Critical legislation for 2015

[Hawk99]

My rep voted for straus last term i have asked how he intends to vote this time. He has not answered yet. Keep up your good work Charles

[SA-TX]

Looks like some folks had to learn the hard way in New Orleans. http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/201 ... le_se.html

[Cedar Park Dad]

Frankly Texas has open carry now, of long guns. Spreading that further is of minimal priority vs. other important legislation. Protecting us via shaming and calling out the Youtube stunt specialists wandering around with rifles in Target SHOULD be a priority.

[Cedar Park Dad]

So, let us see when all our CC rights are given to us, what do we fight for? OC? if so, we are just delaying the issue. I say let us have OC for CHLers and it is win-win for all. to OC you go through the same screening and training like a CHLer. OC would be choice to have.

If its an OC for CHLers that means a 30.06 sign covers it. I'd expect within two years CHLs will be almost irrelevant with all the signage.

[Charles L. Cotton]

So, let us see when all our CC rights are given to us, what do we fight for? OC? if so, we are just delaying the issue. I say let us have OC for CHLers and it is win-win for all. to OC you go through the same screening and training like a CHLer. OC would be choice to have.

If its an OC for CHLers that means a 30.06 sign covers it. I'd expect within two years CHLs will be almost irrelevant with all the signage.

Correct and that's why the word "concealed" will have to be added to current TPC §30.06 in any open-carry bill.

Chas.

[SA-TX]

So, let us see when all our CC rights are given to us, what do we fight for? OC? if so, we are just delaying the issue. I say let us have OC for CHLers and it is win-win for all. to OC you go through the same screening and training like a CHLer. OC would be choice to have.

If its an OC for CHLers that means a 30.06 sign covers it. I'd expect within two years CHLs will be almost irrelevant with all the signage.

Perhaps it I just my little neck of the woods but I haven't seen any new binding 30.06 signs. I'll agree that the LGOCers have raised awareness and that has almost certainly led to some but I suspect "almost irrelevant" may be a touch of hyperbole. Many 30.06 signs came down when CHLers told them "no gun = no $", and that can happen again.

I'll also note that if the lack of handgun OC is the cause of the LG OC stunts, one would think that providing licensed OC would deflate that preverbal balloon. My prediction has always been that OC will be accompanied by a few news stories immediately after the law takes effect but very quickly fades. As Charles noted, OCers will be nearly as rare as unicorns.

SA-TX

[Charles L. Cotton]

So, let us see when all our CC rights are given to us, what do we fight for? OC? if so, we are just delaying the issue. I say let us have OC for CHLers and it is win-win for all. to OC you go through the same screening and training like a CHLer. OC would be choice to have.

If its an OC for CHLers that means a 30.06 sign covers it. I'd expect within two years CHLs will be almost irrelevant with all the signage.

Perhaps it I just my little neck of the woods but I haven't seen any new binding 30.06 signs.

I don't care what you have seen or not seen; we are getting reports of new 30.06 signs and some are even reported here on the Forum. Quit trying to minimize the damage from the bomb-throwers.

I'll agree that the LGOCers have raised awareness and that has almost certainly led to some but I suspect "almost irrelevant" may be a touch of hyperbole.

The level to which you go to camouflage the actions of OCT, OCTC and CATI and the damage they've done is becoming very irritating. They've done much more than "raise awareness," they are destroying the open-carry issue and they are endangering other gun rights in the process. They made the general public "aware" that Texas law does not prevent one from carrying their AR-15 into Wal-Mart or any other store, even with it in a tactical sling and their hand on the pistol grip. They've made the general public "aware" of the requirements of TPC §30.06 so business can post proper signs. This "awareness" has also resulted in a call to repeal or gut TPC §30.06. Your downplaying the true impact is making me seriously reconsider my support and actions to promote open-carry. You are the only statesman for the open-carry issue and even you engage in these deceptive tactics.

You claim you oppose their tactics, but you rarely if ever condemn those tactics and/or the leaders who organize these action. You even try to distance yourself from the harmful organizations by coining the acronym LGOC. The fact that you won't condemn the specific organizations and their leaders speaks volumes.

Many 30.06 signs came down when CHLers told them "no gun = no $", and that can happen again.

No, this never happened. You clearly are buying the lie the open-carry bomb-throwers are spouting. At no time has the number of 30.06 signs been reduced in any measurable amount, primarily because there never has been a large number posted. When HB2909 passed in 1997, very few 30.06 signs went up and this was the status quo until recently. TPC §30.06 was a non-issue until OCT, OCTC and CATI decided to carry rifles into Wal-Mart. This put the anti-gunners' focus on TPC §30.06 and created the current plan to repeal or gut this critical piece of legislation that has protected CHLs for 17 years.

I'll also note that if the lack of handgun OC is the cause of the LG OC stunts, one would think that providing licensed OC would deflate that preverbal balloon.

So current law is an excuse for counter-productive conduct? I can't imagine that more than a handful of rational people buy that argument. That argument is essentially, "I'll continue act irresponsible and counter-productively unless you give me what I want." What a childish attitude.

My prediction has always been that OC will be accompanied by a few news stories immediately after the law takes effect but very quickly fades.

Actually, this is the first time I've seen you admit that there will be problems from the bomb-throwers if open-carry passes. Perhaps I simily missed this concession from you in the past. Since you now acknowledge a backlash potential, I'll call your attention to the period from May, 1995 until Sept. 1, 1997 when we saw a massive backlash to citizens carrying handguns. It didn't "quickly fade." It grew at an alarming rate for 27 months until TPC §30.06 became effective requiring a "big ugly sign" to prohibit armed CHLs. Were you in Texas during that time? If so, were you old enough to pay attention to the concealed-carry issue?

As Charles noted, OCers will be nearly as rare as unicorns.

I'm tired of you quoting me trying to promote your apologist agenda. Stop quoting me out of context and stop now. I'm not kidding.

Chas.

[Bladed]

So, let us see when all our CC rights are given to us, what do we fight for? OC? if so, we are just delaying the issue. I say let us have OC for CHLers and it is win-win for all. to OC you go through the same screening and training like a CHLer. OC would be choice to have.

If its an OC for CHLers that means a 30.06 sign covers it. I'd expect within two years CHLs will be almost irrelevant with all the signage.

Correct and that's why the word "concealed" will have to be added to current TPC §30.06 in any open-carry bill.

Chas.

Do you mean the section that reads, "carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent"?

[Charles L. Cotton]

So, let us see when all our CC rights are given to us, what do we fight for? OC? if so, we are just delaying the issue. I say let us have OC for CHLers and it is win-win for all. to OC you go through the same screening and training like a CHLer. OC would be choice to have.

If its an OC for CHLers that means a 30.06 sign covers it. I'd expect within two years CHLs will be almost irrelevant with all the signage.

Correct and that's why the word "concealed" will have to be added to current TPC §30.06 in any open-carry bill.

Chas.

Do you mean the section that reads, "carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, on property of another without effective consent"?

Yep, that's it.
Chas.

[SA-TX]

Perhaps it I just my little neck of the woods but I haven't seen any new binding 30.06 signs.

I don't care what you have seen or not seen; we are getting reports of new 30.06 signs and some are even reported here on the Forum. Quit trying to minimize the damage from the bomb-throwers.

That's not my intention. I was just giving you a data point - what I've seen in my community. I AGREE they have done damage. More on my condemnations later in the post.

I'll agree that the LGOCers have raised awareness and that has almost certainly led to some but I suspect "almost irrelevant" may be a touch of hyperbole.

The level to which you go to camouflage the actions of OCT, OCTC and CATI and the damage they've done is becoming very irritating. They've done much more than "raise awareness," they are destroying the open-carry issue and they are endangering other gun rights in the process. They made the general public "aware" that Texas law does not prevent one from carrying their AR-15 into Wal-Mart or any other store, even with it in a tactical sling and their hand on the pistol grip. They've made the general public "aware" of the requirements of TPC §30.06 so business can post proper signs. This "awareness" has also resulted in a call to repeal or gut TPC §30.06. Your downplaying the true impact is making me seriously reconsider my support and actions to promote open-carry. You are the only statesman for the open-carry issue and even you engage in these deceptive tactics.

Exactly right. They raised awareness of 30.06 which, I've agreed, has probably led to some new signs being posted (I say probably only because I don't have first-hand knowledge of any but I accept others/your reports of them).

You claim you oppose their tactics, but you rarely if ever condemn those tactics and/or the leaders who organize these action. You even try to distance yourself from the harmful organizations by coining the acronym LGOC. The fact that you won't condemn the specific organizations and their leaders speaks volumes.

I'm not sure I understand your quote above. Yes, I distance myself from harmful organizations. You can't give me "credit" for coining the term "LGOC" (Long Gun Open Carry) as that's a term in common use in the Texas forum of OCDO, if I remember correctly. There was no subterfuge meant by it.

Regarding condemnations, I'm surprised to read this but let me try to rectify it because your conclusions and my feelings are quite different:

*** OFFICIAL CONDEMNATION ***
I, SA-TX, do hereby condemn, criticize, disagree with and register my opprobrium with this community for the counter-productive tactics by OCT, OCTC and CATI and other affiliated groups. These tactics include, but are not limited to, carrying long guns into businesses, approaching meetings of Mom's Demand Action while carrying rifles, and a leader of one potentially OC-ing in OK without a valid license. I have long said, and still maintain, that if you really want OC of handguns to be legalized in Texas you should join / work with the TSRA because they have a demonstrated track record of getting legislation passed despite the many challenges in our legislative process.
*** OFFICIAL CONDEMNATION ***

Many 30.06 signs came down when CHLers told them "no gun = no $", and that can happen again.

No, this never happened. You clearly are buying the lie the open-carry bomb-throwers are spouting. At no time has the number of 30.06 signs been reduced in any measurable amount, primarily because there never has been a large number posted. When HB2909 passed in 1997, very few 30.06 signs went up and this was the status quo until recently. TPC §30.06 was a non-issue until OCT, OCTC and CATI decided to carry rifles into Wal-Mart. This put the anti-gunners' focus on TPC §30.06 and created the current plan to repeal or gut this critical piece of legislation that has protected CHLs for 17 years.

I personally know of one business that had a sign and later took it down: Fry's Electronics in Arlington. I've could swear I've read reports of others as members gave business cards to owners or spoke with them to say why they were taking their business elsewhere. Nevertheless, that's hearsay and I'll accept your statement. I've said many times I am in favor of 30.06 and support no negative changes to it.

I'll also note that if the lack of handgun OC is the cause of the LG OC stunts, one would think that providing licensed OC would deflate that preverbal balloon.

So current law is an excuse for counter-productive conduct? I can't imagine that more than a handful of rational people buy that argument. That argument is essentially, "I'll continue act irresponsible and counter-productively unless you give me what I want." What a childish attitude.

Respectfully, I suggest that you are applying your opinions (and mine because we agree) to them. They don't agree that they are counter-productive (or, at least, they didn't until they stopped carrying long guns in businesses; I'm not sure how they would answer that question now.)

My prediction has always been that OC will be accompanied by a few news stories immediately after the law takes effect but very quickly fades.

Actually, this is the first time I've seen you admit that there will be problems from the bomb-throwers if open-carry passes. Perhaps I simily missed this concession from you in the past. Since you now acknowledge a backlash potential, I'll call your attention to the period from May, 1995 until Sept. 1, 1997 when we saw a massive backlash to citizens carrying handguns. It didn't "quickly fade." It grew at an alarming rate for 27 months until TPC §30.06 became effective requiring a "big ugly sign" to prohibit armed CHLs. Were you in Texas during that time? If so, were you old enough to pay attention to the concealed-carry issue?

Yes and no. I've said before that I expect negative news stories if OC passes but the same thing will be true when we pass Campus Carry, for example. On Sept. 1st (or whenever the bill is effective), we'll see stories that hint at the mayhem to come from irresponsible college students and firearms in close proximity. Nothing will come of it and it will quickly fade away. As good as CHLers are, a very small % gets in trouble every year. If campus carry is an option, one of those few data points might happen on a campus. Similarly, one of them might happen via OC. Either way, I support the change because we can't set policy based on what a very few do but rather on the good for the many.

Is there "backlash potential"? Sure. Do I want to see more 30.06 signs? Of course not as I'm a CHLer too! I just don't believe probability of it being severe is a high as others do. Yes I was here and yes I'm old enough and was paying attention to the issue in the 1995 - 1997 timeframe.

As Charles noted, OCers will be nearly as rare as unicorns.

I'm tired of you quoting me trying to promote your apologist agenda. Stop quoting me out of context and stop now. I'm not kidding.

Chas.

Perhaps I misunderstood you? I thought your point was that OC is so much work for so little payoff (so few will open carry that it's like creating "unicorn season"). I'm confused because I can't square that argument with the backlash one. It is disappointing that you inferred bad faith instead.

Charles, we agree much more than we disagree. I hope you'll reassess if you are being fair to me on the few differences of opinion that we do have (I'm referring to "apologist", "deceptive tactics", "I don't care what you've seen or not seen", "the level which you'll go to camouflage the actions of ..." and the accusation of quoting you out of context). Hopefully we can keep the debate gentlemanly.

SA-TX

[booze97]

Finally got a reply from Scott Turner and it was a generic form letter. "I support the Second Amendment and got an NRA "A" rating, blah, blah, blah".

Sorry Scott, you'll need to do better than that...

[dicion]

Who would be responsible for enforcing and writing citations to government agencies who post 30.06 if HB508 does pass?

Anyone?

That depends on how the bill is written. There won't be any citations, there will be lawsuits. My version allows the AG to do it and if the AG does not file suit within a certain time frame, then any CHL can do so. If/when the CHL wins, they get all of their attorney fees and other costs of litigation reimbursed by the offending governmental entity.

Chas.

Reading through this thread, quick question on this point. I go to a some government owned locations that have random, completely various signs stating that firearm carry is illegal there, not even 30.06 signs. Would this bill contain provisions to make them remove other, non-30.06 signs as well if notified? Since they're equally unenforceable and all, they could be seen as the same 'scare tactic' that posting a 30.06 sign does, make people wonder if it is, in fact, illegal there for some other reason than a 30.06.

Examples Include Houston Transtar, where the front door states that it's illegal for any weapons to be carried there except by peace officers under some old who-knows-what reference.

I could see anti-gun places posting non-30.06 signs just go get around this bill but still 'scare off' people who aren't entirely sure of a location's legality if it only specified 30.06 signs as worthy of citations.

My main concern with this situation is not that I would be convicted, obviously that probably wouldn't happen, but rather that an uninformed person(s) at these locations believes these signs to be valid and causes commotion for some reason. If I was even arrested, I would probably lose my job. I would rather the people at these locations be 'educated' properly not to even try to get people in trouble for this, and being able to throw this bill at them would likely do just that.

I don't frequently carry at these locations for 2 reasons, the one mentioned above, and secondly that I usually visit them in the course of my daily job (a whole other issue). However, there have been times that I have been 'called out' to these locations on nights and weekends, and have to visit them in my personal vehicle in the interest of time, and It could definitely apply then.

[simianangel]

Who would be responsible for enforcing and writing citations to government agencies who post 30.06 if HB508 does pass?

Anyone?

That depends on how the bill is written. There won't be any citations, there will be lawsuits. My version allows the AG to do it and if the AG does not file suit within a certain time frame, then any CHL can do so. If/when the CHL wins, they get all of their attorney fees and other costs of litigation reimbursed by the offending governmental entity.

Chas.

Reading through this thread, quick question on this point. I go to a some government owned locations that have random, completely various signs stating that firearm carry is illegal there, not even 30.06 signs. Would this bill contain provisions to make them remove other, non-30.06 signs as well if notified? Since they're equally unenforceable and all, they could be seen as the same 'scare tactic' that posting a 30.06 sign does, make people wonder if it is, in fact, illegal there for some other reason than a 30.06.

Examples Include Houston Transtar, where the front door states that it's illegal for any weapons to be carried there except by peace officers under some old who-knows-what reference.

I could see anti-gun places posting non-30.06 signs just go get around this bill but still 'scare off' people who aren't entirely sure of a location's legality if it only specified 30.06 signs as worthy of citations.

It's pointless unless the bill includes criminal penalty and loss of peace officer license for bad cops who arrest people who ignore improper 30.06 signs on government property.

[dicion]

It's pointless unless the bill includes criminal penalty and loss of peace officer license for bad cops who arrest people who ignore improper 30.06 signs on government property.

I disagree, financial penalties for agencies and specifically people who define/enforce the illegitimate policy/post the sign IMO would be an excellent deterrent.

Government types LOVE to shirk and pass off responsibility in my experience. Not a single government employee I know would risk any sort of these issues if that bill existed, and they were knowledgeable of it. The mere EXISTENCE of the possibility of personal responsibility would make them all tremble in fear of even going near it. I can almost feel the paper cuts from the memos flying around so fast advising everyone of the change in the law, and how not to even approach the issue or risk disciplinary action.

I agree that penalties against peace officers would be an additional layer of protection, but ya gotta start somewhere small :)

[Charles L. Cotton]

It's pointless unless the bill includes criminal penalty and loss of peace officer license for bad cops who arrest people who ignore improper 30.06 signs on government property.

I disagree, financial penalties for agencies and specifically people who define/enforce the illegitimate policy/post the sign IMO would be an excellent deterrent.

Government types LOVE to shirk and pass off responsibility in my experience. Not a single government employee I know would risk any sort of these issues if that bill existed, and they were knowledgeable of it. The mere EXISTENCE of the possibility of personal responsibility would make them all tremble in fear of even going near it. I can almost feel the paper cuts from the memos flying around so fast advising everyone of the change in the law, and how not to even approach the issue or risk disciplinary action.

I agree that penalties against peace officers would be an additional layer of protection, but ya gotta start somewhere small :)

A bill very much like HB508 in 2013 will be filed and should pass. That Bill would have created a $10,000 per day per sign for any governmental agency that posted an unenforceable 30.06 sign.

Chas.