TexasCHLforum.com

AJSully421 wrote:The main reason I would not OC around town, besides someone cracking me over the head and taking my pistol, is there were some MDA ninnies who posted in various forums and sites that if they ever saw someone OCing (either long guns or handguns) that they would call 911 and make a false statement that you were waving the gun around because they wanted to use the police to harass you.

So, there you are in the local grocery store, OCing, buying whatever, not hurting anyone, and here comes a cop down the aisle who is responding to a report that you had your gun out and were waving it around. He approaches you in "full command mode" and you stand there absolutely stunned about how Officer Friendly is acting towards you for no reason that you are aware of, and you are taken back and extremely confused as he is barking orders at you. Firmly ensconced in your stupor, you do not act as quickly as the responding officer would like for you to. How do you think this ends? Best chance, you are disarmed and maybe cuffed while they review security video, see you were in the right, and later they track down that MDA hag and arrest her. Worst case... Failure to comply, resisting arrest, in an extreme case, you are shot and killed.

I live in a small town of 21,000 on the edge of Fort Worth, and I am 100% sure that there is at least one of these rabid soccer moms in my small town that would be irate if I OCed to the local Walmart. I could easily see how one of them could get all uppity about you carrying a lethal weapon around their precious offspring and will call 911 and demand that an officer come and make you stop it. They will be asked by dispatch if you are doing anything more than walking around with a holstered handgun, and when the truth does not get them the instant gratification that they desire, it will be very easy for them to lie and say that you had it out of the holster to get the result that they want. Now you are in for an interesting experience.

Maybe it will take a legal OCer being killed based off of a false report and the ninny MDA woman being charged with something like Criminally Negligent Homicide (A stretch by any measure) to get the word out to not try this.

But I can promise you that an irate woman who thinks she is protecting her kids can easily justify in her mind telling a little lie to get you to stop bringing that evil baby killer with you in public.

To me, not worth it. I will OC out at the ranch, certainly to pump gas on the way back to town, maybe in to a fast food joint in Stephenville on the way back, and maybe to my neighborhood park, but that is really it.

RHenriksen wrote:So what is this 3rd amendment we're voting on now?

joe817 wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

LSUTiger wrote:HB910 status says 4/20 bill read 3rd time/postponed. Bill Failed to pass the House.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... 10#vote377" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

?????????? Is it dead? Did I miss anything?????????

Coming up later today, must be a glitch.

Bill hasn't failed the House by any means. Author of the bill requested postponement on voting on the bill to work out some details on an amendment. They are SUPPOSED to get to it today. I'm having my doubts they will have time. But wut does i know?

LSUTiger wrote:HB910 status says 4/20 bill read 3rd time/postponed. Bill Failed to pass the House.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... 10#vote377" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

?????????? Is it dead? Did I miss anything?????????

joe817 wrote:

suthdj wrote:What are you all watching the feed I see is about HB1690

http://tlchouse.granicus.com/MediaPlaye ... nt_id=1415" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Alex54 wrote:

RHenriksen wrote:Video feed has started, gallery is empty. No action yet...

Is it the same link as Friday? It isn't working for me.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Rep. strickland is going to be one and done.

I certainly hope so!

Chas.

ELB wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

thetexan wrote:That wasn't a very good retort by Phillips.

The answer is 'no, LEO do not have the ability to just stop anyone seen with a open carried gun'. That came across as a little weasely.

tex

That answer would have given support to the amendment. Phillips correctly said HB910 doesn't change current law on that issue.

Chas.

Actually I think the correct answer is "Simply being observed carrying a handgun, openly or concealed, does not provide any more cause to assume an illegal lack of license than observing someone driving a car does." I was surprised at how much trouble Rep Phillips had, but it's been a long day for him, I'm sure.

BlueMerle wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

thetexan wrote:He gave up way too quickly.

Are you talking about Huberty or BlueMerle?

It was a bad amendment and would weigh down the bill too. Certain groups should not have special rights above the rest of us.

Meh.... it was meant to convey what a jerk he was. While I'm honestly surprised that anyone was offended, it takes nothing to apologize.

mojo84 wrote:

TVGuy wrote:The guy drives me nuts, but at least get his name right - It's STICKLAND - there is NO "R"

" mane" ??

Oh, the irony.