TexasCHLforum.com

Bart wrote:

dicion wrote:They should work in concert with the current/future goals of the TSRA, and should work to present open carry responsibly. Not stepping on the toes of the TSRA, or other organizations also promoting any other pro-firearm legislation.

I disagree. TSRA leadership made it clear they don't want open carry in Texas. Open carry supporters should stop trying to cooperate with organizations that don't want to cooperate, and work for open and honest carry independently. We shouldn't step on anyone's toes needlessly, but we shouldn't be afraid of doing it to people and organizations that do it to us first. If someone attacks OC, he shouldn't expect our support for his pet cause. There's no reason to expend time/money helping someone who tries to hurt me.

This is completely false. None of the TSRA leadership have taken the position that TSRA doesn't want open-carry in Texas. I have stated my concern that OC would result in businesses posting their property as off-limits to concealed and open-carry, but I never said TSRA would oppose OC. In fact, I made it clear that TSRA would support OC if this is what our members wanted, and we would handle it as we do every high profile bill; i.e. on our two-year cycle. Why is it that some OC supporters feel it necessary to misstate TSRA's position on OC? Sour grapes perhaps because we won't support OC carry until our members want us to do so?

Bart wrote:Open carry supporters should stop trying to cooperate with organizations that don't want to cooperate, and work for open and honest carry independently. We shouldn't step on anyone's toes needlessly, but we shouldn't be afraid of doing it to people and organizations that do it to us first. If someone attacks OC, he shouldn't expect our support for his pet cause. There's no reason to expend time/money helping someone who tries to hurt me.

How is TSRA stepping on OC supporters' toes? Is it because we won't support OC or add it to our legislative agenda until and unless our members want us to do so?

I'm not sure what you mean by stepping on TSRA's toes, but it sure sounds like you mean either supporting a bad OC bill like the horrible one OpenCarry.org promoted last session, or perhaps opposing TSRA/NRA backed bills in 2011. If that is your "battle plan" it will most assuredly fail, as will any effort to pass OC using that tactic.

I've said it many times before, but here it is again:

• 1. I don't oppose OC, but I have the concern I've expressed many times; OC is likely to lead to many businesses being posted off-limits to any carrying of a handgun;
  
  2. TSRA does not oppose OC;
  
  3. TSRA will not support OC until and unless our membership wants us to do so;
  
  4. TSRA (and I) will oppose any bill that hurts concealed carry, or any other right of gun owners, so an OC bill needs to be drafted by someone who knows what they are doing.

BTW, what is "open and honest carry?" Are you implying that concealed carry is somehow dishonest? Why do OC supporters have to coin sound bite phrases like that and "Constitutional Carry?" It reminds me of the Brady Bunch often prefacing their attacks with "it's for the kids," or "common sense gun laws."

Bart wrote:

dicion wrote:Other states passing similar laws will help with this. This group should help support OTHER state groups that are closer to passing open carry than we are, as the more states that have it, the more we look like we're 'Behind' and need to catch up with the times!

Bart wrote:I think we should find a sympathetic legislator and ask them to introduce legislation that will

You know what?

I'm going to keep that part private. There is a proven contingent here that is opposed to open and honest carry, and it's counterproductive to publicize your whole play book. Even Charles has said there's things he's not making public, so we should follow his example and benefit from his experience.

So you think you're going to get a pro-gun Senator or Representative to introduce a bill without TSRA and NRA knowing about it!? Good luck with that one.

Chas.

bizarrenormality wrote:

Douva wrote:New Mexico never had a statutory prohibition against open carry.

It sounds like they didn't (don't) have as many anti-gun carpetbaggers as Texas.

What locations are off-limits in New Mexico?

Chas.

SA-TX wrote:KC5AV, a quick history of the threads here will indicate that some of us have been working with TSRA and others on OC since the last session. There hasn't been any waiting. Until Charles's recent announcement that OC would definitely not be a part of the TSRA agenda, I thought we were making progress. I had hoped that while it may not be the highest priority bill -- and I agree that it should not be -- that it might at least be on the list of things that we attempt to get done.

You have called for TSRA involvement in the open-carry movement and you started stating that position during the 2009 Texas Legislative Session. However, you did so only here on TexasCHLforum and neither you nor anyone else have been "working with TSRA" on the open-carry issue. Also, since shortly before the 2009 legislative session when OC first came up, I have steadfastly stated that TSRA was not going to push for OC until and unless our members wanted us to do so. I was equally clear that if our members every did, then we would put OC through our regular two year cycle, since it is a high profile issue.

I am at a loss to understand how you would have entertained even the slightest thought that TSRA was going to put OC on our legislative agenda for 2011. My "recent announcement that OC would definitely not be a part of the TSRA agenda" was not the first time I've said this, it's merely the most recent.

I will follow up on KC5AV's question and ask why OC supporters haven't formed a Texas-based, Texas-controlled organization to work for OC? If my suggestion had been acted upon, then you would have had over a year to organize and promote a responsible OC bill. More importantly, you would have had the opportunity to measure the real public support for OC by looking at the number of members this new organization would or would not have attracted. People who are serious about OC better start making plans for 2013 now, but I suspect this will again fall on deaf ears.

Chas.

alankorwin wrote:Dear Chas.,

As far as criminal databases, part of the reason CHL/reciprocity/NICS-free retail sales works is that the program meets federal requirements that the validity of a licensee can be checked by authorities from basically any location. Perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to those databases as certified-innocent citizen lists, but I've never heard them referred to that way. Please correct me -- what is the universally accessible CHL database properly called? And it is, if I understand correctly, linked to the "criminal database" (by whatever name), so a person indicted or convicted can be flagged for suspension or revocation, correct?

A NICS-exempt CHL is just that. The holder does not undergo a Brady check when buying a firearm from an FFL. Their name is not stored in a database.

alankorwin wrote:Not sure what you refer to with "Texas citizen-carry history from 1995 to 1997"; those first two years of CHL in Texas were new and somewhat confusing but seemed to work fairly well.

I'm talking about the extreme backlash against citizens carrying handguns and the prolific posting of generic "no guns" signs all over the State. It was so bad, we had to pass HB2909 in 1997 to establish TPC §30.06 and create the "big, ugly sign." This is far more relevant as to what response we can expect to see in Texas if open-carry passes, than Arizona's experience.

Chas.

Alan Korwin wrote:. . . government-issued permission slip, . . . entry into criminal-database lists, taxes called "fees," . . . expiration dates on your rights!

Inflammatory rhetoric has never helped us pass anything and it won't in the future. BTW, the Texas CHL background check does not get you entered on any "criminal-database lists."

Your rendition of Arizona open-carry history is irrelevant in light of Texas citizen-carry history from 1995 to 1997.

Chas.

SA-TX wrote:You've made it perfectly clear that it OC won't be a part of the 2011 agenda. You also said that planning for the next session starts 30 days after this one ends. Assume a perfect world where parking lot, college campus, and the range bill pass and become law. How would TSRA determine what the priorities are for the 2013 session?

SA-TX

You have listed the three bills I said would absolutely be on the TSRA legislative agenda for 2011. There will be other bills also that don't have the same high profile as those listed and that I'm not willing to publicize Everyone knows the "big 3" are coming, so talking about them isn't telling our opposition anything they don't already know. So don't think for a moment that we have only three bills to work.

We will decide on the 2013 legislative agenda closer to 2013, but work on major bills begins 30 days after the end of a session. What ultimately finds its way on the agenda depends upon circumstances existing at that time, based upon problems that are reported to us by various sources, including our members. We also evaluate opportunities that may arise. Often passing bills opens the door for other opportunities in the same or other areas. Setting a legislative agenda is a very complex process and I don't think most people are aware of this fact.

When I use "OC" I'm using it here as shorthand because most members know what it means. When I'm talking to people, I always use the phrase "open carry." I can assure you that OC is not a little known concept, nor was the OC movement in 2009. The billboards and radio ads purchased by OpenCarry.org, combined with TV news reports and newspaper articles all combined to make the general population in Texas very much aware of OC. OC is appears to be a major issue with only a very small percentage of Texas gun owners.

Chas.

Conagher I always admired the way you approached the OC issue last session. You were always very reasonable, logical and above all respectful to those who had reservations about OC. I must confess that I'm a bit concerned at the approach you are taking now. You claim not to understand Mr. Heath's goal but he has been abundantly clear. He understands that TSRA isn't going to address OC in 2011 and he's offering to assist in creating a Texas organization to promote OC. I think you clearly understand this goal, even though you claim otherwise. You don't like Mr. Heath's plan because you do not want this new organization to take on the task of promoting OC, you want it to put pressure on TSRA to support OC in 2011.

I too have been abundantly clear -- 1) TSRA will not introduce an OC bill in 2011, for the reasons I've stated multiple times; 2) TSRA will not oppose an OC bill introduced by someone else, so long as it does not create unintended consequences; and 3) I cannot and will not offer any advice on an OC bill, beyond what I offered last session.

Item No. 3 does not mean I won't read any OC bill that is filed; you bet I will!! I read every single bill that deals with guns, the use of guns, or is even tangentially related to guns. If I see a problem, and if the OpenCarry.org bill from 2009 is promoted there will be, we will address the problem. My very strong advice is take the approach I suggested last session.

You clearly want TSRA to put OC on its legislative agenda for the 2011 session and that is not going to happen and nothing you say or do is going to change that.

Chas.

Calling someone a liar, even me, regardless of the term used will get you banned every time.

Chas.

Webster wrote:Main Entry: ca·nard
Pronunciation: \kə-ˈnärd also -ˈnär\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, literally, duck; in sense 1, from Middle French vendre des canards à moitié to cheat, literally, to half-sell ducks
Date: 1851

1 a : a false or unfounded report or story; especially : a fabricated report.

Conagher wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Conagher wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:Due to computer issues I have not had much time for this since Saturday. I am willing to step up and do something, not because I want to open carry (because I don't) but because I feel it is important.

One thing I am reading Charles as saying is that we need a Texas based group/organization to get involved, I personally doubt we will see anything this session as time is running out, but in order to facilitate a Texas organization I registered a domain and setup some forums. I was wanting to wait and get things cleaned up and a logo of some sort in place but I will go public with it now. Should a Texas based organization form and prove themselves organized I will transfer the domain to them. I will even host it as long as I can afford to. Now who else is willing to step up to the plate and do something besides demand someone else do something? The website is http://txopencarry.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In fact if someone drafts a GOOD bill I will even contact my legislators and politely ask them to support it after thanking them for the work they have done so far.

Thanks G.A. Heath.

I am still struggling with this “Texas based organization” so maybe you could help clarify since you seem to also promote this concept.

The way I am interpreting the suggestion is to create a Texas based organization which is separate and distinct from our already existing Texas based 2A organization (TSRA). Is this correct? And what would the charter of this organization be? From the discussion it appears the charter would be to promote OC to TSRA members until enough support is garnered that TSRA decides to address the issue. Then what happens? Does this separate organization disappear and turn everything over to TSRA at that point?

I am honestly unclear of the suggestion so any help to clarify would be appreciated.

As for a draft bill; Rep. Debbie Riddle’s staff already drafted one last session so there is really no need to create a separate one. I have no idea at this point if she plans to submit it next session. I have asked Charles in a previous post if he would kindly review and provide any suggestions just as he did for OpenCarry.org draft bill but I have received no response from him on this. So I would appreciate if you could follow through with your commitment and politely ask for their support of Rep. Riddle’s draft bill.

Thanks and Have a Nice Day!

I don't know if you are serious with this question or not. If so, the clear intent is to act on my year old suggestion that OC be promoted by a Texas-based organization rather than Virginia-based OpenCarry.org. Are you seriously asking about charters? If so, why? Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I see no indication the proposal is to lobby TSRA or TSRA members. Rather, it appears to me Mr. Heath is suggesting that a Texas-based organization be formed to promote OC in a responsible and non-confrontational manner.

I cannot and will not participate in drafting an OC bill unless it is for TSRA or NRA. I previously responded to the atrocious bill drafted by OpenCarry.org and made suggestions on how it should approach modifying current statutes. I did not offer specific language, nor will I unless we (TSRA or NRA) take on this project. If we do, it won't be in 2011 since we work on a 2 year cycle.

Chas.

Hello Charles, thanks for the response.

To answer your question; Yes, I am seriously asking about the charter, and here’s why:

I and I’m sure most others on this forum believe the best chance (some may even believe the only chance) of getting OC in Texas is for TSRA to sponsor it. So the immediate goal is to get TSRA to sponsor this effort. And as you have stated many times in one form or another;

Charles L. Cotton wrote:“ … we respond to the needs and wishes of our members”.

So if we form an organization “to promote OC”, to whom do we promote it? If we are to accomplish the goal to have TSRA sponsor the effort, then there appears to be only one answer based on your responses, TSRA members. If I am not looking at this correctly, then please enlighten me because I am honestly confused. I will be happy to help start another organization if that is what is needed, I’m just not sure what to do –“promote OC” is pretty generic and not really sure what would be done beyond what is already being done. However, I am absolutely open to suggestions.

Something that may be helpful and I asked this previously is if you can point me to a model; Employer Parking Lot item for example. How was this promoted to TSRA members and how was the feedback established to ensure the majority of members were supportive of this? Maybe the Texas OC effort can mimic this activity.

I am not sure how to even ask about SCCC since they are not a “Texas-based” organization; but if you think something there is applicable, maybe like how TSRA member feedback was solicited to ensure the majority of members supported this, then possibly this is something we can mimic also.

I am with all sincerity looking for help on this!

Thanks and Have a Nice Day!

I suspected this was your goal; now it's confirmed.

I do not know how I can be more clear; TSRA will not take on open-carry until and unless a substantial majority of our members want us to expend tremendous political capital to do so. If and when they do, then we will put it on our political agenda and it will be handled as a regular part of our two year cycle. I said this in 2009, so it should come to no surprise to anyone.

This means OC cannot and will not be part of TSRA's 2011 Legislative Agenda. The TSRA/NRA Candidate Questionnaires have already been completed and the OC issue was not addressed. This is a key element in our procedure to get candidates "on record" concerning high profile issues. It is not possible to get an Interim Study authorized to "study" the OC issue and this is yet another key part of getting high profile legislation passed.

Mr. Heath is trying to organize a Texas-based effort to pass OC, without resorting to the use of faulty tactics used last session. You want to "lobby" TSRA and try to get us to take on OC in 2011 and abandon methods that have proven successful for many years. It appears to me that Mr. Heath's goals and yours are incompatible, but that's not my call.

Chas.

Conagher wrote:

G.A. Heath wrote:Due to computer issues I have not had much time for this since Saturday. I am willing to step up and do something, not because I want to open carry (because I don't) but because I feel it is important.

One thing I am reading Charles as saying is that we need a Texas based group/organization to get involved, I personally doubt we will see anything this session as time is running out, but in order to facilitate a Texas organization I registered a domain and setup some forums. I was wanting to wait and get things cleaned up and a logo of some sort in place but I will go public with it now. Should a Texas based organization form and prove themselves organized I will transfer the domain to them. I will even host it as long as I can afford to. Now who else is willing to step up to the plate and do something besides demand someone else do something? The website is http://txopencarry.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In fact if someone drafts a GOOD bill I will even contact my legislators and politely ask them to support it after thanking them for the work they have done so far.

Thanks G.A. Heath.

I am still struggling with this “Texas based organization” so maybe you could help clarify since you seem to also promote this concept.

The way I am interpreting the suggestion is to create a Texas based organization which is separate and distinct from our already existing Texas based 2A organization (TSRA). Is this correct? And what would the charter of this organization be? From the discussion it appears the charter would be to promote OC to TSRA members until enough support is garnered that TSRA decides to address the issue. Then what happens? Does this separate organization disappear and turn everything over to TSRA at that point?

I am honestly unclear of the suggestion so any help to clarify would be appreciated.

As for a draft bill; Rep. Debbie Riddle’s staff already drafted one last session so there is really no need to create a separate one. I have no idea at this point if she plans to submit it next session. I have asked Charles in a previous post if he would kindly review and provide any suggestions just as he did for OpenCarry.org draft bill but I have received no response from him on this. So I would appreciate if you could follow through with your commitment and politely ask for their support of Rep. Riddle’s draft bill.

Thanks and Have a Nice Day!

I don't know if you are serious with this question or not. If so, the clear intent is to act on my year old suggestion that OC be promoted by a Texas-based organization rather than Virginia-based OpenCarry.org. Are you seriously asking about charters? If so, why? Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I see no indication the proposal is to lobby TSRA or TSRA members. Rather, it appears to me Mr. Heath is suggesting that a Texas-based organization be formed to promote OC in a responsible and non-confrontational manner.

I cannot and will not participate in drafting an OC bill unless it is for TSRA or NRA. I previously responded to the atrocious bill drafted by OpenCarry.org and made suggestions on how it should approach modifying current statutes. I did not offer specific language, nor will I unless we (TSRA or NRA) take on this project. If we do, it won't be in 2011 since we work on a 2 year cycle.

Chas.

chabouk wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Conagher wrote:However, I still believe you are making an invalid assumption that the Open Carry Kool-Aid will not be served to our legislators and the electorate without TSRA involvement. This was not true last session, and it will not be true this session.

I think you're right. It'll be the same group that alienated every staff member and Representative in the Capitol and managed to taint the entire issue.

*sigh*

This is a claim often repeated, that OC advocates burned bridges, alienated legislators, destroyed good will, threatened other pro-gun legislation, "poisoned the well", etc., etc., ad infinitum.

I've yet to see any clear claim of any group or individual causing any of the above in regards to any individual legislator or groups of legislators, or any legislator making any statement that they wouldn't support the TSRA on campus carry, parking lot bill, etc., etc., because non-TSRA people lobbied for open carry.

That's not what I said or meant. I have repeatedly stated that the tactics used by OpenCarry.org supporters have tainted the OC issue. I've never said that their ill-advised tactics hurt TSRA or any of TSRA's bills. The legislators' staff know that it was not "TSRA people" calling and emailing nasty, sometimes threatening messages.

chabouk wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I'm equally sure they will again blast TSRA and claim that we oppose OC equating TSRA's lack of involvement as opposition.

I've followed the issue from both sides, and in both major forums that discuss the matter. I don't think anyone equated TSRA choosing not to get involved as "opposition". I think the "opposition" sentiment comes mostly from the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus effort to disavow OC and throw any such bills under the bus, to gain traction for their own.

Do a search on the topic and you will find several posts/threads on this issue. Many on OpenCarry.org blatantly said TSRA actively opposed the OC effort and this claim is absolutely false.

chabouk wrote:Was SCCC a standalone group? Did they have the assistance of TSRA, opposition, or enjoy neutrality?

I don't understand your question, beyond asking if SCCC is a "standalone" group. I don't know their organizational structure, but they are a entity or unincorporated association unrelated to TSRA and/or NRA.

chabouk wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:( ... )The only time the subject was broached was during the 2009 TSRA Annual Meetings when Howard Nimrov informally talked with several members to get their opinions. They seem to be fairly evenly split on supporting and opposing OC. ( ... )

So it's fine to talk about OC and whether or not TSRA's involvement is beneficial or necessary, but the reality is that we respond to the needs and wishes of our members.

If the members are evenly split, isn't it okay for TSRA to make a statement that they (we) "Have not made this a legislative priority during this session, but offer best wishes to any effort to expand the right of Texans to keep and bear arms." Isn't it?

First, I didn't say the entire 40,000 membership is evenly split. I said the "several members" with whom Howard Nimrov spoke were evenly split. Based upon the lack of calls or emails by our members, there is no reason to believe that OC is an issue to any significant portion of our membership. Even if the entire membership were evenly split, your suggestion would alienate 1/2 of our members by supporting the OC effort. How would you feel if we took the opposite approach and said something tending to oppose OC? I suspect you would be more than a little upset.

chabouk wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Texas OC proponents needs a Texas-based, Texas-run organization run by someone who knows what they are doing to promote OC. I said this last year and apparently no such organization was established.
Chas.

Why can't TSRA be that organization? The issue was certainly on TSRA's radar. As you said, it was brought up at the 2009 annual meeting (supported by roughly half the members), and it was certainly a topic of discussion in the 2009 legislative session.

As noted above, the members to whom Howard spoke at the 2009 annual meeting were evenly split. While he talked to several members, he didn't talk to all of the members present and certainly nowhere near our 40,000 members. Yes, TSRA knew of the OC movement so it was on our radar screen, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not on the radar screen of our members.

My point is that Virginia-based OpenCarry.org was not well received in Austin and to start building goodwill in the Capitol and to have any realistic chance of passing OC, I believe the work must be done by an organization that is Texas-based and run by people who know how to pass legislation in Texas. TSRA could be an organization such as I described and undoubtedly would be, if a significant majority of our members supported OC and wanted us to spend a lot of political capital on OC.

chabouk wrote:I do not bear any ill will towards TSRA. I think it's unfortunate that the official organization spokespersons are the clearinghouse through which all successful gun legislation must pass, but I recognize that reality; any resentment there is rightly directed at the legislators, not TSRA.

I wish Alice or I had that much power in Austin! TSRA doesn't own the Second Amendment and gun bills can pass without our involvement. Admittedly, the higher the profile of a bill the more likely it is that legislators will look to see if the NRA or TSRA are behind the bill, but that's not our fault. It's simply a function of many years of work cultivating working relationships and political support of pro-gun legislators, as well as the efforts of the TSRA PAC during elections.

Chas.

Purplehood wrote:Speaking strictly for myself, I interpret Charles stance as being that the TSRA will not be the organization to promote OC until and unless its voters ask it to do so. If this is correct, I agree.

Absolutely correct. We answer to our members who carry the financial burden of this organization and who volunteer to help our programs.

Chas.

Conagher wrote:However, I still believe you are making an invalid assumption that the Open Carry Kool-Aid will not be served to our legislators and the electorate without TSRA involvement. This was not true last session, and it will not be true this session.

I think you're right. It'll be the same group that alienated every staff member and Representative in the Capitol and managed to taint the entire issue. I'm equally sure they will again blast TSRA and claim that we oppose OC equating TSRA's lack of involvement as opposition.

As I've said many many times, TSRA responds to the wishes of our members and they have not indicated they want TSRA to promote open-carry. The only time the subject was broached was during the 2009 TSRA Annual Meetings when Howard Nimrov informally talked with several members to get their opinions. They seem to be fairly evenly split on supporting and opposing OC. With 40,000 members, a relative handful of new members joining to demand OC isn't going to represent the will of the majority of TSRA members. Plus, as I've said several times, we work on a 2 year cycle that begins 30 days after a legislative session ends.

So it's fine to talk about OC and whether or not TSRA's involvement is beneficial or necessary, but the reality is that we respond to the needs and wishes of our members.

Texas OC proponents needs a Texas-based, Texas-run organization run by someone who knows what they are doing to promote OC. I said this last year and apparently no such organization was established.
Chas.