Calendars Committee fails Open Carry

[Cowboy_Rick]

As being presented on its own merit it will fail as of Midnight tonight-but all is not over, it can become a "GERMAINE AMENDMENT" to a Bill that is considered "SIMILAR" in nature much as the Campus Carry did which means that the Life has been extended till MAY 30, I can accept that!
REMEMBER-It ain't over-til its OVER!!!!

 

[MR Redenck]

Sorry, I just don't see it. The anti-OC folks should be focusing on lobbying to remove 30.06 altogether.

Would be nice, but you gotta respect the wishes of private property owners. Cramming your right to carry down private property owners throat's wont get you anywhere.

 

[MR Redenck]

Dude, I live in Georgia and have only been to Texas twice, even I know that by this statement you are either extremely misinformed or are flat out lying.

I still don't understand why you people in Texas are so gung ho for 30.06 when you are in the vast minority to criminalize ignoring a sign. Anyone can be asked to leave for any reason and if they don't, they go to jail. What is wrong with that?

He know's all that and reads it everyday on their forum.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I don't doubt that the bill was written well, but there's something about TX politics that people haven't been able to decipher yet, and that is that there are three lobbying organizations that have total sway and persuasion over gun oriented legislature and those three are the NRA, the TSRA, and the law enforcement unions/chiefs of police. The legislature will follow the will of law enforcement first, then the TSRA, then the NRA. Since none of these organizations feel that open carry is necessary, it will always be held up, altered beyond it's scope to deny OC, or flat out die where needed. This is why I have been saying for two years now that the only way OC is going to be recognized as a fundamental right is through the federal courts, IF they decide to make a decision on OC.

 

[MR Redenck]

I don't doubt that the bill was written well, but there's something about TX politics that people haven't been able to decipher yet, and that is that there are three lobbying organizations that have total sway and persuasion over gun oriented legislature and those three are the NRA, the TSRA, and the law enforcement unions/chiefs of police. The legislature will follow the will of law enforcement first, then the TSRA, then the NRA. Since none of these organizations feel that open carry is necessary, it will always be held up, altered beyond it's scope to deny OC, or flat out die where needed. This is why I have been saying for two years now that the only way OC is going to be recognized as a fundamental right is through the federal courts, IF they decide to make a decision on OC.

Im already aware of the Federal court issue. Been studying that for a while. And yes, it's actually easier than you might think.

 

[77zach]

The influence of LEOs, happily, is overestimated unless the law maker was a former LEO. The screaming of LEOs actually ended up helping OC in Fl. It was neoconservatism and the retailers that killed it here. I don't know how OC is going to happen in the red states. Or how long it is going to take. But I'd bet the farm that the courts will never rule in favor of OC. EVER.

 

[Cowboy_Rick]

Found out, today that the Bill will NOT be taken at its own merit as of Midnight tonight, but can be made a "GERMAINE" amendment to another "SIMILAR" Bill and then the "LIFE" of the bill would be extended till 30 MAY, which is now, REP. Lavendars intent! So it don't look all that great but the "GAME" ain't over , yet!
Much the same way that the other bill got through as an amendment.

 

[Notso]

I don't doubt that the bill was written well, but there's something about TX politics that people haven't been able to decipher yet, and that is that there are three lobbying organizations that have total sway and persuasion over gun oriented legislature and those three are the NRA, the TSRA, and the law enforcement unions/chiefs of police. The legislature will follow the will of law enforcement first, then the TSRA, then the NRA. Since none of these organizations feel that open carry is necessary, it will always be held up, altered beyond it's scope to deny OC, or flat out die where needed. This is why I have been saying for two years now that the only way OC is going to be recognized as a fundamental right is through the federal courts, IF they decide to make a decision on OC.

Totally agree as I've been saying the same thing. The only way for OC in Texas is through the courts. SAF should be contacted to see if they're interested in pushing something and if so, then let them come up with the game plan. If successful then it could be the framework for pushing in the other non-OC states.

 

[SA-TX]

Partial correction, but also a few quotes

Dude, I live in Georgia and have only been to Texas twice, even I know that by this statement you are either extremely misinformed or are flat out lying.
...

That's a strong claim since I've been a member of both organizations for several years. To be as fair as possible, I'll modify my statement. He didn't say "SUPPORT" but he stated why he would not oppose OC. The claim of support comes from the NRA, with Charles as a board member, supporting an OC bill in FL. I'll provide a few quotes for your review. Here's what he said:

by Charles L. Cotton » Tue May 11, 2010 7:59 am. The thread is titled "OK passes open carry & TSRA planning for '11 session". If I could provide a URL, I would. Search for it at www.texaschlforum.com.

"Contrary to what many have said about me, I do not oppose open-carry; I do have one and only one concern, and that's the expansion of businesses posting 30.06 signs. The fact that I do not support OC does not mean I would oppose it. In fact, I absolutely would not oppose it, unless a horrendous bill like the one proposed last session is offered again. My opposition would be based upon the dangerous construction of the bill, not the concept of OC. I openly offered suggestions for simplifying and improving the bill, but the author had every right to ignore them as he did."

He said essentially the same thing here:
Thread title: TSRA Support of Texas Open Carry
by Charles L. Cotton » Sun Jun 06, 2010 2:21 pm

"I've said it many times before, but here it is again:

1. I don't oppose OC, but I have the concern I've expressed many times; OC is likely to lead to many businesses being posted off-limits to any carrying of a handgun;

2. TSRA does not oppose OC;

3. TSRA will not support OC until and unless our membership wants us to do so;

4. TSRA (and I) will oppose any bill that hurts concealed carry, or any other right of gun owners, so an OC bill needs to be drafted by someone who knows what they are doing."

Here's another:

Thread title: "TX rep to author OC"
by Charles L. Cotton » Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:24 pm

"Plus, I stand ready to promote OC in the future, if and when our Members want it done."

As far as I can tell, he has been very consistent: he won't sponsor a bill until he believes that the TSRA membership wants it done BUT he also won't oppose one that someone else drafts unless there is something in the bill that, in his opinion, would harm CHL holders in general. Charles Cotton, IMHO, isn't the enemy and isn't why the OC bill will die this session, if it does. The 30.06 issue is very important and the soon we OC supporters find a solution to that problem the better.

I'll say it again: everyone here should know that I want OC this session and I do not share Charles' (and other's) fear of numerous new 30.06 posting. That is a policy disagreement among generally like-minded folks. To say that he or TSRA has opposed the bill simply isn't accurate. I've provided my citations. If you have some to the contrary, please post them.

SA-TX

 

[KBCraig]

That's a strong claim since I've been a member of both organizations for several years. To be as fair as possible, I'll modify my statement. He didn't say "SUPPORT" but he stated why he would not oppose OC.

SA-TX, just because it's too seldom said, I'd like to thank you for your diplomacy. I know you support OC, and I realize that you are frustrated with both factions over the in-fighting. You are a gentleman, and you seem to be unique in your ability to coëxist in both groups without angering anyone. Thank you.

The claim of support comes from the NRA, with Charles as a board member, supporting an OC bill in FL.

That's probably not a good example, given what happened to the FL OC bill once the NRA got involved. Besides, Cotton is just one of 76 board members who elect a president and then don't have much direct control of the organization's daily efforts. The executive director and ILA have much more influence on legislative efforts.

I'll provide a few quotes for your review. Here's what he said:

I appreciate the quotes, but I take his statements with a grain of salt. He's been a lawyer for long enough that his writing and statements flow quite naturally, seeming to say one thing while plausibly denying that he ever said what the reader infers.

For instance, he made "support by our members" a moving goalpost: he said TSRA members didn't support OC, and when asked how he knew that, he said that he wouldn't "waste funds" polling members unless they "overwhelmingly" (his term) made it known that they supported OC. Yes, it's circular logic.

I'll say it again: everyone here should know that I want OC this session and I do not share Charles' (and other's) fear of numerous new 30.06 posting. That is a policy disagreement among generally like-minded folks. To say that he or TSRA has opposed the bill simply isn't accurate. I've provided my citations. If you have some to the contrary, please post them.

SA-TX

Once again, I thank you for being Ambassador of the Schism. I know others who are just as ethical and passionate in their beliefs as you are, but who either blow up (and get banned), or shut up and wander off biting their tongues. You have a great skill at balancing the two.

I don't know that it "isn't accurate" that Cotton or TSRA actively opposed OC efforts, but it's certainly unproven. The claims of denial are just as unproven as the claims of interference, and since there will never be a paper trail of insider influence, the accusations might as well just stop.

I don't consider Cotton an ally in the fight for either constitutional carry, or legal OC (licensed or not). I don't automatically consider him an enemy, either. He's more like the fishing partner who cares more about the big bass, than the team total: as long as he gets his, he's happy.

 

[jsimmons]

The only Documented proof that I am aware of is rushcreek2's rants, but I've only been a Life Member since 1988.

It's no wonder you're reluctant to hear anything bad about the NRA. You spent a pot-load of money to become a lifetime member.

 

[nking]

Campus Carry?

Yes

 

[Aknazer]

That's a strong claim since I've been a member of both organizations for several years. To be as fair as possible, I'll modify my statement. He didn't say "SUPPORT" but he stated why he would not oppose OC. The claim of support comes from the NRA, with Charles as a board member, supporting an OC bill in FL. I'll provide a few quotes for your review. Here's what he said:

by Charles L. Cotton » Tue May 11, 2010 7:59 am. The thread is titled "OK passes open carry & TSRA planning for '11 session". If I could provide a URL, I would. Search for it at www.texaschlforum.com.

"Contrary to what many have said about me, I do not oppose open-carry; I do have one and only one concern, and that's the expansion of businesses posting 30.06 signs. The fact that I do not support OC does not mean I would oppose it. In fact, I absolutely would not oppose it, unless a horrendous bill like the one proposed last session is offered again. My opposition would be based upon the dangerous construction of the bill, not the concept of OC. I openly offered suggestions for simplifying and improving the bill, but the author had every right to ignore them as he did."

He said essentially the same thing here:
Thread title: TSRA Support of Texas Open Carry
by Charles L. Cotton » Sun Jun 06, 2010 2:21 pm

"I've said it many times before, but here it is again:

1. I don't oppose OC, but I have the concern I've expressed many times; OC is likely to lead to many businesses being posted off-limits to any carrying of a handgun;

2. TSRA does not oppose OC;

3. TSRA will not support OC until and unless our membership wants us to do so;

4. TSRA (and I) will oppose any bill that hurts concealed carry, or any other right of gun owners, so an OC bill needs to be drafted by someone who knows what they are doing."

Here's another:

Thread title: "TX rep to author OC"
by Charles L. Cotton » Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:24 pm

"Plus, I stand ready to promote OC in the future, if and when our Members want it done."

As far as I can tell, he has been very consistent: he won't sponsor a bill until he believes that the TSRA membership wants it done BUT he also won't oppose one that someone else drafts unless there is something in the bill that, in his opinion, would harm CHL holders in general. Charles Cotton, IMHO, isn't the enemy and isn't why the OC bill will die this session, if it does. The 30.06 issue is very important and the soon we OC supporters find a solution to that problem the better.

I'll say it again: everyone here should know that I want OC this session and I do not share Charles' (and other's) fear of numerous new 30.06 posting. That is a policy disagreement among generally like-minded folks. To say that he or TSRA has opposed the bill simply isn't accurate. I've provided my citations. If you have some to the contrary, please post them.

SA-TX

And yet he does nothing to outline what is "horrendous" with the bill other than it gives OC the same protections as CC via 30.06. In him not wanting OC to have the same protections as CC and wanting OC to be subject to ANY "no-gun" sign it shows that he doesn't really support OC and that he wants CC to basically be a "special class" in regards to gun rights and for CC to be treated better than OC. Basically he says just enough for plausible deniability while his actions show that he doesn't really support OC (by wanting OC to be inferior to CC). Your #4 bullet shows that really well. It is basically saying that the "right" person has to make this magical bill that 100% can't have any potential issues for CC which means that CC needs to be treated differently than OC; but yet simply having the 2A in the news brings attention to both OC and CC which can lead to more 30.06 signs regardless of the outcome. Not to mention that if OCers were to simply cover up as they walked into the store that the store would likely end up posting 30.06 signs as well.

There's also the whole circular logic thing of stating that members don't want OC but refusing to poll the members and banning people who try to push for OC. Of course your members aren't going to support OC when you refuse to find out what they truely want and you start banning those that actively show they support OC without your approval. The general attitude I got when I went there and browsed a few threads regarding the OC issue was also that most members there (cotton included) view CC as superior to OC and that those that want to OC are wannabe gunslingers looking to throw their weapon around as false bravado. There really was quite a lot of contempt for OC and that those that CC are just sooooo much more level headed and that they don't need to strut their gun around (because, you know, a hidden gun does a great job at detering a criminal before he commits the crime).

From what I've seen, the actions of the NRA don't support open carry, regardless of words they might say. And actions (or inaction) speak louder than words.

 

[Harleyman007]

Todd Hunter

I just got off the phone with Todd Hunter and he asked me to have Mr. Lavender to contact him early next week and he would help him find a vehicle (another Bill) to amend to get this bill passed this session. He is a fan of open carry and of George Lavender. I sent Mr. Lavender a message to let him know of the conversation I had and will update you as soon as I hear back from them. I also found out the fastest way to get a response is communicating with them on facebook. It's not over yet, don't give up.

 

[KBCraig]

The general attitude I got when I went there and browsed a few threads regarding the OC issue was also that most members there (cotton included) view CC as superior to OC and that those that want to OC are wannabe gunslingers looking to throw their weapon around as false bravado. There really was quite a lot of contempt for OC and that those that CC are just sooooo much more level headed and that they don't need to strut their gun around (because, you know, a hidden gun does a great job at detering a criminal before he commits the crime).

I think those with that attitude there are actually a small minority, but they tend to be powerful. When a new member wanders in and is excited about OC, the initial responses tend to be very supportive, until one of the moderators or Old Guard posts a negative comment. At that point those seen as "in charge" have set a new tone, and there's very little commentary contrary to the official position.

Anyone who's been on that forum for a year or more has seen people get banned for getting out of line, so they just shut up, bite their tongues, and the anti-OC sentiment prevails.

 

[SA-TX]

Much appreciated

SA-TX, just because it's too seldom said, I'd like to thank you for your diplomacy. I know you support OC, and I realize that you are frustrated with both factions over the in-fighting. You are a gentleman, and you seem to be unique in your ability to coëxist in both groups without angering anyone. Thank you.

Thank you sir. I just call 'em as I see 'em.

That's probably not a good example, given what happened to the FL OC bill once the NRA got involved. Besides, Cotton is just one of 76 board members who elect a president and then don't have much direct control of the organization's daily efforts. The executive director and ILA have much more influence on legislative efforts.

Agreed. The point is that a fair reading of Charles's posts, in my opinion, demonstrate that he isn't opposed to OC. He is afraid that 30.06 signs will be posted which harm all CHL holders. Again, I disagree with this conclusion -- and there are many who share his view -- because I think that very little OCing will take place and that which does will most likely not be in places where people will be offended and cause heartburn for a business owner.

I appreciate the quotes, but I take his statements with a grain of salt. He's been a lawyer for long enough that his writing and statements flow quite naturally, seeming to say one thing while plausibly denying that he ever said what the reader infers.

For instance, he made "support by our members" a moving goalpost: he said TSRA members didn't support OC, and when asked how he knew that, he said that he wouldn't "waste funds" polling members unless they "overwhelmingly" (his term) made it known that they supported OC. Yes, it's circular logic.

Generally true. You'll recall that I asked that members be polled. When the answer was that it would be expensive and an on-line poll couldn't be relied upon, I disagreed. I don't specialize in that area of technology, but as an IT industry professional, I found that justification lacking. Tying a vote to a person's TSRA membership number ought to ensure that there isn't ballot box stuffing.

To be fair, later he did begin the first of a series of polls about OC. Later some members did likewise with language more to their liking. I don't recall the exact language but it wasn't neutral. It was something like "Would you support OC if you were sure a SUBSTANTIAL number of new 30.06 signs would be posted?"

Regardless, I can assure you that OC is no longer seen by TSRA as a non-issue. It is getting attention and will likely continue to do so.

Once again, I thank you for being Ambassador of the Schism. I know others who are just as ethical and passionate in their beliefs as you are, but who either blow up (and get banned), or shut up and wander off biting their tongues. You have a great skill at balancing the two.

I don't know that it "isn't accurate" that Cotton or TSRA actively opposed OC efforts, but it's certainly unproven. The claims of denial are just as unproven as the claims of interference, and since there will never be a paper trail of insider influence, the accusations might as well just stop.

I don't consider Cotton an ally in the fight for either constitutional carry, or legal OC (licensed or not). I don't automatically consider him an enemy, either. He's more like the fishing partner who cares more about the big bass, than the team total: as long as he gets his, he's happy.

I'd actually say the reverse: I suspect Charles, like all folks in a leadership position, has to put his personal preferences aside and do what he believes is the will of the organization. Applying your analogy, he drives the boat to the spots where the majority of the fisherman want to go knowing that those spots won't be the favorite of some passengers and perhaps not for himself either.

SA-TX

 

[SA-TX]

Take what we can get

And yet he does nothing to outline what is "horrendous" with the bill other than it gives OC the same protections as CC via 30.06.

IIRC, he had two principal concerns about how the bill was structured: a) it amended 30.06 which, for him, is a deal breaker and b) the search-and-replace approach of removing the word "concealed" everywhere it appears opens up all of those sections of the code to potentially unfriendly amendments.

I'm not an attorney or an expert on legislative tactics but my understanding is that you want to leave opponents as few avenues of attack as possible. When you are amending a code section, it is now germane for others to legislate on that topic in your bill. Done wrong, a bad amendment passing over your objection leaves you in the position of accepting a step backward in some area to accomplish your overall objective or you have to pull down your own bill. Sen. Zaffarini was in this position when campus carry was attached to her legislation as an amendment.

In him not wanting OC to have the same protections as CC and wanting OC to be subject to ANY "no-gun" sign it shows that he doesn't really support OC and that he wants CC to basically be a "special class" in regards to gun rights and for CC to be treated better than OC. Basically he says just enough for plausible deniability while his actions show that he doesn't really support OC (by wanting OC to be inferior to CC). Your #4 bullet shows that really well. It is basically saying that the "right" person has to make this magical bill that 100% can't have any potential issues for CC which means that CC needs to be treated differently than OC; but yet simply having the 2A in the news brings attention to both OC and CC which can lead to more 30.06 signs regardless of the outcome. Not to mention that if OCers were to simply cover up as they walked into the store that the store would likely end up posting 30.06 signs as well.

I modified my previous claim that he SUPPORTED OC (although I believe that his personal opinion is that he does). I think his public statements and actions have been neutral: no support or lobbying for nor against it.

As much as I wish Charles and TSRA would be more bold with a supermajority of pro-2A legislators, this just doesn't seem to be the nature of political strategists. They are used to having to fight hard for every small improvement. They have to save their political capital. They have to be careful what they say and how they say it. You and I, we don't understand the "game" and are impatient. It is what it is. Ultimately, in politics you have to play both offense and defense that's what I think is happening. They are focusing all of their energy on passing campus carry and parking lot carry to the exclusion of other opportunities. Anything that could, in their opinion, damage the chances of those passing or disturb favorable existing law gets opposed defensively.

There's also the whole circular logic thing of stating that members don't want OC but refusing to poll the members and banning people who try to push for OC. Of course your members aren't going to support OC when you refuse to find out what they truely want and you start banning those that actively show they support OC without your approval. The general attitude I got when I went there and browsed a few threads regarding the OC issue was also that most members there (cotton included) view CC as superior to OC and that those that want to OC are wannabe gunslingers looking to throw their weapon around as false bravado. There really was quite a lot of contempt for OC and that those that CC are just sooooo much more level headed and that they don't need to strut their gun around (because, you know, a hidden gun does a great job at detering a criminal before he commits the crime).

I address the polling in my other post to KBCraig. I've certainly seen the "CC is better" mentality expressed but by members more than Charles. There are definitely some who look at their CHL and smile knowing that they are among the blessed. It is a point of pride. Yes, some do think that others are not worthy. That isn't really about OC; that's about being special. If CC-without-a-license were up for a vote, these folks would oppose that as well.

Is Charles an OC advocate? Would he personally open carry if it were legal. No and probably not, but I think he'd prefer for it to be legal rather than illegal assuming it can be done without harm to CC. Understand that CC is the "bird in the hand" that he has worked for nearly 30 years to achieve. He, and many others, are not willing to risk much possible downside for the "2 in the bush" that is OC. Even as an OC supporter, I can't fault this logic because I freely admit that most CHLers will not OC if it were legalized tomorrow. Thus if there really is a risk of harm to the ability to CC, it makes sense to proceed cautiously.

From what I've seen, the actions of the NRA don't support open carry, regardless of words they might say. And actions (or inaction) speak louder than words.

This forum has taken OC from "nowhere" to "almost there". There is plenty of credit to go around for that. To make it across the finish line I believe that partnership with our brothers in arm at TCHLForum and TSRA is the approach most likely to be successful. They certainly have a good track record. We can be disappointed that OC isn't higher on the agenda but I don't see how anyone can reasonably say that they don't know how to get pro-gun legislation passed into law. It has been happening every session since 1995, admittedly at a much slower pace than many of us would prefer.

SA-TX

 

[ixtow]

I agree with everything you say except the fact that nra had nothing at all to do with Heller, Zip, Zero, Nada. That was 100% Second Amendment Foundation. The nra wouldn't touch it until they saw it was probably going to be a winner. Now, the nra talks like Heller was their baby. They won't say it because they know that it is too easy to prove otherwise, but they talk like it was all nra. After Heller, the nra decided to get brave and challenge Chicago. McDonald was also SAF. The nra had a seperate suit that didn't make it to the SCOTUS calender. They then horned in on McDonald to be able to say they, at least, had a part in it. Now, hear the nra tell it, McDonald was all nra as well.

It's good to have the enemy wasting ammo and focusing their efforts on a decoy...

This is the only positive thing I have to say about the NRA.

 

[MR Redenck]

And yet he does nothing to outline what is "horrendous" with the bill other than it gives OC the same protections as CC via 30.06. In him not wanting OC to have the same protections as CC and wanting OC to be subject to ANY "no-gun" sign it shows that he doesn't really support OC and that he wants CC to basically be a "special class" in regards to gun rights and for CC to be treated better than OC. Basically he says just enough for plausible deniability while his actions show that he doesn't really support OC (by wanting OC to be inferior to CC). Your #4 bullet shows that really well. It is basically saying that the "right" person has to make this magical bill that 100% can't have any potential issues for CC which means that CC needs to be treated differently than OC; but yet simply having the 2A in the news brings attention to both OC and CC which can lead to more 30.06 signs regardless of the outcome. Not to mention that if OCers were to simply cover up as they walked into the store that the store would likely end up posting 30.06 signs as well.

There's also the whole circular logic thing of stating that members don't want OC but refusing to poll the members and banning people who try to push for OC. Of course your members aren't going to support OC when you refuse to find out what they truely want and you start banning those that actively show they support OC without your approval. The general attitude I got when I went there and browsed a few threads regarding the OC issue was also that most members there (cotton included) view CC as superior to OC and that those that want to OC are wannabe gunslingers looking to throw their weapon around as false bravado. There really was quite a lot of contempt for OC and that those that CC are just sooooo much more level headed and that they don't need to strut their gun around (because, you know, a hidden gun does a great job at detering a criminal before he commits the crime).

From what I've seen, the actions of the NRA don't support open carry, regardless of words they might say. And actions (or inaction) speak louder than words.

You nailed it all buddy!
Im aware of Oklahomas issues too. I have a copy of that letter the NRA state affiliate sent your House of Representatives. Made me sick!@

 

[Jack House]

The whole argument he puts forward about the 30.06 stuff, is just downright silly. Only those with a CHL would be allowed to OC. They would still be subject to all the laws and regulations that CHL holders are. Which means that if someone is stupid enough to walk into a building that is improperly posted, they can still be asked to leave, and they would have to comply. Failing to do so, or sticking around to argue the legalities of the sign, would result in a trespassing charge and loss of license. The only difference is that the owner/employee of a building can not just call the cops and expect the OCer to arrested on sight without first asking him to leave.