TexasCHLforum.com

rodbender wrote:I was given until 3:00 PM to apologize. Well, I just got home from Beaumont. I will apologize for the profanity. The rest will have to stand.

The personal attacks in blatant violation of forum rules stand? Okay, be forewarned; one more against any member and you're gone and every one of your posts that violate forum rules will be deleted. What arrogance; I guess you feel the rules apply to everyone but you.

rodbender wrote:I did not brag about being banned. I thought I was because I tried to go back and was not even allowed to read the forum.

Even non-members (including banned members) can read all forums except the Moderator Forum and one other restricted forum. You probably tried to hit the link to your post, but that was moved to the Moderator Forum. You would have seen a log in page and it wouldn't let you log in as a Moderator. You were never banned.

rodbender wrote:You guys here are all so honest. Think about this. If they won't even discuss it in a board meeting, how can they say that they are not against it?

It hasn't been discussed because our members haven't asked that we take on the issue. When I say members, I mean a very significant percentage, not a few in-your-face OpenCarry.org people. That's the way it should be. Members carry the financial load.

rodbender wrote:I have been on OCDO for a good while, and not once have I read a post that threatened any member of the Texas legislature. I really don't know why you and others keep repeating this. Give me a link to a thread with these threats. There have been some subtle mentions in a general sense, but they were mostly unanswered and it was dropped quickly.

Calls for defeat of pro-gun Senators and Representatives during the next election are not "subtle mentions." If you really haven't seen any of those posts, then you haven't looked. I have cited OCDO posts on that subject; use the search feature and find them if you wish.

rodbender wrote:I want everyone to know that the reason that Debbie Riddle decided not to introduce her open carry bill was because it was torpedoed, admittedly so, by Mike Guzman of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. Somehow I think Charles already knows this (or should) and somehow forgot to mention it. Personally, IMHO, I think someone (not Charles) at TSRA probably had something to do with it as well, but I don't have the proof, so I won't mention names.

This is absolute garbage; vintage OCDO lies. Here are the facts:

• 1. Mike Guzman did not and could not talk Debbie Riddle out of filing an open-carry bill.
  2. Rep. Riddle never agreed to file an open-carry bill, she only agreed to "pull a draft," not file a bill. If OCDO knew anything about Texas legislative procedures, they would have known this and would not have lied to their own troops and claimed Riddle was going to file a bill.
  3. Mike Guzman may have talked to her, I have no way of knowing, but I do know he doesn't have the clout to get her not to file a bill that she wants to file.
  4. OCDO made complete jerks of themselves in calls, emails and faxes to Rep. Riddle's staff; so much so that she wished she had never heard of open-carry. There is every reason to believe that feeling is shared throughout he Capitol. I just hope that sentiment is directed solely at OCDO and not the entire open-carry issue.
  5. No one within TSRA or NRA did anything to thwart open-carry; it was dead on arrival because OCDO didn't do their homework and approach the issue in a manner that had even a remote chance of being successful. Add the in-your-face tactics used by OCDO and the final nails were driven into the open-carry coffin. But this is the tactic you like, so stick with it.
  6. OCDO has a pattern of lying or, at best, being deceptive about open-carry supporters and opposition. Just by way of example: the article made the basis of this thread. It was a blatant lie in that the OP took Howard's article about conversations with TSRA members and implied/stated that those individual opinions were expressed by TSRA Board Members in the Annual Meeting. The motive for that lie is clear; to discredit TSRA and further OCDO's reputation in the eyes of open-carry supporters. Another example is Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson's article posted on OCDO. There were two articles posted on the Internet. One of the articles was edited to make it appear that Jerry supported unlicensed open-carry, while the other unedited article made it clear that he supports licensed open-carry. It is possible Mike Stollenwerk didn't read both articles thinking they were the same. However, when I posting something here noting the creative editing (not by OCDO), someone posted that information on OCDO. Was the title/subtitle of the thread changed to acknowledge the truth? Not on your life. Why? Because Mike wanted it to appear that Commissioner Patterson supports OCDO's goal of unlicensed open-carry.

Discuss issues as much as you like, but keep the insults, rule violations and false allegations to yourself. You're unwillingness to apologize for making personal attacks in violation of our rules has you on very thin ice. In fact, the Moderators are discussing whether you should be allowed to remain since to admitted you intended to make a personal attack and you have refused to accept responsibility and apologize.

Chas.

Skiprr wrote:Truly bizarre behavior. Not sure I really comprehend it, so I have nothing to say.

I found it interesting that "rodbender" lists texasguntalk.com in his signature, so I checked his profile there. No posts since January 30, and then the prophetic tag: "rodbender has not made any friends yet."

I love your avatar!

Chas.

I want to publicly apologize to the Moderators for moving this thread back to the open forum. Rodbender intentionally violated forum rules by using profanity and by making a personal attack. He expressly admitted the latter in a follow-up post. The Moderators appropriately split his post and moved it to the Moderator Forum.

I decided to move the post back here for two reasons. First, I am certain several members including new members had read rodbender's post and I wanted to tell the truth as to why I cannot get involved. Secondly, rodbender went home to OpenCarry.org to falsely claim he was banned just for criticizing my statement. That was a blatant lie; the Moderators moved the post because he used profanity and because he made a personal attack, both of which violate forum rules.

Chas.

rodbender wrote:BTW, my comments were meant to be offensive and a personal attack.
Dennis

Well, you must enjoy flaunting our rules and violating the decorum we enjoy at TexasCHLforum. This post is clearly daring us to ban you. After posting your tripe, you hopped over to OpenCarry.org to brag and claim you were banned. You have not been banned, but you will be unless you apologize for violating forum rules by using profanity and making personal attacks.

Of course, we all know that you won't apologize, because that would be "begging," right Dennis?

You have until 3:00pm before you are banned. Don't even bother posting more profanity and/or personal attacks; those posts most definitely will be deleted.

Chas.

rodbender wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
I cannot and will not be involved on an ongoing basis, unless TSRA/NRA take on the project. If we do, then I'll jump in with both feet.
Chas.

I suppose I am about to be accused of taking the "GOD" of TexasCHL.com out of context and be banned. OH, well!!!

Even if you put the statements before and after this comment in place, the comment still holds the same meaning.

Charles, Are you such a weenie that you have to wait for the "boss" to say you can do something? Grow some and don't wait for the "boss" to OK the move on open carry. Push the issue yourself. Push for open carry. If you are "in" with them as deep as you pretend to be, it shouldn't be a problem. Personally, I think that thinking like a sheeple and waiting for the OK so you won't [weak-minded profanity intended to violate forum rules deleted] anybody off is, well, not showing any leadership. What ever you think of open carrry is irrelevent. You are in a position to help move gun rights BACK to where they should be, and yet you refuse to move without prior approval. This is appalling to me.

Maybe OCDO is not doing things the "right" way, but by golly, we are trying do do something without begging for it. I just don't see that we should have to beg for anything from the oligharcy that is in place in D.C. or Austin. That is the way I see what NRA and TSRA does. They have a bad case of Oliver Twist Syndrome I guess. "Please, sir, may I have some more." I think we should be able to push, not beg, them to act. After all, we are the people, we are the boss, or, at least, we should be.

Give me a break, Charles. Grow some ]weak-minded profanity intended to violate forum rules deleted].

Dennis

First you question if I am really involved with TSRA, then you argue, "What ever you think of open carrry [sic] is irrelevent [sic]. You are in a position to help move gun rights BACK to where they should be, and yet you refuse to move without prior approval. This is appalling to me." Which is it Dennis? Am I a fraud, or the man you say is "in a position to help move gun rights BACK to where they should be[?]" You are an excellent example why I offered to consult with a Texas-based, Texas-only organization that has absolutely no ties to OpenCarry.org. Do you actually think that if you scream louder, use profanity and make personal attacks, your message is somehow more palatable? This attitude is precisely why OpenCarry.org has garnered a horrendous reputation in Austin.

I suspect you know why I cannot publicly get involved with issues that NRA and TSRA haven't taken on as a project, but I'll play along and answer you. Because of my positions with NRA and TSRA, every time I say something or take a position on an issue, it will be attributed to both organizations. This is true no matter how loudly or how often I claim otherwise. You know this to be true, otherwise you wouldn't be point to me as someone who could help your cause.

When I was elected to the NRA Board of Directors and when I accepted the position of Vice-Chairman of the TSRA Legislative Committee, I gave up the right to take on any and every cause I might otherwise champion. This was not a requirement of either organization, but it was the prudent and honorable thing to do. Otherwise, my personal actions might prove counterproductive and perhaps even harmful to those organizations. I feel very strongly about other political issues, but I do not allow myself to get involved because I don't want people refusing to join and/or support TSRA or NRA because I have taken a position on an unrelated issue that they find offensive. To do otherwise would be to shirk my responsibilities to millions of members of the NRA and TSRA. I'm not waiting for permission from the "boss" as you quip; I am conducting myself in compliance with a standard of conduct and code of honor to which I hold myself accountable. Based upon your demeanor, I suspect this is a foreign concept to you.

As for OpenCarry.org, if you feel its approach is effective then stick with it and don't worry about what NRA, TSRA or I am doing or not doing. Apparently you feel that being civil and using methods that have proven effective for decades is "begging" and that OpenCarry.org's in-your-face, threatening of pro-gun elected officials is prudent. Fine, stay the course with OCO and don't worry about what I'm doing.

Chas.

Here is another example why I am sick of OpenCarry.org and many of its members. The gentleman from San Diego California is trying to defend OpenCarry.org’s lie that TSRA "leaders" deliberated on open-carry and decided not to support open-carry. He does so by grossly misquoting me from posts here on TexasCHLforum.com. He is referencing my response to Flint on the subject of TSRA Directors not having discussed open-carry. I have copied his post below; notice how he misquotes me and references not “taking a stand to support open carry.”

OpenCarry.org Poster wrote:I went and read the posting and the comments and I'm confused.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:"So one must ask why anyone would intentionally make a false allegation that "TSRA leaders do not support open carry."

Then he goes on to say that the leadership has not taken, or even discussed taking, a stand to support open carry. Therefore they "do not support" open carry. So why is the "false allegation" false?

He goes on at great length to state that neither the TSRA nor he himself support open carry. So why is the allegation false.

Do I have to be a lawyer to understand this convoluted thought process?

Here is the exchange and what I actually said; i.e. that there had been no discussion of open-carry at all.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

flintknapper wrote:I would like to see OC as well.

I too....would like to see some type of statement beyond the benign "we don't have a position" given by the NRA/TSRA. Folks are simply curious IF there is discussion being had about the subject.

There is no position, so we can't state something that doesn't exist. There have been no official discussions by TSRA on open-carry, much less a vote or consensus, and that is what is required in order for TSRA to have a position on any issue. Unless a significant percentage of our members want us to take on this issue, then there will never be an official TSRA position on open-carry.

Surely the gentleman understands the distinction between “deliberating” an issue and choosing not to support it, and not discussing the issue at all. OpenCarry.org intentionally posted a misleading thread trying to convince its members that TSRA "leaders" had "deliberated" then rejected the concept of open-carry. That’s patently false. Also, contrary to what the gentleman from California said, I never stated that TSRA does not support open-carry. That too is blatantly false.

OpenCarry.org’s motive for the original thread is quite clear. Mr. Stollenwerk used Howard Nimrov’s article about conversations with TSRA members and their feelings about open-carry to imply that TSRA “leaders” had discussed and rejected support of open-carry. Here is the title of his thread, “Summary of TSRA deliberations on open carry from annual meeting” and this is the subtitle he added, “Looks like TSRA leaders do not support open carry.”

Chas.

flintknapper wrote:I would like to see OC as well.

I too....would like to see some type of statement beyond the benign "we don't have a position" given by the NRA/TSRA. Folks are simply curious IF there is discussion being had about the subject.

There is no position, so we can't state something that doesn't exist. There have been no official discussions by TSRA on open-carry, much less a vote or consensus, and that is what is required in order for TSRA to have a position on any issue. Unless a significant percentage of our members want us to take on this issue, then there will never be an official TSRA position on open-carry.

flintknapper wrote:Apparently, it is something that interests a fairly good number of people. Even the poll here (though locked IIRC and never spoken of again) showed an approval of OC (in some form) of 81%.

I didn't lock the thread because of the way the poll was going. I locked it because, in spite of my request not to make the thread another open-carry pro/con argument, it became 7 pages of the most heated discussion to date. Here is my announcement as to why it was locked:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I'm locking this thread. As I said in the original post, this was never intended to be the 1,000th thread on the pros and cons of open-carry. I just wanted a simple poll to get an idea where TexasCHLforum members were on this issue. Unfortunately, it's become one of the more confrontational threads on this subject.

Chas.

If anyone wants to see the poll, the thread has not been deleted or moved. http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_F ... =poll+Chas" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.

Chas.

Captain Matt wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

SA-TX wrote:Why would it be here? All available evidence suggests that it wouldn't.

There is absolutely no evidence that Texans or Texas LEOs will not respond negatively to open-carry. (Yeah I know, a double negative.) The only evidence on Texans' response to liberalizing a longstanding prohibition on carrying handguns is the response to the original concealed-carry law from 1995 until we were forced to change the law (setting up TPC §30.06) in 1997.

There are people stopped by the police for "driving while black" but that doesn't mean Americans should condone laws that allow cops to enforce their opinions instead of the law. I think the way to fix the problem is educating the police and then discipline any cops who won't obey the law. In extreme cases, I think jail is an appropriate penalty for a pattern of civil rights violations.

What does this have to do with open-carry? Plus, my comments you quoted had nothing to do with LEO's, but private property owners posting generic "no guns" decals and signs.

Chas.

SA-TX wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Texas open-carry supporters, the 2011 Texas Legislative Session is right around the corner, so now is the time to decide if you want open-carry, or OpenCarry.org. You can't have both.

Chas.

I have advocated two core ideas both here and on OpenCarry.org: 1) we should work together for the good of all

To avoid any confusion and to head off anyone saying I went back on my offer, I will never work with OpenCarry.org. Plus, all I'm offering to do is meet the leaders of a Texas-based, Texas-only open-carry organization and offer suggestions on how to organize and promote your goal. I cannot and will not be involved on an ongoing basis, unless TSRA/NRA take on the project. If we do, then I'll jump in with both feet.

SA-TX wrote:2) open carry isn't as radical as it seems once you look at the actual practice of it elsewhere.

Yes it is. Open-carry is a very radical concept in political terms. Unlicensed open-carry is even more radical. Failure to recognize this and develop a plan to change the political and public perception of open-carry will doom open-carry to failure again. We didn't deny that concealed-carry was a radical idea when we were fighting for it, but we addressed people's fears. One of the ways we did that was by accepting restrictions we knew were unnecessary, knowing full well we'd come back in future sessions to repeal them.

SA-TX wrote:Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, Louisiana, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona. These are all southern and southwestern states that have much in common with Texas and open carry simply isn't a problem there.

Yes it is! If open-carry in the 44 states cited by OpenCarry.org was truly a non-issue, then there wouldn't be a website and a movement dedicated to promoting open-carry. There isn't a http://www.SundayAfternoonPicnic.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and a movement to get people to the parks after church. Why? Because it's not an issue; people do it all the time without being hassled, arrested, prosecuted and having to sue someone. Even a cursory review of OpenCarry.org reveals post after post about someone being hassled, detained, arrested, or prosecuted because they were carrying openly. Often people are calling for the heads of the LEO that was involved, or reporting on lawsuits that were filed over the alleged mistreatment. Carrying openly most certainly does cause problems and any plan to legalize open-carry must address that issue. But that won't happen if open-carry supporters are in denial about what is happening in some or all of those 44 other states.

SA-TX wrote:Why would it be here? All available evidence suggests that it wouldn't.

There is absolutely no evidence that Texans or Texas LEOs will not respond negatively to open-carry. (Yeah I know, a double negative.) The only evidence on Texans' response to liberalizing a longstanding prohibition on carrying handguns is the response to the original concealed-carry law from 1995 until we were forced to change the law (setting up TPC §30.06) in 1997. Again, if open-carry supporters ignore this political reality, they do so at their own peril. If you really want to drive a wedge between gun owners, then let us wake up the morning after open-carry passes to find that a there is a huge increase in 30.06 signs on businesses! OpenCarry.org's approach is to simply say "it won't happen," while my approach would be "it's happened before, so we have to do everything we can to prevent it from happening again." But if you don't first acknowledge the risk, then you will never put forth the effort to prevent it.

Aside from the complaints I have already presented about OpenCarry.org in other posts, the single biggest hurdle I see to passage of open-carry in Texas is the unwillingness of open-carry supporters to accept political reality and deal with the situation as it exists and not as you wish it to be. In my view, to have any chance of success, a Texas-based, Texas-only open-carry organization must recognize, openly acknowledge, and plan to deal with the following issues in a positive manner without demonizing fellow gun owners:

• ► Open-carry in Texas is a radical concept in political terms (public & elected officials);
  ► Licensed open-carry should be the first goal (we had concealed carry for 12 yrs. before passing unlicensed car-carry)
  ► Accept restrictions designed to calm public fears (ex. no open-carry on school campuses, hospitals, day care centers);
  ► Shun any person or organization that even hints at taking an in-your-face approach with elected officials, gun organizations, or fellow gun owners - these people will make you a pariah in Austin;
  ► Accept the fact that it likely will take more than one legislative session to pass open-carry;
  ► Get someone to draft a proposed bill that knows what they are doing in Texas so as not to jeopardize past gains ;
  ► Get a someone to run your organization that knows how to lobby in Austin.

There is a lot more to tackling a project like this than I can or will put on an open Internet forum. I will offer this one more suggestion, get your organization formed yesterday; not tomorrow, or next month. But don't publicize what you are doing and don't let anyone promote the appearance that "we going to get you next time!"

Obviously, these are just my opinions and I won't be offended if everyone of them are rejected. Heck, I don't want open-carry anyway.

Chas.

tarkus wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:So one must ask why anyone would intentionally make a false allegation that "TSRA leaders do not support open carry."

What's the official position of the TRSA leadership? I can't find it on the TSRA website.

There isn't one. We have not addressed the issue.

Chas.

The regular deadline (March 13th) for filing bills has passed. No open-carry bill was filed, although Rep. Riddle did file a bill that would allow certain disabled CHLs to open-carry under limited circumstances. Undoubtedly, thousands of open-carry supporters are disappointed and a few are planning ahead for next session. Still others on OpenCarry.org are talking about filing suit against Texas to establish open-carry as a constitutional right. (This argument is apparently based upon the erroneous belief that the Heller case established a right to open carry. It did not.) One poster wants to sue the State of Texas on a theory of unequal protection of the law, if Rep. Riddle's open-carry for certain disabled persons passes. Most of the calls to sue Texas are coming from residents of other states.

Some reasonable OpenCarry.org supporters are calling for dialog and trying to get TSRA involved next session. These few seem to imply that they want to see a working relationship between TSRA and OpenCarry.org. I can almost promise that will never happen, and not just because we have markedly different methods of passing legislation. The founders of OpenCarry.org (Stollenwerk and Pierce) want to take the full credit for passing open-carry and the last thing they want is to see TSRA take on open-carry as a project. Although some OpenCarry.org posters have stated that TSRA should be actively involved, Stollenwerk has never once said that. In fact, the only comments he's made about TSRA have been negative.

On March 3, 2009, Stollenwerk started a new thread on OpenCarry.org that he titled Summary of TSRA deliberations on open carry from annual meeting below which he added the subtitle Looks like TSRA leaders do not support open carry (The link is to the general area, as the subtitle is visible only from this level.) His post contained only a link to a personal summary written by Howard Nemerov covering his conversations with attendees at the TSRA Annual Meeting and events in Mesquite. Although Howard's article pretty clearly discussed conversations with TSRA members, the clear intent of Stollenwerk's title and subtitle was to make it appear that "TSRA officials" had discussed open-carry and oppose the concept. I thought this didn't sound possible, especially since the subject was never discussed in the Legislative Committee meeting I attended. However, I was not at the Board meeting, so I wanted to confirm my suspicions before I posted on this subject. I have confirmed that the TSRA Directors did not discuss open-carry and this is what I would expect, since this would be the responsibility of the Legislative Committee.

So one must ask why anyone would intentionally make a false allegation that "TSRA leaders do not support open carry." The obvious motive is to discourage Texas open-carry supporters from looking to TSRA to take on open-carry as a project in 2011. I'm not saying, or even hinting, that TSRA will make this a project for 2011, but I think Texas open-carry supporters need to realize what is coming from the Virginia based OpenCarry.org. In fact, based upon Howard's discussion with TSRA members, it appears that TSRA members generally do not support open-carry. (This is consistent with our experience based upon what our members tell us are issues they feel are important.) This could change in the future, then again this could remain the majority opinion among TSRA members.

The open-carry issue will not go away, nor should it. Texans who support open-carry should continue to pursue their goal but they need to choose their champion very carefully. Hopefully, they learned a lot this session in terms of what works and what doesn't. For example, the 60,000 "signatures" on the Internet petition had absolutely no impact whatsoever, other than to give those signing it false hope that it would help get open-carry passed. The $25,000 advertising campaign was money absolutely wasted and could have been put to much better use. Some open-carry supporters say the petition and ad campaign got people interested in the issue, but did it really get anyone interested that wasn't already interested? Did it perhaps energize the opposition? Hopefully, Texas open-carry supporters also learned that an in-your-face attitude doesn't work in Texas. Not only did that approach fail to get an open-carry bill filed, OpenCarry.org managed to earn a terrible reputation in Austin! How does this help the cause? But politicians were not the only targets of the venomous attacks. Fellow gun owners were ridiculed and accused of not supporting the Second Amendment (or were accused of supporting gun control) if they didn't blindly support open-carry. Legitimate concerns and opposing opinions were scoffed at as taking a "Brady" attitude. How does this help prepare for 2011? Does anyone really think that insulting Texans and calling them idiots helps to pass open-carry? How about vowing to oppose A and A+ rated Senators and Representatives? Does that sound like a plan for success? This is what OpenCarry.org brought to the discussion this session.

Texas open-carry supporters, the 2011 Texas Legislative Session is right around the corner, so now is the time to decide if you want open-carry, or OpenCarry.org. You can't have both.

Chas.