TexasCHLforum.com

JollyHappyDad wrote:Some of those folks are terrified, unfounded of course, but legitimately terrified nonetheless.

I understand the point you are making, but suggesting that unfounded terror which opposes my rights is legitimate is like saying that inappropriate anger is legitimate when it is directed towards me. I reject that notion out of hand. If the emotion is unfounded, then the ONLY thing that can legitimize it is when the bearer of that emotion comes to their senses and says "I'm sorry, you were right, and I let my emotions get the better of me. There is no reason you should be made to pay for my lack of perspective and grounding." In similar reasoning, inappropriate anger isn't acceptable, but it is forgivable when the person acknowledges the inappropriateness of their own emotion, and repents of it. Then I can reply to the frightened or angry person and say, "I understand, and thank you for withdrawing your fear/anger."

For those people who live in terror, I understand what they are feeling, but I will not give it the imprimatur of legitimacy, particularly when it is my rights they want to curtail. That curtailment doesn't affect them because they choose not to exercise those rights, so they are perfectly OK with letting their unreasonable fears drive them into urging the curtailment of mine.

That's not legitimate. It's not acceptable. And it is unreasonable to suggest that I should not do whatever I can to protect my rights — which are their rights too, even if they are afraid to exercise them.

ScooterSissy wrote:....I believe the amendment should have been stripped, once it was obvious the number of Rs that were going to be voting against it.

My point was that I think those R's should now be looked at closely.

I don't have a problem with that. I would very much like to know why a LARGE part of the representatives who voted for HB 910 with the Dutton Amendment ended up voting against it with the Huffines Amendment.

Were they were getting the same LE pressure the first time as they were the second time? If not, why not? Is it simply that LE had not been paying attention the first time? Is it that the seemingly minor wording differences between the Dutton and Huffines amendments actually represented a substantial difference in boots-on-the-ground applications?

I think that "should now be looked at closely" includes a reasonable expectation that they would willingly explain their change in vote. That's where my closer look would start. And then, if they are either not willing to answer that question, or cannot answer it forthrightly, then I would begin to take most everything else they say with a grain of salt. But that said, I'm willing to hear an answer I don't like......IF it is plausible and principled. I may not agree with it, but I can then at least respect the answer as having been truthful according to that representative's best ability to be truthful. I don't have a reasonable expectation that an otherwise very good politician is going to agree with me in all particulars.... any more than I would reasonably expect my own wife to agree with me in all particulars. But I can smell a barnyard as well as the next guy, and if his answer smells like a barnyard, then I won't respect the person giving it.

ScooterSissy wrote:

jmra wrote: If you support the passage of OC then the amendment becomes a problem for YOU because as we have learned it will not pass with the amendment.
I think that we forget that it took many sessions to get where we are with CHL and it may take many sessions to get where we want to be. But one thing has held true throughout, the all or nothing approach has never worked in our favor.

In my opinion, if we have a majority of Republicans in both sides of the Texas legislature, and they won't pass a bill that contains an amendment articulating and codifying a known 4th amendment issue; then we have some of the wrong R's in office.

And maybe that is the case....... but, that is the legislature we have to work with. And with all due respect, you're still willing to sacrifice HB 910 because it's not ideologically pure enough, and then gamble that next session, after the bad taste left in legislators mouths from this session, that you can get an ideologically pure bill passed then? That's just not a realistic appraisal.

flintknapper wrote:

Open carry had the Huffines amendment removed in conference committee, now will head back to both houses for votes possibly as soon as Friday.

^^^^^^^^^ Shame too...IMO it was a good amendment. Yes...I know some will argue 'not necessary', or redundant, but the plain fact that LEO (not necessarily the rank and file) are so vehemently opposed to it...tells me right up front, it was needed.

IF O/C fails, they will need to accept a healthy part of the blame. If it passes...it still leaves a bad taste in my mouth, that the amendment was stripped.

IF the amendment was somehow perceived as 'insulting' to LEO then a lot of LEO need to grow up. They must also find the 4th amendment 'insulting'. The 4th was NOT written for the benefit of the police, but for the people.

I support LEO as much as anyone, but I fail to see how this would have been a problem for them.

Flint.

I'm happy to get the bill passed with or without the Amendment. My objection isn't the amendment, it's that the wrangling over it nearly cost us the bill. In my book, 95% of what I wanted is better than 0% of what I wanted. If that last 5% threatens passage, then the only smart thing to do (politically) is to pass the 95% bill, and get the rest of it in followup sessions, just like we've done with CHL as I pointed out in a previous post. I agree that it is a 4th Amendment issue.....but.....it is also a 2nd Amendment issue. If politics is the art of the possible, then maybe the Amendment wasn't possible today, but it might be possible in 2 years. In the meantime, we would have had open carry for the previous 2 years.

That is the measured approach that makes for steady and long-lasting progress. Passage with the amendment is OK, but passage without it is OK too until the day when a 4th Amendment protection upgrade can be added. An inexperience politician nearly wrecked that.

CoffeeNut wrote:I really do not understand how these gun bills get so jammed up every time. This isn't the first time these bills have been brought up yet they always get bogged down or shut out completely. Are we in Texas or has Austin taken over the entire state?

2 Reasons:

1) They get jammed up because there are a whole lot of politicians who talk about liberty, but don't want us to be able to walk in liberty.

2) They get jammed up because there are a whole lot of politicians who either don't know their knee from their elbow, or they have a very loose association with the truth, and they can't keep their egos out of the mix.

Concurrence rejected. Bill goes to conference.

Dutton is playing the race card, but I do agree with him on that point.

THIS is exactly how Huffines dynamited the bill.

nightmare69 wrote:

AF-Odin wrote:And now, in today's Killeen Daily Hearald Newspaper, we have CJ taking all the credit for getting this bill passed. Says that nothing would have happened on OC without him, OCT and OCTC. Give me a break. He and his followers are the reason it has been so hard to get it done.

Now let us hope for no drama on the concurrance vote and Governor Abbot's signature.

On to SB-11!

I thought he only supported unlicensed OC. Oh well, he cannot OC a handgun away due to be ineligible for a CHL.

The Big Lie on the front page of their website today:
http://www.opencarrytexas.org/

"Our members have worked hard the past two years to make this happen," remarked OCT President CJ Grisham. "Obviously, it's not everything we've been fighting for, but if you don't fight, you can't win. Anyone in business will tell you that you never ask for what you think they're going to give you. You always ask for more and you might be surprised with what you get."

That is a man with much to be ashamed of, and no shame about any of it whatsoever.