TexasCHLforum.com

anygunanywhere wrote:This is liken to pig rasslin'.

Never wrestle with pigs, you'll just get muddy and the pig will enjoy it.

Its so much fun though. Does that make me the pig?

I can't find this statement nor did I record every phone call I've had with NRA/TSRA.
***So you have no proof for your statement.

Overall, our media coverage has been positive in Texas.
***It has? Proof would be helpful here. Please cite articles from reputable news sources that could be called positive by a 3rd party.

We made Q10 out to be the racist he is.
***As above. Proof would be helpful here. Please cite articles from reputable news sources that could be called positive by a 3rd party.
In fact, our efforts there garnered a LOT of membership from the black community
***How many?

You love the liberal media, it appears.
***Can’t resist an attempted insult. However there are many who think you are working with them yourself.

My right to keep and bear arms is not dependent upon government permission. I lost my TEXAS license. Being in the military for over 20 years and stationed in multiple CHL states where a license costs a mere $10-20 isn't beyond reason that I have multiple CHLs.
***The fact you didn’t cite which states you have them in gives the presumption that you don’t actually in fact, have one. I should follow with an additional query. Can you legally purchase firearms in Texas? After all the requirements are extremely similar.

And there it is - the classic NRA belief that the lawful carry of a firearm is damaging.
****Er no it has nothing to do with that (attacking the NRA again). It has everything to do with your antics hurting, not only OC, but also firearms rights in general. As noted, at least two chains killed out gun owners because of you. In the real world, you’ve done more than Bloomberg has. Thanks a bunch.

It does. It says we actually mean it when we say we believe in gun rights, not just some of them. I'm proud of that association and I understand how you wouldn't because they are eating into NRA support and challenging "the House."
***Really? Everyone was on the same page until the public antics started occurring. As noted the NRA has at least 3mm members now. How many do you have? Its not a statistically significant comparison.

I'm talking about any open carry legislation. It wasn't a promise from a governor and dozens of members of the legislature in the past. It is now. 106 is a crappy bill and our members should say no. Absolutely!
***So you’re saying only your legislation. He’s right (again).

How are you advancing the cause when your leader insults millions of gun owners, when your protests lead to retailers banning firearms, and making the entire issue a hot potato for any politician when you should be making it attractive for them to pursue?

And not hey don't work for you. They work for all of us. They have no requirement to help you, at all.

CJ Grisham wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Show me that either of these men are Forum Members? Also, those names are the monikers by which they are now known and this didn't start on the Forum.

So how about answering his questions, since it is directly on point with your current claim that OCT never did in-store demonstrations.

Chas.

"Making fools of yourselves." Not making fools of themselves. That's a direct personal attack. But, I have a thick skin, so I don't care. Just enforcing the rules YOU pointed out. I didn't expect you to see it since it conforms to things you've stated over time in the media.

So you and your group do know these individuals. Were you also part of the Target or Chilis events, or at the outdoor Mexican restaurant where you were asked to leave?

Why are you making enemies of the people actively supporting OC legislation? There are several bills in play currently.

Pro-tip: calling the NRA and TSRA a "Cabal" is insulting to the millions of members in those organizations.
Also Pro-tip: insulting the people who would be you natural supporters is not logical.

Keith B wrote:

CJ Grisham wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote:So you're denying Fatman and Snowboots are part of your crew? Were you with the guys that went into Target, or were filmed in a Chilis making fools of yourselves?

A very short list where they stopped just short of 30.06s right after these demonstrations:
Starbucks
Target

You're violating the rules of the forum with your name calling. Wouldn't want your posts to get deleted. Unless of course there are different rules for different people.

Unless Fatman and Snowboots are members of this forum, then he is not violating the forum rules on personal attacks on members.

Keith B
Moderator

I will apologize however, as that isn't appropriate on my part if we're having a discussion. I don't know their real names. I'd hesitate to use their real names however, to avoid contributing to their harassment. I'll just note initials or not bring them up again.

CJ Grisham wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
When are you going to answer my straight forward questions?

Chas.

When I get around to it and have less important things to do.

So you can throw up attacks but refuse to reply to rebuttals?

How come your organization didn't work with the other organizations to develop OC?
How come you insist on insulting these other organizations?
Do you believe the 4mm members of these orgnaizations are also in on the conspiracy to only promote licensing?
What actual data do you have to support your position?

CJ Grisham wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Selcouth wrote:If so, then someone would have to be able to give the date OCT started their in-store demonstrations.

We never did "in-store demonstrations." Never. That's the problem, Charles. You still have no concept of the reality behind our actions. Every place we've gone into we were invited or secured permission first. We have never used a business for a demonstration.

So you're denying Fatman and Snowboots are part of your crew? Were you with the guys that went into Target, or were filmed in a Chilis making fools of yourselves?

A very short list where they stopped just short of 30.06s right after these demonstrations:
Starbucks
Target

C-dub wrote:

chcknhawk wrote: CJ Grisham
Open Carry Texas

Blah blah blah.

BTW, thanks for getting more businesses to put up more 30.06 signs, NOT.

Agreed. With friends like that, who needs enemies?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Cedar Park Dad wrote: Chas will any of these include a provision whereby OC is limited via a 30.06 sign?

Absolutely not!

Chas.

Thanks for the comfort. That was my concern - that this will bring a wave of 30.06 signs.

txcharvel wrote:Charles, I believe you've written this elsewhere, but can you give some insight into how supporting open carry in Texas this session will not result in the infringement on our already restricted concealed carry rights? I'm pretty sure we all agree that the antics of OCT have unwittingly made a lot of businesses decide to post their stores under 30.06.

I support open carry, but I would rather see the restrictions on concealed carry rolled back vs. getting open carry on the books. Having open and concealed carry with restrictions is less appealing when compared with the possibility of concealed carry and no/or fewer restrictions. Campus carry, I believe, is a bigger deal than open carry. Just my two cents of course.

Thanks

Agreed.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:As I've said, something tells me two more open-carry bills are going to be filed; one in the House and one in the Senate. Like licensed open-carry bills already filed, these also will be licensed open-carry. Rep. Stickland has filed HB195 that would remove the requirement to obtain a CHL to carry openly or concealed. HB195 certainly faces an uphill battle.

Radical open-carry supporters will obviously promote HB195, as will I, but with amendments to remove off-limits areas for CHLs. However, my concern is that radical open-carry supporters will not be content with supporting and promoting HB195 and that they will viciously attack NRA/TSRA open-carry bills and their authors, co-authors and supporters. They have vowed to do precisely this. As I've said before, OCT and OCTC don't have any political clout nor can they impact any elections. However, they have proven themselves to be masters at getting negative, counterproductive publicity and if they lash out at pro-gun people they falsely label as anti-gun simply because they support NRA/TSRA open-carry bills, then the political stench they create could doom passage of any form of open-carry. I don't doubt that this is what the leaders prefer, i.e. their way or no way, but I'm equally convinced that all but a small handful of zealots want to see some form of open-carry pass in 2015.

Anyone who wants to see open-carry pass needs to 1) keep emotions in check; 2) support HB195 and the NRA/TSRA bills; 3) communicate their bill preference to their elected officials (when calls-to-action are issued); be willing to vigorously support the NRA/TSRA bills; and 5) be very respectful to all elected officials. This will fall on some deaf ears, but hopefully most people will be heed this warning and avoid what would be a very damaging unlicensed v. licensed war.

Chas.

Chas will any of these include a provision whereby OC is limited via a 30.06 sign? I hope not as that would be a monumentally bad idea if passed.