A New Approach to a Decades-Old Injustice

[Charles L. Cotton]

[Reprinted with permission from Texas Firearms Coalition]

Twenty Years of Progress:

Over the last two decades, Texas Concealed Handgun Licensees have established a track record proving that they are the most law-abiding of Texans. Their enviable record is even better than Texas law enforcement officers who also have an excellent record. Not long after concealed carry passed in 1995 (SB60), the public, and some in law enforcement who predicted death on a Biblical scale, came to realize that all of the dire consequences preached by the media and anti-gun groups were nothing more than boogeyman stories. Concealed Handgun Licensees (CHLs) quickly became a non-issue with some in law enforcement even calling a CHL a “good guy card.”

Numerous officers have noted that “when a stranger hands me their Concealed Handgun License, I immediately know more about that person than I do everyone else I come in contact with who does not have a Concealed Handgun License.” One officer was heard to jokingly exclaim, “heck, you guys even have to pay your taxes and child support, we (COPS) don’t even have to do that!” The officer’s choice of words was intended to be humorous, but his message was clear – neither peace officers nor the public have anything to fear from CHLs. None of this came as a surprise to those of us who worked diligently to pass CHL in Texas and to improve it over the ensuing two decades.

Over that same 20 years, the NRA and TSRA have been able to pass numerous bills expanding gun rights in Texas and have killed many more bills that would have infringed in the Second Amendment. They have done so by drafting and promoting bills that many people claimed would never pass, but they were wrong. Texans saw the NRA and TSRA pass bills preventing cities and towns from regulating firearm ownership and usage as is the bane of most New England states. We passed a bill providing protection from frivolous lawsuits against firearms and ammunition manufactures and dealers that were filed by antigun organizations solely to drive those companies out of business with staggering legal fees. Thanks to the NRA, Texans will never suffer the confiscation of their firearms or ammo during times of natural disaster, as was seen in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Texans can defend themselves against deadly predators without worrying about trying to survive the legal system, because the NRA and TSRA passed our greatly expanded version of a “Castle Doctrine” bill in 2007 (SB378). That same year, we also passed the Motorist Protection Act that allows a person to carry a handgun in their motor vehicle without having to get a Texas Concealed Handgun License. Numerous other improvements to Texas gun laws have resulted from the tireless work and dedication of the NRA and TSRA over the last two decades. Any honest evaluation of the political and legislative progress in terms of gun rights in Texas reveal that the last twenty years have seen tremendous success in terms of advancing Second Amendment rights for Texans.

A glaring injustice:

In spite of all of our success, there remains a glaring injustice and a potentially deadly one at that. At the time Senate Bill 60 passed in 1995, it was considered by some as both a revolutionary and radical concept. This opinion was even held by some of the Bill’s supporters in the Texas Legislature. In order to pass SB 60, it was necessary to include many provisions that were ultimately determined to be unnecessary. Among these provisions included the designation of various locations as being off-limits to CHLs carrying self-defense handguns. We are no longer dealing with an unknown quantity as we were twenty years ago when SB 60 passed. We have the benefit of a track record that spans two decades and clearly proves all Texas CHL holders are trustworthy. In spite of this clear and convincing evidence, numerous off-limits areas still exist for CHLs.

The problems with prohibiting CHL from carrying self-defense handguns in certain areas are many. Obviously, they deny the most law-abiding of Texans the ability to protect their own lives and the lives of their loved ones. Such restrictions not only disarm the CHL while in the specified venue, but also on the way to and from the off-limits areas. It would be highly unlikely that a person would need their handgun to defend against a deadly attack while in NRG Stadium watching a Houston Texans football game. However, the parking lot around the stadium has been the scene of numerous assaults, rapes and even murder since the Astrodome was built in 1965.

Lack of focus:
Since CHL’s have such a great track record and forcing them to leave their guns in their cars (subjecting them to being stolen) creates a potential danger, why then has there been no progress in repealing these unnecessary off-limits areas? Focus, or lack thereof, is the problem. During every a legislative session, the NRA and TSRA must promote several bills. We do not have the luxury of promoting only one bill because we have to address multiple issues of importance to our Members. To focus solely on one bill or issue would leave hundreds of thousands of Members without effective legislative representation in Austin. The NRA and TSRA simply cannot let that happen, regardless how important a single may be in terms of its impact on Texas gun owners.

CHL’s United:
The importance of the off-limits issue has prompted the Texas Firearms Coalition to start a grassroots movement called “CHL’s United.” This movement has but one goal; repealing all off-limits areas that currently force law-abiding CHL’s to leave their self-defense handguns behind when entering these locations. In politics, numbers control everything. If the majority of Texas CHLs support the CHL’s United movement, then we would be a political force never before seen in Austin. Single-issue groups have proven successful in national politics, but only when they are well-organized, well-funded, and present their message and demands in a statesmanlike manner. Clinched fists, hollows threats and counterproductive tactics that turn both the public and the media against the issue are not the hallmark of experience in the legislative arena. CHL’s United will be run in a manner that is typical of almost one million Texas Concealed Licensees. That is, with respect toward our friends and opponents, honesty with legislators, the public and the media, and with a relentless dedication to completing our one and only task.

Join the CHL’s United movement and get all of your friends and family to join. Let us make 2017 the year that Texas CHLs are finally recognized for their excellent record by removing unnecessary and dangerous restrictions on the ability to protect their lives.

Join the CHLs United movement!

[Judged]

I would personally say that 90-95% of you paranoid gun owning hypocrites should turn in your weapons!!! I say this because of one simple thought. I am not afforded the same rights as you, and many of you support that!
Hypocrisy runs deep within the chl ltc community. If you are "diagnosed" with a mental illness, your not allowed to carry legally. I can see, as with federal requirements, if someone has been involuntarily deemed to have a mental problem they shouldn't be allowed to own a weapon. However, those of us which VOLUNTARILY went to a doctor HAVE A RIGHT just like you do. To tell us we are not capable of handling a weapon is hypocritical to say the least. If you CHL LTC Permit holders REALLY CARED ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION, as you claim, then you would stand up for everyone.
Some of us have NEVER been afforded due process, and never ran afoul of the law, therefore should not be subjects of scrutiny. Concealed carry, which is not available to every law abiding citizen, should not be afforded to ANY CITIZEN! UNTIL ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS CAN ENJOY THE SAME RIGHT TO PROTECTION, no one should!!!

[WTR]

When you went to the Doctor voluntarily, were you diagnosed with a mental illness?

[Judged]

Yes, years ago. However, I have never posed a danger to anyone. I have never been arrested, committed, or anything. I am a disabled vet, and go to the va. As for me, it wasn't for violent reasons that I went to the Dr.
1. Why does that matter?
2. Should I not have the same opportunity?
3. I have a masters degree
4. If you take a textbook approach of someone obsessing over being ready for the possibility of danger, wouldn't that be a a mental problem.
5. If anyone has ever been extremely emotional over a family death, nervous over marital problems, angry for ANY reason then they have undiagnosed mental problems!

So it doesn't really matter the "finger pointing" and stigma of mental health, why should I have to forfeit my rights? What about the "constitution? If you don't feel safe with me owning a gun, then why should I feel safe with someone paranoid about a government and their "rights." Studies show that diagnosed mental health patients are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrate them.

[Judged]

The REALLY GOOD NEWS for the Texas CHL paranoia movement, is my masters is in politics! Having been a conservative all my life, I will now be joining forces to elect Democratic candidates to key areas in Texas. Maybe they can take the "rights" away from the psycho "my cold dead hands" threats to our peaceful society!!!
See how this works! Either I'm a law abiding citizen searching for equal right, or a leftist threat insuring nobody has the "right" regardless of what I think!!!!

[CoffeeNut]

The REALLY GOOD NEWS for the Texas CHL paranoia movement, is my masters is in politics! Having been a conservative all my life, I will now be joining forces to elect Democratic candidates to key areas in Texas. Maybe they can take the "rights" away from the psycho "my cold dead hands" threats to our peaceful society!!!
See how this works! Either I'm a law abiding citizen searching for equal right, or a leftist threat insuring nobody has the "right" regardless of what I think!!!!

The instability shown in your first three comments has me breathing a sigh of relief that you aren't legally able to carry a handgun.

[Judged]

Don't worry, we all won't soon! I will do my best to try and make that happen!
I guess because I am coherent in my objections rather than "cold dead hands" you think I don't "deserve" rights. Because you can sit there and protect you and your family, and I am angry that I cannot, you say "I am glad"? Well, making an enemy rather than an alli by maybe considering that I might actually have a right, sums up the bigotry I face. I did not threaten to carry in any illegal manner, or violence like "cold dead hands" implies. I stated an opposition, and a coherent argument.
Because I feel that my rights are infringed on, and people wanting constitutional protection for themselves don't think I should have it. Guess I'm 1/3 of a person in your eyes as well!
2nd, 14th, and now 1st obviously don't apply to some law abiding citizens in your eyes.
Making my point! Copy and paste for later talking points! Let's keep this thread going......time for bigotry, hatred, and judgement without due process, let's go!
All people that want rights for themselves, but not for law abiding citizens wanting their own rights, time to prove my argument!

[gljjt]

Troll food available at the dispenser. Just $.25.

[Judged]

ITS ALWAYS TROLL FOOD WHEN ITS DIFFERENT THAN YOUR KOOLAIDE! Real injustice is always looked at as a shhhh they are talking about real truth......shhhhh.... ITS not fox or the NRA!!!

[nightmare69]

No big "win" for LTC holders this session. LEOs got HB 873.

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85 ... 00873I.htm

[twomillenium]

Don't worry, we all won't soon! I will do my best to try and make that happen!
I guess because I am coherent in my objections rather than "cold dead hands" you think I don't "deserve" rights. Because you can sit there and protect you and your family, and I am angry that I cannot, you say "I am glad"? Well, making an enemy rather than an alli by maybe considering that I might actually have a right, sums up the bigotry I face. I did not threaten to carry in any illegal manner, or violence like "cold dead hands" implies. I stated an opposition, and a coherent argument.
Because I feel that my rights are infringed on, and people wanting constitutional protection for themselves don't think I should have it. Guess I'm 1/3 of a person in your eyes as well!
2nd, 14th, and now 1st obviously don't apply to some law abiding citizens in your eyes.
Making my point! Copy and paste for later talking points! Let's keep this thread going......time for bigotry, hatred, and judgement without due process, let's go!
All people that want rights for themselves, but not for law abiding citizens wanting their own rights, time to prove my argument!

You, Mr. Troll are a legend in your own mind, I truly feel for your mental illness but your demeanor and attempt to provoke by threat, show that there is a large chance that you are indeed too unstable to possess a firearm. Thank you for you service and I pray for your healing.

[Middle Age Russ]

I for one agree that rights should not be forfeit without due process. They often are, though, partly because a career legislature remains in office due to public perception that they are doing something good for their constituents. This takes the form of writing and voting on bills which when passed become laws added to the books -- laws that too frequently trample on rights "for the children" or in the name of "public safety". Unfortunately the laws dealing with "public safety" and mental health are informed by the subjective nature of mental health diagnosis and treatment, which puts subjective judgement in the hands of mental health professionals who may be quite averse to the individual ownership and use of self-defense tools. These laws also typically err on the side of "public safety" at the expense of individual liberty and the right to defend oneself.

Judged, you obviously feel that you have been wronged, perhaps in many ways. I thank you for your service and hope for better days ahead for you. My own political contributions of any variety will be in support of a Constitutionally limited government that allows as much liberty (with the inherent Rights) as possible to its citizens.