CJ Grisham wrote:Before I begin, in full disclosure, approximately 70% of my criticism against the NRA/TSRA is directed at the TSRA. However, because the TSRA is the NRA...
So you think the TSRA with 40,000+ members is the NRA with it's 5 million+ Members? I think I see part of the problem.
CJ Grisham wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:Show me where the NRA, TSRA or I have said OCT would only last 6 months?
I can't find this statement nor did I record every phone call I've had with NRA/TSRA.
So you have no proof. Will you retract this false allegation?
CJ Grisham wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:What achievements? All you've done is create a battle to pass open-carry when it was almost a certainty before you decided to walk into stores with long guns.
If open carry was "almost a certainty" prior to our founding, why wasn't it? We had two sessions where NOTHING was done. You told me it wasn't a priority last year. Alice Tripp open carry isn't something Texans care about. It wasn't a priority until we made it a priority, along with groups like Come and Take It Texas, Texas Carry, and Gun Rights Across America. The all-powerful "house" couldn't even make it a campaign issue, but we did.
Please answer the question, I'm not interested in your canned speeches. What are OCT's "achievements?"
CJ Grisham wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:Do you count negative TV and radio news casts an accomplishment?
We don't base our rights or our defense of those rights on what the liberal media thinks. Overall, our media coverage has been positive in Texas. We didn't cause negative media coverage. That was a result of the well-funded, anti-gun Bloomberg machine. Surely the NRA, frequently attacked in the media, understands this. Does the NRA base its effectiveness on negative/positive media? I doubt it.
I don't know where you saw the positive media coverage, but in the Houston viewing area, it was negative. It wasn't liberal media, it wasn't Bloomberg hacks, there were man-on-the-street interviews with Houstonians who almost to a person condemned OCT in-your-face tactics.
CJ Grisham wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:Do you think the fiasco in Houston where Quanell X made you look like an incompetent novice on every major network TV station in the Houston viewing area?
The premise of this question is false. We made Q10 out to be the racist he is. In fact, our efforts there garnered a LOT of membership from the black community and emails to OCT assuring us that Q10 doesn't speak for them or their community. You love the liberal media, it appears.
He made you look like a fool! You also proudly proclaimed that Quanell X hadn't scared OCT off and that you would be marching in Houston's Fifth Ward. Did I miss that march?
CJ Grisham wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:Was it an accomplishment when you went to Oklahoma and openly carried a handgun, then refused to state that you had a license from some state such that your actions were not unlawful?
My right to keep and bear arms is not dependent upon government permission. I lost my TEXAS license. Being in the military for over 20 years and stationed in multiple CHL states where a license costs a mere $10-20 isn't beyond reason that I have multiple CHLs. Regardless, the ONLY people making it an issue are the gun control extremists, you and Mr. Heath. It speaks volumes that you, a "gun rights advocate" would attack the right of a man to keep and bear arms in a state where legal. It also shows that you seem to have a strange fixation on me and everything I do/say. I'm also well-known to carry toy, training, and replica firearms around in a holster, so when did I ever mention whether or not I was even carrying a real firearm in those pictures.
Once again, please answer the question and stop the canned speeches. You stated in the Gun Talk Radio program that if licensed open-carry were to pass, that you would still have to carry a rifle since you lost your CHL. Since Texas has reciprocity with most other states that issue licenses, and since Texas residents can carry on those licenses, then you either don't have another state's license, or you statement on Gun Talk Radio was false.
More importantly, I have called for you to clear up the Oklahoma issue and tell the public what other state license you have so the media cannot claim you violated Oklahoma law. I want everyone to know that you didn't thumb your nose at Oklahoma law! Rather than take this issue away form the anti-open-carry folks, you try to play childish word games that everyone can see is merely an attempt to avoid admitting the unfortunate truth. You did so on your Facebook page and you're still doing it here. If you weren't violating Oklahoma law, then why don't you just say so and show the license from this mysterious other state?
CJ Grisham wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:Do you have anything other than your Facebook page and Facebook closed group? Both of those have shown little "growth" in months. I suspect it's your increasingly radical, hate-filled posts that are driving people away.
There you go again. If you don't know what our membership is, how can you even claim to know of anyone being driven away. If people leaving our organization is cause for labeling us radical, I could say the same about the NRA/TSRA, especially since we've collected over 1320 cut up NRA/TSRA membership cards over the past six months. You continue to confirm my original statement. No, our membership is not gauged by our Facebook. We have a membership form on our website, though currently it's down. Only about 60%% of our members are on Facebook. Our older members typically don't use Facebook or social media.
I simply asked a question, but it obviously hit a nerve. So your Membership application is down. Interesting.
CJ Grisham wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:What races were you involved in? Give some specifics.
Our members were heavily involved in the District 1, District 23, District 94 and a handful of others. We don't engage in direct lobbying, even though we're organized as a (c)(4). We are a grassroots organization whose strength is in its membership.
So you can only name three districts and you consider that having an impact. Are you claiming victory in those races?
CJ Grisham wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:You say open-carry is a "virtue [sic] certainly;" do you mean HB195 unlicensed open-carry? If you are going to claim an OCT victory, then anything other than HB195 will be a loss because you made that clear on your latest podcast.
We've also made clear that any progress in taking back our rights is a step in the right direction. But, we won't settle on anything less than full restoration of our rights. We don't start from a position of weakness by advocating for licensing away our rights. THAT is our goal and THAT is what we are fighting for. If we get something less than what we want, but more than what we have, it will always be a win.
Answer this question directly or don't post again. In your latest podcast, you told all your members to say "no no no" to HB106 and anything other than HB195, unlicensed open-carry. This is a clear message that OCT will not be supporting any licensed open-carry bill. So I ask again; if HB195 does not pass in 2015, will you still claim an OCT victory?
CJ Grisham wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:While some might call you a pro-gun group, there are others who think your are an anti-gun group in disguise, based upon the damage you have done to the open-carry effort and the focus you have drawn to TPC §30.06. Once again you claim success when you haven't passed a single bill, nor have you killed an anti-gun bill.
And there it is - the classic NRA belief that the lawful carry of a firearm is damaging. We haven't done any damage to the open carry effort. A real gun rights group sees that the damage was caused by the Bloomberg-funded astroturf efforts of Moms Demand Action. While businesses were being targeted at the national level, what national gun rights group was standing against it? Or, at least, what gun rights group wasn't blaming the victims of those attacks? The NRA/TSRA was the only "gun rights" group attacking us instead of the real enemy. The fact that you are perpetuating or repeating the absurd idea that we are "an anti-gun group in disguise" also says a lot about you. You seem to care a lot about that. We haven't passed a bill or killed a bill because this is our first legislative session. That's an easy claim to make to which we agree. As a counter, it's also easy to claim that you've done nothing to counter the anti-gun machine bullying businesses. Where was "the House" encouraging its members to sign a petition that would be delivered to businesses? Where was "the House" doing anything other than jumping on their bandwagon? AWOL.
Stop lying about me or you won't be here long. I didn't say you were an anti-gun group in disguise. I said some people are convinced that is a fact.
We (NRA/TSRA) have passed numerous pro-gun bills that have been beneficial to millions of Texas gun owners over the years and not even you can claim otherwise. What you do claim is that, since we haven't passed open-carry, then none of that matters. Thankfully, only a handful of Texans share that myopic view. We haven't passed open-carry up to this point because we haven't tried. We had far more important things to work on than open-carry and, in my opinion, we still do. The only reason I'm supporting open-carry and working for it's passage, is because I'm a good soldier.
Your response proves what I have been saying about OCT for a long while. All OCT cares about is open-carry, your claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Your vaunted HB195, the very Bill you claim OCT and NAGR wrote, doesn't even address the numerous off-limits areas that should be repealed. While I and 99+% of Texas gun owners are far more concerned about who can carry and where we can carry, all you care about is how you can carry. As long as you can let others see you have a handgun, it doesn't matter that we Texans cannot carry in any of the locations set out in TPC §46.03 and §46.035. I'm certain you will loudly proclaim otherwise, but talk is cheap. If you really cared, then the bill OCT/NAGR drafted would have repealed those locations, but you didn't.
CJ Grisham wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:Wait a minute. You have stated on a few occasions, including Gun Talk Radio, that you tore up your NRA member card and resigned from the organization. Now you claim to be a member. Which is the truth?
I did tear up my membership cards, but barring going out of my way to contact the NRA I'm still on their books as an endowment life member. That's not difficult to understand, I would think. The stickers on my car were removed, my hats and shirts were donated to Goodwill, and my license plate cover was thrown in the trash. I simply refuse to give the NRA any more money, so I don't consider myself a member any longer. Getting a little petty now, aren't you?
You expressly stated that you resigned from the NRA, now you claim you did not. Which CJ Grisham statement should we beleive? How am I getting petty when you list as part of your credentials in your Forum post that "
I'm an Endowment Life and Golden Eagles member of the NRA, so I'm not speaking from the outside here[?] On a radio talk show you claim to have resigned from the NRA. Then you tell your OCT members to do likewise and you claim that "
we've collected over 1320 cut up NRA/TSRA membership cards over the past six months. Did you tell the OCT members you encouraged to resigned from the NRA and/or the TSRA that you didn't really resign like you claimed? Do you think it's ethical to deceive your members like this?
CJ Grisham wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:This statement speaks volumes about you and OCT and I need not say more.
It does. It says we actually mean it when we say we believe in gun rights, not just some of them. I'm proud of that association and I understand how you wouldn't because they are eating into NRA support and challenging "the House."
Well, at least I don't have to type a lengthy response showing what you should already know; Dudley Brown/NAGA has been denounced by numerous pro-gun, pro-Second Amendment-supporting groups. I can just copy an earlier post. BTW, NRA membership, fundraising and political clout haven't been damaged by NAGR in the least. I presume this is yet another false allegation you cannot support. Now for the response:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:In the same post on the OCT Facebook page, OCT proudly claims that it has joined with GOA and Dudley Brown's National Association of Gun Rights (NAGR). Well, Larry Pratt, GOA President stated in a Houston radio station interview that he was not supportive of OCT's long gun demonstrations, but later courted OCT when the NRA editorial was improvidently posted.
More importantly, any person or organization that "joins with" or supports NAGR must not have done the least bit of research about Dudley Brown or NAGR. Here is a link to a
post by the Second Amendment Foundation. Read about some of NAGR's escapades. Be sure to read the
letter from Students for Concealed Carry President Daniel Crocker to Dudley Brown in response to NAGR's attempt to claim credit for a legal victory to which NAGR was not a party.
The
Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance responded on its Facebook page to a bogus NAGR/Dudley Brown solicitation email that claimed the gun rights group was supporting gun control. "
There is an inflammatory email being sent to Minnesotans by an out-of-state individual who has never actually accomplished anything for Minnesota gun rights (or those of any other state that we can see). The real purpose of this email is the same as all the rest of the emails this individual sends: to solicit donations."
This Dudley Brown/NAGR that has been condemned by long-standing gun rights organizations is the same Dudley Brown/NAGR that OCT proudly claims as an ally. I am reminded of the old adage that "
one who lays down with dogs gets up with fleas." The true nature of OCT is becoming clear.
Chas.
CJ Grisham wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:Again, are you talking about HB195, unlicensed open carry? You must be since you have described HB106 as a "crappy bill" and that your members should say "no no no no" to anything other than HB195.
I'm talking about any open carry legislation. It wasn't a promise from a governor and dozens of members of the legislature in the past. It is now. 106 is a crappy bill and our members should say no. Absolutely!
Answer the question CJ. Since OCT will only be supporting HB195, will you consider OCT as having had a successful 2015 Texas Legislative session if only licensed open-carry passes?
Here's two more questions. Since you're telling OCT member to say "no no no" to licensed open-carry bills, is OCT going to support any licensed open-carry bills? Are you going to oppose any licensed open-carry bills?
CJ Grisham wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:The only thing we tried to get you to do was stop carrying long guns into private property. You did precisely that, claiming it was your decision and it was made because you learned that that was not a good tactic.
No, it was diverting our main mission. There is nothing wrong with legally carrying any firearm into anyplace. However, our goal wasn't to fight for gun rights in private businesses.
That's precisely what we told you was happening, in addition to creating negative backlash in Austin.
CJ Grisham wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:CJ Grisham wrote: It's a sad day that Charles Cotton continues his attacks on our members without cause. He must be getting desperate and bitterly clinging to his relevance. Perhaps he should focus more on unity and gun rights and less on splintering gun owners.
I've never attacked your members, so this is just your latest lie.
You should go back and read your post that initiated this thread. You attacked OCT. Therefore, you attacked our members.
Follow your own advice, reread my first post. I called for rational support of our respective bills. Quote the precise words that you claim constitute an attack against your member.
CJ Grisham wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:I have a 35+ year history of working for gun owners and the Second Amendment and I'll put my record against your as often as you like.
Congratulations on being older than me.
It's not merely an age difference CJ, it's a world of difference in political/legislative experience, the years of service to gun owners and my ability to create relationships that get pro-gun bills passed. It's the difference between a man who has worked for the benefit of others and one who seeks only to gain fame for himself and get the law changed to avoid the consequences of his irresponsible acts.
CJ Grisham wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:The next time you attack me personally, be ready for your entire recent history and the truth about your legal problems to be fully aired here on the Forum.
My entire "legal history" involves TWO arrests - both for non-crimes and only ONE of which I was only charged for. I have never been charged in the Austin arrest because I was never breaking a law. Again, you prove here that you aren't about rights, but power and rhetoric. Instead of noting that I was not breaking laws and merely exercising my legal rights, you focus just on the arrest. I've never had legal problems prior to that, so I have no problems with you airing my "legal problems."
You went way off the reservation CJ. I wasn't talking about these events and I didn't even know about them. I was talking about your arrest and conviction for interfering with the duty of a peace officer.
CJ Grisham wrote:By the way, when did you ever work on my behalf in either of my cases?
Are you claiming I owed you a duty to represent you? The day will never come when I represent a hothead whose problems are of their own making. We want plaintiffs/clients who make a good impression on the court because it increases the likelihood of getting a favorable opinion that will benefit all gun owners. There an old saying in the law,
bad facts make bad law. There's another equally accurate saying among lawyers,
"don't violate the Fat Ugly Plaintiff Rule." Since I'm sure you will try to twist the meaning of this old saying, it's not referring to a party's size or beauty, it refers to a plaintiff/client that will not be well received by a jury.
I think your arrest was unlawful. Had you gone to jail quietly, you may well have had a great §1983 civil rights case against the officer and his agency. This is a result that would have greatly helped the open-carry cause. But no, you decided to resist arrest in spite of Tex. Penal Code §9.31(b)(2) that expressly states that you cannot resist even an unlawful arrest.
CJ Grisham wrote:Charles L. Cotton wrote:You called me and asked to bury the hatchet. I pointed out that I had not attacked you personally and that I wanted you to stop lying about the NRA. You agreed, but the false attacks about the NRA continued on the OCT website.
That's because you are the TSRA and the TSRA is you and you've never stopped. Maybe you personally did (until this post and I'm sure in others I'm not aware of), but your surrogates did not.
I am the TSRA and the TSRA is me huh? Wow, I don't know how to respond to such lunacy.
CJ Grisham wrote:There, I responded to all of your questions. I'm done engaging you.
Well yes, you responded but you provided very few answers choosing to rely upon canned speeches.
Chas.