TexasCHLforum.com

v7a wrote:@lmcgaughy tweet:

@OpenCarryTexas holding rally at @APDInfo HQ on May 6 to "educate" @ArtAcevedo about #opencarry #txlege #gunbills

We're trying to get this finished and OCT wants to poke Austin PD and Acebedo in the eye. That will make keeping the Dutton/Rinaldi Amendment on the Bill harder.

Chas.

TXBO wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TXBO wrote:

mojo84 wrote: Just because it is a different approach doesn't mean it is effective. Cooperation, or at least not acting like extremist lunatics, would be better than throwing temper tantrums in public like a 5 year old wanting more ice cream and wanting it NOW.

Very true and all indications are that their approach was not only ineffective but detrimental. I'm neither endorsing nor defending their approach. I'm simply stating that frustration with lack of progress in Austin feed it.

I agree with you on this point, but we need to realize that OCT was created 1) because people were upset that Grisham was arrested; and 2) the alleged lack of progress was limited to not passing open-carry. We have made tremendous progress in expanding Second Amendment rights in Texas as the vast majority of Texas gun owners understand and acknowledge. Only a self-centered few claim otherwise and it's solely because their particular priority item or goal has not been achieved. Contrast the tactics and divisive rhetoric used by OCT with the statesmanlike approach used by Students for Concealed Carry. SCC does not attack other people or organizations and they don't act like the failure to pass campus-carry means Texas and all of our elected officials are anti-gun.

Chas.

My priority is accessibility. I'd like to see the number of people that can legally carry in Texas multiply. This stems from a very personally humbling experience. It's not self-centered at all.

I'm not sure why you say "it's not self-centered at all." I was talking about OCT's attitude that little progress has been made in terms of expanding Second Amendment rights in Texas. If that's your feeling also, then you're as wrong as is OCT. I don't know, nor am I asking, about your personal issue, but it doesn't change legislative history. I'm on record as supporting the repeal of some of the arbitrary and unnecessary eligibility requirements, but those changes are not a top priority because, as I stated earlier, a driving legislative philosophy is to promote changes that have a positive impact on the greatest number of people.

Chas.

TXBO wrote:

mojo84 wrote: Just because it is a different approach doesn't mean it is effective. Cooperation, or at least not acting like extremist lunatics, would be better than throwing temper tantrums in public like a 5 year old wanting more ice cream and wanting it NOW.

Very true and all indications are that their approach was not only ineffective but detrimental. I'm neither endorsing nor defending their approach. I'm simply stating that frustration with lack of progress in Austin feed it.

I agree with you on this point, but we need to realize that OCT was created 1) because people were upset that Grisham was arrested; and 2) the alleged lack of progress was limited to not passing open-carry. We have made tremendous progress in expanding Second Amendment rights in Texas as the vast majority of Texas gun owners understand and acknowledge. Only a self-centered few claim otherwise and it's solely because their particular priority item or goal has not been achieved. Contrast the tactics and divisive rhetoric used by OCT with the statesmanlike approach used by Students for Concealed Carry. SCC does not attack other people or organizations and they don't act like the failure to pass campus-carry means Texas and all of our elected officials are anti-gun.

Chas.

treadlightly wrote: . . . We need licensed open carry not to lead our leaders to enlightenment, but to lead our citizens. As we re-infuse defensive handguns back into Texas life, as licensed concealed carry has done for decades, we strengthen ourselves in many ways. A gun in the hand of a law abiding citizen has positive psychological implications. A gun in my law-abiding hand is a matter of pride, of self-worth, and a symbol that says I have a life worth protecting, and loved ones and fellow citizens who depend on me to ride, shoot straight, and speak the truth.

If we instill every citizen with the individual drive to stand up and be counted on the basis of self-worth and individual value to society, we just might end the defensive need for handguns. We will always need them as an affirmation of things we dare not lose. . . .

I fully agree. In fact, when the legislature has adjourned sine die, I plan to launch an initiative to address precisely this issue. I won't go into details now, but I hope to see a lot of folks get involved.

Chas.

TXBO wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Politics has been called "the art of the possible." Unlicensed carrying of handguns will not be possible so long as OCT continues in existence and continues its counterproductive tactics. That's a fact that some are unwilling to accept, but it is nonetheless true.

Chas.

Merriam defines politic as "shrewdly tactful". It's quite obvious many weren't. However, politicians denying millions for the sins of hundreds is very disheartening.

Additionally, as stated before, unlicensed carry is not the only thing that could increase accessibility. Lowered cost, less requirements and simplicity could do wonders.

And none of those items would affect me in the slightest because I'm the face of concealed carry in Texas....... A financially sound, white boy.

I misunderstood your post; I thought you were calling for unlicensed carry. I agree about repealing some of current unjustified eligibility requirements.

Chas.

TXBO wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

TXBO wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: ... We've passed many great bills and have made great strides in expanding Second Amendment rights, but I believe that HB308 should have been the cornerstone of the 2015 Texas Legislative Session -- but it wasn't. I'm mad and I'm sick that HB308 went nowhere; it is no better off than HB195 or SB342 and I'm not happy. However, I understand why neither the NRA nor TSRA put their political muscle behind HB308. To say it was a controversial bill would be an understatement. The media would have had a field day with "guns everywhere, guns everywhere!" It's right up there with "the British are coming, the British are coming!" The primary reason HB308 was not a priority bill is NRA and TSRA were using huge amounts of political capitol to pass open-carry and to a lesser degree, campus-carry. I still believe we should pass campus-carry because it is the right thing to do even though it differs from our standard procedure of supporting bills that provide the most benefits to most people. At this point in time, HB308 would have worked to the extreme benefit of 846,000+ Texas CHLs and this number will continue to grow. That's how strongly I feel about removing off-limits areas for CHLs, but you haven't heard me lash out at NRA/TSRA for not making MY priority their priority. That's not how you bill strong and effective relationships; you don't abandon friends who share your goals but not your priority list. Contrast this approach with the OCT approach of attacking, condemning and lying about anyone and everyone who does not share both their goals and there tactics.

Chas.

I believe your philosophy of "supporting bills that provide the most benefit to most people" is an admirable approach. I would personally benefit from being able to carry more places but I would argue that only having 846k+ people in Texas that can legally carry is disappointing. I'd like it to be a priority to see that number multiply.

I suspect that is the ultimate goal for many. However, we have to work with the process available and that involves making incremental improvements as we can. Trying for the whole enchilada this go around would have killed the deal all together.

I certainly understand the political hazards. Increasing accessibility does not need to be the "whole enchilada" any more than decreasing restrictions on current CHL. I have not seen one bill this session that I believe has a viable chance of increasing accessibility in the slightest.

Politics has been called "the art of the possible." Unlicensed carrying of handguns will not be possible so long as OCT continues in existence and continues its counterproductive tactics. That's a fact that some are unwilling to accept, but it is nonetheless true.

Chas.

amtank wrote:I don't have a problem with Charles I never have had one. While the analysis of the posted article is generally correct I find factual issue with The notion that the TSRA has done even the majority of the leg work on this issue. Yes, I am well aware that between Charles and Alice they have personal long standing relationships with the majority of the long standing legislators.

That being said I am a TSRA member and was previously a NRA member. Up until late last year it seemed that the TSRA, how was it put, open carry is not a priority. Campus carry was always the goal of this session and as one of the original campus coordinators for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus it is something I care deeply about especially due to the fact my mother is a professor.

I find it a bitter pill receiving an email this afternoon with a news flash that Texas house passed NRA backed open carry. What does that mean? As I said Charles you do a great job and I respect your honesty and commitment. It however seems the larger organization attempts to hitch itself to any winning horse and throws losing ones under the bus.

My former representative went out there last week and kept every promise he made fighting to get Constitutional Carry at least voted on so we as Texans know where our representatives stand. He was thwarted by the house leadership through actions so egregious that at one point a extremely liberal democrat came to his defense Friday.

It is my viewpoint that the grassroots activists and small organizations are doing more to advance gun rights and overall freedom in this state than either the TSRA or NRA and its a darn shame that I could even feel that way even if my outlook is slightly flawed. At the Republican State Convention I did not see any professional lobbyists, for gun rights, during the week when platform was really being fought over and decided. It was literally the individuals who make up Texas Firearms Freedom, Texas Carry, OCT, and even yes the hated OCTC as delegates fighting for language to extend our rights. We made changes not only to platform but also extensive changes to the makeup of the SREC. While you can clearly still argue quite legitimately that the legislator pays no attention to the party or platform. I assure you this will change in the next four years.

The people that have been pushing political change inside of the Republican party are winning and the Republican lawmakers that all the organizations have to fight with to do what is right will not be in office much longer. I know things along those lines of have been stated before but I assure you it will be true.

The mere fact my representation was not even present in the capitol on Friday during the important vote speaks volumes on his commitment to the cause.

Disclaimer: I am a former active member of OCTC. I was at the time of the 2014 state convention. I am a current regional co-coordinator for OCT. I hold a Texas CHL. I am a member of the TSRA If you missed that above. I am even a member of the Texas State Militia. I am a Constitutional Conservative who is involved in multiple causes beyond guns. I also have four legislators personal cell numbers in my phone and another three chiefs of staff. I have been known from time to time go for a walk with a rifle or shotgun.

I don't agree with everything you posted but I do agree with many of your opinions. I have long argued that there should be a cost to any Republican that does not follow the Party Platform, but those arguments have fallen on deaf ears. Years ago, I strongly believed that attending the Party Convention was vital, but I quickly learned otherwise.

I agree that grassroots activity is crucial in many ways and that's why the NRA has a very active, very successful grassroots division. A successful grassroots organization and campaign is one that uses proven techniques to win the public, and the critically important media, to its side of an issue. Again, that's what the NRA does so well to the dismay of anti-gunners. Organizations like OCT and OCTC are not interested in building a viable, respected coalition. They want firebrand types who are confrontational, caustic and intimidating. I think I know who you are and OCT would have been far better off if Grisham had stepped down and let others take over the organization. If I am correct as to your identity, then I believe you would have taken OCT down the same philosophical and operational path taken by Students for Concealed Carry, an organization that enjoys an excellent reputation.

Open-carry passed because of the NRA and in spite of OCT/OCTC. We have been working on it since 2013 and as I've said many times, the fact that we asked about open-carry in the NRA candidate questionnaire sent a strong signal to candidates that it was a priority bill. The NRA/TSRA are responsible for the Interim Study in April 2014 that included open-carry and each of their lobbyists testified in favor of it. This too was a clear sign to elected officials that we wanted open-carry to pass. Those efforts are why HB910 has 84 co-sponsors and Stickland's HB195 has only eleven. SB17 has 14 co-sponsors while SB342 has four. OCT/OCTC/CATI/Grisham/Watkins all supported HB195 and SB17, while the NRA and TSRA supported HB910/SB17. The NRA/TSRA bills have passed while the OCT/OCTC bills didn't get a hearing in the House or Senate. The efforts of OCT/OCTC clearly had no impact on the legislative process. As G.A. Heath pointed out, OCT and Grisham blasted licensed open-carry right up to the point that it was clear the OCT Bills were going nowhere. Now, OCT has make two posts on its Facebook page just a few hours apart, with one condemning the Legislative process with lies and one praising the passage of HB910. OCT clearly wants to claim victory when all they achieved was a dismal failure.

I'm sure you're pretty steamed up at my comments, but let's switch to "my Bill," HB308. In my view, HB3218 last session and HB308 this session are the two most important bills filed on behalf of Texas gun owners in 20 years. We've passed many great bills and have made great strides in expanding Second Amendment rights, but I believe that HB308 should have been the cornerstone of the 2015 Texas Legislative Session -- but it wasn't. I'm mad and I'm sick that HB308 went nowhere; it is no better off than HB195 or SB342 and I'm not happy. However, I understand why neither the NRA nor TSRA put their political muscle behind HB308. To say it was a controversial bill would be an understatement. The media would have had a field day with "guns everywhere, guns everywhere!" It's right up there with "the British are coming, the British are coming!" The primary reason HB308 was not a priority bill is NRA and TSRA were using huge amounts of political capitol to pass open-carry and to a lesser degree, campus-carry. I still believe we should pass campus-carry because it is the right thing to do even though it differs from our standard procedure of supporting bills that provide the most benefits to most people. At this point in time, HB308 would have worked to the extreme benefit of 846,000+ Texas CHLs and this number will continue to grow. That's how strongly I feel about removing off-limits areas for CHLs, but you haven't heard me lash out at NRA/TSRA for not making MY priority their priority. That's not how you build strong and effective relationships; you don't abandon friends who share your goals but not your priority list. Contrast this approach with the OCT approach of attacking, condemning and lying about anyone and everyone who does not share both their goals and their tactics.

OCT has made the critical mistake surrounding itself with people who will not challenge the leader's opinions. The term "echo chamber" has been used to describe OCT and from what I've seen, it a very accurate description. If any OCT member expresses concern or, God forbid, disagreement with Grisham's "official" position or opinion, they are attacked. There's no room in the Grisham/OCT tent for rational and respectful debate, much less loyal opposition. This can change, but only if there really is an OCT leadership other than Grisham and if that leadership gets Grisham out of the public eye.

If people could sit in on some of our meetings and phone calls, at times they would believe that Alice, Tara and I hate each other. We discuss, sometimes quite forcefully, issues, bills, potential bills, amendments and everything else that goes into the process. We share our opinions and beliefs and we come to a consensus. We are free to give our opinions without being attacked or lied about, then go do what each of us does well. None of us gets everything we want precisely when we want it, but the process insures valuable input that has allowed the NRA and TSRA to build a successful track record that has not been matched by any other organization. One who cannot accept criticism or the opposing opinions of loyal allies will never be an effective advocate for anyone, any organization or any cause.

amtank wrote:My former representative went out there last week and kept every promise he made fighting to get Constitutional Carry at least voted on so we as Texans know where our representatives stand. He was thwarted by the house leadership through actions so egregious that at one point a extremely liberal democrat came to his defense Friday.

I saw the OCT post on this subject and the link to the equally erroneous article engaging in the same witch hunt. The article even lied and claimed that Gov. Abbott was campaigning against unlicensed open-carry behind the scenes. Of course, the author quoted an unnamed source. Yeah, right.

The simple fact is this: Rep. Stickland's proposed amendment to HB910 that would have removed the requirement for a CHL was not germane. He made himself look foolish by repeatedly saying that it was pre-filed. Prefiling an amendment does not render the germane rule void and he should have known that. HB910's caption reads:

HB910 Caption wrote:relating to the authority of a person who is licensed to carry a handgun to openly carry a holstered handgun; creating a criminal offense; providing penalties; amending provisions subject to a criminal penalty.

Only amendments that dealt with the authority of a license holder (CHL) would be germane and not even all such amendments. I worked on proposed amendments that we ultimately didn't try to pass because they would have endangered the Bill, even though they referenced licensees. If I were consulting with those opposed to open-carry in the House, I would have told them not to call a point-of-order against the Stickland amendment and hope that it was adopted. Then get one of the Senate Democrats to assert a point-of-order to kill it in the Senate.

There was no conspiracy, no "lawlessness" as OCT claimed. Instead of silently gritting their teeth when they didn't get their way (like I do,) OCT and Grisham lashed out with lies against the Legislature, Speaker Straus, and even the Governor! That does not build a viable and effective political and legislative coalition. It earns one the reputation of being dishonest, ineffective, confrontational and, more importantly, a political pariah.

Chas.

Brantoc wrote:Charles here is the video retraction from Chris Cox. After the alert went out calling open carry 'weird'..

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I saw it before it went out and again later. I just watched it again. Please point out where Chris said OCT was anti-gun. Quite trying to avoid your own words. Back up your attacks or apologize.

BTW, why did you register under a different username? You're not going to have two different Forum registrations so after you respond to these questions, I'll lock this registration and you can use your other account.

Chas.

Brantoc wrote:The NRA has a great record for hunting rights.. but for open carry the record is (read Forum rules) poor.. Scratch that, doesn't rate that high.
My first 'out of favor' was a couple years ago, I had sent $500 to the NRA during the gun crazy (after the school).. I got invited to a NRA dinner thing in Dallas. Sounded neat, went, and talked with many like minded members.. Talked briefly with one of the head honcho's about open carry, and he flat our said the NRA doesn't care about that.
I was like.. But the second amendment.. and he just blew it off as a non-issue..

You clearly don't know anything about the NRA's efforts to pass open-carry in other states. No one at a Friends dinner is going to talk about politics or legislation because it would endanger the NRA Foundation's tax exempt status. That's why they would not talk to you about open-carry.

Brantoc wrote:TSRA hasn't been much better, and for that matter neither has anyone else. Other than a handful of people in the whole state each term no one has said boo about open carry. You talk with them and they all agree, but no one says anything. This is the only time it has been different. I'm not a member of OCT, never been to a rally (don't really like the idea of carrying a rifle down main street) but they get results. OCT is the ONLY reason we are this far. I do support 2AF, but between the NRA and OCT I'd lean OCT.

You need to read The History of Open-Carry Efforts in Texas if you are interested in the truth. If you only want to bash the NRA and TSRA, then don't both reading it.

Brantoc wrote:As for you not speaking for the NRA or TSRA, your like one of the big dogs in both, right? Isn't that like saying Susan Rice doesn't speak for the White House?

Two responses: First, show me where I said OCT was anti-gun. Secondly, the fact that I'm on the NRA Board of Directors doesn't mean that every word that come from my mouth is the NRA's position. In fact, that's one reason I created the Texas Firearms Coalition.

Again, even if your contention was correct that everything I say is on behalf of the NRA, show me where I said OCT is anti-gun, or apologize and retract your statement.

Chas.

Brantoc wrote:Stupidity like this is why I haven't re-uped with the NRA. Claiming OCT is pro gun control because they are fine with a more basic sign?? what the heck?

Show us where the NRA made this statement, or apologize and retract your statement.

Chas.

OCT is causing more problems for Texas gun owners that have yet come to light . . . More info after the session is over.

Chas.