TexasCHLforum.com

johnferg69 wrote:

Keith B wrote:

johnferg69 wrote:

Keith B wrote:

jordanmills wrote: Last time I asked, I was told by the TSRA that there is no support for open carry and they will continue working their agenda instead. That sounds like opposition to me.

This 'if you're not with me, yore against me' attitude is the problem. You and many of the open carry advocates expect the TSRA AND NRA to jump fully on board with your specific agenda and ignore other pro-gun legislation. Had they done that last session we wouldn't have gotten the parking lot bill passed, we wouldn't have been able to expose the legislators and public to campus carry, and we still wouldn't have gotten open carry. The TSRA, Charles and the pro-gun legislators know how and when to introduce the next thing during a session and I think we need to stand with them and their agenda to get as much of a realistic chance as we can in regaining ground for gun owners.

So when will OC be on their agenda?

When the majority of members say they want it and the time is right.

Majority of what members? The NRA? The TSRA? Granted I work away from home but I don't recall ever getting polled by either organization as to my feelings on the matter? Did members of other states get polled before they backed open carry there? How did they know when the time was right for other states they backed open carry in?

TSRA is Texas. Members of organizations can't just sit idly by and wait for something to come along. If you want something to happen you need to be proactive and contact them and ask how you can help get open carry legislation going.

I don't know what other states organizations did.

johnferg69 wrote:

Keith B wrote:

jordanmills wrote: Last time I asked, I was told by the TSRA that there is no support for open carry and they will continue working their agenda instead. That sounds like opposition to me.

This 'if you're not with me, yore against me' attitude is the problem. You and many of the open carry advocates expect the TSRA AND NRA to jump fully on board with your specific agenda and ignore other pro-gun legislation. Had they done that last session we wouldn't have gotten the parking lot bill passed, we wouldn't have been able to expose the legislators and public to campus carry, and we still wouldn't have gotten open carry. The TSRA, Charles and the pro-gun legislators know how and when to introduce the next thing during a session and I think we need to stand with them and their agenda to get as much of a realistic chance as we can in regaining ground for gun owners.

So when will OC be on their agenda?

When the majority of members say they want it and the time is right.

jordanmills wrote:

Keith B wrote:

jordanmills wrote: Last time I asked, I was told by the TSRA that there is no support for open carry and they will continue working their agenda instead. That sounds like opposition to me.

This 'if you're not with me, yore against me' attitude is the problem. You and many of the open carry advocates expect the TSRA AND NRA to jump fully on board with your specific agenda and ignore other pro-gun legislation.

That's almost exactly what the people who dislike the TSRA say about them. Have we gone so far that the sides can't discuss how to cooperate and just tell each other to stop talking when they see each other?

The problem is the few that are pushing so hard for open carry go off on their own tangent and don't try to work with those who have years and years of experience in getting gun legislation passed in Texas. Two sessions ago they had a legislator that was willing to try and introduce a bill and a couple of their lead people tried using Gestapo tactics to force the bill forward and she dropped support like a hot potato. Last session no other legislators would even touch it because of this.

I believe TSRA would support a 'good' bill', that is, one that doesn't seriously jeopardize concealed carry or other gun rights. However, if one is drafted like the open carry that is so poorly written that it would be detrimental to the CHL program, like supporters tried to find a sponsor for last session, the I would hope that the TSRA would help kill it.

My thought is if supporters have gotten Rep. Lavender to take on introduction of one this session that he seek input from TSRA PAC on how it needs to be worded and when/where/how it needs to be introduced.

jordanmills wrote: Last time I asked, I was told by the TSRA that there is no support for open carry and they will continue working their agenda instead. That sounds like opposition to me.

This 'if you're not with me, yore against me' attitude is the problem. You and many of the open carry advocates expect the TSRA AND NRA to jump fully on board with your specific agenda and ignore other pro-gun legislation. Had they done that last session we wouldn't have gotten the parking lot bill passed, we wouldn't have been able to expose the legislators and public to campus carry, and we still wouldn't have gotten open carry. The TSRA, Charles and the pro-gun legislators know how and when to introduce the next thing during a session and I think we need to stand with them and their agenda to get as much of a realistic chance as we can in regaining ground for gun owners.

Republicans 4 Obama wrote:Open carry is a bad idea.

Pretty broad statement there. Care to back it up with any valid arguments??

I just believe that the legialature would feel the sign needed to be more visible than a gun buster sign and would say 'We already have a sign, so just modify it to prevent any carry.' Then those businesses who today don't really know people are carrying would then post signs to prevent open carry and the single sign would prevent concealed carry too. It's the old adage, out of sight, out of mind. When people started open carrying I can garuntee you would see a new crop of signs go up.

johnferg69 wrote:

Keith B wrote:Well, I'm not voting because it is not a black and white thing of for or against. It depends on how the open carry law would be written.

Ok, let's say that the law was written that open carry was an option for CHL holders only. And that there were two seperate laws for signage, 30.06 stayed in place for cc only and the gun-buster ONLY applied for open carry!

Now what would the problem be?

Licensed open carry and seperate signage. That helps. Don't think the seperate sign thing would happen, but I can cast a vote now.

Well, I'm not voting because it is not a black and white thing of for or against. It depends on how the open carry law would be written.