TexasCHLforum.com

TinaMiB wrote:Thank you Charles and everyone else for all you do, and the information you provide. I am a local university employee that carries at all times other than when I am in my work environment. I look forward to when this law begins. In the interim, I will educate and assist others where I work to get their concealed licenses. (I teach women on a weekly basis and I am a DPS certified CHL instructor). I have learned a lot the last several months following this forum and look forward to being an active participant in the future.

Tina

Winchster wrote:Interestingly enough CJ is giving credit where credit is due.

JollyHappyDad wrote:"With the amendment, if you were open carrying you could try and bypass the detectors and the DPS would have no grounds to ask for your CHL to get through."

No. 1) Can't carry a handgun legally w/o a CHL. 2) Can't enter the capital with a handgun unless you have a CHL. 3) To enter with a handgun you have to enter thru the correct line & prove CHL. If you attempt to enter thru the detectors with a gun, concealed or not, you're gonna have to prove you are just stupid not a criminal. A gun in a metal detector at a high risk target, is a reasonable cause to ask for proof (and if up to me reason to deny entry), the status of OC or the amendment doesn't affect the rules of entry. The point is there are only to ways for the public to legally enter, if you are trying to bypass those even without a gun, you can reasonably expect to be asked all kinds of questions.

cprems wrote:Look at the line on the back mic...

mr1337 wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

J.R.@A&M wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:So this lady is listing names of victims of violence so they can be "remembered", but she can't pronounce their names. What an honor, I'm sure.

Ironically, she described them as victims of campus violence. Another reason I'd prefer the choice to be armed in (and on the way into) my campus building.

Thought that passed through my head. If there had been time, it would have been nice to hear someone counter that those victims would have been better off had they been allowed to protect themselves.

To some people, guns only mean violence, not self defense. That's the whole argument the Dems have been making this entire time. Their argument is that law-abiding CHL holders who have a 20-year track record of being even more law-abiding than peace officers are suddenly more dangerous once they set foot inside a building on campus.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Has Sen. Huffman made any public statements about her reasoning or justification for her amendment increasing the charge of not having the chl with you to a felony? Was her intent to make it a felony if someone just forgot their valid CHL at home or was she targeting those that may try to open carry without having applied and received a CHL?

I think there is an important distinction there.

I do not have any inside information, but I believe she offered an amendment to the Huffines amendment trying to get him to pull it down, or to defeat it if it came to a vote. When the point-of-order was raised, I believe that even with the Senate's liberal approach to the germane issue it was not germane because it set a penalty for non-CHL's and the bill applied only to what a CHL could and could not do. That's why I believe she pulled down her amendment to the amendment.

I have no answer why she offered a state jail felony for carrying openly without a CHL. She has been on our side and made sure our gun bills received a hearing and a vote in her committee. In fact, our bills were sent to her committee so they wouldn't die in Whitmire's committee where they traditionally go.

Chas.

JollyHappyDad wrote:Inspite of Dutton being more well written, IMHO, the amendments are for the purposes of enforcement, identical. With all due respect, freshman Senator Huffines belonged back on the porch in the debate, and I hope he improves those skills with experience, but how much skill does it take to COPY those few lines correctly?