TexasCHLforum.com

Yeah, this thread is a little long in the tooth, since it deals with a specific bill in the now ended 2011 Texas Legislative Session.
Please start a new thread in the General discussion forum if you like.

Chas.

JMen7T6 wrote:Hello All, new to the Forum, but not new to Forums. I have had my CHL since 2001. I have been following the progress of several bills and mostly interested in this one. Could someone please clarify if this bill will completely eliminate Concealed Carry or is it's intent to supplement CHL holders options so we can either carry concealed or openly? With them eliminating the word "concealed" from the handgun laws, it looked like we would not have an option. It would be ONLY Open carry. But then again, if that were the case, the would have to add verbiage on violations of someone caught carrying concealed.

a bit confused....

Welcome to the TexasCHLforum, we're glad you joined us.

The intent of HB2756 is simply to allow CHL's the option to carry openly or concealed. As written, HB2756 opens up massive sections of the Government Code and Penal Code to potential anti-gun amendments, and this issue has been raised. Although there would be ways to make sure the Bill, if it had passed, would not prohibit concealed-carry (i.e. establishing legislative intent), some people in Austin have commented that a fair reading of HB2756 would include a prohibition of concealed carry. While I would disagree with that interpretation, it is not outside the bounds of reason which means it's something that should have been addressed by the promoters of HB2756. Hopefully, a much narrower bill will be filed next session that carries far less risk to CHL's.

Chas.

SA-TX wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:As for bringing an end to personal animosity, you need to talk to Lone Star Civil Defense League President Shane McCrary and post something on OpenCarry.org. MR REDNECK's track record on TexasCHLforum, TexasGunTalk and on OpenCarry.org clearly shows he is a driving force behind the personal attacks and lies.

Done, by me, in the Texas section of OpenCarry.org.

SA-TX

Thanks for trying; it's a very good post even though you don't agree with me on everything. (See, Shane McCrary, you can disagree with me and not get banned. )

Unfortunately, the response is pretty much what I expected and I suspect it will be worse in 6 hrs when HB2756 is dead. Shane is the President of Lone Star Citizens Defense League and he is adamant that when open-carry passes, it will include an amendment to TPC §30.06 making it apply to open and concealed carry. All is can say is, "hide and watch sport!"

His argument against letting Tex. Penal Code §30.05 apply to open-carry is the erroneous belief that the penalties are different under TPC §30.06. Had he read §§ 30.05 and 30.06 he would have realized that violation of §30.05 while carrying a deadly weapon is a Class A Misdemeanor and so is violating TPC §30.06. Once again he's wrong. I would not suggest a bill that would leave people carrying openly subject to a harsher penalty. In fact, I think that criminal trespass should be a Class C Misdemeanor under all circumstances, so long as there is no property damage or personal injury caused by the trespasser. What earthly good comes from spreading misinformation?

Chas.

Tex. Penal Code §30.05 wrote:(d) An offense under this section is:

(3) a Class A misdemeanor if:

• (A) the offense is committed:
  
  • (i) in a habitation or a shelter center;
    
    (ii) on a Superfund site; or
    
    (iii) on or in a critical infrastructure facility; or
  (B) the person carries a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.

Tex. Penal Code §30.06 wrote:(d) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

SA-TX wrote:

steveincowtown wrote: My question wasn’t “why isn’t NRA/TSRA supporting this bill” my question is what are they actively doing prevent the 30.06 portion from going forward if the bill hits the floor. I know that they already have an agenda, game plan, etc.

Teams also have an agenda/game plane at the beginning of every ball game. Unfortunately this has to be flexible and adapt to what the other team is doing.
Thinking about it more, I am sure that Mr. Cotton is smart enough to have some sort of plan (with regards to the 30.06 portion of this bill), but wise enough not to share it in a public forum.

We'll know soon. Like others, I hate the thought of waiting until the next session. The current projection is the next session's House will probably contain FEWER Republicans -- though that doesn't necessarily mean fewer pro-2A members, it might -- and probably less than a 2/3 majority. That means that the quorum busting, chubbing, and points of order on technicalities could resume.

Charles, this could be a great icing-on-the-cake achievement for the session. It isn't an NRA/TSRA bill, but if it could be amended to remove the changes to 30.06, wouldn't this be an advancement for liberty and gun carry in Texas? I agree with your prior post -- why wouldn't this be supported by CHLs and those who want open carry alike?

That being the case, if parking lot carry and campus carry are either passed or 100% dead -- thus TSRA would have some additional bandwidth -- I hope TSRA will consider moving beyond neutrality and helping some form of open carry across the finish line. If the organization is willing to engage to stop something bad from happening -- and I agree that it should -- I would hope that the reverse would also be true and you would advocate and/or work for passage of an acceptable bill. IMHO, passing HB 2756 isn't the goal; expanding 2A rights for Texans to include some form of open carry is. Therefore if there is an opportunity to do so, whether in the form of HB 2756 or some other vehicle, I hope TSRA will avail themselves of the opportunity.

SA-TX

Because of my respect for you SA-TX and the way you have supported open-carry, I'm going way out on a limb here and I'm old enough to know better. First let me say I'm giving my personal opinion that in no way represents the position of the NRA. I make my opinions known in NRA meetings and strategy sessions, sometimes forcefully but tactfully, but at the end of the day I'm a good soldier and I know the value in unity. Each of us gives our opinion, then we reach a consensus, a plan is developed and we work toward a successful legislative session. None of us gets everything we want the first time we ask. This is something most of us learn by age 6, but unfortunately some never learn and they go through life blaming others for ills real and imagined.

Presuming employer parking lots passes, then in my view we will have room on our dance card for another high profile, emotionally charged bill. This is what I call a "Flagship Bill." If campus-carry passes also, then we're in even better shape for 2013. I have at least three bills I want to file next session, but none of them are high-profile bills, although one will certainly garner opposition. (That bill would make CHL's exempt from TPC §46.03 as well as TPC §46.02.) This would leave room to promote open-carry.

There is absolutely no chance to pass unlicensed open-carry, so our open-carry bill would be for CHLs. TPC §30.06 will remain applicable only to concealed-carry by CHLs while people carrying openly will be covered by TPC §30.05. This means property owners (almost exclusively businesses) will have the option to ban open-carry but still allow concealed-carry. If they do want to ban both open and concealed carry, they won't have to post two "big ugly signs," just the 30.06 sign and a generic "no guns" decal. This will give people carrying openly the option to cover the gun and enter the business, or go elsewhere. Amending TPC §30.06 to cover both open and concealed carry is and always will be deal breaker! Our sponsors would understand this and would be willing to pull down (kill) their own bill if an amendment gets on. I wish we could get a different "big ugly sign" for open-carry, but that's politically impossible. We will be in for a fight to simply leave trespass laws as they are now.

People seem to think there is no opposition to open-carry in the legislature and that couldn't be more wrong. So the education program I mentioned in other posts and threads applies primarily but not exclusively to the general public. We have some work to do with legislators. Open-carry supporters need to resign themselves to the fact that there will be some locations where open-carry is prohibited while concealed carry is not. It likely won't be in the bill as it is initially filed, but you can bet the farm that they will be required in a committee substitute or the bill will never get out of committee. I and others have already heard negative comments like, "Can't you just see someone walking through a ________ with a gun on their hip!?" I cannot and will not go into this area in any greater detail, but this is the reality of what we are facing in Austin and around the State. We had to accept things we didn't want to get CHL passed in 1995, then we set out repealing or amending those offensive provisions in almost every session since. Open-carry will require the same.

People need to look how far we've come in only 16 years. We passed concealed carry in 1995, adopted TPC §30.06 in 1997 and made other changes. 2001 saw passage of a bill preventing politically motivated law suits against gun and ammo manufacturers and sellers. In 2003 we passed SB501 that prohibits governmental entities from using TPC §30.06 to bar armed CHLs. In 2005, the first attempt at unlicensed car-carry passed, but the presumption it established was problematic. In 2007 we passed 8 of 9 pro-gun bills. We used the Rosenthal fiasco as a launching pad to pass unlicensed car-carry by changing TPC §46.02 so that having a handgun in your car, or one under your control, simply was not illegal. That way we bypass defenses to prosecution, presumptions, and having to prove your defense in court. Also in 2007, we were able to pass the most sweeping changes to self-defense law anywhere in the country in the form of our version of a "Castle Doctrine." Those who have attended my seminars know that repealing the retreat requirement pales in comparison to the other changes we made in that Bill. 2007 was also the year we passed a bill to prohibit New Orleans type firearm confiscation during emergencies -- the so-called "emergency powers bill." There many other improvements we've made since 1995 that don't make the headlines with gun owners and that's fine. For example, they include, sweeping changes to the way CHL applications are handled, changes to CHL eligibility requirements, extension of CHL license periods from 4 to 5 years (effectively a 25% fee reduction), expansion of fee discounts to more people, and many many other improvements. The fact is we have made tremendous progress, but the militant open-carry supporters don't care. If fact, they either deny that progress has been made, or they minimize its impact on gun owners. Open-carry will one day pass in spite of those folks, not because of them.

Between now and 2013, there is a lot of work to be done. I will do everything I can to make open-carry acceptable to the public and elected officials and if the NRA and/or TSRA takes on open-carry, I'll do everything I can to get it passed. I will also protect what will then be 650,000 CHLs.

Chas.

A Member sent me this post from OpenCarry.org. I'm sure I don't have to say this for our long-term Members, but for the folks who just joined us and for our guests, neither the NRA, TSRA, nor I have opposed HB2756, either formally or informally. We did not rewrite the Bill, we did not delay its filing, and we did nothing to delay a public hearing or a committee vote.

To use Sen. Wentworth's analogy, this seems like "Groundhog Day;" another legislative session goes by without open-carry being passed -- and of course its the fault of NRA and TSRA!

Chas.

From OpenCarry.org wrote:According to "Leslie" in the office of Chairman of the Calenders Committee - Representative Todd Hunter- HB 2756 - IS NOT DEAD IN THE WATER.

She is quite familiar with HB 2756 as a result of the incessant phone calls her office has been receiving supporting the bill from YOU !(despite the fact that
the TSRA & NRA are opposing it)

YES- I said the TSRA and the NRA are OPPOSING IT ! Exactly WHO do you suppose they are representing in Texas ??? Not ME ! Because the NRA no longer can count me in their "membership" tally.

She said the Calendars Committee is still working on a "solution" to get HB 2756 scheduled.

Don't throw the towel in yet. Representative lavender is working FOR EVERY TEXAS CITIZEN to get this constitutional bill moving forward. It ain't over yet.

Ravendove wrote:I figure it's about time I posted on here so here's my perspective on this. I moved here from Tennessee nearly a year ago and I'm still kind of acclimating to the differences in carry laws and legislation and the overall environment in which we operate. One of the huge differences I've noticed is that TN allows open carry and has since the enactment of their Handgun Carry Permit law. It made sense to me because it made available a lot of options as far as how to carry to allow best access. It wasn't strictly carry open or carry concealed, it also allowed a middle ground. The other thing is that it's hot in TN. It's HOTTER here. I like the option to open carry, and in fact it changed someone's mind who had just a half second prior to noticing my firearm had made the decision to mug me. Currently I carry a micro-desert eagle .380 in my pocket. That's pretty tough to draw in a hurry and pretty much impossible when in the car.

Now, forgive me, but there was a LOT of reading to get from the beginning of this thread to the end and I may have skipped over some of the in-fighting because it was getting repetitive, so it's possible that I missed some of the reasons you guys don't like the current wording of this bill. The main one that I've seen is the threat of 30.06 postings drastically increasing. There was a similar concern in TN when we were fighting for restaurant carry... the right of permit holders to carry in restaurants where alcohol is served so long as they don't drink. There were a lot of claims from restaurant owners that they would post their properties. In truth, the law passed and only a few signs went up. Shortly thereafter (Just a week or two) many, if not most, of those signs came back down. So, I agree that this is a valid concern, but I think that it isn't as serious as some of you guys think. Also, yeah every once and a while I would OC, every once in a while I'd see someone else OC, but neither case happened very often at all. Just because we can carry openly doesn't mean everyone or even half of the CHL population is going to start doing it on a regular basis. When these bills are in the news, the perception is always higher than after it's passed.

Personally, I'd like to see a requirement for a sign that deals specifically with OC. It just seems dangerous to me to let businesses post whatever sign they feel like wherever they feel like it to prohibit open carry, the same way it was dangerous to let them post whatever wherever for concealed. And honestly, I'd rather there be one sign to cover both than no sign at all for OC. I know you're worried the signs would go up prohibiting both just because of the perception of one but I feel pretty comfortable that it wouldn't happen that way. At least it wouldn't happen at more than a handful of places... and even some of those probably wouldn't last. This is partly speculation on my part but also very largely actual experience.

Anyway, that's how I feel about it.
Warmest regards to all of you,
Sean

Welcome to TexasCHLforum Sean. What part of Texas do you call home?


As for the likelihood of seeing an epidemic of 30.06 signs, we don't have to look to Tennessee for insight as to what might happen, especially since your State's experience was much better than what we saw in Texas from 1995 to 1997. The generic "no guns" signs and small decals were popping up on businesses like crabgrass and contrary to what some folks claim, they never came down. That's why it was necessary to pass HB2909 in 1997 and create the "big ugly sign" requirement to bar entry by armed CHLs. When HB2909 went into effect on Sept. 1, 1997, we did see a few 30.06 signs but not many. As we planned, the "big ugly sign" was too big and too ugly for most businesses to post. I would like to think that we responsible CHL's educated the business community in a mere 21 months and they came to trust us. Unfortunately, it was the "big ugly sign" not our trustworthiness that prevented an epidemic of 30.06 signs.

A one-size-fits-all sign will be a deal breaker with the folks who can get open-carry passed; i.e. the NRA and TSRA. We simply cannot put 461,000 CHLs at risk. More importantly, there is absolutely no reason do so so. Having TPC §30.06 apply only to CHLs and letting the simple, small "ghost buster" decals apply to open-carry gives everyone an option. It allows businesses to prohibit open-carry but allow concealed-carry. It gives people carrying openly the option to cover their gun and enter the building when they encounter a generic "no guns" sign/decal.

I agree with you and most open-carry supporters that relatively few people will carry openly. However, all it will take for a business owner to post the appropriate sign is to have one person walking through their store with a handgun showing and his customers start complaining. Less than 3% (CHL's) of the population isn't going to negatively impact a store's business, but 97% (non-CHLs) can.

I acknowledge that we may not see a negative backlash against open-carry if/when it passes, but the risk is there, it's real, and I believe it is substantial. In spite of what they claim, I think open-carry supporters also believe there will be a negative backlash against open-carry, otherwise they would not want to see TPC §30.06 amended to cover open and concealed carry. As I've posted many times, this risk can be greatly diminished by educating the public, but that requires diplomacy and statesmanlike conduct. The Texas Firearms Coalition has just such a plan ready to launch when this legislative session is over. Of one thing I am absolutely certain, open-carry supporters need to accept that amending TPC §30.06 to cover open and concealed carry is not acceptable and it's not negotiable. Neither the NRA nor TSRA will accept a provision that puts 461,000+ CHLs at risk. We would kill our own bill before letting that happen.

Again, welcome to Texas and to TexasCHLforum.

Chas.

Jim, I drafted a rather lengthy response, but posting it will not accomplish anything constructive. I appreciate the fact that you were not with LSCDL when what became HB2756 was drafted by Shane McCrary. However, you are Legislative Director of LSCDL and I feel certain you can ask Shane how HB2756 came to be. Allowing another LSCDL member to falsely imply that NRA and/or TSRA rewrote the bill is counterproductive and unfair to the only two organizations in Texas that pass pro-gun legislation and block anti-gun legislation.

You are also in a position to tell everyone if LSCDL supports amending TPC §30.06 so that it will apply to both open and concealed carry. This is obviously a major issue for most CHLs and I think Texas gun owners have a right to know LSCDL's position on this issue. Do you?

As for bringing an end to personal animosity, you need to talk to Lone Star Civil Defense League President Shane McCrary and post something on OpenCarry.org. MR REDNECK's track record on TexasCHLforum, TexasGunTalk and on OpenCarry.org clearly shows he is a driving force behind the personal attacks and lies. The strongest open-carry supporters, the bomb-throwers if you will, ridicule people who have legitimate concerns about a great increase in 30.06 signs. "Elitists," "drink the koolaid," and other demeaning comments are common place on OpenCarry.org and among LSCDL members who post here on TexasCHLforum. Giving a call to peace here on TexasCHLforum is a bit misplaced since you are talking to the victims of personal attacks, not the perpetrators.

Finally, please answer the question I asked about your representation that "Lone Star Citizen's Defense League is committed to assist in the legal defense of any member who is unlawfully charged with an offense under a Texas statute that runs counter to Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution. Is that not worth a membership fee?" I can't let this go as I don't want TexasCHLforum Members or guests to be misled about the benefits of membership in LSCDL. Some people might even make decisions as to whether they should purchase self-defense insurance or participate in a pre-paid legal program based upon your representation.

Chas.

PATHFINDER wrote:I do appreciate many of the concerns about HB 2756. I have some concerns of my own. I haven't spoken with anyone who wouldn't prefer some major changes. I am not in a position to address the pre-file history of HB 2756. I was not associated with Lone Star Citizen's Defense League that early on in the effort.

Charles - the majority of pro-right to carry supporters in Texas are troubled by the unnecessary, distracting, and apparently ever escalating personalization of this debate. Reasonable people can disagree on strategies, and timing in remedying constitutional defects in Code sections, but our efforts need to be focused on discussion, research, and education. The integrity of one's professional life merits respect. As an active member of LSCDL, I feel that you are entitled to an apology, particularly if you, or any of your professional associates were in fact subjected to any annoyance. Personal offense is always ill-conceived, never productive, and invariably plays out as a spit directed into a head-wind.

The Texas Constitution always has the FIRST & FINAL word on legislation. Acts of the Legislature do not "define" the Texas Constitution. What I call "Neo-Reconstructionism" is rooted in the philosphy that enacted laws can pretend to "amend" the Constitution through the agregate codification of elitist preferences into the front-lines of public policy. This trend has been going on for 135 years in Texas, and reflects a confluence of varied self-interests attempting to ram through legislation during an extremely brief time window. The adoption of the Texas Constitution in 1876 was more than a bench-mark in the history books. It is the very foundation of Texas law.

The Texas Constitution reserves the right to carry (even handguns) openly in lawful defense to every citizen. Acts of the Legislature , decisions by Texas courts, and law enforcement procedures must respect, and reflect that fact. HB 2756 is Representative Lavender's bill. We should know by tomorrow whether the House will have a chance to even consider the measure. If the bill is placed on the House calender, further discussion will be warranted. Based upon my discussions with Representative Lavender's office, the 30.06 concerns frequently expressed on this forum can be addressed - if and when the bill moves forward.

mreavis wrote:I also would not be surprised if 30.06 signs increased in areas and I would not like that either. However, at this time, we do not have a given right to carry into every business. That is why they made the 30.06 sign. If you want to fight against that sign or restriction that is of arguable merit. Open carry itself though is not truly about that. Choosing to not have open carry (a separate but important right) simply because it will further educate people on gun laws (30.06 signs) is a step in the over-all wrong direction. Although you or I may not agree with 30.06 signs, if we want to do this the real way, we will fight the sign and restrictions itself. Not try to preserve the lack of knowledge about the laws. Who knows, maybe open carry would even show people guns are not so scary in public in the hands of licensed holders.

I acknowledge the gorilla warfare tactic of hiding the right to post 30.06 signs from business owners. And I agree this will effect that. I just don't think that should be our biggest focus.

TPC §30.06 is not unfair to CHLs or an imposition on us; it literally saved us from being shut out of a huge percentage of businesses. If TPC §30.06 were repealed, CHLs could be barred simply by posting a generic "no guns" sign or decal. The last thing we want to to do away with §30.06. The next to the last thing we want is to have §30.06 amended to apply to both open and concealed carry.

Chas.

Pathfinder:
You can ignore the second question as to whether someone going by the name "MR REDNECK" drafted the open-carry bill given to Rep. Lavender. MR REDNECK is none other than Lone Star Civil Defense League (LSCDL) President Shane McCrary of Odessa. So his claim on OpenCarry.org that he drafted the bill is probably accurate, though the claim that TSRA or NRA rewrote it is not.

Unfortunately, this means the LSCDL President is the same gentleman who posted on OpenCarry.org asking people to engage in a telephone harassment scheme directed at me at my law office (a violation of state and federal criminal statutes that I would pursue). The same gentleman who has been banned from TexasCHLforum, TexasGunTalk, and other boards (so I have been told), for multiple rule violations and personal attacks. This does not bode well for open-carry in Texas.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Pathfinder/Jim:
Could you answer my questions about the HB2756 and LSCDL?

Thanks,
Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Jim, thanks for the post and I hope you are a LSCDL member who will share some information.

As an active member of LSCDL, I'm sure you have seen the post by jecsd1 here claiming that the open-carry bill written by someone with LSCDL, but after it was given to Rep. Lavender, it was somehow hijacked by an unidentified "League" of people that he clearly insinuates is either TSRA, NRA, or both. Since you are a Legislative Director of LSCDL, would you clear that up for folks here on TexasCHLforum? As JKTex posted, LSCDL claims that “they” wanted a constitutional carry bill, but “but [they] sniffed the wind and thought that we'd better save that for next session.” On OpenCarry.org, “MR Redneck” claims he wrote the bill and he also claims to be a member of LSCDL.

Here are my questions.

• Is it true that, as in the LSCDL quote posted by JKTex, that LSCDL presented Rep. Lavender with a licensed open-carry bill?
  If so, was that bill written by someone using the screen name “MR Redneck?” And who is “MR Redneck;” i.e. what is his real name?
  Does LSCDL support amending TPC §30.06 so that it applies to both open-carry and concealed-carry?

Thanks,
Chas.

PATHFINDER wrote:I am a member of the Lone Star Citizen's Defense League, and I have been investing my time, and financial resources into the effort to restore respect for the right to bear arms in Texas that is declared in Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution to be reserved to "every citizen" in Texas.

This RIGHT we talk about so much is constitutionally INVIOLATE (Article 1, Section 29) in that the Legislature may only regulate , by law, the CRIMINAL wearing of arms. We at Lone Star Citizen's Defense League are committed to pushing back against the Reconstruction Era policies of State government, and the Neo-Reconstructionists mentality that has over-stayed its welcome by 140 years in Texas.

I AM a CHL holder . The supporters of HB 2756 ARE predominantly CHL holders. This bill will become law , and the criminal penalty for intentional failure to conceal will be repealed because it is unconstitutional , and the majority in the Texas Legislature realizes that fact, and supports the bill. That means that the CHL holder will have the option of making his or her own determination as to whether to conceal or display for personal safety.

Armed entry into private premises commonly open to the public is a matter for the acountants of every business enterprise to determine. That private determination is deserving of the respect of all who choose to enter, and engage in commerce with them.

I testified in favor of HB 2756 before the Public Safety Subcommittee, along side two other LSCDL members, and three other CHL holders who traveled to Austin that day motivated by their conviction that the bill is good law and Texas needs it passed.

Gun Owners of America is in support of HB 2756 - as well as the committment of the Lone Star Citizen's League to restore the constitutional right to bear arms in Texas. Sadly, the NRA has been missing in action during this effort.Lone Star Citizen's Defense League is committed to assist in the legal defense of any member who is unlawfully charged with an offense under a Texas statute that runs counter to Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution. Is that not worth a membership fee?

We at Lone Star Citizen's Defense League are recruiting "Hard Chargers". The active members of LSCDL are using our own resources to advance the right to bear arms in Texas. We hope to attract others who are equally committed to the declaration of rights in Article 1 of the Texas Constitution . We don't want your membership fee. We want your passion , and committment to the cause of liberty. Check us out - if you want to do more than just talk about gun laws in Texas ?

Decide for yourself. Am I a "Troll" ?

My name is Jim Sherwood. I reside in Arlington, Texas, , and I am one of the legislative directors of Lone Star Citizen's Defense League.

http://www.gunowners.org/sa05052011" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (click GOA STATE alerts box)

http://www.lonestarcdl.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pathfinder:
Could you answer these questions as well?

Thanks,
Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

PATHFINDER wrote:We at Lone Star Citizen's Defense League are committed to pushing back against the . . . Neo-Reconstructionists mentality that has over-stayed its welcome by 140 years in Texas.

What do you mean by this and about whom are you talking?

PATHFINDER wrote:This bill will become law . . .

Do you mean HB2756?

PATHFINDER wrote:Lone Star Citizen's Defense League is committed to assist in the legal defense of any member who is unlawfully charged with an offense under a Texas statute that runs counter to Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution. Is that not worth a membership fee?

Coming from the Legislative Director for LSCDL, this is an impressive representation! How does this work? Does LSCDL provide an attorney, or does the LSCDL Member select his/her own attorney and LSCDL pays all of the legal fees?

PATHFINDER wrote:Decide for yourself. Am I a "Troll" ?

For me, that will be determined in large part by whether you answer the questions in this post and in my preceding post. So far, no one with LSCDL has addressed any of the issues I raised, nor have any beside you identified themselves. You wrote a good post, but as someone else noted, it appears to be nothing more than a recruiting tool. Help us have more incite into LSCDL.

Chas.

Pathfinder/Jim:
Could you answer my questions about the HB2756 and LSCDL?

Thanks,
Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Jim, thanks for the post and I hope you are a LSCDL member who will share some information.

As an active member of LSCDL, I'm sure you have seen the post by jecsd1 here claiming that the open-carry bill written by someone with LSCDL, but after it was given to Rep. Lavender, it was somehow hijacked by an unidentified "League" of people that he clearly insinuates is either TSRA, NRA, or both. Since you are a Legislative Director of LSCDL, would you clear that up for folks here on TexasCHLforum? As JKTex posted, LSCDL claims that “they” wanted a constitutional carry bill, but “but [they] sniffed the wind and thought that we'd better save that for next session.” On OpenCarry.org, “MR Redneck” claims he wrote the bill and he also claims to be a member of LSCDL.

Here are my questions.

• Is it true that, as in the LSCDL quote posted by JKTex, that LSCDL presented Rep. Lavender with a licensed open-carry bill?
  If so, was that bill written by someone using the screen name “MR Redneck?” And who is “MR Redneck;” i.e. what is his real name?
  Does LSCDL support amending TPC §30.06 so that it applies to both open-carry and concealed-carry?

Thanks,
Chas.

PATHFINDER wrote:I am a member of the Lone Star Citizen's Defense League, and I have been investing my time, and financial resources into the effort to restore respect for the right to bear arms in Texas that is declared in Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution to be reserved to "every citizen" in Texas.

This RIGHT we talk about so much is constitutionally INVIOLATE (Article 1, Section 29) in that the Legislature may only regulate , by law, the CRIMINAL wearing of arms. We at Lone Star Citizen's Defense League are committed to pushing back against the Reconstruction Era policies of State government, and the Neo-Reconstructionists mentality that has over-stayed its welcome by 140 years in Texas.

I AM a CHL holder . The supporters of HB 2756 ARE predominantly CHL holders. This bill will become law , and the criminal penalty for intentional failure to conceal will be repealed because it is unconstitutional , and the majority in the Texas Legislature realizes that fact, and supports the bill. That means that the CHL holder will have the option of making his or her own determination as to whether to conceal or display for personal safety.

Armed entry into private premises commonly open to the public is a matter for the acountants of every business enterprise to determine. That private determination is deserving of the respect of all who choose to enter, and engage in commerce with them.

I testified in favor of HB 2756 before the Public Safety Subcommittee, along side two other LSCDL members, and three other CHL holders who traveled to Austin that day motivated by their conviction that the bill is good law and Texas needs it passed.

Gun Owners of America is in support of HB 2756 - as well as the committment of the Lone Star Citizen's League to restore the constitutional right to bear arms in Texas. Sadly, the NRA has been missing in action during this effort.Lone Star Citizen's Defense League is committed to assist in the legal defense of any member who is unlawfully charged with an offense under a Texas statute that runs counter to Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution. Is that not worth a membership fee?

We at Lone Star Citizen's Defense League are recruiting "Hard Chargers". The active members of LSCDL are using our own resources to advance the right to bear arms in Texas. We hope to attract others who are equally committed to the declaration of rights in Article 1 of the Texas Constitution . We don't want your membership fee. We want your passion , and committment to the cause of liberty. Check us out - if you want to do more than just talk about gun laws in Texas ?

Decide for yourself. Am I a "Troll" ?

My name is Jim Sherwood. I reside in Arlington, Texas, , and I am one of the legislative directors of Lone Star Citizen's Defense League.

http://www.gunowners.org/sa05052011" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (click GOA STATE alerts box)

http://www.lonestarcdl.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PATHFINDER wrote:We at Lone Star Citizen's Defense League are committed to pushing back against the . . . Neo-Reconstructionists mentality that has over-stayed its welcome by 140 years in Texas.

What do you mean by this and about whom are you talking?

PATHFINDER wrote:This bill will become law . . .

Do you mean HB2756?

PATHFINDER wrote:Lone Star Citizen's Defense League is committed to assist in the legal defense of any member who is unlawfully charged with an offense under a Texas statute that runs counter to Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution. Is that not worth a membership fee?

Coming from the Legislative Director for LSCDL, this is an impressive representation! How does this work? Does LSCDL provide an attorney, or does the LSCDL Member select his/her own attorney and LSCDL pays all of the legal fees?

PATHFINDER wrote:Decide for yourself. Am I a "Troll" ?

For me, that will be determined in large part by whether you answer the questions in this post and in my preceding post. So far, no one with LSCDL has addressed any of the issues I raised, nor have any beside you identified themselves. You wrote a good post, but as someone else noted, it appears to be nothing more than a recruiting tool. Help us have more incite into LSCDL.

Chas.

Jim, thanks for the post and I hope you are a LSCDL member who will share some information.

As an active member of LSCDL, I'm sure you have seen the post by jecsd1 here claiming that the open-carry bill written by someone with LSCDL, but after it was given to Rep. Lavender, it was somehow hijacked by an unidentified "League" of people that he clearly insinuates is either TSRA, NRA, or both. Since you are a Legislative Director of LSCDL, would you clear that up for folks here on TexasCHLforum? As JKTex posted, LSCDL claims that “they” wanted a constitutional carry bill, but “but [they] sniffed the wind and thought that we'd better save that for next session.” On OpenCarry.org, “MR Redneck” claims he wrote the bill and he also claims to be a member of LSCDL.

Here are my questions.

• Is it true that, as in the LSCDL quote posted by JKTex, that LSCDL presented Rep. Lavender with a licensed open-carry bill?
  If so, was that bill written by someone using the screen name “MR Redneck?” And who is “MR Redneck;” i.e. what is his real name?
  Does LSCDL support amending TPC §30.06 so that it applies to both open-carry and concealed-carry?

Thanks,
Chas.

PATHFINDER wrote:I am a member of the Lone Star Citizen's Defense League, and I have been investing my time, and financial resources into the effort to restore respect for the right to bear arms in Texas that is declared in Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution to be reserved to "every citizen" in Texas.

This RIGHT we talk about so much is constitutionally INVIOLATE (Article 1, Section 29) in that the Legislature may only regulate , by law, the CRIMINAL wearing of arms. We at Lone Star Citizen's Defense League are committed to pushing back against the Reconstruction Era policies of State government, and the Neo-Reconstructionists mentality that has over-stayed its welcome by 140 years in Texas.

I AM a CHL holder . The supporters of HB 2756 ARE predominantly CHL holders. This bill will become law , and the criminal penalty for intentional failure to conceal will be repealed because it is unconstitutional , and the majority in the Texas Legislature realizes that fact, and supports the bill. That means that the CHL holder will have the option of making his or her own determination as to whether to conceal or display for personal safety.

Armed entry into private premises commonly open to the public is a matter for the acountants of every business enterprise to determine. That private determination is deserving of the respect of all who choose to enter, and engage in commerce with them.

I testified in favor of HB 2756 before the Public Safety Subcommittee, along side two other LSCDL members, and three other CHL holders who traveled to Austin that day motivated by their conviction that the bill is good law and Texas needs it passed.

Gun Owners of America is in support of HB 2756 - as well as the committment of the Lone Star Citizen's League to restore the constitutional right to bear arms in Texas. Sadly, the NRA has been missing in action during this effort.Lone Star Citizen's Defense League is committed to assist in the legal defense of any member who is unlawfully charged with an offense under a Texas statute that runs counter to Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution. Is that not worth a membership fee?

We at Lone Star Citizen's Defense League are recruiting "Hard Chargers". The active members of LSCDL are using our own resources to advance the right to bear arms in Texas. We hope to attract others who are equally committed to the declaration of rights in Article 1 of the Texas Constitution . We don't want your membership fee. We want your passion , and committment to the cause of liberty. Check us out - if you want to do more than just talk about gun laws in Texas ?

Decide for yourself. Am I a "Troll" ?

My name is Jim Sherwood. I reside in Arlington, Texas, , and I am one of the legislative directors of Lone Star Citizen's Defense League.

http://www.gunowners.org/sa05052011" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (click GOA STATE alerts box)

http://www.lonestarcdl.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

jlangton wrote:

Keith B wrote:

jlangton wrote:I understand that, but the entire point was that these locations prior to all of this "parking lot bill" media attention had absolutely no signage whatsoever,and didn't care. Now that they are more "aware", they're posting 30.06 signs. Since this last legislative session has started, and the associated media coverage-the number of signs I'm encountering on my daily "rounds" is increasing regularly. Prior to this, I had not seen a single new 30.06 posting in several years.
JL

So, what types of places are you seeing this happen at? I haven't seen any, but just curious about where they are cropping up?

And, this goes to prove the theory that IF open carry gets any steam, that the increase in 30.06 postings IS factual.

I don't totally agree with that. Here's why.
The persons that I have asked about the signs specifically said they wanted to keep individuals with CHL's out of their building, and that those with CHL's would be the ones to be carrying in their cars on the parking lots. Before this media attention about the parking lots they either didn't care to know, or ignored that there were those with CHL's that did carry in their building regularly.
I've seen the signs at mostly smaller places that most would not recognize, but one of the big ones is Graybar Electric.
JL

What companies have you talked to?

Chas.

jlangton wrote:

Keith B wrote:

jlangton wrote:

AggieLCP wrote:I'm afraid if open carry passes we will see a lot more 30.06 postings.
The state needs to hurry up and pass the parking lot bill though.

Something to think about.....With just the thought of parking lot and campus carry passing-I've seen valid 30.06 signs go up at several of my daily visited locations. When I inquired at 2 of those locations as to the nature of those signs, their response was "So people that carry guns in their cars if that new law passes can't bring them inside the building here".
Just something to think about in all of this huffing and puffing about increased 30.06 postings.
IMO, if/when the Parking Lot/Campus Carry bills pass-you'll see a HUGE increase in the number of 30.06 signs posted.
JL

30.06 will not apply to an employee if their gun is left in the car in the parking lot. HOWEVER, it WILL apply to a non-employee with a CHL in the parking lot, but not someone under MPA.

I understand that, but the entire point was that these locations prior to all of this "parking lot bill" media attention had absolutely no signage whatsoever,and didn't care. Now that they are more "aware", they're posting 30.06 signs. Since this last legislative session has started, and the associated media coverage-the number of signs I'm encountering on my daily "rounds" is increasing regularly. Prior to this, I had not seen a single new 30.06 posting in several years.
JL

What part of southeast Texas are you in? I haven't seen one single new sign in the Houston area.

Chas.