TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

TrueFlog wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

suthdj wrote:

TrueFlog wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

suthdj wrote:

GrillKing wrote:

suthdj wrote:How I look at it, he may have signed all the gun bills in front of him, that is easy he just signs what they hand him. Now for him to not do something when he has the power that is failure on his part and the only way I have to punish him is by voting against him, See so simple. Yes this may make some upset because it is against what they want but that is why or system is so great we can voice our displeasure at the ballot box.

And that is exactly how Bill White (or similar) would become the next Governor of Texas.

Then maybe Perry should have stepped up to the plate when he was called.

You'd rather have proven anti-gun former Houston Mayor Bill White as Governor?

Chas.

But, of course, that's a false dichotomy. I've seen several posts lately saying that would should continue to support Perry because he's not anti-gun, he's not as bad as White, etc. But that's simply not true - we're not limited to choosing between Perry and White. There are plenty of other candidates we can support - particularly those whith Tea Party or Libertarian views. Perry was challenged in the primaries last time around, and I'm sure he will be again. We can rally together behind someone like Medina or Abott. Can you imagine what would happen if the TSRA endorsed someone other than Perry in a primary and was up-fornt about why? Perry might still win, but at least he'd know that he can't run on past victories forever. The same holds true for the Lt. Governor and legislative offices.

Yep

Then you are an enemy of the Second Amendment and Texas gun owners.

Chas.

Do you care to back up that personal attack? Can you explain to me why I'm an enemy? Is it because I think we can do better than Perry or because I questioned your almighty wisdom?

Sorry, I misread the post. I thought the "yup" was in response to my question as to whether suthdj would prefer Bill White to Rick Perry as Governor.
I apologize for the comment and for stirring up a lot of folks!

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

suthdj wrote:

TrueFlog wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

suthdj wrote:

GrillKing wrote:

suthdj wrote:How I look at it, he may have signed all the gun bills in front of him, that is easy he just signs what they hand him. Now for him to not do something when he has the power that is failure on his part and the only way I have to punish him is by voting against him, See so simple. Yes this may make some upset because it is against what they want but that is why or system is so great we can voice our displeasure at the ballot box.

And that is exactly how Bill White (or similar) would become the next Governor of Texas.

Then maybe Perry should have stepped up to the plate when he was called.

You'd rather have proven anti-gun former Houston Mayor Bill White as Governor?

Chas.

But, of course, that's a false dichotomy. I've seen several posts lately saying that would should continue to support Perry because he's not anti-gun, he's not as bad as White, etc. But that's simply not true - we're not limited to choosing between Perry and White. There are plenty of other candidates we can support - particularly those whith Tea Party or Libertarian views. Perry was challenged in the primaries last time around, and I'm sure he will be again. We can rally together behind someone like Medina or Abott. Can you imagine what would happen if the TSRA endorsed someone other than Perry in a primary and was up-fornt about why? Perry might still win, but at least he'd know that he can't run on past victories forever. The same holds true for the Lt. Governor and legislative offices.

Yep

Then you are an enemy of the Second Amendment and Texas gun owners.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

suthdj wrote:

GrillKing wrote:

suthdj wrote:How I look at it, he may have signed all the gun bills in front of him, that is easy he just signs what they hand him. Now for him to not do something when he has the power that is failure on his part and the only way I have to punish him is by voting against him, See so simple. Yes this may make some upset because it is against what they want but that is why or system is so great we can voice our displeasure at the ballot box.

And that is exactly how Bill White (or similar) would become the next Governor of Texas.

Then maybe Perry should have stepped up to the plate when he was called.

You'd rather have proven anti-gun former Houston Mayor Bill White as Governor?

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Thanks for responding to this call folks, it is having an impact. I can't say more now, but trust me -- I'm a lawyer.

Chas.

nightmare69 wrote:Letter sent, have a question though.

Although I agree with CHLs being able to carry everywhere in Texas how can the state force private business owners to allow CC on their property? I was always told that you have no rights on private property. Example you cannot go into walmart with a sign saying walmart sucks and claim your 1A right when told to leave.

May 28, 2013

The Honorable Richard “Rick” Perry
Governor of Texas
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428

Re: Critical NRA gun rights bills

Dear Governor Perry:

As a Texas resident, gun owner, and CHL holder I wish to thank you for your service to the state of Texas and especially for all you have done to advance the rights of gun-owners. Recently, NRA board member Charles L. Cotton posted an open letter to you regarding some of the pro-gun legislation that failed to pass during the regular session. I have reviewed a copy of his letter, and I am writing you to express my concurrence with Mr. Cotton and my support for the issues laid out in his letter. Specifically, I wish to join with in him in requesting that you call a special session to address the following three issues: comprehensive campus carry (formerly HB972), the posting of unenforceable 30.06 signs (HB508), and the reduction of places off-limits to CHL's (HB3219).

In the past, you have repeatedly voiced your opinion that Texans who hold a CHL should be permitted to carry anywhere and everywhere in the state. I strongly agree with you in this matter and am asking you to take charge and lead the way in advancing legislation toward this end. The legislature has failed to heed the call of freedom put forth by their constituents, and we now need you to speak to them for us. Say to them what you have already said publicly to the press – that CHL holders are trustworthy citizens, we have a positive impact on public safety, and we've earned the right to carry anywhere we choose. Tell them that we're tired of their stonewalling, elitism, and politics and that pro-gun bills deserve to be heard and to have an up-or-down vote on the floors of both chambers!

As you know, campus carry has been a hot topic for the past three sessions. Despite having majority support in both chambers for all three sessions, campus carry bills have been repeatedly blocked by partisan politics and parliamentary tricks. This issue deserves a true up-or-down vote because it is a matter of public safety; I truly believe I'm not exaggerating when I say it is a matter of life and death for our college students and faculty. Current law makes it a felony for a law-abiding, licensed citizen to carry a firearm for self-defense on campus grounds. This leaves our students and faculty as sitting ducks for rapists, thieves, and others who would do them grave harm. One needs to look no further than the case of Amanda Collins to see the true horror wrought by prohibiting concealed carry on campus. Adding campus carry to a special session will no doubt result in its passage and will greatly improve the rights and safety of the myriad Texas CHL holders who have for so many years safely and responsibly carried elsewhere throughout the state.

Also of concern are attempts by local governments to prohibit CHL holders from carrying in locations that are statutorily permitted by state law. Although the Texas Penal Code guarantees the right of licensees to carry in publicly-owned buildings such as libraries and park restrooms, many local governments are flaunting the law and posting 30.06 “no gun” signs anyway. While these signs are unenforceable and carry no weight of law, they represent an attempt to intimidate CHL holders and bully them into waiving their rights. It is not reasonable to expect CHL's to determine on-the-spot whether a given building is publicly-owned, and many have adopted a “better safe than sorry” approach when confronted with a 30.06 sign posted on public buildings. Even in locations that are clearly public (such as libraries), many licensees are still wary of carrying past 30.06 signs because they know that if they're caught, they'll beat the rap but may not beat the ride and thus put themselves and their families through considerable hassle and expense. During the most recent session, HB508 would have put an end to this dishonest practice by imposing a civil penalty against any public employee who posts a 30.06 sign on public buildings. This bill passed through the House, but the Senate approved the bill only after adding a killer amendment (more on that later). The House rightly refused to accept the amendment, and the bill went to a conference committee for reconciliation. There the Senate conferees insisted on expanding the offending amendment making it even more of a deal-breaker. Again, the House held to the moral high ground and rejected the amendment. Unfortunately, this meant the death of HB508. Adding this issue to the special session will ensure that it receives a fair vote unencumbered by unrelated controversial amendments.

The final issue is that of expanding the number of places where CHL holders are permitted to carry. Texas law specifies many locations to be off-limits to licensees. Ostensibly these locations are gun-free, violence-free zones, but we know that to not be true. Criminals intent on such serious crimes as robbery and rape will not think twice about violating laws against unlawful carry. Thus, the law does nothing to disarm criminals and only succeeds at disarming law-abiding citizens and leaving us defenseless. Moreover, some of the off-limits locations make no sense! For example, it's already a crime for a licensee to carry while intoxicated, so why is it necessary to prohibit him from carrying in a bar – especially if he's not drinking? Likewise, school buildings are off-limits 24/7/365 including weekends and summers; what is the benefit in prohibiting concealed carry even when no students are present? This issue is of special importance to me personally because my church meets in a school building on Sunday mornings. Even though the legislature trusts me to carry nearly everywhere else in the state, and even though school is not in session on Sunday mornings, I'm still forced to disarm. As with campus carry, this issue is one of life and death. In this last session, HB3219 would have removed almost all locations that are currently off-limits to CHL holders. It died in committee. If that had been the end of the story, I would not be too upset, recognizing that HB3219 represents a big change in policy and most such bills don't pass in their first session. However, it is what happened afterwards that leaves me incensed and insulted. The Senate addressed this issue by adding a last-minute amendment to the unrelated HB508. The Senate amendment would have removed the off-limits locations, but only for elected officials. In essence, the Senate was saying that they are more trustworthy – and their lives more important – than the citizens they purport to represent. This is a slap in the face to all CHL's throughout Texas who have shown ourselves to be reliable and trustworthy! By passing this amendment, the Senate showed that they recognize the importance and benefits of this issue. They also showed their contempt for the public at large by refusing to grant to us they same rights they granted themselves. Worst of all, the Senate fought so tenuously for their self-aggrandizing amendment, that they were willing to kill HB508 rather than letting it pass without the amendment. By adding this issue to the special session, you will be sending the message that our elected officials are not an elite ruling class, but rather they are to be our public servants.

Again, I thank you for all of your hard work on behalf of our great state. I hope that you will favorably consider all of the above and add all three issues to the agenda for the special session.

Sincerely,
[Me]
NRA Member, TSRA Member