TexasCHLforum.com

TexasRedneck wrote:

Ruark wrote:

TexasRedneck wrote:...the 30.06 sign postings have continued to increase ...

That's another thing that worries me. A senator's assistant told me last year that if we were so concerned about the explosion in 06 signs after the last session, we should have left well enough alone. Before the last session, 06 signs were a quiet, background issue. Most people didn't even know what it was. Then all the open carry foofooraw called huge amounts of attention to the signage issue, and suddenly businesses that had never heard of them were posting them by their front doors. I hope all the 560/375/1911 noise this session doesn't kick it up yet another level.

All the more reason that we need to work towards engaging the owners of these businesses as to educating them with regards as to just how SAFE a customer someone with a LTC is, and why it's in their best interest NOT to keep them out. I saw the same proliferation back in '95, then they gradually tapered off, and most businesses started removing them. Given time, I think the same thing will happen again - ESPECIALLY if something happens to require rewording of the signs. At that point, I think a lot of the businesses will simply decide it's more hassle than it's worth and leave 'em down, or leave the old signs up (and therefore negating their legality, as so many have over the years).

There was no Tex. Penal Code §30.06 in 1995. The epidemic was the posting of small 2"X2" or 3"X3" decals with an international slash over a Beretta 92. Businesses never stop posting them and very few removed them, even after 9/1/1997. We passed HB2909 in 1997 and it went into effect on 9/14/1997. This stopped the small decal problem and relatively few businesses posted a 30.06 sign until we saw a short-lived surge prior to 1/1/2016 when open-carry came into effect.

Chas.

TexasRedneck wrote:Those fretting that one bill might "win" over the other....so what? EITHER one is a good start, IMO.

Not hardly! HB375 would amend TPC §30.06 such that it applies to both licensed and unlicensed concealed-carry. That would be a disaster as it would strip property owners of the ability to allow licensed concealed-carry while prohibiting unlicensed concealed-carry. Concealed-carry has been a non-issue for decades and this is why very few locations post 30.06 signs. Many property owners faced with either letting everyone in with guns or no one while choose no one. That's not a "good start."

HB1911 in it's as-filed form does likewise, but the committee substitute has already been drafted and it fixes that problem. A committee substitute has allegedly been prepared for HB375, but it does not correct the TPC §30.06 problem.

Chas.

I don't like the term "constitutional carry" for two primary reasons. First, as an attorney I like to use accurate legal descriptions and constitutional carry is not accurate. The Heller decision states in dicta that licensing laws would be/are constitutional. So claiming that there's a constitutional right to carry a firearm without a license and/or that requiring a license is unconstitutional ignores the leading Second Amendment SCOTUS case.

Also, as an activist for 37 years, I know that overstating your case never helps to pass your bill. It makers it easier for your opposition to call you out for making false claims to the Legislature.

All this said, I realize that the term "constitutional carry" has become a term of art, albeit an deceptive one.

Chas.

nlyric wrote:Constitutional carry in other states has more then doubled in what 2 years. Texas should be a leader in this. Went from something like 5 to 11. And if you factor in states that require no licence for OC, we are really put to shame on the liberty front.... No train, no fee, no problem.
All these fears are unfounded IMO...
And I don't buy this giving up on HB 375 even before the ink is even dry because of some unforseen political wisdom. We saw what happened with all that political prophecy a couple of Tuesdays ago. If you believe in it fight for it.....

1. Move to one of those states so you will live happily and have nothing about which to complain. You also won't have to be ashamed of Texas any longer;
2. Promote HB375 all you like. Just don't expect experienced people to follow you down that rabbit trail.

Chas.

mojo84 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

mojo84 wrote:Courtesy of Stickland.

https://empowertexans.com/features/stic ... egislation

State Rep. Jonathan Stickland (R–Bedford) filed “constitutional carry” legislation to remove the licensing requirement for Texans to carry a handgun openly or concealed. Stickland’s bill, HB 375, would maintain the licensing process for citizens who wish to obtain a license and enjoy reciprocity in other states.
“It is time in Texas to restore our Second Amendment rights to their originally intended level,” said Stickland. “No Texan should have to pay a fee or take a class to exercise their right to bear arms.”

Stickland is not the standard bearer I want for this or any other bill. He has little to no respect from other legislators. The only ones that seem to have any real respect for him are other legislators that have been marginalized either due to their own actions or the House Leadership.

Getting a bill filed is relatively easy. The key to success is having a bill filed by someone who is respected in the House or Senate and who has the clout to 1) get committee hearings, 2) get supportive votes in the committee so as to get it out of committee; 3) get a bill out of the Calendar's Committee in the House or the requisite number of votes in the Senate to suspend the rules; and 4) get his/her colleagues to vote for the bill on the floor.

Chas.

I believe our points are similar. You disagree or are you expounding upon what I said?

I agree with your post completely. I was expounding on your comments.

Chas.

mojo84 wrote:Courtesy of Stickland.

https://empowertexans.com/features/stic ... egislation

State Rep. Jonathan Stickland (R–Bedford) filed “constitutional carry” legislation to remove the licensing requirement for Texans to carry a handgun openly or concealed. Stickland’s bill, HB 375, would maintain the licensing process for citizens who wish to obtain a license and enjoy reciprocity in other states.
“It is time in Texas to restore our Second Amendment rights to their originally intended level,” said Stickland. “No Texan should have to pay a fee or take a class to exercise their right to bear arms.”

Stickland is not the standard bearer I want for this or any other bill. He has little to no respect from other legislators. The only ones that seem to have any real respect for him are other legislators that have been marginalized either due to their own actions or the House Leadership.

Getting a bill filed is relatively easy. The key to success is having a bill filed by someone who is respected in the House or Senate and who has the clout to 1) get committee hearings, 2) get supportive votes in the committee so as to get it out of committee; 3) get a bill out of the Calendar's Committee in the House or the requisite number of votes in the Senate to suspend the rules; and 4) get his/her colleagues to vote for the bill on the floor.

Chas.

steveincowtown wrote:First let me acknowledge that this is your house, and your dinner party. If you don’t want something to discuss something that is most certainly your prerogative.

I have no idea why you posted this.

steveincowtown wrote:Re: unlicensed carry- I certainly believe you support it, but as an LTC instructor who benefits from the current licensing program I believe this could be seen as a conflict of priorities. I am also 100% sure that the fees you collect from teaching classes aren’t a big part of your income. I suspect that being an attorney pays better than being an instructor.

There's no conflict of interest. If I was teaching for the money, I'd stay in my office an bill clients $350/hr. I also give free classes to a lot of people. If I was concerned about teaching revenue, I would not have supported repeal of the requirement for renewal classes. That resulted in a very large reduction of the market for LTC instructors. I also would not have started the effort, then supported it, to reduce the LTC class from 10hrs to 4hrs. This resulted in most instructors, including me, significantly reducing the class fee.

steveincowtown wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Is it my desire that good people not get into legal trouble because of a lack of knowledge?

The fact is that people just do not get charged with violating school zones all that often. Although the data is old, according to “Americans for Gun Safety” only 40 cases were brought from 2000-2002. Also, according to the NRA federal prosecution of gun crimes is down 40% since Obama took office.
“Federal prosecutors filed only 40 cases against those who brought a gun onto school property”
http://content.thirdway.org/publication ... gnored.pdf
“Jennifer Baker of the NRA cited her group's calculation that federal gun prosecutions have declined 40% under Obama's administration, after peaking in 2004.”
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/09/politics/ ... ement-gap/

There are two problems with your argument. First, I'm not talking about only the federal gun free school zones. Based upon the questions I get in the use of force portion of the LTC class, a very large percentage of people have no idea what Texas law is concerning the use of force in self-defense or defense of property. Far too many developed their misunderstanding from TV shows and slanted news reports. That's a major concern for anyone who cares about our fellow Texans surviving not only a deadly assault, but the legal system afterwards.

As for the federal gun free school zone law, yes, few people are prosecuted. However, only a small percentage of all citizens are attacked and need to use their firearm in self-defense. Percentages mean nothing when you are one of the unlucky ones to be attacked, or convicted of a federal felony for violating the federal gun free school zone law.

steveincowtown wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Is it my concern that good people may be injured or killed in a self-defense situation because they do not have the skill at arms to defend themselves?

I think this is great and I feel the same way. This is however I no way related to licensed or unlicensed carry. LTC classes do not have a “skills” portion and it is every gun owners (or chainsaw owner, or 4 wheeler owner, etc.) to take the personal responsibility of learning how to use this tool correctly.

I agree that the range qualification does not even allow firearms instruction, much less what I would consider intermediate or advanced training. However, it does insure that people can have a reasonable score when shooting at likely self-defense distances under reasonable self-defense time constraints. I have students with skill sets all over the spectrum. Most of the marginal students learned or practiced before the class. Since they did not do so until they knew they had to meet the shooting requirement of the course, it's unlikely they would have learned or practiced had the law not required it. Again, I'm not saying this makes them an "operator," but in many cases it forces people to get some experience with their self-defense handgun.

steveincowtown wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Or is it the fact that I know the Legislature's opinion of unlicensed carry at this point in time?

I whole heartedly believe this as well, I just wish we had a better game time attitude. You are, and have been for many years, the leader when it comes to pushing forward LTC rights. I equate you stating publicly that CC is DOA with a Football Coach coming out on game day and telling the team “hey guys, we aren’t going to be champions, but let me tell you what games we can win.”
No matter how factual this is, I don’t think admitting failure before the game starts helps any of us.

Sports analogies are popular, but they often don't fit the scenario. Passing legislation is not a game and false bravado often coming from coaches and sports figures do not help them win game and it certainly doesn't help to pass bills. Also, I consider a successful legislative session to be one during which we pass pro-gun legislation and kill anti-gun legislation. Some sessions are more productive than others, but no session rises or falls on a single bill or issue.

My statement about unlicensed carry was not a revelation to the legislature; they know it. In fact, that's where I get much of my information. My motive for stating the facts is at least two-fold. First, I'm being honest, unlike some organizations and their leaders who promise the moon, then fail to produce any results. Sure, they take credit for NRA and TSRA successes, but even a blind man can see the truth. (We saw that last session.) Another reason I made the statement is so people would not be tempted to promote a bill that has no chance of passage, and do so in a manner that makes it harder to pass other pro-gun bills. (We saw that last session too.)

I will begrudgingly use your sports analogy. If I were a professional football coach and told my team's fans that "we are going to be undefeated in both the preseason and the regular season," I would look like a fool. Most people would discount my honesty and candor, while a few might believe my bravado and be sorely disappointed when it didn't happen.

This isn't a sports analogy, but it deals directly with my profession as an attorney. I tell every client the good, the bad and the ugly of their case. That way they know their chances before they decide to hire me and spend money. That's just being honest. I know attorneys who tell their clients what they want to hear, then they start the billing machine. That's dishonest in my view. As an NRA Board member, if I tell people unlicensed carry has a chance in 2017, it encourages them to invest their time, efforts, hopes and perhaps money into a futile effort. This will likely lead to them not being as willing to get involved in future legislative efforts.

While telling people what they want to hear may lead to short-term happiness, it leads to long-term dissatisfaction and disenchantment. Telling people the truth may anger them, but at the end of the day they will know you are honest.

Chas.

steveincowtown wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Lest I me misquoted again, I want to begin by saying I am not opposed to unlicensed carry of a handgun. I also am confident that it will not pass in Texas in 2017.

As an attorney and a former police officer, the idea of people carrying handguns without 1) knowledge of the law; 2) sufficient skill at arms to survive a deadly assault; and 3) protection from the federal Gun Free School Zone law, worries me. My concern isn't that unlicensed people will be a safety issue for society.
Chas.

I certainly respect your opinion as a former LEO, and Attorney, a champion of gun rights, and a current LTC instructor. The fact remains that unlicensed carry hasn't been an issue in other states, and I suspect that in Texas it will work out the same.

With regards to knowledge of the law, a 1/2 day course doesn't provide this. You see post on this board all the time with questions from LTCers on material that should have been covered in the course. One must make the personal choice to become a student of the law.

With regards to having sufficient skill to survive an assault. This is unrelated to licensing and is in no way covered in the Texas LTC course. One must make the personal choice to acquire these skills.

With regards the Gun Free School Zone law this hasn't been an issue in other states and I don't see it becoming one in Texas. I also can't find a case where someone was convicted of just this. It is usually more of a tag on charge.

I would be lying if I said I was pretty bummed out that an NRA board member has this view of not only the points above, but the possibility of unlicensed carry moving forward.

The more I think about your post, the more puzzled I become. Which of my views causes you concern? Is it my support for unlicensed carry? Is it my desire that good people not get into legal trouble because of a lack of knowledge? Is it my concern that good people may be injured or killed in a self-defense situation because they do not have the skill at arms to defend themselves? Or is it the fact that I know the Legislature's opinion of unlicensed carry at this point in time?

I'm stumped.

Chas.

TXBO wrote:

rotor wrote:

TXBO wrote:

rotor wrote:...The argument is that it is a constitutional right and other things are just a privilege like driving a car. ....

That's not an argument. That's a fact.

All constitutional rights have some restrictions. I can only say that when I took my CHL class there were some not so sharp people taking the course that really did not know anything about handguns. At least after the range work they knew the basics. I think most people on this forum from what I have seen are pretty sharp about firearms. I don't believe the general public is. I don't think every yahoo out there is safe enough to carry a handgun. I trust the people on this sight as they have not only proven their safety but I can tell by their writing that they know what they are doing.

If that's the way you feel, why only require training for a license to carry? Why not for handling a long gun? Why not require training and a test just to purchase a firearm?

Perhaps because the discussion is about HB375, unlicensed carry of handguns.

Chas.

Lest I me misquoted again, I want to begin by saying I am not opposed to unlicensed carry of a handgun. I also am confident that it will not pass in Texas in 2017.

As a legislative and political advocate for gun owners for over 36 years, I want to see the license requirement for carrying a handgun repealed, while making the license optional. As an attorney and a former police officer, the idea of people carrying handguns without 1) knowledge of the law; 2) sufficient skill at arms to survive a deadly assault; and 3) protection from the federal Gun Free School Zone law, worries me. My concern isn't that unlicensed people will be a safety issue for society. The Motorist Protection Act that we passed in 2007 (HB1815) proves that the lack of a license doesn't mean a person is going to be a threat to public safety. My concern is that gun owners will unknowingly find themselves on the wrong side of the law, perhaps in a very big way. Balancing the Second Amendment advocate with the attorney/COP side of me, I come down supporting unlicensed carry.

For those who still want to proclaim that there is a constitutional right to carry a handgun without a license, please read the Heller decision before making this unfounded claim. Heller expressly notes that licensing would pass constitutional challenge, so stop overstating your case. Doing so hurts your credibility. The better argument for unlicensed carry is the lack of a problem in states that do not require a license. (Comparing Vermont with a total population lower than Austin, Texas (625,000 v. 800,000) is not productive.) With the coming change in the SCOTUS, we may finally get an opinion on the Second Amendment much close to the "shall not be infringed" concept, but that's far from certain.

To those that argue "I don't need a license to pray or to speak," you are correct. But you do need a permit to build a church building or a newspaper building. You most certainly need government approval to vote (voter registration and, in some states, a photo ID) and I don't see any of our Members complaining. In fact, most discussions about photo ID to vote garners support for the concept from Members.

I think the general public would be less concerned if Texas law were amended to require a background check to confirm that a person has not lost their constitutional rights (ex. convicted felon), then issue a license without requiring a fee or a class. This computer check would take mere seconds. This would be very similar to getting a voter's registration card that is required to vote in all elections.

Again, this is merely an academic discussion since unlicensed carry will not pass in 2017.

Chas.