage when those of us who actually live in Texas were dismissed as "a bunch of outsiders from Virginia trying to interfere in Texas politics", just because we support OC and OCDO.

    Mike is from Virginia, but OCDO isn't a "Virginia organization".
    Mike also owns a house in Killeen.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    300

    Post imported post

    rodbender wrote:
    Doc, Can you read? This is from the email he sent the poster on the other thread.

    "Michael [highlight= #ffff88]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."
    Yes, rodbender, I can. The question is, can you, becausethat is exactly what I said.

    This statement says he tried to keep it from being introduced, but it does not say he took behind the scene actions to stop it. I noted that perhaps he DID do the thing you suggest, but this statement alone does not provide that proof, it merely supports speculation that he did.

    I also agreed that his position was wrong as to the OC push detracting from his bill, pointing out thatIfelt it actually HELPED the campus bill.

    So, stop being so defensive and abusive toward those who offer a different take on things. You are entitled to your opinion and I to mine.Ultimately, I am on your side regarding theOC issue, as well as, my opinion that Mr. Guzman was wrong in his view of the OC bill's effect on his bill. What I disagree with is some of your tactics in promoting your positions. Attacking people, belittling them and making disparaging remarks to and about them just because they have a difference of opinion is not productive and actually serves to drive support away from the cause.

    So, if you truly support these issues, be nice and make polite, productive and encouraging statements in support of the cause. If, however, you are actually against these causes and are using the infiltrator method to disrupt support from within, then you are doing a good job.

    Doc

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Texas, USA
    Posts
    300

    Post imported post

    KBCraig wrote:
    Guzman took a politician's stance: he condemned efforts to introduce an OC bill, claiming it would hurt his campus carry bill. And then when his campus bill failed, he was able to blame it on the OC movement.

    I took great umbrage when those of us who actually live in Texas were dismissed as "a bunch of outsiders from Virginia trying to interfere in Texas politics", just because we support OC and OCDO.

    Mike is from Virginia, but OCDO isn't a "Virginia organization".
    I agree. This issue would have gone farther if it were not promoted that way. We need a clear local support, keeping reference to out of state associations out of the picture. Not that we do not need or want their support, but we need to keep the local look first and foremost.

    Doc

  22. #22
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Ellis County, Texas, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    DocNTexas wrote:
    KBCraig wrote:
    Guzman took a politician's stance: he condemned efforts to introduce an OC bill, claiming it would hurt his campus carry bill. And then when his campus bill failed, he was able to blame it on the OC movement.

    I took great umbrage when those of us who actually live in Texas were dismissed as "a bunch of outsiders from Virginia trying to interfere in Texas politics", just because we support OC and OCDO.

    Mike is from Virginia, but OCDO isn't a "Virginia organization".
    I agree. This issue would have gone farther if it were not promoted that way. We need a clear local support, keeping reference to out of state associations out of the picture. Not that we do not need or want their support, but we need to keep the local look first and foremost.

    Doc
    The media gets it wrong more than it gets it right. Yes, it was easy for them to point to OCDO's location/Mike's current home and make it out to be a bunch of non-Texans. We are going to have to contend with an unfriendly media every step of the way. As a whole, they are statists except when it comes to the 1st Amendment freedom of the press. Thus, letters to the editor and interviews that they do with pro-OC folks must point out their errors. For example, though Mike is currently living in Virginia, he spent many years stationed here and, at least as of last session, still owns a house in the Killeen area. Additionally many of the members of OCDO are Texans.

    As for Mr. Guzman, I'm not defending what he did but I do think it is useful to look at it from his point of view. He wanted a "clear field" for his bill and was trying to avoid anything that might cause it not to pass considering it has sufficient support. We shouldn't be surprised. That is unfortunate but not unusual in politics.

    Let's look at a potential example involving ourselves. If we had a good licensed-OC bill that had enough votes to pass and others came along and were promoting Vermont/Alaska no-license-needed carry, we might not support that initiative even though many of us think that is a good idea. Why? Tactics, not overall strategy. Big changes bring about big fights and controversy which most politicians shy away from. Licensed OC would be a HUGE improvement from the status quo. No-license-needed carry is the ultimate in freedom but might not be achievable given where we are starting from. The press WILL sieze on any "radical" gun proposals and conflate them all making even popular ones somewhat more risky. In short, added controversy.

    Passing licensed OC, letting the dust settle, proving there is no problem, then coming back for unlicensed OC or No-license-needed is the better approach. In short, getwhat you can, while you can.Would we not be doing the same thing that Mr. Guzman did if we discouraged the no-license-neededsupporters infavor of our "got the votes" licensed OC bill? It's the old "bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush" argument. I think that we would and I would support this approach even though Iphilosophically love the freedom of no-license-needed.

    I don't want this thread tochangetopics because of what I'm about to bring up, but I thinkit is a great example ofhow big change is scary and you typically can't pull it, politically,off whereas incrementalism is very effective. Look what is happening with the health care debate in Washington.President Obama is trying to dramatically alter thegovernment's involvment in this sphere of our life. Instead of pulling together someideas that many support (policies across state lines,limitations on pre-existingcondition exclusions,medical saving accounts, uncoupling it from employers, etc.) and that could have builtan easy path to passage (because moderates inboth parties would have signed on), he took the all-or-nothing approach. Perhaps he thought that he has sufficient majorities in each house and didn't need to compromise. Whatever the reason, he issuffering the consequences now. I believe that he would have already signed an incremental bill. I'm not saying that is a good thing. Because I favor liberty and not government, I'm selfishly glad he took this approach but from his point of view I think it was foolish and counter-productive.

    In conclusion, I don't blame Guzman. He was wrong -- OC did NOT threaten campus carry as without the Dems stalling tactics on the voter ID bill campus carry would have passed and we didn't even have an OC bill introduced -- but I understand his reasons and as the above example shows, I'd do the same thing if I thought the situation required it.

    I propose that we not make fellow 2A folks the enemy. He did what he did for tatical reasons and he says that he supports OC. Let's take him at his word and welcome him to the party. Don't we need more supporters? Don't we need folks who have worked with legislators and will undoubtedly be doing so again this session? Perhaps we can convince him that OC and campus carry are different enough that no one will confuse the two. I think last session proves that. Regardless, let not the good be the enemy of the perfect. We need to support -- andwork forthe support of -- all pro-2A people. We need him to succeed. We need TSRA. We need the folks who are typically concerned about hunting. We need the concealed carry folks who will themselves NEVER OC. We need them to expand 2A freedom because they are 85% friends not 15% enemies. Let's save our disgust for real foes of liberty -- the statists.

    SA-TX

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Arlington, Texas, USA
    Posts
    48

    Post imported post



    Justice Scalia proposed during the McDonald argument presentation :

    " What's the purpose of a State constitutional guarantee which has at the end of it...subject to such regulation as the legislature may provide. That would make a nullity of the constitutional requirement."

    Texas lawhas deleted handguns from its own guarantee of the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his person by requiring a State issued license to excercise thisguaranteed right. The Texas Constitution does not provide for the exception of handguns from this enumerated right.

    Applying JusticeScalia's sense of logic - sections of Chapter 46 TPC constitute nullification of the prior guaranteed right.



  24. #24
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Ellis County, Texas, USA
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    Rush Creek wrote:

    Justice Scalia proposed during the McDonald argument presentation :

    " What's the purpose of a State constitutional guarantee which has at the end of it...subject to such regulation as the legislature may provide. That would make a nullity of the constitutional requirement."

    Texas lawhas deleted handguns from its own guarantee of the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his person by requiring a State issued license to excercise thisguaranteed right. The Texas Constitution does not provide for the exception of handguns from this enumerated right.

    Applying JusticeScalia's sense of logic - sections of Chapter 46 TPC constitute nullification of the prior guaranteed right.

    Rush,

    While I agree that Texas law needs revised in many ways, I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation of Justice Scalia's remarks. Justice Scalia was making the point that if a state has a RKBA provision that then says "subject to whatever restrictions the Legislature may provide", the state could not then ban POSSESSION OF ALL FIREARMS.

    Here's the quote:

    JUSTICE SCALIA: "Subject to such regulation" certainly excludes banning them entirely, which is what you assert can be done.

    MR. FELDMAN: No, I think that -

    JUSTICE SCALIA: What's the purpose of a State constitutional guarantee which has at the end of it "subject to such regulation as the legislature may proscribe," if that regulation includes banning it entirely? That -- that would make a nullity of the constitutional requirement.

    shortly following the above is this:

    MR. FELDMAN: No, what I'm saying -- I'm sorry. What I'm saying is that the right that is embodied in the wide variety of different State constitutions, the overwhelming consensus is that what the States have determined as a result of their own processes and in light of their own conditions is that you can't ban all kinds of firearms, but you can ban some kinds of firearms.

    JUSTICE SCALIA: That's fine.

    Translating that to Texas, Texas could not violate the right in its constitution by banning all arms. Texas could (and, you can argue has, banned some types like machine guns -- it is only a defense to prosecution that it is registered with the NFA--spud guns, etc.), ban certain types of arms. That's not the same thing as Texas regulating the carry of, not banning ownership or possession, a particular type of firearm.

    My view is that the Legislature exercised a power that they do possess though their decision was ill-conceived and needs to be repealed. The Texas Constitution gave them the power to "regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime". They and the courts are the ones who get to decide if they have exercised their power in accordance with the wishes of the founders and the current precedent is that they have.

    It think it is pretty telling that legislators have, for more than a century,not sufficently disagreedwith the restrictions that were put in place to alter them -- nor were the people of Texas clamoring for change -- until recently. They did so with concealed carry. They did so with car carry. I believe that barring another chubbing, they will do so with campus carry and parking lot carry. The system is working.

    Philosophically, I think it is a close call as to whether or not the founders thought that "regulation with an view to prevent crime" allows a full ban on wearing arms, but the courts think it does and I do not think Justice Scalia's remarks give support to the opposite proposition as it was directed at the larger question of banning of all firearms.

    SA-TX

  25. #25
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Post imported post

    DocNTexas wrote:
    rodbender wrote:
    Doc, Can you read? This is from the email he sent the poster on the other thread.

    "Michael [highlight= #ffff88]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."
    Yes, rodbender, I can. The question is, can you, becausethat is exactly what I said.

    This statement says he tried to keep it from being introduced, but it does not say he took behind the scene actions to stop it. I noted that perhaps he DID do the thing you suggest, but this statement alone does not provide that proof, it merely supports speculation that he did.

    I also agreed that his position was wrong as to the OC push detracting from his bill, pointing out thatIfelt it actually HELPED the campus bill.

    So, stop being so defensive and abusive toward those who offer a different take on things. You are entitled to your opinion and I to mine.Ultimately, I am on your side regarding theOC issue, as well as, my opinion that Mr. Guzman was wrong in his view of the OC bill's effect on his bill. What I disagree with is some of your tactics in promoting your positions. Attacking people, belittling them and making disparaging remarks to and about them just because they have a difference of opinion is not productive and actually serves to drive support away from the cause.

    So, if you truly support these issues, be nice and make polite, productive and encouraging statements in support of the cause. If, however, you are actually against these causes and are using the infiltrator method to disrupt support from within, then you are doing a good job.

    Doc
    I just find it hard to believe that anyone reading that statement would not look at it as undermining (torpedoing)the legislation.

    If you think accusing me of being an infiltrator is the right thing to do, then you should ask John and Mike how many of my $$$ they got the last legislative session for billboard, radio, and cab ads. While you are at it ask them who took the time to scout billboards,set up the cab ads in the Austin area. Ask them who took the time to check out the ads after they were produced.I can alreadytell how many $$$they didn't get from you. Then I'll accept your apology for even considering that I might be an infiltrator.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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