TexasCHLforum.com

Let's not forget that we currently have constitutional carry. The only topics for debate are how and where carry should be restricted for LTC as well as non-LTC holders.

Currently constitutional carry in Texas allows an unlicensed person to carry a handgun in their home, in a business or other location that they control, at a shooting range, while hunting, in their rented hotel room, in their vehicle, and between their vehicle and any of these other locations. LTC holders are allowed to carry in all of these places, and are also allowed to carry in some other places, such as certain government buildings, businesses that choose to allow guns (by not posting signs), and while walking down the street.

If I think about my typical day, as an LTC holder, I spend 8 hours sleeping with my gun a few feet away, I spend 8 hours at work at a business that has decided to not allow guns, and I spend most of the remaining 8 hours at home, awake, or at a restaurant / store. I can legally carry for basically 2/3 of my day (while not at work).

If I was relying on constitutional carry alone, the only difference would be the 1-2 hours a day where I am not in my car, at work, or at my home. So instead of being able to carry 16 hours a day, I could carry 14-15 hours a day. This is not a significant difference, IMHO, and expanding CC to cover everywhere an LTC can currently carry would not result in "blood in the streets".

I would like to see CC expanded to cover everywhere an LTC can currently carry, and LTC expanded to cover every location that would have been allowed by HB 560. I would also like to see the de-criminalization of 30.06 signs for LTC holders.

Lynyrd wrote: There are over one million LTC holders in Texas now. Is that a big enough group to pay a lobbyist? I don't know. Would a paid lobbyist even help our cause? I don't know. But I do know that even among pro 2A Texans, non LTC holders are not terribly concerned or terribly sympathetic to these issues. And that my friends, is something our legislators know as well.

This brings up a thought. If CC was to pass, that number of 1 million legal gun carriers would instantly increase to almost the entire adult population of the state. How many of the non-LTC holders will start to carry? Who knows. Probably most of the non-LTC folks that are currently carrying their cars under MPA. But the point is that we would see an increase in the number of people who would have a dog in this hunt with regard to the rights of folks who carry guns. That definitely wouldn't hurt.

Russell wrote:

stash wrote:Received an email this morning (like probably a lot you all did) from Alice Tripp/TSRA why constitutional carry (CC) did not make it this past session and what they (TSRA) are going to do to get it done in the next session. Sure sounded to me that CC was going to be the priority next session. The disappointing thing to me was not a word about 560 next session.

I know I've said this probably half a dozen times, but I'll say it again because it makes me feel better :-). This blind drive towards constitutional carry is why I will not be renewing my membership with them, it irritated me that much. As a result of them using up every last ounce of political capital trying to ram this nonsense through the legislature we made practically no progress on anything of any real value (in my opinion).

SB 16 - Lowered LTC cost. OK, not bad.
HB 3784 - Created an online LTC course. ......
SB 263 - Removed a caliber requirement for qualification. ......
HB 435 - Defined additional folks that belong to a special class of people for carrying. Great.


I'm underwhelmed. They had the chance to use LTCers amazing safety record to really make a difference and instead chose not to. That does not represent me well.

I went back through every email I received from them, and HB 560 was mentioned *once* out of the 27 emails I received since Feb 4th - in the bill summary email sent on March 11th. Practically all of the rest were Constitutional Carry Circus Time.

Maybe I'll write them a letter explaining why they can stop sending me donation requests now.

HB 560 would have been great. But from my personal perspective, decriminalizing 30.06 signage would be MUCH more impactful and beneficial. In the last 12 months, I have not visited a single location where HB 560 would have changed my ability to carry. But I have had to face the choice of changing my plans or not carrying about once every other week due to a business owner who has decided that they should make the choice for me of how I defend myself and my family. I fully support property rights, but I also believe that your property rights should not extend to what an invited guest choses to wear underneath their clothing. In Florida and many other states, businesses somehow manage to stay in operation despite signs having no criminal penalties. I think the same would work here, and would be a huge practical benefit for LTC holders.

On your list above, the only one that benefits me is a lowered LTC cost, because it reduces the pain of maintaining my right to carry. CC would benefit me even more in that regard. But neither is nearly as important, to me as decriminalization of 30.06 signs, or passage of HB 560.

Russell wrote:Charles managed to explain 560 pretty well that I feel they could have managed to in their newsletter if they wanted to.

I'm frustrated with the TSRA right now to say the least. I sent some cash their way this session, I hope they don't let me down.

560 needs to be priority, it actually makes a difference in a person's safety. Unlicensed carry does not, you always have the option of getting your license.

They both will save lives. The right to life is an unalienable right. The right to protect life by keeping and bearing arms is guaranteed to not be infringed upon, per the US constitution. Licensing requirements and limitations on where one can carry both cost lives, and both are an affront to our basic human rights.

I'm sure that every one of us cares about one of these bills more than the other. That is understandable. But to say that removal of licensing requirements will not make a difference is a person's safety is wrong, at least for those that do not have a license for whatever reason. You could just as easily say that HB560 will not make a difference in a persons safety because they could just choose to not go anywhere that is currently restricted. Both statements are disingenuous at best, IMHO.

KLB wrote:

Papa_Tiger wrote:Lots of opportunities here for a bill to die.

I fervently hope this bill passes, but in general, the fewer bills that pass, the better, so the more opportunities for a bill to die, the better.

If we were starting from scratch, with no laws on the books at all, then I would agree with you completely. But unfortunately, there is much work needed to undo the restrictive laws that we have today.

mr1337 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Here is the response from my Senator. Kind of non-committal if you ask me:

Mr. Soccerdad:

On behalf of Senator Kolkhorst thank you for contacting her office about HB 560. You have made some good points which she will consider. Thank you again.

Cheryl Tiemann
Central District Director
Senator Lois W. Kolkhorst
P. O. Box 1867
Brenham, Texas 77834
979-251-7888
979-251-7968 Fax

Sounds like she need more calls/emails/letters.

It definitely sounds like she has not yet finalized her position on this one.

Here is the response from my Senator. Kind of non-committal if you ask me:

Mr. Soccerdad:

On behalf of Senator Kolkhorst thank you for contacting her office about HB 560. You have made some good points which she will consider. Thank you again.

Cheryl Tiemann
Central District Director
Senator Lois W. Kolkhorst
P. O. Box 1867
Brenham, Texas 77834
979-251-7888
979-251-7968 Fax

AJSully421 wrote:This bill should be our only priority. Lt. Gov seems to be pushing for reduced or eliminated LTC fees... so we don't need to push too hard on that one IMO.

This will need to be pushed hard.

I have already contacted Konni Burton and Craig Goldman, and had my wife do the same. I will have my parents, in-laws, and sister and brother-in-law who have LTCs contact their reps as well.

Even if this is the only pro-2A bill that passes, this session will be a success. There are a few other "nice to have's", but those are all minor in impact compared to this bill.