TexasCHLforum.com

Bladed wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

joelamosobadiah wrote:

Scott Farkus wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:It's really sad they are taking that stance on it. This is a big step forward, maybe not as big as we want or need, but it's a good one.

Agreed. No way this is not a huge victory for gun rights, especially considering this thing was literally minutes away from dying just a few days ago. And I don't think the "loophole" is going to be as large as many anti's are trying to spin it. From what I saw of the debate, Legislative intent is pretty clear and I don't think they'll tolerate a whole lot of nonsense. We'll just have to see.

I think when your platform is as narrow as SCCC is then it's difficult to accept the step forward even when it's much smaller than you were hoping for and smaller than what you expected at one point in the process.

Perhaps, but I still think it's bad practice to declare defeat when you just got 80% of what you wanted.

I think the people calling this an 80% victory and talking about "legislative intent" either haven't read the bill or don't understand the impact of legislative intent. Legislative intent can be considered by a judge or jury when interpreting vague or ambiguous language, but legislative intent does not change the meaning of words or the interpretation of clearly phrased statutes. What Senator Birdwell intended for this law to accomplish does not change what the law says and will not dictate how it is implemented or enforced. If you honestly believes that, come August 1, 2016, concealed carry will be allowed in 80% of the buildings at Texas public universities or that, come the 2017 Texas Legislative Session, campus carry advocates will only have to work 20% as hard as they did this session, you're either kidding yourself or know something I don't know.

SCC's statement was a tad harsh, but they're right that this is a very minor victory at best. If the Texas Legislature doesn't further expand campus carry rights in 2017, the only thing that will change on most campuses is an influx of 30.06 signs.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

joelamosobadiah wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:

joelamosobadiah wrote:

Scott Farkus wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:It's really sad they are taking that stance on it. This is a big step forward, maybe not as big as we want or need, but it's a good one.

Agreed. No way this is not a huge victory for gun rights, especially considering this thing was literally minutes away from dying just a few days ago. And I don't think the "loophole" is going to be as large as many anti's are trying to spin it. From what I saw of the debate, Legislative intent is pretty clear and I don't think they'll tolerate a whole lot of nonsense. We'll just have to see.

I think when your platform is as narrow as SCCC is then it's difficult to accept the step forward even when it's much smaller than you were hoping for and smaller than what you expected at one point in the process.

Perhaps, but I still think it's bad practice to declare defeat when you just got 80% of what you wanted.

I agree with the first part. I think the message posted above was the wrong tone to take. Be thankful for advancements made, acknowledge defeats, make assurances of further work with university administration and legislatures moving forward. That, IMO, is a winning formula. I don't agree however that they achieved 80% of what their goal was, but none of us will until we see how the changes are implemented by administrations

I'd say it's at least 72%. Maybe 70.56%. I think it's a big step at any rate, I was just picking a good sounding number out of the air.

v7a wrote:The jokers at MomsDemand are saying that SB11 as passed was a victory for them

OlBill wrote:It is incumbent on all of us to prep the ground for 2017 by continuing and even improving on the track record of responsible carry by law abiding citizens of Texas. We cannot give the Acevedos of the world cause. If we do this right, we give ammo to those who fight on our behalf.

Thank you Mr. Cotton et al.

mojo84 wrote:

jmra wrote:

The Wall wrote:I guess next session will be open carry on campus. You can bet constitutional carry for sure.

I hope we don't waste political capitol on OC for CC! Much more important 2A issues!

I hope next session the focus will be remove off limit locations.

NorthTexas wrote:

nobius wrote:It's a shame junior colleges have to wait an extra two years. Not sure what the point of that provision was.

I heard someone (Rep. Fletcher?) talk about that. Junior Colleges sometimes have dual-credit high school students on their campuses, sometimes separated from the college students but sometimes in mixed classrooms. JCs requested extra time to figure out how to handle that.

The Wall wrote:I guess next session will be open carry on campus. You can bet constitutional carry for sure.

safety1 wrote:I'm so glade this is all over, it has been perplexing to say the least.
Thanks to all for sharing thoughts and information over the last few weeks!
Again to Charles THANK YOU SIR

Mahzik wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Alma Allen has a doctoral degree!!? That is shocking and reprehensible.

Chas.

Probably ceremonial only!