TexasCHLforum.com

Jason K wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:

Jason K wrote: Maybe you and I define "success" differently....I stated that the non-establishment OC & CC groups were successful in getting the public and media discussion going. Denying that fact is hard to do....especially when you admitted it yourself. NRA and TSRA lost a great opportunity in 2011 and 2013 to start the discussion in a positive way. The other groups didn't squander the opportunity...even if a lot of those opportunities turned into blunders. I'd rather have seen NRA and TSRA bringing OC and CC in the public eye in those years. But, to paraphrase most Hollywood talent agents, the only thing worse than bad publicity is no publicity at all. And another paraphrase.....better to try and fail than never to try at all.

One good thing.....NRA is doing a bang-up job on using the Internet and "new media" to get the message out in the right way. I really like the way they're using NRA FREESTYLE & YOUTUBE to put the issues and gun owners out in a positive light. I hope the NRA's voice gets loud enough to drown out the Grishams and Watkinses. Nothing in this world gets done without public discussion anymore.....I'm glad to see the NRA speaking up.

The NRA and TSRA have done quite a bit for CC in the previous sessions. If it were not for them Campus Carry would not have made it as far as it did in the past. As far as Open Carry goes I know for a FACT that the TSRA rep (Alice Tripp) testified in support of OC in prior sessions even while she and anyone associated with the TSRA were being accused of trying to kill the bill. Remember the Interim Senate Hearing about Open Carry? It was the NRA and TSRA's efforts that got that hearing, they could have had a hearing on Campus Carry again or maybe one on removing off limits locations for CHLs but they asked for Open Carry. The TSRA and the NRA have not squandered any opportunity, what they have done is applied tried and true methods of getting legislation passed only to find themselves having to undo damage caused by folks on "our side" who feel a need to use "In Your Face" tactics. When the legislature started the NRA and TSRA reps got real busy and real quite because they are doing their best to get results, not sound bites. When passing controversial bills you have to budget your time and resources. Getting legislation passed often means you are too busy actually getting results for you to make statements or media appearances.

False, personal attack on a Form Member by Jason K has been deleted and he has been banned for gross rule violation.

Beiruty wrote:It is not a secret it is on facebook and their website.

Here it is:

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2015040 ... -in-austin" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Texas: Pro-Second Amendment and Pro-Hunting Legislation On The Move in Austin

Jason K wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

cowhow wrote:Not seeing any movement on this bill. I'm afraid it got lost in all the furor about campus carry and open carry.

Exactly right!! So much political capital was spent on how we can carry (open-carry) as opposed to where we can carry (everywhere) that HB308 will not pass. That's a crying shame as it impacts 840,000+ CHLs in a manner that increases personal safety. Unfortunately, that argument has fallen on deaf ears. Not one life will be saved by open-carry, but how many people will be robbed, assaulted, raped or murdered walking between their cars and a location that is statutorily off-limits? Yeah, I'm bitter, very bitter!

Chas.

Is that the official word?......

I find it interesting that a legislative goal that the NRA and the TSRA has been working on for several sessions behind the scenes quietly is still not going to pass in this session.....but two issues that got picked up by some very loud, vocal groups working outside of the NRA and TSRA and in the media spotlight have got a pretty good chance of passing in just a couple of legislative sessions.

Different strategies....different results, I guess.....

jerry_r60 wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:Maybe some of the regular folks are falling into the trap that new CHLs do, not reading through to the bottom of the prohibited places section where the section was amended so that churches, hospitals, amusement parks, etc can prohibit concealed carry by posting 30.06. Obviously hospitals and amusement parks are already aware of this. Maybe churches aren't?

Churches are aware of 30.06. They don't want the ugly sign cluttering up their landscaping and out of sight is out of mind. If you can't see it what is there to complain about?

Many have also chosen to not make their congregants and members helpless sitting ducks.

I've sat in many business meetings and I've never even heard it come up. It's not been conscious choice to protect the congregation and its not been a conscious choice to avoid the ugly sign. I think it's simply been a matter of out of site, out of mind. No one has perceived an issue that needed to be discussed.

MeMelYup wrote:

TexasCajun wrote:Maybe some of the regular folks are falling into the trap that new CHLs do, not reading through to the bottom of the prohibited places section where the section was amended so that churches, hospitals, amusement parks, etc can prohibit concealed carry by posting 30.06. Obviously hospitals and amusement parks are already aware of this. Maybe churches aren't?

Churches are aware of 30.06. They don't want the ugly sign cluttering up their landscaping and out of sight is out of mind. If you can't see it what is there to complain about?

booze97 wrote:Ugh, all this attention on Open Carry while THE MOST IMPORTANT firearms bill filed goes nowhere.

End statutory Victim Zones!!!