TexasCHLforum.com

Just seen that CJ Grisham was able to get sponsorship for a "Carry To The Capital" event in January. CJ is reporting his was able to get this sponsorship from State Sen. Estes. I have called to express my concerns with Sen. Estes about these groups previous tactics and they overall belief there is a negative impact on gun rights.

Sen. Estes re-assured me he is only allowing an event(with requires sponsorship to be carried out) and not sponsoring any legislation from these groups at this time. He also stated that he is well aware of the tactics demonstrated by these group and is cautious.

Sen. Craig Estes( District 30) and Rep. Scott Sanford(District 70)

Mr. Cotton-

I brought up the poll you had posted on this forum, both were receptive to the ideas being "kicked around" on here. When I brought dropping the gun free zones for CHL holders, both seemed to react like they already had that on their mind.

Another issue for me was reducing the penalty for violation of a 30.06 sign. I mentioned that due to my career(firefighter) a Class A misdemeanor seemed harsh for what could be an unintentional oversight of a sign. A Class A conviction would mean the end of my career. Sen. Estes asked if he could add my name to a list to be called down to Austin to speak on behalf of such a bill. Of course, I obliged.

For anybody who has recently contacted their Senator to Rep, be patient. Mine both told me they have been busy with the border issues and have been slow returning calls and emails.

Spoke with both my Senator and Rep, yesterday. Both have a pro-gun and pro 2A reputation. I expressed what I would like to see for this upcoming session. Both were very pleased and eager to inform me that Open Carry was alive and well. Please bear in mind, I did not bring that particular subject up, and that they both offered this up to me. Also both reported to fielding numerous calls from their constituents voicing support for Open Carry and other pro-gun legislation.

Along with other items that I would like to see changed, both seemed very on board for an pro gun legislation. Mr. Cotton, my Rep and Senator seem to be on our side.

I hope this helps.

CleverNickname wrote:

Wes wrote:

gsansing wrote:As much as I would love to see Open Carry, even if it's just for CHl'ers, I believe there would be a proliferation of 30.06 signage, thus rendering Open Carry ineffective. In my opinion only, and taking into account property rights of all, it is my believe I should be allowed to carry openly or concealed in any public setting or place. However, I don't believe this is an issue we can take on for this session.

So I think our next big issue is removing the off limits zones for CHl'ers and reducing the penalty for missing a 30.06 AT MOST a Class C misdemeanor or even better removing the 'teeth' altogether effectively making it a civil issue not a criminal.

Except open carry, per Charles, would not pass if it were tied to 30.06. I wouldn't want it to either. Why change 30.06 and give people a chance to water it down in the process. If our choice was open carried tied to 30.06 or no open carry, I'd choose no open carry.

Imagine a future where open carry passes and the 30.06 sign still only applies to CCW....

I think the fear is that businesses would see people open carrying, not like it, and then find out that hey, there's this 30.06 sign that will prevent people from carrying guns on their property. Well, no, the 30.06 sign would only prevent legal CCW and people will have been doing it for a long time before open carry. But right now CCW is out-of-sight-out-of-mind, and the fear is that open carry will cause more 30.06 postings even if posting them doesn't do anything legally to stop open carry.

While I can certainly understand your point, do you feel this has come to pass? What's worse I believe we have ourselves to blame for letting the proverbial cat out the bag.The screen shot posted above was pulled from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Facebook page, and I have no doubt that I'm not the only one who has seen this. Yes, gentlemen I am sure this is probably not the first time this little anti-gun anecdote has been passed around the interweb; which proved more and more for a way for the anti-gun camps for pressure stores to post 30.06.

As most of us on here believe, without doubt some of this is being spurred from the OC camps walking into public places with an AR strapped to their backs.

Gentlemen, I would also like to add that I am new here and my intent is not to ruffle feathers; however I am by no means new to firearms or for that matter the issues surrounding them.

As much as I would love to see Open Carry, even if it's just for CHl'ers, I believe there would be a proliferation of 30.06 signage, thus rendering Open Carry ineffective. In my opinion only, and taking into account property rights of all, it is my believe I should be allowed to carry openly or concealed in any public setting or place. However, I don't believe this is an issue we can take on for this session.

So I think our next big issue is removing the off limits zones for CHl'ers and reducing the penalty for missing a 30.06 AT MOST a Class C misdemeanor or even better removing the 'teeth' altogether effectively making it a civil issue not a criminal.