TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Taypo wrote:

Glockster wrote:

oljames3 wrote:Activists debate gun rights expansion, constitutional carry | The Daily Texan
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/blogs/t ... onal-carry

“The Second Amendment is just that,” Acevedo said. “There will come a point of no return where there is a process where that amendment can be changed by the will of the people of this country. People don’t vote, there will come a time when they feel motivated to when enough blood is shed in our country.”

I find it simply amazing that someone who is a senior police officer in a big city can still have such a fundamental mistaken understanding of the Bill of Rights, and can believe that IF the amendment were repealed or changed that this would then somehow restrict what is a right that was not granted by the government. To me this is a complete display of total ignorance concerning the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment, and a mistaken belief that a repeal would eliminate my right to bear arms. Meaning, he clearly does not understand that the BOR simply enumerates those rights that naturally exist as a part of providing restrictions upon the government. The preamble to the BOR indicates that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments were to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” He clearly believes that we can bear arms simply because the 2nd amendment says so, and clearly doesn't understand that we had the right to bear arms before that and would certainly have the right to do so if it no longer existed. Obviously he is not a scholar of the constitution or constitutional law and I find that to be troublesome for a chief of police of the state capitol, and I think that he will certainly impact those who choose to OC there.

At a certain point, Acevedo stopped being a cop and started being a politician. It's how he got to where he is. It's disappointing, but not surprising. If you look at the Chiefs for anti gun cities across the country, I'm sure you'll find he's not in the minority.

Acevedo is a California transplant and he' just spewing the California mentality about guns and self-defense. He was an assistant chief in the California Highway Patrol and he wanted the top job. Then, he left California after a scandal broke about him carrying nude pictures of a woman with whom he was having an affair in his state patrol vehicle and showing them to other CHP officers. He denied he was showing them to people and I think he may have won a lawsuit.

Couple this with two rather shocking statements he made in Texas and one wonders how he ever got a COP job in Texas, much less a chief's position. The first statement was made after two APD officers made the news and social media for allegedly manhandling a young woman for jaywalking. Acevedo responded with a statement that many took to essentially translate to" What are you complaining about? COPs in other cities are raping women on duty." What!!? If his officer had raped her, would his response have been "at least they didn't kill her[!]? His "it could have been worse" attitude didn't sell well.

The second statement came when he was testifying under oath against both campus-carry and concealed-carry during a committee hearing. His testimony was that women should not carry a gun to defend themselves because they may get murdered with it. He said that women would be better off to seek rape victim assistance because there are many programs available.

Nude photos in his patrol car, a comment about rape that had absolutely no connection with a jaywalking complaint against his officer, followed by a suggestion that women are better off to submit to a rape then seek help rather than defend themselves sure make one wonder about Chief Acevedo's mindset. In my view, he isn't fit to wear a badge anywhere and certainly not in Texas, not even Austin (a/k/a "LA in Texas").

Remember, this is a man that is saying he should be armed, but not the rest of us. Scary isn't it?

Chas.

Glockster wrote:

oljames3 wrote:Activists debate gun rights expansion, constitutional carry | The Daily Texan
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/blogs/t ... onal-carry

“The Second Amendment is just that,” Acevedo said. “There will come a point of no return where there is a process where that amendment can be changed by the will of the people of this country. People don’t vote, there will come a time when they feel motivated to when enough blood is shed in our country.”

I find it simply amazing that someone who is a senior police officer in a big city can still have such a fundamental mistaken understanding of the Bill of Rights, and can believe that IF the amendment were repealed or changed that this would then somehow restrict what is a right that was not granted by the government. To me this is a complete display of total ignorance concerning the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment, and a mistaken belief that a repeal would eliminate my right to bear arms. Meaning, he clearly does not understand that the BOR simply enumerates those rights that naturally exist as a part of providing restrictions upon the government. The preamble to the BOR indicates that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments were to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” He clearly believes that we can bear arms simply because the 2nd amendment says so, and clearly doesn't understand that we had the right to bear arms before that and would certainly have the right to do so if it no longer existed. Obviously he is not a scholar of the constitution or constitutional law and I find that to be troublesome for a chief of police of the state capitol, and I think that he will certainly impact those who choose to OC there.

bigity wrote:How some UT students are responding:

http://concealednation.org/2015/10/cock ... -in-texas/

DEB wrote:Sabine County Sheriff's Office:
http://www.dailynewsandmore.com/news/de ... 31e08.html

Deputy Miller explained that until January 1, the handgun must be concealed. There can't be a noticeable outline under garments or handbags.
"If you can distinguish it is a gun, that is not concealed," Miller said.

This is exactly why we needed open carry. Current law notwithstanding, the wording "noticeable outline" is open to interpretation by the Police Officer and I don't have 5K to drop on a Lawyer to prove differently.

Glockster wrote:

oljames3 wrote:UT Professor Resigns:
http://kxan.com/2015/10/07/ut-professor ... pus-carry/
http://alcalde.texasexes.org/2015/10/da ... pus-carry/

Austin Police:
http://www.newsradioklbj.com/news/austi ... own-austin

Sabine County Sheriff's Office:
http://www.dailynewsandmore.com/news/de ... 31e08.html

Libraries:
http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/clevelan ... 5861c.html

I'm conflicted....

"Hamermesh cited the fact that he teaches large courses with hundreds of students as a key reason for his decision."

So on one hand I'm thinking that this seems to indicate that large classes are clearly inherently dangerous (aside from a lousy way to get an education)....while on the other hand....I'm hearing a song running through my head:

bigity wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

Taypo wrote:

oljames3 wrote:More Texans respond.
Enterprising Texans figure out how to make a buck:
http://www.buildasign.com/store/TexasIm ... /Home.aspx

"When you absolutely, positively want to rub a CHL's nose in it, buy one of our Bible verse 30.06 or 30.07 signs!"

They left off the next verse. "Thy rod and thy staf, they comfort me."

And the one about taking up your sword, and selling your cloak to buy a sword if you don't have one.

MeMelYup wrote:

Taypo wrote:

oljames3 wrote:More Texans respond.
Enterprising Texans figure out how to make a buck:
http://www.buildasign.com/store/TexasIm ... /Home.aspx

"When you absolutely, positively want to rub a CHL's nose in it, buy one of our Bible verse 30.06 or 30.07 signs!"

They left off the next verse. "Thy rod and thy staf, they comfort me."

oljames3 wrote:More Texans respond.
Enterprising Texans figure out how to make a buck:
http://www.buildasign.com/store/TexasIm ... /Home.aspx

sherlock7 wrote:Taypo, I thought your comments were kind of strong; I kind of agree with those who fear open carry as somewhat in the" pansy class".
I believe that in time, open carry will become more accepted by most but I also believe there are those groups such as" moms against guns" (the pansy class ) who will never accept this and will continue to label anyone who even likes guns as real nuts and as such are a danger to all mankind!
Just my opinion!

USMC
Semper Fi

RedRaiderCHL wrote:

oljames3 wrote:

oljames3 wrote:Our fellow Texans are not waiting for CHL holders to correct their signage or for LTC holders to show up openly carrying. The discussions are already happening.

Whether or not it is a good idea for a CHL/LTC holder to inform business owners that their signs are unenforceable may soon be a moot point. Businesses, business organizations, and the media are increasingly getting the word out.

Educating business owners on the correct signage is not necessary. They are already getting an earful.

http://www.foxsanantonio.com/news/featu ... eBJHPlVhBc
http://fatcatwebproductions.com/ThePape ... s-and-bars

(edited to add one more link)

Even if they are getting the word out and an earful that still wont stop them from posting signs that are unenforceable. I don't even remember the last time I had to take my firearm off before entering a place of business. Nobody posts 30.06 signs and if they do they aren't noticeable. Same will hold true with the 30.07 signs.

Honestly, for those who have never open carried before it will be an adjustment (personally I support OC because I don't like having to sport extra clothes during the hot months just to conceal) But I have been open carrying in Oklahoma and Missouri for years as I visit family and friends and occasionally you have someone look twice but if you are kind, respectful, OUTGOING, and make conversation with people and don't make them feel threatened by your behavior they change their opinions very quickly.. The biggests issues ive EVER had while open carrying was

(1) I was sitting at dennys in Missouri with my old man and I was open carrying, a family came in, sat down, realized I was open carrying, apparently felt uncomfortable and told the staff, staff were not going to ask me to leave so the family did. Hey... its their right to be pansies just like it was my right to carry openly.

(2) I had a man (same place in Missouri) come up to me and say, hey man your gun is showing, that aint legal here. I informed him kindly that it was completely legal (I even cited the Bill number that had recently gone into effect) and that if he felt uncomfortable it was his right too, and that I would be leaving as soon as I picked out my new fishing lures ;)


Open carry is a great thing. As a LE Officer, an avid carrier, and law abiding citizen it doesn't bother me in the least to supply any other LE Officer with my license upon request. I wholeheartedly believe that Open carry, with the help of good and responsible carriers will help change some of the pathetic "political correctness" and "wimpyness" we see in this country today. It'll toughen up those pansies who think its a bad thing or a scary thing.

Abraham wrote:Were I in business and didn't welcome OC, I would put up the sign.

As an employer, I wouldn't want to put my employees (or myself) in the position of asking a customer to leave his gun outside. Even if the customer complies, you've embarrassed him or worse...

I can see many an employee as timid type personalities quavering and gulping with fear when told to tell the gunslinger to leave his gun outside or just plain leave. Most folks fear confrontation or are extremely embarrassed by confrontation especially with strangers and generally in front of an audience of other customers.

The sign would eliminate that situation.

Of course, if some nitwit decides he's coming in OCing anyway, with the sign well in place, I wouldn't confront him.

With a phone call, I'd let an LEO do that...I don't know this OCing guy. For all I know he's a powder keg ready to explode when told to leave his gun outside.

Heck, we've already had a few people here state they're going to push the limits by OCing in Whataburger, even though they know WB's anti-OC policy.

K.Mooneyham wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

mojo84 wrote:It will be interesting to see if this has kicked the ant pile. We may see more 30.06 signs since this has been brought to the forefront. Hope people will settle down.

This has been my prediction. I do believe that eventually it will settle down as people become accustomed to the law. BUT.... I think we WILL see a spate of preemptive 30.07 postings, accompanied by previously non-existent 30.06s as business owners educate themselves and decide to "err on the side of caution".

I think we may be underestimating the trouble that it takes to properly post both signs. They are big, and in the case of 30.07 must be placed at all entrances, and need to follow the correct wording. Since 1997 I've probably seen 75% business get it wrong w/ just 30.06, and that was the minority that tried. I think we'll see a flurry of half-"baked" attempts come January 1, then a lot of nothing. Unless, of course, tons of self appointed 30.0x enforcers come along with measuring tapes and code books and NO GUNS, NO BUSINESS cards.

I would think that it would be much easier for a business to simply ask an open carrier to leave than to go through all that trouble of printing and posting those big ol' signs on the front of their businesses. I'm hoping that a lot of this will come to nothing after a first nervous spell, not counting those who are flat-out anti, or who are forced by "corporate" to be anti.

meddafuxa wrote:So what happens when every business post anti gun signs?

oljames3 wrote:Yet another report of a chamber of commerce and police chief getting the word out about proper signage and what business owners "need to know about this new law."

http://business.laketravischamber.com/e ... w-law-8720

We don't need to be beating each other up about talking to business owners about their signs. The business community, main stream media, lawyers, law enforcement, and others are already working to ensure their side of the story gets out.

Business owners will make a decision on this issue with out without our input. How can we effectively present our side of the story and influence business owners to not ban concealed and/or open carry?