TexasCHLforum.com

Jasonw560 wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:

77346 wrote:That's good, Mr. Cotton. I look forward to reading an updated bill at some point... I don't think I would OC if this passes, but my concern has always been how this may negatively impact CC. If the answer is 'no negative impact' then great!

Would be nice to see both campus carry & open carry (after fixing current version) passing in this session... then next session remove restrictions on voting places, sporting events, racetracks, courthouses, etc.

I don't think we would see courtrooms go away, but I agree with courthouses and most court offices going away. There are usually other type offices in courthouses.

One annex right down the road from me has the sherriff, constable, a judge, courtroom, and the tax assessor all in one convenient package.

So, anyone with a CHL who has to get their car registration renewed or has to pay a speeding ticket for their kid or spouse, has to disarm because it has a court room.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Rep. Lavender has said HB700 will have a committee substitute and I have no reason to doubt it. The current TPC §30.06 issue can be resolved, so there's no reason to write off the bill at this point.

Chas.

Charles, you need to put on your striped shirt and get your referee whistle and yellow flag out.

Anygunanywhere

Okay, I have my referee shirt on.

A lot of people are very concerned about HB700's amendment of TPC §30.06 and his staff are obviously aware of this widespread concern. I cannot imagine Rep. Lavender would have posted on his website, and commented in public speaking events, that he understood the importance of not amending TPC §30.06, only to turn around and intentionally ask legislative counsel to draft a bill that gutted this critical protection enjoyed by CHL's since 1997. I do not know him personally, but I believe him to be a straight forward pro-gun guy. It is far more likely that he told legislative counsel to draft something that set up a different sign for open-carry. I base this comment on the statement by one of his staff that claimed a constitutional problem may exist with requiring different signs for open and concealed carry. (One of our Forum Members posted this conversation; I didn't talk to anyone in his office.)

Leg. counsel often don't draft precisely what was asked and sometimes it's because their instructions weren't clear. At other times they put their own preferences into a bill even thought they aren't supposed to do that. Most of the bills I've written have been sent to legislative counsel to get their "stamp" and you can bet something will be changed, even if it must formatting. Sometimes those are major changes that have to be corrected with a committee substitute. Based upon other statements from Rep. Lavender's office, I believe this to be precisely what happened with HB700.

Rep. Lavender's staff have heard your concerns and we'll have to wait for the committee hearing to see if a substitute is offered and if it fixes the TPC §30.06 problem. Until then I suggest we give him and his staff some breathing room. If a committee substitute isn't filed, or if one is filed that doesn't satisfactorily address the TPC §30.06 issue, then it will be time to protect the gains we've made over the last 20 years. Remember also that problems can be fixed in the Senate.

Anyone who has been around the Forum since 2011 knows that amending TPC §30.06 is a deal-breaker with me and that has not changed. I just think we need to give Rep. Lavender the time to amend HB700, knowing that the TPC §30.06 problem may not be of his making. If it was intentional, we'll know soon enough.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

johnferg69 wrote:I know everyone is fighting for no changes to 30.06.But IF the NRA is helping to write and backs this bill but 30.06 gets rewritten is the TSRA going to fight against the NRA?

The NRA absolutely did not write the bill and we did not approve any amendment of TPC §30.06. This bill will not pass if there is any change to TPC§30.06. I was given a copy very shortly before it was filed and had nothing to do with writing it.

Chas.

cyphur wrote:

MasterOfNone wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:

MasterOfNone wrote:Since they used the phrase "dual points of resistance" and not "dual points of retention," one could argue that a kydex holster with recesses that resist at the trigger guard and at the ejection port provide "dual points of resistance."

Oh wow...check out the link to the article in this thread for more info about "dual points of resistance"

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=62202" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Has there been a rash of folks taking OC'ers guns in other states? I know of one incident in VA, but that is about it.

The article says Level 2, but the letter of the bill doesn't say that. Is there an established precedent that "dual points of resistance" means Level 2?

In my quick read through the bill I could not see a reason they could force Level 2 holsters.

A holster that resists(provides tension) at the muzzle and at the trigger guard - like the quality boned leather holsters I have - should meet a dual point requirement.

Of course, IANAL, nor have I played one on TV.

joelamosobadiah wrote:On Rep. Lavender's Facebook page I expressed my concerns with the bill. He again stated that the bill doesn't affect 30.06. I'm starting to think that he didn't write much of the bill at all and is going off the word of lawyers. That or his staffers are responding to people and don't understand the ramifications of the bill.

Wes wrote:I admit I am ignorant of the process bills undergo but am I under the correct assumption that introducing the bill is really just to start the conversation? As in, anything in it could (and should) change before it gets any further so some of these potential pitfalls could be ironed out? I know some probably get shot down immediately and have to start from scratch while others go right through, but do others get debating and refined? a bill like this with lots of interest but not being perfect seems like it would fall in to that category and if some of these could be fixed it would be nice to see it pass.

Redneck_Buddha wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:This bill is confusing. Think about the questions we get on this forum from people that have completed the course and still don't understand. Would your neighbors understand this if they read the pamphlet and went through a 4 hour corse. I read the bill and am not sure exactly what it means in some things. If it does succeed we will see a lot more 30.06 signs.

Then we will see a lot more establishments not getting our business.