TexasCHLforum.com

sunny beach wrote:The Constitution of the United States says what it says, no matter what its enemies say or wear.

Who gets to interpret it?

Chas.

mamabearCali wrote:
03Lightningrocks wrote:Just for the record, this thread is not about how one feels about open carry. The topic was about how one feels about "in your face" tactics by a very small but very vocal minority of OC proponents. Somehow it is being twisted to discuss how one feels about OC and how prevalent it is or will be.

They are being pushed into making ridiculous in your face tactics due to the fact that they are dismissed by gun owners and CHLers on the whole. If they had not been dismissed as kooks and dissed by Internet memes as above, perhaps they would have been able to be more circumspect. People ignored, who desire the freedoms they have been promised, will tend towards more and more drastic action.

The problem with this argument is that it is an extension of the "you're either with us or you're against us" philosophy long espoused by the open-carry supporters like those found in VCDL, OpenCarry.org, LoneStar CDL, and more recently Open-Carry Texas. That's a blatant attempt to force others into supporting their issue and it has been an abject failure. The fact is most gun owners and Texas CHLs aren't the enemy of open-carry supporters, it's simply a matter of their issue not being our issue. Texas gun owners are far more concerned with who can carry and where they can carry than how they can carry. You seem to argue that open-carry supporters somehow deserve the support of all gun owners regardless of their own priorities concerning legislative and/or legal battles that lie elsewhere. That's unfounded. Open-carry supporters are no more entitled to widespread support than are campus-carry supporters, or those seeking to reduce the number of off-limits areas for CHL's, or those seeking to remove deferred adjudications from the definition of "conviction" for CHL eligibility purposes, or those who want to change knife laws. We each have our priorities and if we feel strongly enough to get involved, we join and support groups and organizations that share those goals. Rational people do not then label everyone outside that group as an enemy.

If a group of convicted felons organized to change Texas and federal law so as to allow them to own, possess and carry firearms, that would be their right. The fact that other gun owners and/or organizations didn't join in their effort wouldn't mean those refusing to do so are anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment, or even in opposition to their goal. It would simply mean that their issue isn't our issue. However, this is precisely what the more radical open-carry supporters claim about CHLs and anyone else who doesn't join their quest. Taking the entire Texas gun-owner community as a whole, only a very small percentage care about open-carry one way or the other. Attacking them and the organizations representing them as being anti-gun, elitists, or any other pejorative term within their vocabulary is a poor method of attracting people to their cause.

Chas.

An armed populace cannot be controlled for long. More importantly, an army cannot occupy its own country. It must have food and water, as well as fuel and other essential supplies. Those can be disrupted rather easily, plus no army can survive a prolonged war of attrition when grossly outnumbered. We learned that in Vietnam because our gutless, cowardly President Johnson wouldn't let us fight to win. The Russians learned that in Afghanistan and they did fight to win. An armed populace cannot be defeated in the long run, unless weapons of mass destruction are used and that cannot be done on one's own soil.

Chas.

stevem wrote:Chas, the "battle" is fairly plain to see, witness the "fifth column" accusation and unanswered "Mall Ninja" post above in this thread. There is definitely "friendly fire" being directed from 2A supporters towards OC supporters with the intent of marginalizing them.

The "fifth columnist" comment was taken directly from an open-carry supporter's no-so-subtle attack on those who don't jump on the open-carry train. See the 12th post on the first page of this thread: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=70053" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

stevem wrote:I personally haven't seen the OC movement blasting any other part of the 2A community beyond the "your part of the solution or the problem" kind of rhetoric.

Either you are new to this issue, or you haven't looked at OpenCarry.org's Texas section.

stevem wrote:Now I expect that guys who have been fighting the 2A fight inch-by-inch for years probably feel like the OCers are jumping on their train, and rightly so, but it's really a moot point. I think everyone needs to acknowledge the newcomers, invite them into the party, and ask them to come "assert their liberty" by OCing at a productive structured 2A event.

I, the NRA and TSRA have been accused of this numerous times and it is a groundless accusation. The simple truth is the NRA is the only organization that can pass open-carry, so there's no threat that another organization will up-stage the NRA. Many will try to take credit for what we do, but that's nothing unusual.

stevem wrote:The alternative is to have a radical-led OC movement that appears unfocused and unpredictable.

Fine by me; that makes us look much more reasonable and that aids passing our legislation. If the radicals kill open-carry, that too is fine. While I'm working on open-carry, it's not a major issue for me, I'm just a good soldier. If some faction makes open-carry a futile effort, that will give me more time to work on much more important issues. I'm far more concerned with expanding who can carry and where they can carry than I am how we can carry.

stevem wrote:The message from the rest of the 2A community should be "OC is our fight too, come join us" instead of "you guys are ruining our party" IMHO. In this way the radicals can be marginalized and the growing interest in OC can be productively channeled into other 2A efforts.

I'm not sure who you mean by "the rest of the 2A community." The NRA, TSRA and I are working for open-carry on behalf of our members. In fact, I just gave a phone interview to TexasTribune supporting open-carry. (It should publish this week.) We neither need nor want the radicals as you call them, because they hurt the changes of passing legislation. You have stated several times that no one can get them to stop their counterproductive tactics so why on earth would we align ourselves with a group that will be poorly received in Austin?

I think their are two primary differences in our positions. First, it appears that you view radical open-carry supporters as being so large and powerful that they cannot be ignored. I feel they represent a very small but vocal number of gun owners whose antics will either be ignored, or they will kill open-carry again. If they kill open-carry, it won't be because they are an 800 lb gorilla, but because they are a persistent gnat. I believe you are correct when you say they cannot be dissuaded from their tactics, so there's really nothing for anyone to do.

The second difference in our opinions I believe deals with the number of rational open-carry supporters in each camp. I see no evidence whatsoever that there are any, much less many, in the radical camp. If there were, their demonstrations would attract more than a handful of people. There would be groups of people walking into Wal-Mart with AR-15s, not one man who claims to be a pastor. I believe the vast majority of open-carry supporters are rational people who appreciate a well-reasoned approach to passing open-carry and that they align themselves with the NRA and TSRA, not OTC or LSCDL.

Let me post this very possible hypothetical situation. As already noted, Sen. Patrick, Commissioner Patterson, and Attorney Greg Abbott have openly endorsed open-carry. (Again, this wasn't by accident!) If there is a major negative event involving a public open-carry demonstration, such as a group of them getting thrown out of Home Depot, an accidental discharge, or a foul-mouthed protestor being arrested, then it will force these candidates or reevaluate their support. If they don't, the media will crucify them at every news conference and town hall meeting.

The only good reason to demonstrate is to raise awareness on an issue. That's not necessary for open-carry and it could prove counter-productive.

Chas.

Folks, please be sure to read this thread about the upcoming free video conference on open-carry. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=70130" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Chas.

stevem wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:Continued in-your-face tactics are far more likely to result in a bill to make it unlawful to carry long guns, with certain exceptions for hunting, sport shooting, cars, etc., than it is to result in passage of open-carry.
I'm with you Chas, but I think the OC demonstrations can't be stopped. As a result the 2A community is giving up an unforced error to the antigunners through this internal division. Instead of attacking the OC movement, it needs to be legitimized and embraced by experienced 2A guys who know how to organize in a productive manner. Let face it, the entire 2A community could use some of the energy the OC movement has.

I'm not at all sure why you keep claiming there is some battle between the open-carry camp and the rest of the Second Amendment community. There is no such battle, unless you also feel that not jumping on their bandwagon constitutes a battle. The OpenCarry.org and LSCDL folks have always taken that position, i.e. "you are either with us or against us," but you do not seem to have done so to this point.

I am one of 76 members of the NRA Board of Directors and none of us can speak for the NRA individually, but only when we are gathered as a body. My following comments are solely my own and based upon my 34 years of experience. I, and I seriously doubt the NRA, will never embrace the in-your-face approach to promoting open-carry. No experienced political/legislative operative would ever endorse tactics that will virtually guarantee failure. If open-carry demonstrations continue, especially those that do not follow the format of the Alamo rally, then those participating will shoulder the blame for open-carry failing to pass again.

In another post you indicate that you believe the open-carry community to formidable in size, thus it is unlikely to stop their in-your-face tactics. You and I will have to disagree on the size of that particular political faction. While I believe there is a substantial percentage of CHLs who support open-carry, the vast majority of those do not support the tactics that are currently garnering negative news reports. As with LSCDL in prior years, the folks who are walking into Wal-Mart and other locations with a rifle or shotgun are very few in number, but very vocal. "Quiet and many" beats "few and loud," but the latter can poison the political landscape such that neither camp can pass the desired legislation.

You are new here and you may have read some of the garbage on OpenCarry.org about my position on open-carry. I am not opposed to open-carry, so long as the bill does not result in a loss of Second Amendment rights in other areas, especially concealed-carry and TPC §30.06. I have concerns about the public reaction, based upon the negative reaction to concealed-carry from 1995 until Sept. 1, 1997 when HB2909 went into effect. People from other states claim there's little or no chance of a backlash because they didn't experience it in their state. Some even ridicule those of us who remember 1995 and who share this concern. That's precisely the point, this is not merely a theoretical concern, we did experience a huge negative backlash in 1995 and that backlash would have destroyed the CHL program had we not created TPC §30.06 (HB2909) in 1997. I have also stated there are ways to minimize any potential backlash through public education and I have done precisely that. I'm currently working to support open-carry in 2015, but I can't go into detail. So I'm not against open-carry; I'm against people making our job harder and in so doing, may force us to spend political capital defeating a long gun bill.

Chas.

rotor wrote:Texas, Florida, New York, Illionois, South Carolina, District of Columbia and Territory of Virgin Islands seem to be the only places that don't allow open carry ( correct me if I am wrong). This alone is an argument to allow open carry. Doesn't seem to be much of a problem in Oklahoma which I think is the newest state to allow it. Would I open carry? Probably not and I don't agree with the people that are over the top about this but there might be a time that I would carry outside the waist band unconcealed. Would I want to see a bunch of guys coming into WalMart with their AR15 in swat type outfits- no way. Would it bother me to see a nice S&W 19 on someones hip while doing routine shopping- not at all.

You are exactly right and this is the approach that must be taken if we are to pass open-carry. I wrote an article pointing out that open-carry will be exercised by relatively few people and then only by CHLs who are 15 times less likely to commit a crime than is the general public. This article was used in Austin to support open-carry. We are accurately telling elected officials and the public that open-carry is a tempest in a teapot, not a sea-change event. Once the media hype is over, nothing will change and there is nothing to fear. Unfortunately, this quiet message can and is being overshadowed by people walking into Wal-Mart with an AR-15 and making the evening news.

Chas.

JSThane wrote:
jmra wrote:
stevem wrote:Thanks for the welcome Chas.

I'm really not inferring anything. Organizing at the local level is the cure, period.

My further suggestion is that instead of displaying "outrage" at OC activists, people concerned about 2A rights should recognize these events as justified blowback from unjust laws and redouble efforts to send the right people to the legislature and repeal them.
I'm outraged anytime someone brings a bucket of gas to a fire instead of a bucket of water. The radical OC idiots are not part of the solution, they are part of the problem.
This right here is the problem. So long as the CHL and the OC crowd treat each other like this, the issue won't be solved. Yes, I know, there are OC idiots. There are idiots everywhere, though, including the CHL community, too. I personally find the idea that a "backlash" will occur against all carry because of OC to be ridiculous, unless full OC is NOT passed, and the "idiots" feel the need to ramp up their own demonstrations, scaring Joe and Jane Citizen Sheep. Passing OC won't do it. Refusing to pass it will only egg on those on the fringe, and encourage them to get ever more flamboyant, outrageous, and angry. Refusing to pass it will only encourage those upset at the fringe to actually -look- into legal signage to keep the kooks out.

I live in New Mexico. We're fairly "blue," and the Democrat / liberal / socialist platform gets a lot of traction here, much to my chagrin. However, we do have open carry, and have for a very long time. We don't have the in-your-face open carriers here. Most folks are vaguely aware of the fact we can openly carry, but unless they are themselves gun owners (and not always then), they still don't pay it any mind. CHL and OC haven't been at each others' throats, generating drama the anti-gunners could use (except for that idiot who stirred up the legislature by carrying an AK or something into the state capitol).

So, why all the drama and turmoil in Texas? The gun culture in Texas is far more alive, far more vibrant, far more outspoken, than it is here. Guns are a background, a fact of life that many folks don't think about here; it's an active issue with a great many adherents in Texas. And yet, it's been fighting itself in Texas for how long now? CHL'ers are upset at OC'ers for causing drama and rocking the boat; OC'ers are upset at CHL'ers for not continuing to push the issue. And the longer it goes on, the more the extreme elements of the CHL crowd fear the repercussions of allowing the OC crowd have their way. The longer it goes on, the more the extreme elements of the OC crowd regards the CHL crowd as traitors, and ceases to care what they think.

We can be our own worst and bitterest opponents sometimes. What we need to do is obviously not what we've been doing, but I'm not certain we ever will do it. Instead of CHL regarding OC with apprehension, or OC regarding CHL with scorn, the two sides need to figure out we're NOT two sides, but one. But that will be difficult; there's been enough bad blood stirred up, enough provocation, that repairing this artificial split will take some time.

Until then, I suggest, from the perspective of a former Texas CHL holder, current NM CHL holder, that we go to some effort to not make this divide worse. I recognize that, while a backlash -is- possible, it's not very likely. So far, it really hasn't happened anywhere I've seen. Backlashes have been attempted over several different gun rights causes, but by and large, they have failed. When Starbucks' politely requesting that guns be kept out is regarded as a victory for the antis, we know we're winning. We don't need to be apprehensive about pushing for the proper expansion of a right clearly and cogently codified in the Constitution. If we push for it, we WILL get it. But if we're afraid to reach for it, we will never get it.

Likewise, from the perspective of an OC fan, those of us on "this" side need to recognize that it wasn't that terribly long ago a backlash would have been not only distantly possible, but a distinct likelihood. The AWB of 1994 expired less than a decade ago, and was a current event for most activists. While a repeat is not likely given the current state of affairs, a lot of the people who have helped repair our Constitutional rights saw it passed despite their objections, and don't want it to happen again. They've seen how bad it can get, and rightly fear a repeat. Colorado's new law is an anomaly, extremely unlikely to happen again - but it DID pass in Colorado, and likely or not, can get passed elsewhere if we don't pay attention. Additionally, shoving what we perceive as our right to carry anything in any manner, and almost anywhere (a perception I actually agree with) in everyone else's face will win us no allies, and turn some current allies into enemies, or at least unfriendly neutrals.

In short, CHL folk must trust OC folk not to be stupid... and OC folk must not show that trust to be misplaced. So far, we've all failed, CHL and OC alike.

------

GA Heath's post referencing California is, I think, a little inapplicable, due to the fact that it's California. Rights and responsibility have been illegal there for decades; it should be no surprise that the slightest inkling of the exercise thereof gets slapped down hard and fast in California. But I hardly find it representative of the rest of the nation currently, only a representation of how things -could- be, and an exhortation for us to stop the infighting and actually work together to prevent its repetition.

I agree in theory with most of what you say, but I think you overstate the power and impact of the very limited number of open-carry supporters. Their in-your-face tactics have and perhaps will again kill any chance of passing open-carry in Texas. However, their numbers are so small that they will never be a political factor in Texas politics. Therefore, they pose no danger to Texas gun owners, other than the distinct possibility that they may bring about legislation to make it unlawful to carry long guns except for certain purposes. We will be able to kill such a bill, but we will expend valuable political capital doing so. Cooperating with bomb-throwers is neither necessary nor wise.

The more militant open-carry supporters would like to couch the issue as one that pits CHLs v. open-carry folks, but that's not accurate. The dispute is between Texas gun owners (including pro-OC CHLs) and radical open-carry supporters. In recent years there has been an equally heated battle in the open-carry camp, with some supporting licensed open-carry and others berating them for not demanding so-called "constitutional carry" at all costs. Have a look at the posts on OpenCarry.org for the 2009, 2011 & 2013 time frames and you will see them eating their own.

A more accurate description of the political landscape on this issue is that militant open-carry supporters have one and only one goal and that's passing open-carry. The vast majority of Texas gun owners want to advance Second Amendment freedoms on a broader scale and are not willing to devote 100% of their efforts and political capital to passing open-carry. This fact alone need not be problematic and it need not lead to confrontation. The problem arises when open-carry supporters insult and attack anyone and everyone who does not support their cause. They are incapable of passing open-carry, so they demand that others use their political capital to pass it. They don't want peaceful coexistence on the political front, they want all gun owners and Second Amendment advocates/organizations to walk with them in lock-step and when this doesn't happen, they attack.

I need to say that I'm talking about the folks who have been pushing open-carry for several years now, not OTC specifically. I know nothing about OTC other than what I see on television. I don't like their tactics, but I have insufficient information to know whether to put them in the bomb-throwing category with LSCDL and others. I was not impressed by some of the statements allegedly made by Mr. Grisham that appeared in the article. People are turned off when they see someone unnecessarily and unjustly insulting a third person.

Anyone who wants open-carry to pass needs to step back, leave the rifles at home, and realize they may be hurting the efforts of those who have the political clout to pass open-carry. Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson and Senator Patrick are running for Lt. Governor; both are openly supporting open-carry. AG Greg Abbott is running for Governor and he has openly supported open-carry. Does anyone really believe that was an accident or coincidence? Be warned, one way to turn a political position into nothing more than a campaign statement is to turn the public against open-carry by inflaming and scaring soccer moms to the point that they become actively and aggressively opposed to an open-carry bill. If that day comes, open-carry supporters will be grossly outnumbered and they will lose.

Chas.

stevem wrote:Great discussion. I hate to get into a point-by-point quotathon on my first day here, but you bring up a lot.

G.A. Heath wrote:Here's my take on the situation. The concept that we will win because the law and the constitution are on our side will lead to our defeat. It is the overconfidence that statement leads to that will get us.
Overconfidence in ourselves is a problem, overconfidence in what is moral and right is never a problem.

Unloaded Handgun OC was legal in California until the "In your face because its the law and the constitution" OC crowd pushed a little too far and their legislature outlawed handgun OC completely.
Totally different context, first off, Texas is (thankfully) not California. Second, as you pointed out, California already had OC on the books, there was no clear linkage between OC and what they were trying to accomplish. Whereas here in Texas the linkage is quite apparent: OCers want OC legalized.

But this is precisely what did happen in Texas! When the New Black Panthers marched on the Brown Convention Center in Houston to protest against the Republican National Convention, they carried rifles and shotguns. This so inflamed and/or frightened a sufficient number of Texans that the very strong Texas firearm preemption statute was amended during the very next legislative session to allow cities to prohibit the carrying of all firearms at a public park, public meeting of a municipality, county, or other governmental body, or at a political rally, parade, or official political meeting. CHLs are exempt from this provision. (See Tex. Local Gov't Code §229.001(b)(6))

Continued in-your-face tactics are far more likely to result in a bill to make it unlawful to carry long guns, with certain exceptions for hunting, sport shooting, cars, etc., than it is to result in passage of open-carry.

Chas.

Beiruty wrote:Chas,

What is your take on Large Bulletin boards next to highway promoting open carry?

I haven't seen any, but as long as there aren't any inflammatory statements or photos, I think that's a fine way to get the general public to focus on the issue. However, the question arises "do we really want 22+ million Texans focusing on open-carry?"

Personally, I prefer the approach that has proven effective for decades and that's quietly getting support in the legislature during the off season, drafting a good bill, finding House and Senate sponsors who will not merely put their names on the bills but who will work their tails off to get it passed, and issuing Calls-To-Action if/when they are necessary. Sometimes the game has been won before it starts, so we don't rally the troops unnecessarily. I prefer this approach because it is what I know to work, it's what I've done since 1987, and I see no reason to change a procedure that has proven effective.

Admittedly, some few folks will not like this approach because it doesn't have the sex appeal or pizazz of an in-your-face demonstration. Unfortunately, people who prefer the in-your-face tactics seem to care more about making a statement than making a difference.

Chas.

stevem wrote:Thanks for the welcome Chas.

My further suggestion is that instead of displaying "outrage" at OC activists, people concerned about 2A rights should recognize these events as justified blowback from unjust laws and redouble efforts to send the right people to the legislature and repeal them.

We can debate whether in-your-face tactics are justified, but the immediate question is whether they help or hurt the cause OTC seeks to promote. The clear and unequivocal answer is that they hurt the effort to pass open-carry. The presumption made by OTC and others who support their tactics is that there is a sleeping giant of voters who will see people carrying long guns and say, "Gee, we need to change Texas law so fine folks can carry handguns openly."

That is an irrational belief that has proven false for years. The response to the New Black Panthers carrying long guns at the Republican National Convention in Houston was a watering down of the Texas preemption law by allowing cities to regulate the carrying of arms at political gatherings, among other places. (This does not apply to CHLs.) For the last 4 years, open-carry has come up in TV and radio news reports. They are almost universally negative. The man-on-the-street interviews are almost 100% against open-carry. Scaring people doesn't win them to your side of the issue. At the risk of repeating myself once too often, if these in-your-face tactics continue, they may taint the issue as badly as the bomb-throwers did in 2009 and 2011 and put the only organization that can pass open-carry on the sidelines. While this is merely a prediction, it is one based upon the very recent past.

As for supporting the Second Amendment, it is my belief that the most militant of open-carry promoters don't care one whit about the Second Amendment in it's entirety. They care about one issue and only one issue and that's the ability to openly-carry a handgun. They want open-carry regardless of what it does to other gun rights and other bills. There can be no better example of this than the President of Lone Star CDL repeatedly claiming, no guaranteeing, that any open-carry bill will amend TPC §30.06 so that it will apply to both open and concealed carry. He demanded the very thing that most current CHL holders feared most -- a huge increase in posting of 30.06 signs and on the places most of us enter often.

The only open-carry demonstration that has occurred recently that didn't hurt the cause was the rally at the Alamo. It was well organized with advance notice to law enforcement and major political figures spoke at the event. That's much different that walking into Wal-Mart with an AR-15 or walking down a street.

Chas.

stevem wrote:
chasfm11 wrote: But doing the right thing requires Legislative action. That action today is thwarted by a minority of the Legislature who is granted extraordinary power by the politically powerful in order to maintain their power. It will take some exception event to break the cycle. Texas is headed the same direction as many other States where the populous centers are solidly Liberal and anti-gun and are slowly usurping control of the State level politics. That is not a prescription for correcting the Constitutional infringements.
We have a fix for that in Texas, it's called Gerrymandering.

The Starbucks OCers are a symptom, the disease is 2A infringement. The cure is organizing at the local level and sending the right leaders to the state legislature.

You get to Gerrymander once a decade and that's if the federal courts don't get involved as they have in Texas in the last two decades. Do you really think that we aren't organizing at the local level now? Do you believe that there is some gold mine of voters who we have not tapped? While you are technically correct, your statement implies that we political activists haven't been trying to do precisely what you propose. You couldn't be more wrong!

Chas.

stevem wrote:I understand all the tactical and cultural sensitivity issues involved, but the bottom line is bearing arms is a constitutional right that shall not be infringed.

IMHO it's only an issue here in Texas because we have made it illegal. I grew up in a state where OC was legal and I almost never saw anyone OCing. We have created this problem, it's time to do the right thing and legalize OC (and Bowie knives while we are at it).

Welcome to the Forum Steven.

While I agree that carrying firearms in any fashion is protected by the U.S. Constitution, our opinions don't matter. It is not yet a constitutional right and that day will come only when at least 5 Supreme Court justices agree with our opinion. Open-carry supporters have long made this claim even resorting to calling open-carry "constitutional carry." Overstating one's legal authority doesn't help.

Texas has never made open-carry illegal. Carrying of all handguns has generally been prohibited since Reconstruction, with narrow exceptions. In 1995, we passed our concealed carry statute and required that handguns be kept concealed. Ironically, rabid anti-gunners pushed hard for a requirement to carry handguns openly because they knew the backlash that would result. Thanksfully, that proposal was defeated. The Motorist Protection Act passed in 2007 allowing people to carry handguns in cars without a CHL. This law also requires that the gun not be "in plain view."

As the article noted, the primary dispute among gun owners deals with the tactics used to pass open-carry. While I'm concerned with the in-your-face tactics of OCT, I'm even more concerned with the actual bills that have been filed to achieve open-carry. They have been too broad and even amend TPC §30.06, although Rep. Lavender's Bill in 2013 had a committee substitute that fixed the 30.06 problem.

Chas.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 13 matches

Re: "Texas Gun Owners Divided on Best Aaproach to Legalizing

Re: "Texas Gun Owners Divided on Best Aaproach to Legalizing

Re: "Texas Gun Owners Divided on Best Aaproach to Legalizing

Re: "Texas Gun Owners Divided on Best Aaproach to Legalizing

Re: "Texas Gun Owners Divided on Best Aaproach to Legalizing

Re: "Texas Gun Owners Divided on Best Aaproach to Legalizing

Re: "Texas Gun Owners Divided on Best Aaproach to Legalizing

Re: "Texas Gun Owners Divided on Best Aaproach to Legalizing

Re: "Texas Gun Owners Divided on Best Aaproach to Legalizing

Re: "Texas Gun Owners Divided on Best Aaproach to Legalizing

Re: "Texas Gun Owners Divided on Best Aaproach to Legalizing

Re: "Texas Gun Owners Divided on Best Aaproach to Legalizing

Re: "Texas Gun Owners Divided on Best Aaproach to Legalizing