TexasCHLforum.com

I spoke with Calendars Committee Chairman Todd Hunter yesterday. He said he will make sure the bill gets through his committee when it gets to him. He recommends it gets there as soon as possible so it doesn't get lost like it did last session when it cleared committee late in the session and calendars could not deal with it.

I did not talk to him about 30:06 because that issue should be resolved in the Homeland Security and Public Safety committee.

jmra wrote:

BPNovum wrote:I am not sure how changing the wording of the sign from concealed to concealed or not concealed creates any more or less locations where a CHL holder can or cannot carry.

Very simple. Right now business owners have no clue that a CC person is armed in their store. So most of them don't go looking for what they need to do legally to keep them out. Out of sight out of mind.
Now if the same business owner (who knows nothing about guns) sees people start walking into his store with guns on their hip and other customers complain he is going to find out what he needs to do to stop it. If stopping OC requires a 30.06 sign, then the store that I had no problem OCing in before is now off limits.
If this Bill in its final form alters 30.06 (ties OC to 30.06) many members of this forum and the CHL community will do everything we can to defeat it.

Valid point, but I don't know that this scenario has played out in other open carry states. But I understand what you are saying.

As for dual point of resistance, I agree that should be more specific and using an industry standard like "Level 2" would be better. What has Lavender said about that? When I talked to his staff they specifically used the term Level 2. I didn't bring it up when I spoke with him directly.

I am not sure how changing the wording of the sign from concealed to concealed or not concealed creates any more or less locations where a CHL holder can or cannot carry. Personally, I wish we were going much further to "Constitutional Carry" like in Arizona and some other states. But incrementalism is working well for us on this. Each session our rights have been slightly restored compared to the previous session.

I don't personally oppose the level 2 holster restriction if that helps get law enforcement on board with open carry. We can always come back and change it again next session. The Democrats have been stealing our rights gradually over decades. It will take a while, and many incremental steps to get us back where we should be.

Hopefully we can work with Lavender and Paddie to improve the bill, but I have to believe, they have a pretty good understanding of what they can get passed and not passed. If Fletcher is chairman of homeland security we will have to work on him to get his support. Lavender thinks he can get him on board and that Todd Hunter is on board in calendars. The devil is in the details, but let's don't demand "all or nothing". We might just end up with nothing.

Why does the fact that I haven't posted in many years make the posting confusing? Silly point.

To answer your question, I did not speak to the NRA on behalf of Rep. Lavender or anyone else. I saw the press release and was writing a story about the press release. I asked Jacqueline for a statement on this. Her response is quoted above. It was a generic statement of support of people being able to exercise their right to defend themselves and did not deal with the merit of specific details of the bill.

Now we have two posts from me in one day. Does that make it less confusing?

Ok... before anyone starts accusing me of deliberately misquoting someone, how about we gets some facts straight. If you have a direct question about what was said to me by the NRA let me know and I will address it.

This is the quote from Jacqueline Otto:
NRA spokeswoman Jacqueline Otto told me today, "The NRA will always support law-abiding citizens' ability to defend themselves and their loved ones."

Bob Price
TexasGOPVote.com