TexasCHLforum.com

BPNovum wrote:I am not sure how changing the wording of the sign from concealed to concealed or not concealed creates any more or less locations where a CHL holder can or cannot carry. Personally, I wish we were going much further to "Constitutional Carry" like in Arizona and some other states. But incrementalism is working well for us on this. Each session our rights have been slightly restored compared to the previous session.

I don't personally oppose the level 2 holster restriction if that helps get law enforcement on board with open carry. We can always come back and change it again next session. The Democrats have been stealing our rights gradually over decades. It will take a while, and many incremental steps to get us back where we should be.

Hopefully we can work with Lavender and Paddie to improve the bill, but I have to believe, they have a pretty good understanding of what they can get passed and not passed. If Fletcher is chairman of homeland security we will have to work on him to get his support. Lavender thinks he can get him on board and that Todd Hunter is on board in calendars. The devil is in the details, but let's don't demand "all or nothing". We might just end up with nothing.

First off, The requirement for the exact language got changed to "indicating the language" that is how more locations can easily be made off limits. Regarding the holster requirement. "Dual points of resistance" is confusing and vague. A better solution would be to out right say level 2 or something to the effect of "dual retention mechanisms" which would avoid folks thinking that "My holster provides dual points of resistance because it form fitted so the trigger guard and ejection port meet the requirement." Additionally why should we have to meet a requirement to satisfy those people who already legally open carry do not have to meet?

BPNovum wrote:Why does the fact that I haven't posted in many years make the posting confusing? Silly point.

To answer your question, I did not speak to the NRA on behalf of Rep. Lavender or anyone else. I saw the press release and was writing a story about the press release. I asked Jacqueline for a statement on this. Her response is quoted above. It was a generic statement of support of people being able to exercise their right to defend themselves and did not deal with the merit of specific details of the bill.

Now we have two posts from me in one day. Does that make it less confusing?

Your post indicated that we were already misquoting you or had a habit of it, both of which are now cleared up. We haven't, we don't and the implication is that we would misquote the post you were making. I also found your article on TexasGOPvote which is dated Jan 25, 2013 and has the quote you posted above. I'll take you to task on something, Jacqueline Otto saying "The NRA will always support law-abiding citizens' ability to defend themselves and their loved ones." is a long way from, and I quote your article here, "the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) will be standing strongly beside this bill." By changing TPC 30.06 this bill may (In my opinion will) actually make it more difficult for folks to defend themselves because there will be more off limits locations. In addition to that this bill does nothing to advance peoples ability to defend themselves and their loved ones since it does nothing to make it possible for more people to legally go about their lives armed. All this bill would do is permit a slightly more comfortable method of carry while putting citizens at risk of being arrested for possibly wearing the wrong type of holster. I see two big issues with this bill, and they must be resolved before I can support it.

BPNovum wrote:Ok... before anyone starts accusing me of deliberately misquoting someone, how about we gets some facts straight. If you have a direct question about what was said to me by the NRA let me know and I will address it.

This is the quote from Jacqueline Otto:
NRA spokeswoman Jacqueline Otto told me today, "The NRA will always support law-abiding citizens' ability to defend themselves and their loved ones."

Bob Price
TexasGOPVote.com

Uhm ok, but I would like to point out that your post is confusing considering it's the first you have made here in 8 years. So you talked to the NRA about this bill for Lavendars office? If so who did you speak to and what exactly was said?

johnferg69 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

johnferg69 wrote:I know everyone is fighting for no changes to 30.06.But IF the NRA is helping to write and backs this bill but 30.06 gets rewritten is the TSRA going to fight against the NRA?

The NRA absolutely did not write the bill and we did not approve any amendment of TPC §30.06. This bill will not pass if there is any change to TPC§30.06. I was given a copy very shortly before it was filed and had nothing to do with writing it.

Chas.

I don't believe anyone said the NRA wrote the bill. Rep.Lavender stated "We worked with the NRA, who has been very supportive, to come up with a bill that would not make a business bar concealed carry because they may have concerns about Open Carry"

With all due respect, Is there anyone who may have helped from the NRA besides you? I'd hate to think that Rep. Lavender is lying about getting help from them or that Bob Price is purposefully misquoting NRA-ILA spokeswoman Jacqueline Otto in this article;
http://texasgopvote.com/regions/texas/t ... rry-005062" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I find it suspect that the NRA would work on a bill w/o bringing in their state affiliate or w/o the knowledge of a member of their board of directors who is involved with state affiliate (and state politics). In this instance I suspect that someone believes the NRA helped on or supports the bill because they submitted it to the NRA and wasn't told "We don't like it" before it was filed.

I have spent the morning going over this thing and have not yet had time to look at the changes to the Penal code. My thoughts so far can be found in the Google doc link below. I have included what codes and sections the bill would change (I have not yet gotten to sections 37-42 of the bill) in the second page. My conclusions are strictly my own and have not yet been influenced by the changes that would potentially be made by the changes in the Penal code this bill proposes.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tUc ... E9VH4/edit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;