TexasCHLforum.com

Paragrouper wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Folks, I am not saying to support SB905; nor am I saying you should tell your Representative to support SB905, if the Kleinschmidt amendment is attached. All I'm saying is ask your Rep. to support the Kleinschmidt amendment. There's a very big difference!

Chas.

I think Charles' statement says it all. He did not ask us to support or oppose the bill, but to accomplish a very limited action. 'Why' is apparently not for public consumption at this time.

I'm in.

Thank you!! I can't give any more hints than this folks. But as Pararouper noted, I've never said to support SB905 with or without the Kleinschmidt Amendment. In fact, I've said I don't like SB905 either! It's the Amendment that is important. (I've said too much already.)

Chas.

TexasBill wrote:Yes, as far as SB905 goes, I am for "all or nothing." Every holder of a CHL should be treated the same, legislator or not.

Your "I want it all now" attitude isn't limited to SB905, as is easily seen in your ranting posts.

Chas.

M2K wrote:I am on the fence about supporting, sitting it out, or opposing the bill.

Folks, I am not saying to support SB905; nor am I saying you should tell your Representative to support SB905, if the Kleinschmidt amendment is attached. All I'm saying is ask your Rep. to support the Kleinschmidt amendment. There's a very big difference!



Chas.

M2K wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Our newly joined members who have focused on this thread and bill need to look at my earlier post. I'm not saying SB905 is a good bill; I'm asking people to support the Kleinschmidt amendment to SB905. As many have said, there is a reason for this but I can't say at this time.

Chas.

I've read your earlier posts and most everything on this board for the last few years. It is one of the better boards on the internet consisting of a very intelligent membership. I’m usually not a “joiner” but I joined this board because I just couldn't stand the implied arrogance and elitism of this bill and the Kleinschmidt amendment.

Why should I accept your hidden reason at face value?

Mike

No reason at all. Don't support the amendment.

Chas.

Our newly joined members who have focused on this thread and bill need to look at my earlier post. I'm not saying SB905 is a good bill; I'm asking people to support the Kleinschmidt amendment to SB905. As many have said, there is a reason for this but I can't say at this time.

Chas.

TexasBill wrote:I am all for advancement but advancement should be for everyone, . . ."

Then nothing that has been accomplished since 1995 meets your criteria. No gun-related bill will every be for everyone; it's a political impossibility. You are preaching Utopia, not political reality. Had your philosophy been followed by NRA and TSRA, no one would be carrying a defensive handgun anywhere, nor would a single one of the pro-gun bills we've passed in the last 16 years have ever seen the Governor's desk for signature.

Philosophy and theory sound great, but they don't get legislation passed.

TexasBill wrote:If Texas wants to be in the forefront, it better get a move on. We claim pride in our western heritage yet Texas is one of just two states (and Oklahoma may leave it as the only state) that doesn't permit unlicensed open carry in some form. Even California allows it in some circumstances.

Somehow I knew you were heading to open-carry.

TexasBill wrote:We have one of the most onerous licensing processes in the U.S.: it's actually quicker to be cleared to be a police officer in Texas than it is to get a CHL.

I was a COP for 15 years and this is dead wrong!

TexasBill wrote:The parking lot issue should have been a slam-dunk long ago. Campus carry should not have to be passed through parliamentary procedures -- it should have sailed through standing proud.

Parking lots should have been a "slam-dunk" by what standard; your opinion? You are showing a great deal of political naiveté. Campus carry didn't get out of the Senate on a parliamentary trick; it was prevented from getting to the Senate floor because of absurd Senate rules that allows minority tyranny via the 2/3 rule.

TexasBill wrote:In 1871, the Texas Legislature passed the most restrictive handgun law in the United States -- even in New York, you could get a permit to legally carry. It was a Jim Crow law, designed to keep guns out of the hands of newly-freed slaves, but it remained on the books until CHL legislation became law in 1995. After 124 years of denial, is there some particular reason we should continue to put up with the foot-dragging in Austin? And is there any reason we should put up with legislation that confers extra privileges on a few, who voluntarily sought and spent gobs of money winning, the offices they hold? They knew the risks when they ran; they haven't changed. If they can't share those privileges with those who put them in office, they don't deserve them.

Okay, get back to reality. This isn't 1871 or New York and this ranting doesn't help pass legislation in 2011. Serious discussion is welcome, but simply blasting everything about Texas from 1871 forward isn't.

Chas.

OCD wrote:

artx wrote:Do you consider campus carry and employee parking lots baby steps?

Yes they are baby steps, especially the watered down versions that seem most likely to pass.

I don't want a car salesman to sell me a lemon. If he does, I won't do business with him again. If he tells me I should "make lemonade" you can bet I'll tell all my friends.

Then you will never be satisfied. Do you consider everything accomplished since 1995 to be merely baby steps? What do you consider to be something other than baby steps?

Chas.

Mike1951 wrote:Licenses issued in:

1996 - 114,017 (half 2 year, half 4 year)
1997 - 50,130 (2001, 2005, 2010)
1998 - 51,186 (2002, 2006, 2011)
1999 - 48,765 (2003, 2007, 2012)

So, for those likely in a position to take advantage, I see 264,098 licenses issued in this span.

If we assumed the short term and long term attrition to be 50%, we'd be talking about 132,000.

I'm just guessing here, but I think 25% attrition would be closer, yielding 198,087.

I suspect your numbers are pretty close to right, if not understated. In the last 5 years at the PSC Shooting Club, I think I've had 3 or 4 people tell me they previously had a CHL and let it expire.

Chas.

Hoi Polloi wrote:If I understand it correctly, the bill only allows current legislators the defense to prosecution when carrying in a bar that isn't 30.06 posted and in governmental meetings. The current legislators are said to need this for convenience due to their legislative demands while in office, but the bill covers them until 2020 (not until out of office) and future legislators are not covered at all--they have to be serving in this session for it to apply to them. It seems like a bill written to cover what? Maybe one person in the entire state? And maybe 10 more would benefit?

You are mistaken; it applies to all members of the legislature, per the amendment to (h-1). The new subsection (h-2) applies to people who are legislators now, but who cease to be thereafter. Only (h-2) sunsets.

SB905 wrote:(h-2) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsections
(b)(1), (2), and (4)-(6), and (c) that at the time of the commission
of the offense, the actor was a person who on September 1, 2011, was
serving as a member of the legislature and possessed a concealed
handgun license under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
if the person is no longer a member at the time of the offense and if
the license has not yet been subject to renewal since the person
ceased to be a member. This subsection expires on September 1,
2020.

Hoi Polloi wrote:It's not exactly a good base--defense to prosecution for carrying in a 51% location or a governmental meeting when neither is 30.06 posted after 15 consecutive years of TX CHLs . . .

Everything that is not listed as an "exception" is a defense to prosecution, regardless of the label. All of the "not applicable" provisions set out in TPC §46.15 are actually defenses to prosecution and this includes LEO, CHL's, everyone in those categories. Thus, a COP on duty in uniform can be arrested for unlawful carrying of a weapon. It doesn't happen because he/she will win (and the DA won't accept charges). The same can be said for CHL's.

Hoi Polloi wrote:The prediction that the next legislature will be less 2A-friendly . . .

This was the prediction for the 2008/2009 election/session as it was for the 2010/2011 election/session. Predictions were right for 2008/2009 and grossly wrong for 2010/1011. I see no basis for a claim that the Texas Legislature will be less friendly to gun rights in 2013. It could happen, but there's no reason to think it will, especially with the President up for reelection in 2012.

Chas.

When SB905 comes to the House Floor, Rep. Kleinschmidt plans to offer an amendment that extends it provisions from just elected officials to all CHL's who are on their 3rd or later renewals. Some will ask why the amendment will not cover all CHLs, but I can't go into that now. It's going to be hard enough to fight off a point-of-order.

Please call your Representative and ask him/her to support any amendment to SB905 that is offered by Rep. Kleinschmidt and to oppose any amendments to the Kleinschmidt amendment that are not acceptable to the author (Kleinschmidt).

Thanks,
Chas.

House Members