TexasCHLforum.com

ralewis wrote:Would be very disappointed if we don't get any changes to off limits locations. 2 sessions now where the priories seem to be with things not really important to the licenseees who carry concealed daily.

treadlightly wrote:No sponsors or co-authors yet, either, for HB560.

Liberty wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Liberty wrote:I look at the priorities of the TSRA as a sort of chess game. They may be looking ahead. I think the strategy might be to make the LTC as attractive as possible before pushing for the Constitutional carry. Maybe the TSRA believes that the licensed people are safer more responsible and more likely to be supporting the NRA/TSRA . Getting the pieces together such as reciprocity, free licensing, and authority to carry more places, makes the LTC more desirable.

If what you say is true, why did they feature unlicensed carry? I'm ok with the free license. But they also featured unlicensed carry instead of reducing restricted locations.

I think they are apeasing to their membership, but maybe their heart when push comes to shove, is to put 560 before all others. 560 is a bit complex and a little hard to explain in a news letter..

I still think we have a good chance to get the whole enchilada

stars200 wrote:

Russell wrote:Part of the issue is some of the loudest gun advocacy groups (That I am a member of anyway on Facebook), specifically Texas Carry and OCT, are putting pretty much 100% of their efforts behind Constitutional Carry, and I have not seen much if any effort put towards anything else. I could have missed it, but that has been the view I have gotten so far.

All of the noise is going towards Constitutional Carry, and none of it towards legislation that *actually*, in my mind, makes a difference towards our ability to defend ourselves.

I've mentioned it a few times in both groups with not much of a response back besides that they will publicly support it if it comes up for comment or vote. Lobbying for it though, I haven't heard anything besides lobbying for CC.

I tend to agree, every email I get is for CC. While I do support CC, I think 560 should be the priority. I think it would be easier to get the restricted places removed for licensed LTC holders first, after all we have the crime statistics on our side. I believe If CC passes we will have a harder time getting support since the training class and proficiency requirements will have been removed before carrying concealed.

Papa_Tiger wrote:

ralewis wrote:

chuck j wrote:Reciprocity in my thoughts .
Too risky . Studying the concealed carry law for a long trip is complicated with too many risks . Rather than suffering prosecution in other states I simply do not carry , reducing my travel . Would love to take my daughter to national parks and historical sites but not worth the risk . I'll stay in Texas . Sad but true .

I drive from TX to PA once a year to spend about a month there. The ridiculous stuff I've done to avoid 11miles of Maryland are worthy of a Seinfeld episode. I would like National Reciprocity-hopefully MD would be within scope since they are a 'may' issue-even if it only allowed me to carry in the car legally (without locking it up).

Again, HB560 refers to Texas House Bill 560 which has nothing to do with national reciprocity.

allisji wrote:

TreyHouston wrote: ok, Ill try it a third time! Who is it that I email for district 130!

try this guy:

https://www.facebook.com/TomOliverson/a ... e_internal

mr1337 wrote:

they wrote:

rotor wrote:

Scott Farkus wrote:

locke_n_load wrote:HB308 was a piece of the pie. HB560 is the whole enchilada (as far as carry locations go).

Awesome, thanks! Sounds like we need a full-court press on this one. I'm about to e-mail my state representative, although I know it will do no good because she's an ultra left wing lesbian liberal Democrat social justice warrior type. But she's going to hear from me on this.

Maybe she is a secret member of Pink Pistols.

I hope you're not trying to disparage the Pink Pistols - my husband and I should be the poster boys for why the 51% laws should be repealed after Pulse.

Long story short: if I can be a designated driver and not drink at a bar, why, oh why (Wizard of Oz reference there) can't I also be a designated carrier if I'm not drinking?

Or is our legislature THAT short-sighted?

Nevermind, I think you and they have already answered that question.

There is no good reason, hence this proposed legislation.