Moderator: Charles L. Cotton
That would be accomplished by this:Jasonw560 wrote:Charles, any chance once of your bills being a concealed carry in primary and secondary schools for teachers and staff? Perhaps the parents, as well?
Charles Cotton wrote:I have at least three bills I want to file next session, but none of them are high-profile bills, although one will certainly garner opposition. (That bill would make CHL's exempt from TPC §46.03 as well as TPC §46.02.)
Politics is politics. I bet Mr. Cotton and Alice and TSRA and NRA work every day with people who are not nice people, lying sacks of fertilizer who are against us on almost everything. If you take it personal you can't work wtih people and you lose.74novaman wrote:
Nice post.If someone like you were in charge of this push, I'd have a lot less hesitation working with the cdl.
Mr. Cotton, thank you for this great reminder of all that has been accomplished in 16 years! And thank you even more for your dynamic leadership to make these great strides in restoring our right to keep and bear arms. We appreciate more than words can express what you and other leaders and activists have achieved.Charles L. Cotton wrote:
People need to look how far we've come in only 16 years. We passed concealed carry in 1995, adopted TPC §30.06 in 1997 and made other changes. 2001 saw passage of a bill preventing politically motivated law suits against gun and ammo manufacturers and sellers. In 2003 we passed SB501 that prohibits governmental entities from using TPC §30.06 to bar armed CHLs. In 2005, the first attempt at unlicensed car-carry passed, but the presumption it established was problematic. In 2007 we passed 8 of 9 pro-gun bills. We used the Rosenthal fiasco as a launching pad to pass unlicensed car-carry by changing TPC §46.02 so that having a handgun in your car, or one under your control, simply was not illegal. That way we bypass defenses to prosecution, presumptions, and having to prove your defense in court. Also in 2007, we were able to pass the most sweeping changes to self-defense law anywhere in the country in the form of our version of a "Castle Doctrine." Those who have attended my seminars know that repealing the retreat requirement pales in comparison to the other changes we made in that Bill. 2007 was also the year we passed a bill to prohibit New Orleans type firearm confiscation during emergencies -- the so-called "emergency powers bill." There many other improvements we've made since 1995 that don't make the headlines with gun owners and that's fine. For example, they include, sweeping changes to the way CHL applications are handled, changes to CHL eligibility requirements, extension of CHL license periods from 4 to 5 years (effectively a 25% fee reduction), expansion of fee discounts to more people, and many many other improvements. The fact is we have made tremendous progress, but the militant open-carry supporters don't care. If fact, they either deny that progress has been made, or they minimize its impact on gun owners. Open-carry will one day pass in spite of those folks, not because of them.
Chas.
TXlaw1 wrote:Mr. Cotton, thank you for this great reminder of all that has been accomplished in 16 years! And thank you even more for your dynamic leadership to make these great strides in restoring our right to keep and bear arms. We appreciate more than words can express what you and other leaders and activists have achieved.Charles L. Cotton wrote:
People need to look how far we've come in only 16 years. We passed concealed carry in 1995, adopted TPC §30.06 in 1997 and made other changes. 2001 saw passage of a bill preventing politically motivated law suits against gun and ammo manufacturers and sellers. In 2003 we passed SB501 that prohibits governmental entities from using TPC §30.06 to bar armed CHLs. In 2005, the first attempt at unlicensed car-carry passed, but the presumption it established was problematic. In 2007 we passed 8 of 9 pro-gun bills. We used the Rosenthal fiasco as a launching pad to pass unlicensed car-carry by changing TPC §46.02 so that having a handgun in your car, or one under your control, simply was not illegal. That way we bypass defenses to prosecution, presumptions, and having to prove your defense in court. Also in 2007, we were able to pass the most sweeping changes to self-defense law anywhere in the country in the form of our version of a "Castle Doctrine." Those who have attended my seminars know that repealing the retreat requirement pales in comparison to the other changes we made in that Bill. 2007 was also the year we passed a bill to prohibit New Orleans type firearm confiscation during emergencies -- the so-called "emergency powers bill." There many other improvements we've made since 1995 that don't make the headlines with gun owners and that's fine. For example, they include, sweeping changes to the way CHL applications are handled, changes to CHL eligibility requirements, extension of CHL license periods from 4 to 5 years (effectively a 25% fee reduction), expansion of fee discounts to more people, and many many other improvements. The fact is we have made tremendous progress, but the militant open-carry supporters don't care. If fact, they either deny that progress has been made, or they minimize its impact on gun owners. Open-carry will one day pass in spite of those folks, not because of them.
Chas.
I understand having to work with politicians you don't like. That's how you have to do things. That being said, when you're choosing people to represent you and your cause, it's usually a good idea not to put the "lying sacks of fertilizer" as you put it in charge.Bullwhip wrote:Politics is politics. I bet Mr. Cotton and Alice and TSRA and NRA work every day with people who are not nice people, lying sacks of fertilizer who are against us on almost everything. If you take it personal you can't work wtih people and you lose.74novaman wrote:
Nice post.
hirundo82 wrote:That would be accomplished by this:Jasonw560 wrote:Charles, any chance once of your bills being a concealed carry in primary and secondary schools for teachers and staff? Perhaps the parents, as well?
Charles Cotton wrote:I have at least three bills I want to file next session, but none of them are high-profile bills, although one will certainly garner opposition. (That bill would make CHL's exempt from TPC §46.03 as well as TPC §46.02.)
para driver wrote: Sorry, but you KNOW that open carry will reignite the sign posting efforts, and restir the pot. Are we not better off to leave well enough alone? Personally, I'm happy to get the workplace and college campus bills passed..
Well said. I was a peace officer for 25 years. The only time we could open carry was when in uniform. Otherwise it was concealed carry only. What is the need for citizens to open carry when they can have the advantage of concealed carry if confronted with a perp who wants to do them harm? Is there really research that shows that open carry deters crime? If so, I'd like to be pointed to it.What is the need for free speech? People say some pretty shocking things, should we regulate that as well?TXlaw1 wrote:
Free speech is regulated to some extent and in some circumstances. If you're not aware of that you should be.steveincowtown wrote: What is the need for free speech? People say some pretty shocking things, should we regulate that as well?
Also if the challenge is to show statistical evidence that open carry deters crime, I would put the same challenge to you about concealed carry.
I think rights outweigh feelings, and that I can prove. IMHO, this bill stinks; but let's not lose sight of our rights.
No offense, but if you had read this complete thread or my post above I think you would know this is not even close to what I think.texasjeep44 wrote:If you don't already open carry a long gun, why don't you? I will go ahead and answer that for you. You don't want the attention you would draw when going to the local store, movie theater, restaurant or whereever. You don't want the results of what would happen after the man with gun call when into the local PD.
If you simply want your rights to be able to openly carry a handgun restored, well, it has been well over 100 years since Texans have had that right. Doing it this particular legislative session isn't going to make a big deal in the scope of things. Thinking that a law on the books that will allow for open carry will magically make things right is very narrow minded. As many have pointed out, it may very well result in limiting everyones right to carry a handgun whether or openly or concealed.
