TexasCHLforum.com

jmra wrote:So, is the owner of this forum "terribly mis-informed" or a "government lobbyist"? Can't wait for an answer to this one.

Mr. Cotton can't tell us the inside scoop on what's happening in Austin -- draw you own conclusion, I did.

All my reps in Austin voted correctly in my view. They were part of the 19 who voted against RINO Speaker Strauss, and they all voted for the licensed open carry legislation. As voters we voted in the most conservative legislature in history, and it looks like as 2A supporters, we got hosed.

Until ego's are put in check, RINO speakers removed from office, Licensed open carry won't ever be the law in Texas.

As voters we changed every major office but one, the one we can't change as voters. There was a big deal made about the recorded speaker vote at the beginning of the session, which doesn't mean a thing just now.

Strauss sat on this for weeks and now we are cramming for a bill -- he needs to be removed.


“There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don't care who gets the credit.”

Ronald Reagan

If the majority wants that language removed, (as you say) then why hasn't it been removed?

If it's un-needed, then why don't we have a bill?

Look, licensed open carry is fine with me, preferred actually. Those OCT guys can't get CHL's and that's why they say the 2A is their license. I don't agree with that.

I predicted at the beginning nothing would happen, open carry-wise, I'm sorry to say, I think I was right.

There is NOTHING wrong with those two paragraphs. The fact they (LEO's) want that language removed (or something similar) is proof they want to make stops solely on the basis of somebody open carrying.

Anybody that says that language is un-needed is either terribly mis-informed, or a government lobbyist.

Aggie_engr wrote:Austin assistant chief just brought up the chaotic event in Waco and how open carry could complicate things. His testimony represents the Austin Police Dept.

I was wondering how long it would take to invoke the biker shoot-out argument

The above is exactly what will happen all over the state. The 'if you have nothing to hide' argument is not a solid argument based on fact. Also, the 'I served, have you?' argument is a distraction.

Licensed open carriers will be hassled all over the state by power tripped LEO's who like to do that kind of thing.

It didn't happen to me, (yet) but in my town, LEO's routinely disarm CHL's (For your protection and mine) all the time and refuse to return their weapons, saying -- you can come get it at the station.

An internal affairs investigation was done, and never made public, and nothing has changed. Having the Dutton amendment removed will encourage more of this sort of behavior.