TexasCHLforum.com

G.A. Heath wrote:In an interview CJ Grisham said OCT would oppose any bill that stopped short of allowing what he called the “constitutional carry” of handguns. Of course this could be a distortion of what was actually said by the news outlet. The article is at: http://www.myhighplains.com/story/d/sto ... yFm8gCVimQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's interesting. CJ will admit that OCT is going to oppose anything other than unlicensed open-carry, but he wouldn't state that here. Once again, I'm not surprised.

Chas.

Bladed wrote:

JKTex wrote:From the OCTC FB page, a sample of an upstanding gentlemen and his letter to Rep Philips. This, is what "we" are up against.

From OCTC Facebook pages dated Nov. 25, 2014
"To: "Larry.Phillips@house.state.tx.us" <Larry.Phillips@house.state.tx.us>
Subject: Feeling butthurt lately?
So you got a taste of how things are going to be around here if you continue to not honor you oath to the Constitution, and try to trample on our Constitutionally protected Civil Rights.
There is a very easy way to turn this all around. Publicly support HB195, or better yet cosponsor the bill. Do the right thing and do your job!
Martin Cohn"

Not sure whether to laugh or be concerned. Concerned is in the lead. This is what our elected have to wade through?

Legislators talk to one another. More than that, their staffers talk to one another. If one Representative is being harassed by open carry activists, you can bet that most of his fellow Representatives know about it and that a lot of them are unhappy about it.

That's exactly right. OpenCarry.org Members (posting in the Texas Section) and Lone Star CDL killed open-carry for two sessions because they attacked Rep. Debbie Riddle and her staff. They falsely claimed she promised to file an open-carry bill and she did no such thing. It was so bad, no one would give open-carry a serious look that session or the next. One of the first things NRA and TSRA were asked when walking into a legislator's office was "you aren't part of that open-carry crowd are you?"

Chas.

paxton25 wrote:OK, so the question still remains, if everything you said is true why are people spending so much time and effort in asking if they will support other bills? If I thought someone was going to do damage to my bill I sure wouldn't be calling them out for not supporting it, they just might take me up on it.

G.A. Heath wrote:

paxton25 wrote:I don't get it, if they are everything many in here say they are and the bill they support won't get any traction then why does it seem some are pushing them to support compromise licensed open carry bills? If they are so irrelevant and caustic why call them out for not supporting other bills? From a pure strategy point of view letting them put all of their resources into a bill the experts say won't get passed seems like a good idea. And if you succeed in getting them to support a licensed open carry bill that TSRA/NRA is working to pass and they demonstrate in support of it because you convinced them to do so isn't that going to bring your bill bad press and all the other things you condemn them for?

The problem is not that they can get legislation passed, but that they can do tons of damage to bills, even the ones they support. If we are to get OC passed, in any form, OCT, OCTC, CATI, Texas Carry, and others will need to learn some manners in regards to politics. If/When their bill fails they will go berserk and start attacking anything they see as "an infringement", even if it means that current infringements are lessened w/o adding new ones.

It's a matter of being above board and intellectually honest. OCT initially supported open-carry in any form, but in recent months they appear to support only unlicensed open-carry. OCTC could be a different story; I'm not sure what their position has been earlier. They are already attacking Rep. Phillips because he supports removing the concealment requirement for CHL's. In fact, they are calling for illegal conduct in the form of a so-called "phone bomb" directed at his cell phone number. It's one thing to give out his Austin and District office phone numbers (state owned), but publishing his cell phone number is a different story. I hope none of the OCTC followers are foolish enough to listen to very poor advice.

I also see a lie coming from OCTC and/or OCT at the end of the session, regardless of what passes or does not pass. Everyone with a modicum of intelligence knows quite well why OCT won't state its position on licensed open-carry bills. This not the conduct of a reputable organization.

A broader reason for ether getting OCT to state its position, or call out and publicize their refusal to do so, is to differentiate for the general public reputable organizations that clearly state their positions and do not attack legislators unjustly. We don't want voters opposing any, much all, open-carry bills because of the irresponsible acts of a very small minority of open-carry supporters.

Chas.

MeMelYup wrote:I think Rep. Phillips is stating that he thinks the 2nd Amendment is a federal or state right and not an individual right. His statement would have been enough that I would have possibly voted for his apponent.

That wasn't Rep. Phillips statement at all! Rep. Phillips supports removing the concealment requirement for CHL's, so the open-carry zealots feel free to make unfounded claims. It's part of the "my way or no way" attitude. It's also why we need to know where OCT stands on the various open-carry bills.

Chas.

While CJ Grisham/OCT doesn't want Texas gun owners to know the answers to the three critical questions in the first post in this thread, Open Carry Tarrant County has made their position clear. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Open-Car ... 2461093911" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Look at the poster of Rep. Phillips and the OCTC caption. Look also at OCTC's Nov. 22nd call for a so-called "phone bomb" against Rep. Phillips.

Mr. Grisham, it's time to distance OCT from OCTC. Texas gun owners have a right to know OCT's position. Here are the questions again:

• 1. Will OCT support any or all licensed open-carry bills during the 2015 Texas Legislative Session?
  2. Will OCT oppose any or all licensed open-carry billls?
  3. Will OCT support only HB195 - unlicensed open-carry?

So far, your silence speaks volumes!

Chas.

canvasbck wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:OCT/CJ Grisham. Please give us an answer to the 3 critical questions in the first post on this thread. Why are you refusing to answer?

Chas.

Has he even logged onto the site in the last few days?

No, but he can read the posts without logging in. I also posted a link on thread he posted on so he'd get an email.

Chas.

OCT/CJ Grisham. Please give us an answer to the 3 critical questions in the first post on this thread. Why are you refusing to answer?

Chas.

I can't go into too much detail now, but Keith is correct; TPC §30.06 expressly applies only to CHLs. It's poorly written and if HB195 gets any traction, then something tells me there will either be a committee substitute, or a floor amendment dealing with issue.

Chas.

paxton25 wrote:[quote="Charles L. Cotton]
Then my personal observations are markedly different from yours and I' talked to no small number of CHLs.

paxton25 wrote:I don't think you would deny that one hurdle facing passing constitutional carry is a certain amount of comfort with the current licensing system.

I absolutely agree that the current license requirement gives the general public a great deal of comfort, based upon our 18 year track record. I also agree that some percentage of CHLs share that comfort level, but that's a totally different issue from the claim that CHL's take an elitist view to the license requirement.

Chas.

paxton25 wrote:Everyone has different personal observations, doesn't make mine any less true. I am going to assume I wasn't clear on the last part, not that you willfully convoluted what I said, so let me be a bit more clear; I wasn't referring to the public's perception or comfort knowing there are armed citizens out there. I was referring to the fact that one hurdle passing any legislation that does away with the licensing requirement Is the resistance by SOME CHL holders that they are content with the current system, that they already have their license so why do they care if unlicensed carry passes or not. Some may even feel, as has been expressed to me by more than one CHL holder over the years that "I had to take a class and pay the fees everyone else should have to" Are you really saying that isn't something to consider when you are garnering support for unlicensed carry? And I don't know who made the claim that CHL's take an elitist view to the license requirement. It sure wasn't me. I clearly indicated that I feel that SOME CHL holders have an elitist view about their CHL and gave examples of such from my experience.

I didn't need you to repeat your statement. I understood it and I disagree with your premise. Even if you have heard CHLs make such statements, something I've never heard in talking to far more CHLs than you in all likelihood, they have no impact on open-carry efforts, either licensed or unlicensed. While Texas has something over 760,000 CHLs, that's not enough to block open-carry legislation even if every single one of them called to oppose open-carry.

I stated that the general public enjoys a significant comfort level that comes with the 18 track record CHLs have earned because they hold the fate of open-carry to a great extent. They are the voting block that will either be quiet about open-carry, or be calling legislators demanding that they oppose open-carry. I'm at a loss as to how you ignore the general public and point to a tiny segment of the Texas population implying that they can or would block open-carry. You like most open-carry zealots want to blame CHLs for the public opposition to open-carry when it was generated almost exclusively by OCT and OCTC's in-your-face tactics.

"willfully convoluted . . ." Tone it down sport; your OCT roots are showing.

Chas.

CJ Grisham, please answer the three critical questions in the first post in this thread. Texas gun owners want to know

Chas.

paxton25 wrote:

C-dub wrote:

IlliniBill wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
As I've said numerous times, I'm far more concerned about who can carry and where we can carry than with how we can carry. If we don't remove off-limits areas, prohibit the posting of unenforceable 30.06 signs on government property, pass campus-carry, exempt church volunteer "security" people from the restriction on being armed, remove successfully completed deferred adjudications and delinquent taxes or child-support from the list of CHL disqualifiers, or limit misdemeanor disqualifiers to only violent crimes, because we spent too much time and political capital on open-carry, I'm going to be a very bitter Second Amendment activist! Those are issues that will have a positive impact on hundreds of thousands if not millions of Texans, while open-carry will be practiced by only a relative handful of people.

Chas.

Agree 100%. I believe these issues are much more important than open carry. I sent my representative a letter yesterday stating that opinion.

And that's the crux of the issue. Any one of those issues outline by Charles will, by far, affect more people than will the passage of any OC bill. If an OC bill does pass there will probably initially be decent numbers of people doing it just because. However, once the novelty settles down and or more places post whatever sign is required to prohibit the activity, it will become a rarity except for those unable to obtain a CHL, if a license to OC is not required. That also seems to be the group with the loudest voices in opposition to any licensed OC bill. Those that are unable for whatever reason to obtain a CHL, IMO.

I honestly don't know why so money people obsess either way about OC, just like the other states with legal OC it will be a relatively rare occurrence.

The only people I see obsessing are the radical open-carry-or-nothing crowd. I don't see any strong opposition to open-carry in the gun community. Yes, we will kill any open-carry bill that makes TPC §30.06 apply to both concealed and open carry, but that's not opposition to open-carry, that's protecting current gun rights.

paxton25 wrote:I would like the option so I don't have to switch to my pocket pistol in the summer time and keep wearing my full frame 9 . . .

I'm 5'9", weigh 175# and I carry a 5" all steel Government Model 1911 in .45ACP year round. I must admit that when I hear the different gun for different seasons argument, it falls on deaf ears. I've counseled open-carry supporters not to over state their case and make unfounded claims of necessity and benefit. Open-carry is a minor convenience to very few people on very few occasions. Open-carry is the type of legislation to sell not be falsely claiming it is needed, but by asking the question, "why not, why do you think Texans are not as responsible as residents of the states that have open-carry?"

paxton25 wrote:. If we all agree that constitutional carry is the way to go, for the OC crowd and for the concealed carry crowd why don't we all coalesce around the bill that is best for everyone, IMO that is HB 195.

HB195 is not the way to go, not by any stretch of the imagination. You try to both emphasize the claimed importance of open-carry, while at the same time minimize it's impact by admitting that very few people will carry openly. You then use this argument to trivialize the horrendous political war that will result if the NRA and TSRA make HB195 their focus. Passage of HB195 is "problematic" and for it to have any chance, the NRA will have to throw it's full political weight and support behind it. Doing so will alienate political allies and friends in Austin, it will leave many feeling abandoned (I won't say more, so don't ask) and it will burn all of our political capital leaving far more important issues to die in committee. All this for a bill that, at the end of the day, will not pass. There is a way to get to unlicensed open or concealed carry, but open-carry zealots wanting instant gratification don't have the patience to accomplish it.

I'll say this much. If OCT carries through with its promise to attack any and all legislators who don't support HB195 even though licensed open-carry is passed, it will guarantee that unlicensed open-carry will not pass for years, if ever.

Chas.

paxton25 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

paxton25 wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

Keith B wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:I am surprised however Chas, that 44 other states already have Open Carry options, with only 13 of those states requiring Licensed open carry. Why are we stuck with California, Florida, South Carolina, New York, and Illinois? (My numbers may be off, as my last print out of this information is over a year old, but it still represents my argument.)

What is it specifically that has kept our great state of Texas, from achieving this? Aside from a broad answer, I am very curious about this. There are just six states prohibiting Open Carry, and I believe there are more prohibiting concealed carry if I recall correctly. I have been under the impression that there is plenty of movement across the nation to gain reasoning from to push open carry through in the past, and it is still just up in the air now of course. Could you provide some helpful insight into what has been the main barrier in this Chas? I'm just looking to further my own knowledge on this topic.

Thank you.

Most states that have open carry have never had a ban on it in the first place. Those that have licensed open carry may have once been illegal, but that was usually in cities.

An example of good change is Missouri, who has always had unlicensed open carry, but allowed cities and municipalities to enact ordinances prohibiting the open carry of a weapon. The legislature just passed a bill that now prohibits cities from enacting ordinances on licensed open carry. It is yet to see how that will be received in cities that once disallowed any open carry at all. You can still open carry without a license in rural areas and in cities that don't have ordinances against it.

Of course Keith, I was just hoping Chas could possible give me a history lesson on what has shut down our efforts in the past. I've been more politically active that ever in my life, and I must sadly admit that I never was quite interested in listening to what was going on over in Austin. I avoid that city like a rotting carcass, but now that I have children, I am more concerned about their future, which is why I am getting into all of this.

Simple, not enough citizens clamoring for it before last session. Didn't come up as a question during election season. I think part of the problem is with some (and I stress SOME) members in the "CHL Club" that think they are elite operators and part of an exclusive club because they have their CHL, they don't want the unwashed masses to be able to carry around a gun like they do, it makes them less special. On contracts I do I need to see an ID and a lot of times they whip their CHL out instead of their DL and proudly tell me "here's my CHL" like it was a badge or something. Makes me laugh.

This is a claim that began with the bomb-throwing types on OpenCarry.org and later adopted by the Lone Star CDL, but it has pretty much died out. It was, and occasionally still is, thrown out by the bomb-throwers as an insult to anyone who opines that there are issues facing gun owners that are far more important than open-carry. I've never seen nor heard a CHL claim they have elite status. I have read a few posts here on the Forum from CHLs who like the fact that people carrying under current Texas law have an excellent track record and are 17 times less likely to commit a crime than the general public. However, the focus is on safety, not elite status.

Even if there were some validity to the "elitist" argument, which there is not, those who feel that way would be so few in number as to have utterly no impact on legislation or the NRA/TSRA legislative agenda. The latest lie is that the NRA and TSRA somehow benefit financially by the Texas "licensing system."

Chas.

No, it is a personal observation by me over the last several years in several conversations in my day to day interactions with people.

Then my personal observations are markedly different from yours and I' talked to no small number of CHLs.

paxton25 wrote:I don't think you would deny that one hurdle facing passing constitutional carry is a certain amount of comfort with the current licensing system.

I absolutely agree that the current license requirement gives the general public a great deal of comfort, based upon our 18 year track record. I also agree that some percentage of CHLs share that comfort level, but that's a totally different issue from the claim that CHL's take an elitist view to the license requirement.

Chas.

paxton25 wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:

Keith B wrote:

Charlies.Contingency wrote:I am surprised however Chas, that 44 other states already have Open Carry options, with only 13 of those states requiring Licensed open carry. Why are we stuck with California, Florida, South Carolina, New York, and Illinois? (My numbers may be off, as my last print out of this information is over a year old, but it still represents my argument.)

What is it specifically that has kept our great state of Texas, from achieving this? Aside from a broad answer, I am very curious about this. There are just six states prohibiting Open Carry, and I believe there are more prohibiting concealed carry if I recall correctly. I have been under the impression that there is plenty of movement across the nation to gain reasoning from to push open carry through in the past, and it is still just up in the air now of course. Could you provide some helpful insight into what has been the main barrier in this Chas? I'm just looking to further my own knowledge on this topic.

Thank you.

Most states that have open carry have never had a ban on it in the first place. Those that have licensed open carry may have once been illegal, but that was usually in cities.

An example of good change is Missouri, who has always had unlicensed open carry, but allowed cities and municipalities to enact ordinances prohibiting the open carry of a weapon. The legislature just passed a bill that now prohibits cities from enacting ordinances on licensed open carry. It is yet to see how that will be received in cities that once disallowed any open carry at all. You can still open carry without a license in rural areas and in cities that don't have ordinances against it.

Of course Keith, I was just hoping Chas could possible give me a history lesson on what has shut down our efforts in the past. I've been more politically active that ever in my life, and I must sadly admit that I never was quite interested in listening to what was going on over in Austin. I avoid that city like a rotting carcass, but now that I have children, I am more concerned about their future, which is why I am getting into all of this.

Simple, not enough citizens clamoring for it before last session. Didn't come up as a question during election season. I think part of the problem is with some (and I stress SOME) members in the "CHL Club" that think they are elite operators and part of an exclusive club because they have their CHL, they don't want the unwashed masses to be able to carry around a gun like they do, it makes them less special. On contracts I do I need to see an ID and a lot of times they whip their CHL out instead of their DL and proudly tell me "here's my CHL" like it was a badge or something. Makes me laugh.

This is a claim that began with the bomb-throwing types on OpenCarry.org and later adopted by the Lone Star CDL, but it has pretty much died out. It was, and occasionally still is, thrown out by the bomb-throwers as an insult to anyone who opines that there are issues facing gun owners that are far more important than open-carry. I've never seen nor heard a CHL claim they have elite status. I have read a few posts here on the Forum from CHLs who like the fact that people carrying under current Texas law have an excellent track record and are 17 times less likely to commit a crime than the general public. However, the focus is on safety, not elite status.

Even if there were some validity to the "elitist" argument, which there is not, those who feel that way would be so few in number as to have utterly no impact on legislation or the NRA/TSRA legislative agenda. The latest lie is that the NRA and TSRA somehow benefit financially by the Texas "licensing system."

Chas.

Charlies.Contingency wrote:I am surprised however Chas, that 44 other states already have Open Carry options, with only 13 of those states requiring Licensed open carry. Why are we stuck with California, Florida, South Carolina, New York, and Illinois? (My numbers may be off, as my last print out of this information is over a year old, but it still represents my argument.)

What is it specifically that has kept our great state of Texas, from achieving this? Aside from a broad answer, I am very curious about this. There are just six states prohibiting Open Carry, and I believe there are more prohibiting concealed carry if I recall correctly. I have been under the impression that there is plenty of movement across the nation to gain reasoning from to push open carry through in the past, and it is still just up in the air now of course. Could you provide some helpful insight into what has been the main barrier in this Chas? I'm just looking to further my own knowledge on this topic.

Thank you.

I'm trying not to give arguments for the other side, but when someone wants to compare Texas with California and New York, then I can't let that go.

First, regardless how many states technically allow open-carry, it isn't commonly done except in some rural locations. When open-carry supporters claim that "XX number of states allow open-carry," they are implying that it is not only legal, it is commonplace and widely accepted by the population. That's simply untrue. Throughout my adult life, I've traveled to all but 2 states in the continental U.S., including so-called "gold states" for open-carry. I cannot recall ever seeing anyone openly carrying in an urban environment. Other Forum Members who travel the country report the same experience. Virginia is supposedly the true "gold state" for open-carry and I've gone there 2 to 3 times a year since 2001 on NRA business and I've never seen anyone openly carrying.

Secondly, open-carry hasn't passed prior to now because the NRA and TSRA haven't put it on our legislative agenda. We haven't because there are far more important issues on which to spend political capital. Some open-carry supporters act as if the battle to pass open-carry in Texas has been ongoing for several sessions, but that's simply not true. No organization with any clout has tied to pass open-carry. There have been some bomb-throwing people who made a lot of noise the last two sessions, but they also made a lot of enemies. We (NRA/TSRA) started promoting it at the end of last session, in the same manner we approach all controversial bills. That is the only reason why open-carry has a chance this session.

As I've said numerous times, I'm far more concerned about who can carry and where we can carry than with how we can carry. If we don't remove off-limits areas, prohibit the posting of unenforceable 30.06 signs on government property, pass campus-carry, exempt church volunteer "security" people from the restriction on being armed, remove successfully completed deferred adjudications and delinquent taxes or child-support from the list of CHL disqualifiers, or limit misdemeanor disqualifiers to only violent crimes, because we spent too much time and political capital on open-carry, I'm going to be a very bitter Second Amendment activist! Those are issues that will have a positive impact on hundreds of thousands if not millions of Texans, while open-carry will be practiced by only a relative handful of people.

Chas.

RoyGBiv wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Confusing and conflicting statements and instructions have been issued by OCT leadership. All gun owners, and especially OCT members, need a clear and unequivocal statement from OCT on the following issues.

1. Will OCT support any or all licensed open-carry bills during the 2015 Texas Legislative Session?
2. Will OCT oppose any or all licensed open-carry billls?
3. Will OCT support only HB195 - unlicensed open-carry?

It's time for OCT leadership to stop sending mixed signals and let gun owners know their position on these issues.

Chas.

Back on topic. The silence speaks volumes.

Yes it does! Surely someone with OCT is watching the Forum; please ask for an official answer to these very important questions. Those answers could well foretell whether there will be a united front during the session, or whether back-biting will kill any chance of unlicensed open-carry.

This thread was started at 3:49PM on Monday, Nov. 17th and CJ Grisham last logged in at 10:47PM that same day. Since you've seen these questions CJ, please give Texas gun owners answers.

Chas.