TexasCHLforum.com

Pawpaw wrote:Maybe we each need to send Grisham a book...

[ Image ]

Dear lord no, he will consider it a manual for what not to do.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

treadlightly wrote: . . . We need licensed open carry not to lead our leaders to enlightenment, but to lead our citizens. As we re-infuse defensive handguns back into Texas life, as licensed concealed carry has done for decades, we strengthen ourselves in many ways. A gun in the hand of a law abiding citizen has positive psychological implications. A gun in my law-abiding hand is a matter of pride, of self-worth, and a symbol that says I have a life worth protecting, and loved ones and fellow citizens who depend on me to ride, shoot straight, and speak the truth.

If we instill every citizen with the individual drive to stand up and be counted on the basis of self-worth and individual value to society, we just might end the defensive need for handguns. We will always need them as an affirmation of things we dare not lose. . . .

I fully agree. In fact, when the legislature has adjourned sine die, I plan to launch an initiative to address precisely this issue. I won't go into details now, but I hope to see a lot of folks get involved.

Chas.

I will do what I can to help.

amtank wrote:Oh I forgot this.

"After having established a 20-year record of law-abiding and responsible behavior, Texas CHLs have earned this personal protection option that 43 states currently allow."

Really? We have earned our permitted, purchased, permission slip of our "right" to be extended.

The other options are kinda DOA in case you haven't noticed. CATI has taken a stand for unlicensed carry or nothing. OCT held that position on January third (See image below), OCTC has been on the unlicensed carry or nothing bandwagon, Texas Carry saw where the political winds were going and hitched their cart to the NRA/TSRA legislation, and so on.

A member of the OCT leadership (Grisham) took offence that I used his earlier statements against his later statements. Every time I get into a "debate" with OCT leadership I get threats, false copyright/trademark claims from a non existent "IP protection team" and when I call Grisham and others out on it rather than denounce it the response is that I should not disagree with them! If you do not agree with the leadership in OCT then you are labeled "supposedly pro-gun" or "seemingly anti-constitutional." One of OCTs members sent me a screen shot of CJ Grisham claiming that Charles Cotton attacked him in this thread, I responded to it and that OCT member was called a coward. He has since emailed me that there has been an effort by a semi-independent group of extremists within OCT to DOS my website, which would explain the suddenly flaky connectivity it has had. Let me ask you this, are these the kinds of people YOU want to be associated with? Are the statements from radicals like the one who posted "A real patriot stands up to tyrnany like CJ Grisham, Kory Watkins, and Tim McVeigh" to my website statements that YOU support? It's kinda funny that the person who posted that posted "You are bashing our constitutional rights brains out..." shortly before CJ Grisham posted to facebook that I am seemingly anti-constitutional. My patience with the Leadership of OCT has nearly expired, as has my patience with the membership who blindly follow the leadership. So let me ask you this, do YOU condone the behaviour of OCT, CATI, OCTC, and others that essentially killed unlicensed carry or are you willing to take a stand against it and demand that the rest of the leadership in your group learn from their mistakes and start acting like adults?

We have an imperfect system for imperfect people, but we are working to make it better. OCT, OCTC, CATI, and others claim the NRA/TSRA is anti-gun because they have not changed it completely yet they have failed miserably to do so themselves. The goals are the same for all of us when it comes to gun rights, I tend to me a bit more realistic and look at changing what I can when I can rather than demanding all or nothing because I assure you I refuse to accept nothing.



I speak for myself and my Podcast, not anyone else.

Brantoc wrote:Stupidity like this is why I haven't re-uped with the NRA. Claiming OCT is pro gun control because they are fine with a more basic sign?? what the heck?

Speaking as a CHL holder, if a business has a sign that is not proper 30.06, I STILL DO NOT VISIT THAT BUSINESS.
I view any victim rich zone sign as a notice they do not want my money. Period.
AMC Firewheel in Garland is a prime example. They have 30.06 printed correct size on (1) total door of the 12+ and it is all the way on the ground.
I might have visited it a few times before I even saw it because it is basically invisible unless you happen to look down going in THAT ONE DOOR.

Do I visit AMC Firewheel armed or disarmed? How about not at all any more. I don't care the sign is not to code. They are stating they do not want my money. I won't give it to them.
NOTE - Friend says it is on 2 total doors now.. of the more than 12.

I am the one who posted this originally. I speak for myself and my podcast, I do not speak for the NRA or anyone else. I do not do business anywhere that makes an effort to post a 30.06, valid or not, if I have a choice in the matter. But I do not accept CJ Grisham, OCT, and others wanting to make it easier to post signage to keep me out. A business has to comply with a number of regulations, and to claim support for property rights (something that is not in the constitution) in an effort to restrict my second amendment rights (which is in the constitution) is unacceptable. To claim I am anti-gun, or anti-open carry, or anti-constitutional carry because I do not drink your kool-aid is more of the same from OCT.

epwrangler wrote:Regrettably true. I just hate for rinos to lead. I am very tired of being lied to.

Constitutional Carry is the end goal, shooting for the fences is fine as long as you don't hurt yourself in the process. OCT has repeatedly stated that they are opposed to licensed carry, yet they claim to support licensed carry bills. The idea that I am anti-gun, anti-open carry, or anti-constitutional carry is untrue and is intentionally stated because when I make a statement I can back it up which some folks take offence at because they can not or choose not to do the same.

If you followed the link in the OCT closed group post to this keep in mind that I am open in posting my position and and opinions, I do not hide them and I do not edit them or delete them when they become a burden. I could go on the offensive against statements OCT and CJ Grisham have made and prove them incorrect or show that they have a conflict between the statements. I have however said that I would not do so until after the legislature is out of session, and I am a man of my word. With that said I will address CJ Grisham and OCT's statements and such on my podcast, but not until the session ends.

I got an email about this thread from a podcast listener, he informed me that this thread was posted in OCT's closed group with the statement that Charles and the NRA are attacking CJ and OCT again. Now that has been said:

Let me make something 100% clear, I do not speak for Charles, the NRA, the TSRA, or anyone besides myself and my podcast. I am the one who posted the screen grab, I am the one who wrote the title of this thread, and I am the one who has no love for OCT for a number of reasons. This is because of personal attacks in their name, Their leadership claiming I am "supposedly pro-gun" with the implication I am anti-gun, I have been threatened in their name, I have had people try and make bogus copyright claims in their name. If OCT and CJ Grisham can grow up and learn to read a little better they would realize that I am the one who started this thread. Charles simply said that OCT and Grisham have done more harm than has come to light and he will discuss it after the session closes. That is not an attack on the group or it's leader, and it definitely did not come the NRA. Charles was man enough to make his statement in public, CJ made his in a closed group where only his echo chamber of supporters would see it.

Note the mods/admin: If this went to far feel free to deal with it as you see fit.

joe817 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:OCT is causing more problems for Texas gun owners that have yet come to light . . . More info after the session is over.

Chas.

Not even a hint? Great. One more thing to worry about.

If there was anything we could do about it without doing more damage by making it public Charles would let us know. While the legislature is in session we have to be careful because we could damage our efforts. I am sitting on an opinion piece I have regarding CJ Grisham, mostly because I don't want to give the other side ammunition, once the session is over I plan to go forward with it.

Don't worry about what OCT has done that can't be discussed right now, worry about getting pro-gun legislation passed while stopping the anti-gun bills.

OCT posted an interesting little bit to their facebook page, anyone who feels that OCT is a no compromise pro-gun organization needs to look a little closer to what OCT is up to. The post is here: " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (Facebook login required to view)

OCT opens with "We support property rights and we COULD support Nevarez's bill IF he removes the penalty." OCT then says that they have met with Representative Nevarez and have offered to support his bill if he removes the penalty. but then they say "However, Nevarez isn't concerned about private property rights; he's more interested in putting gun owners in jail. This is a means to his ends. He's not fooling us." If they know his goals and claim that he isn't fooling them, then why on earth would they support his bill with one minor change?

OCT then claims "If businesses want to ban guns from their premises, they shouldn't have to jump through hoops to do it." Which is the reason we need a well defined law that is very specific in it's requirements, but if OCT really is a pro-gun organization why do they want to make it easier to ban guns? If HB910 or SB17 passes in their current form along with HB2405 Open Carry would enjoy the protection of a specific sign while concealed carry would be easily banned by businesses who would probably think they were banning Open Carry. OCT also says "We don't need another law making it a crime to walk past a piece of paper." Which I agree with, Penal Code 30.06 protects us from that while HB2405 would subject us to it.

OCT finishes the facebook post with "Let businesses have whatever "no guns" sign they want." So there you have it, OCT the pro-gun or is it pro-gun-control group tossing their support behind making it easier to ban guns.

Screen capture below in case OCT's post goes away: