TexasCHLforum.com

KLB wrote: Indeed. Quite a few years ago, my brother, who had a CHL, was stopped for a traffic offense. Because he wasn't carrying, he didn't think he needed to inform the officer about his CHL. The officer became quite agitated when he discovered the CHL for himself. Luckily, all the officer did was give my brother a piece of his mind.

Perhaps ironically, my brother himself is now an LEO.

Your brother did nothing wrong.

The officer was wrong and out of line. We are only obligated to present our CHL/LTC when we are carrying. We do so to inform the officer that we may be carrying.

Jusme wrote:

Ruark wrote:I'd still like to know who killed 560. Who. Name, please. Not "somebody who talked to somebody..." Who. SOMEBODY's hands are bloody here. Whose?

I don''t think there is any one person who can be singled out for the death of HB560. I think, and I have no proof, that it was simply "allowed" to die, by silent consent.

It died in committee (Homeland Security?). It was never put up for discussion. What is frustrating, is that there was no explanation nor discussion on why it met its demise.

treadlightly wrote:I emailed TSRA about this, and got a nice reply. HB560 is old legislation that has never gotten any support.

My wild guess is that legislators must look at HB560 as going too far, and CC is just eliminating government prejudice against the unlicensed.

My wild guess. TSRA didn't say that, I'm just trying to figure out the reasoning.

Edited to add: I am going to sign up for TSRA. I may not agree with them on this point of strategy and timing, but I think overall they do a lot of good.

I had asked her about HB560 on Twitter. She ignored me. While posting about the wonderful reduction bill. Its one thing to brag about successes, but I don't understand the silence of the failures. It's one thing for a bill to get beat in a fair fight, but this one went down without a wimper. no discussion no nothing. The TSRA seems to be covering up for some RINOs that killed the bill. We don't know who to blame cause, nobodys talking. We have had the worst session in 15 years (or is it 20), All I can see is we get some permission for some folks to shoot ferral hogs from balloons. Oh and reductions for some people to get a reduction in fees. But TSRA seems to be bragging about all the wonderful things it has accomplished. I understand that some sessions are better than others and that we don't always get everything we want. What I don't understand is the who what and why of things? It's as though we are trying to protect a few backstabbing Reps. How come we didn't have a similar bill in the Senate as a backup? Why all the silence? can we out some legeslators? How many of these backstabbers a 'A' or better rtated?
Who killed this thing?
Why did it fail?
What happened?

We really don't know! 560 was silently and pretty anonymously killed. Was killed by the homeland security committee. The rest of the lege didn't get a chance to take a stand. The problem with the process is that the state reps have almost complete plausible deniability. They can claim one position behave contrary to it and then claim it was beyond their control. A Texas State Reps decisions and actions are often more about positioning and politicking than it is about real issues. This is why gun bills, if they get to the open floor, always get approved by large margins but have such a difficult time actually getting put to an open vote.

mojo84 wrote:

Liberty wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Liberty wrote:I look at the priorities of the TSRA as a sort of chess game. They may be looking ahead. I think the strategy might be to make the LTC as attractive as possible before pushing for the Constitutional carry. Maybe the TSRA believes that the licensed people are safer more responsible and more likely to be supporting the NRA/TSRA . Getting the pieces together such as reciprocity, free licensing, and authority to carry more places, makes the LTC more desirable.

If what you say is true, why did they feature unlicensed carry? I'm ok with the free license. But they also featured unlicensed carry instead of reducing restricted locations.

I think they are apeasing to their membership, but maybe their heart when push comes to shove, is to put 560 before all others. 560 is a bit complex and a little hard to explain in a news letter..

I still think we have a good chance to get the whole enchilada

Hope you didn't have your heart set on that enchilada.

I did, and am very disappointed. Seems to me the unlicensed open carry zealots are getting what they want at the expense of those of us who have gone through the process. These last couple of sessions have been a lot more productive for them than the rest of us.

Ruark wrote:So what about 1911/375? Are they dead, too?

Nope, it will be heard in committee on Tuesday.

I watch Alice Tripp's Twitter feed, She has shown much enthusiasm for reduced or free LTC fees and CC via HB1911, but I don't believe I have seen a reference at all to HB 560, I think that HB1911 sucked all the life out of HB560. If it isn't an Alice Tripp priority, it isn't gonna be a committee priority. My guess is that some kind of flaw popped up. I wish we would get an explanation. Something going on that we aren't privy too.

Russell wrote: 560 needs to be priority, it actually makes a difference in a person's safety. Unlicensed carry does not, you always have the option of getting your license.

I agree with the importance of HB560, but not everyone has the option of getting a license not everyone will have a license when they recognize they need the ability to protect themselves. Some people visit from states not reccognized. Others become ineligible due to back taxes or child support issues or other issues. Others may find themselves in immediate need to carry protection with them they deserve the right to protect themselves during the time that an LTC is processed.

The question isn't if letting the unlicensed carry will save lives, but do we care about them enough to let them protect themselves

TreyHouston wrote:

Liberty wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

Liberty wrote:I look at the priorities of the TSRA as a sort of chess game. They may be looking ahead. I think the strategy might be to make the LTC as attractive as possible before pushing for the Constitutional carry. Maybe the TSRA believes that the licensed people are safer more responsible and more likely to be supporting the NRA/TSRA . Getting the pieces together such as reciprocity, free licensing, and authority to carry more places, makes the LTC more desirable.

If what you say is true, why did they feature unlicensed carry? I'm ok with the free license. But they also featured unlicensed carry instead of reducing restricted locations.

I think they are apeasing to their membership, but maybe their heart when push comes to shove, is to put 560 before all others. 560 is a bit complex and a little hard to explain in a news letter..

I still think we have a good chance to get the whole enchilada

Charles said "constitutional carry will not pass". Time is not right" perhaps they are lettung the public know they support it and get the opposition to put ther money to block that one and NOT focus on HB560.... kinda like a watch the left and and not my right hand thing!

I sure won't attempt to speak for Charles, but I think there has been a lot more national pressure and acceptance since the whole idea was floated a few months ago. Although Concealed carry is probably still a longshot, I think its chances have improved maybe more so than what Charles predicted. Personally, Constitutional carry does nothing for me, but HB560 is a big deal.

mojo84 wrote:

Liberty wrote:I look at the priorities of the TSRA as a sort of chess game. They may be looking ahead. I think the strategy might be to make the LTC as attractive as possible before pushing for the Constitutional carry. Maybe the TSRA believes that the licensed people are safer more responsible and more likely to be supporting the NRA/TSRA . Getting the pieces together such as reciprocity, free licensing, and authority to carry more places, makes the LTC more desirable.

If what you say is true, why did they feature unlicensed carry? I'm ok with the free license. But they also featured unlicensed carry instead of reducing restricted locations.

I think they are apeasing to their membership, but maybe their heart when push comes to shove, is to put 560 before all others. 560 is a bit complex and a little hard to explain in a news letter..

I still think we have a good chance to get the whole enchilada

I look at the priorities of the TSRA as a sort of chess game. They may be looking ahead. I think the strategy might be to make the LTC as attractive as possible before pushing for the Constitutional carry. Maybe the TSRA believes that the licensed people are safer more responsible and more likely to be supporting the NRA/TSRA . Getting the pieces together such as reciprocity, free licensing, and authority to carry more places, makes the LTC more desirable.

Reciprocity isn't to big a deal for us Texans. I don't admit to knowing all the rules in all the states, but it's not too hard to play it safe. I don't carry into bars or restaurants that serve alcohol. I know that it's perfectly legal to carry concealed in my car anywhere that recognizes my Texas CHL. That I can carry in the National parks as I hike and walk. I obey all the No Guns signs when I see them if I am not sure of the validity.

If I am going to stay in a particular state for a while it isn't too hard to look up the state and check out the idiosyncracies, but its not that hard to pack and stay out of trouble if you uses a little common sense.

Yes it is Illegal, No HB560 Will not make it legal. HB560 if passed would be a state law which do not over ride federal regulations

doncb wrote:

troglodyte wrote: Try this.
https://www.texasfirearmscoalition.com/ ... since-2007

Thank you. That did help.

Unfortunately, I still won't be able to carry into the various hospitals that my job takes me to during the day. Bummer.

I believe this will allow us to carry into Government owned hospitals. Many hospitals that are part of the government university systems such as UTMB are allowed to post and enforce 30.06 signs. Even though they are part of the state university system, they claim exemption through §46.035(b)(4), which is slated for deletion. I am not quite sure how it will effect places like MD Anderson in Houston which claims to be a part of the UTMB system. Private hospital systems like those in the Methodist system will still be allowed to post but this is a start.

Breaking up the victim zones in places like the Houston Medical Center needs to be done, That whole area has turned into one huge crime zone because they know that all their victims are rendered harmless and defenseless my the medical community.

XDFan43 wrote:I am totally confused as to what the passing of this bill would allow or disallow. What effect would this bill, if passed, have on the current validity of 30.06 and 30.07 signs on restaurants, apartment complexes, and other businesses?

You aren't the only one who is confused. There is a lot in this bill and its contents are subject to change. Charles will be providing a link soon to a podcast and his straight talking explanations of complex legalese are legendary.