• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Rep George Lavender will sponsor Texas open carry bill

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
I see the folks over at the CHL forum are mostly lukewarm to downright hostile, although there are some supporters for the concept. They just don't like anything that is initiated by "those OC people".

Funny... two years ago they resented the "outsiders" at OCDO. This year a Texas resident and Texas state rep work together to introduce an OC bill, and they won't support it because it's connected to OCDO.
 

CliffH

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
36
Location
East Texas
I see the folks over at the CHL forum ....

Got a link? I'd like to at least see what they have to say, after taking my blood pressure meds.

Are you aware that the LSCDL has been talking with Rep. Lavender?
 

B.D. WALKER

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
56
Location
Houston, Texas
I am in support of these pro-gun groups as much as the next guy, I'm even a member of the NRA. But some of these gun groups or some of their members are not really backing up fully the open carry bill.

If they are not going to be committed to the cause then they should stay out of our way and let those that are really trying to see things through to do there thing.
 

jsimmons

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
181
Location
San Antonio, ,
I am in support of these pro-gun groups as much as the next guy, I'm even a member of the NRA. But some of these gun groups or some of their members are not really backing up fully the open carry bill.

If they are not going to be committed to the cause then they should stay out of our way and let those that are really trying to see things through to do there thing.

There lies the rub. They have their own agenda, and if our agenda starts to gain on their agenda, they will actively try to sabotage our efforts. A properly-worded constitutional carry bill will not only satisfy us, but it will also satisfy their agenda, r.e. campus carry and parking lot storage.
 

jsimmons

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
181
Location
San Antonio, ,
I see the folks over at the CHL forum are mostly lukewarm to downright hostile, although there are some supporters for the concept. They just don't like anything that is initiated by "those OC people".

Funny... two years ago they resented the "outsiders" at OCDO. This year a Texas resident and Texas state rep work together to introduce an OC bill, and they won't support it because it's connected to OCDO.

The TexasCHL forums are run buy a guy from the TSRA. What did you expect? TSRA doesn't have a favorable opinion of OCDO. Right now, they're all over there ringing their hands over minutia regarding CC. If we had constitutional carry, the CHL forums would have much less traffic, and that would diminish Mr. Cotton's importance in the grand scheme of things, and he won't stand for that.
 
Last edited:

B.D. WALKER

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
56
Location
Houston, Texas
There lies the rub. They have their own agenda, and if our agenda starts to gain on their agenda, they will actively try to sabotage our efforts. A properly-worded constitutional carry bill will not only satisfy us, but it will also satisfy their agenda, r.e. campus carry and parking lot storage.

That is so true. Everyone wins and Texas is a becomes a whole state once more.
 

sprale

New member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
8
I really wasn't aware of the reasons behind the CHL people not joining the OC crowd in backing legislation until now. It makes even less sense to me, it seems that it would benefit both sets.
 

CliffH

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
36
Location
East Texas
After arguing with anti-OC people for years and reading the TexasCHL board for a while some reasons seem to re-occur:

Money: CHL instructors will loose money because their classes won't be necessary. While there may be an impact on the size & frequency of their classes, even if Con Carry passes people will still want to take the classes.

Signage: Some are afraid that either there'll be an increase in 30.06 (or similar) signs on business. And there very well may be. We can deal with that if it happens. No doubt a lot of the new signs would come down in a short time.

Scaring the general population: Yep. That's going to happen, especially in the larger cities.

Loosing the ability to CC: Many CC'ers seem to think that allowing OC will take away their ability to CC. Not sure how they come to that conclusion....

One thing I've come to believe is that the basic differences between OC'ers and CC'ers lies not in a persons' preferred mode of carry but in how they face life itself. Those who prefer CC want to spend every day in "stealth" mode. That includes how they address the matter of OC "Let's take baby steps, don't make waves, and if OC passes only OC in the woods. OC'ers conduct their business in a less "stealthy" way.
 

DKSuddeth

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
833
Location
Bedford, Texas, USA
The TexasCHL forums are run buy a guy from the TSRA. What did you expect? TSRA doesn't have a favorable opinion of OCDO. Right now, they're all over there ringing their hands over minutia regarding CC. If we had constitutional carry, the CHL forums would have much less traffic, and that would diminish Mr. Cotton's importance in the grand scheme of things, and he won't stand for that.

lord knows that I have had HUGE disagreements and very vocal discussions with Mr. Cotton concerning the TSRA stance on Open Carry, the tactics, and the people, but one thing I will say about Mr. Cotton is that he does not at all come off like someone who needs to be the center post of TSRA and texas politics. He may come off a bit arrogant when he says that the political game must be played 'texas style' if we are to accomplish anything and that he is just one of a few that can do it, but he does at least talk straight out of his mouth and not a second face, like others have.
 

B.D. WALKER

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
56
Location
Houston, Texas
I recently contacted the NRA to know their view and position regarding the ongoing push for OC in Texas; my short text below:

What is the NRA's stand on Texas Open Carry and why is there no news or support of Rep George Lavender that is trying to work with pro-gun groups to bring Open Carry to Texas?

I and lots of Gun owners and NRA members are very interested in this bill and we need your support to make this happen.



And here is their reply:

Thank you for contacting the NRA-ILA. The session has not started yet. If legislation has or will be filed we will report on it then. At this point there are many different goals we are working on in Texas so there is no point to speak out on each of them until we can determine which are feasible and what we will pursue based on the probability of passage. This is something that we support, but at this point we still have to wait and see. We appreciate your support.

Sincerely,

Erik Eckberg
NRA-ILA



As is shown in the response above, they are just waiting to see what happens instead of being part of the solution. Based on this even when we get the OC bill filed if they don't think we stand a chance they still might not get involved.

It seems like if we want to make this work we can't really depend on these gun groups to assist. Let us continue to contact our Reps, both senate and house to convince them rather than wait on any group that don't even have faith in what we are fighting for...
 

B.D. WALKER

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
56
Location
Houston, Texas
Those guys at the CHL forum are really biased against OC. They claim we are all pushing for it the wrong way and that even though some of them are in favor of it they would rather go with campus carry like most of these so called gun rights groups.

What they fail to see is that only a few groups are behind the OC people and those in a position to legislatively make it happen. As pro gun rights groups they should be willing to support all gun rights not just the ones that seem easy or is politically acceptable to them. The CHL peeps need to realize that we that support OC in Texas have to be some what aggressive bcoz we don't have the backing of the NRA or TSRA to help move things along.

Any way a person wants to carry their firearm once OC or even constitutional carry gets passed is completely up to them. No one is trying to take the ability to CC the firearm if they so choose. So why are the CHL guys so bitter about the thought of OC?
 

jsimmons

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
181
Location
San Antonio, ,
Any way a person wants to carry their firearm once OC or even constitutional carry gets passed is completely up to them. No one is trying to take the ability to CC the firearm if they so choose. So why are the CHL guys so bitter about the thought of OC?

The CHL guys are convinced that we will see 30.06 signs proliferate, thus further limiting their ability to CC. IMHO, we shouldn't be going for "open carry", but instead should be going for *constitutional carry*. That way, we can open carry when appropriate, and concealed carry where required/appropriate. No license necessary.

I think that if a company wants to post a 30.06 sign, they should be required to pay an annual fee for the privilege, and the state should make the signs. They could even use a system similar to automobile registration where the annual fee buys a sticker that they actually put on the sight to show that their posting is current. The fees would only apply to an individual location (and would NOT be available as a group license),and each site application must be made individually. This would probably cause enough inconvenience to keep posting to a dull roar, and would only apply to retail locations, or locations where the customer is required to enter in order to conduct business, and would omit non-retail corporate sites.

To appease locations that are already posted before the date the bill is signed, they would be grandfathered into the system for the first year. After that, they must register their sign in order for it to be valid.
 
Last edited:

Fisherman

Regular Member
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
160
Location
45R
The CHL guys are convinced that we will see 30.06 signs proliferate, thus further limiting their ability to CC. IMHO, we shouldn't be going for "open carry", but instead should be going for *constitutional carry*. That way, we can open carry when appropriate, and concealed carry where required/appropriate. No license necessary.

I agree.

I think that if a company wants to post a 30.06 sign, they should be required to pay an annual fee for the privilege, and the state should make the signs.

I have to disagree on this one. That would be messing with a person's property rights. A property owner should be able to do what he wants on his own property. If they don't want me carrying in their property, I either won't or I won't go there to do business. Education is the key, not legislation and more fees.

We can't go about this like a bull in a china closet.
 

CliffH

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
36
Location
East Texas
I think that if a company wants to post a 30.06 sign, they should be required to pay an annual fee for the privilege, and the state should make the signs.

I have to disagree on this one. That would be messing with a person's property rights. A property owner should be able to do what he wants on his own property. If they don't want me carrying in their property, I either won't or I won't go there to do business. Education is the key, not legislation and more fees.

We can't go about this like a bull in a china closet.

I have to agree with both of Fishermans points.

A persons property is theirs to do with as they want; it's not our place nor the governments to tell them what they can or can't do with it.
 

B.D. WALKER

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
56
Location
Houston, Texas
The CHL guys are convinced that we will see 30.06 signs proliferate, thus further limiting their ability to CC. IMHO, we shouldn't be going for "open carry", but instead should be going for *constitutional carry*. That way, we can open carry when appropriate, and concealed carry where required/appropriate. No license necessary.


The popping up of 30,06 signs due to OC getting passed is not any more true than the Easter bunny. Places that don't want CC now will still not want OC and same thing then. I agree that constitutional carry is better but we should have a plan B which is open carry to fall back to and if possible go for the two with the hope we would get at least one.


I think that if a company wants to post a 30.06 sign, they should be required to pay an annual fee for the privilege, and the state should make the signs. They could even use a system similar to automobile registration where the annual fee buys a sticker that they actually put on the sight to show that their posting is current. The fees would only apply to an individual location (and would NOT be available as a group license),and each site application must be made individually. This would probably cause enough inconvenience to keep posting to a dull roar, and would only apply to retail locations, or locations where the customer is required to enter in order to conduct business, and would omit non-retail corporate sites.


I actually agree your proposal of a fee but I think it would work better if it is only limited to offices with employees and staff and not just the local retailer. Those companies that strive on keeping their employees out with the 30.06 sign would have to pay this fee but the private small business owner that has a their own property would not be included.
 

CrossFire

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2007
Messages
407
Location
Irving, Texas, USA
I have to agree with both of Fishermans points.

A persons property is theirs to do with as they want; it's not our place nor the governments to tell them what they can or can't do with it.

But it happens all the time. Try smoking in a restaurant in Dallas.
 

CliffH

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
36
Location
East Texas
But it happens all the time. Try smoking in a restaurant in Dallas.

Personally, I feel that the anti-smoking reg's are wrong. There too it should be up to the property owner to make the decision, not the government.

If we're advocating changes in the laws it's not right for us to ask the government to impose more restrictions on anyone.
 

B.D. WALKER

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2010
Messages
56
Location
Houston, Texas
If we're advocating changes in the laws it's not right for us to ask the government to impose more restrictions on anyone.

That is true, but you and I know no matter how long and hard the people fight for this and other things, the government would always impose different types of restrictions.

Thatz why i say if we are going always have them, then lets have a few that work for us from time to time.
 
Top