FYI.

Senate Chambers, State Affairs Committee, 10:00 am

An opportunity to get our voice heard.  From what I understand, Sen Hughes is fairly pro-2A, and the tone of the announcement is pretty positive.  This being Austin, I'm sure some antigun group or other is going to be there, but we have a chance to show that VA isn't the only state who's citizens can show up to lobby.

I'm going to make every effort to get off work and be there.

Thank you for posting this.
Paging @TX-Zen

Link to announcement?

Shit.  my bad.

Edited OP.

Thanks.

+1 OP thanks, and thanks Belin for the @

@Bigger_Hammer
@Jeepinjoe17
@nictra
@nmxdavenn
@lilMAC25
@mojo

If the @list gets too big or annoying let's start an email notification system. If you guys are cool with TXCDL or TX-CDL I can set up the domain and get individual accounts setup

If we need a different domain name let's figure it out in the meetup and I can get moving on it pretty quick

I think TXCDL is fine. We can do something else, but since there's already a "CDL" for VA and AZ that I know of, it would be positive to show a united front in the future. But we can discuss at the meeting.

Getting set up and having a presence for this in Austin is a pretty doable short term goal.

Thanks for the heads up. I may be able to swing it. If not, I can help out with gas/lunch money for those who can make it.

@Blitzcraig173

ETA: Beat!

I've never been to one of these, however I have taken leave for that day and will be going to this.

Add me to this mailing list thingy, please and thank you.

Yeah eventually an email notification system would be awesome

The coals of freedom are lit and the wind is blowing!

Same with me. My schedule is crazy but if I can show up great, but there are other ways I can help as well.

Me either.  I've written emails and letters, but that's been about it.  Time to work on my speaking skills.

If we can coordinate some message that we want to drive home, or even some specific policy that we want enacted/preserved, that'd help.  It's always good to bring a concrete, deliverable idea that the representatives can achieve (or be held responsible for failing to achieve).

The holding responsible part need to be heavily emphasized in my opinion

I’ll look into taking that day off.

No one else has that day off and I’m already off call, so I’ll put in for it.

Agreed.  But if I read the tone of the announcement right, we may have an opportunity to push some pro-gun policy instead of just playing defense.  We need to consider what that policy might be.

Also, since the announcement specifically mentions the impacts of open carry, campus carry, and licensing fees, it'd be good to have statements about the benefits of those laws (mostly that they've been no big deal, I suppose).

Anybody work on a college campus?

Yep, we need to start pushing for our own rights.  It's past time to flip the script.

Licensing fees are racist and disproportionately affect the poor communities that are often rampant with crime.

Poll tax argument as well.

I’d really love to see constitutional carry take a hold in Texas

Agreed.  Financial burden should be the last thing that prevents a law-abiding person from exercising their right to self-defense.  It's good that the fee was dropped.  But why have a fee in the first place?

I don't know if now is the time to push for constitutional carry, though something akin to AZ's system, with a permit available for reciprocity purposes but not required in-state, would be nice.

Are there any currently-prohibited places we want to expand carry to? Reduce the 51% felony to a simple trespassing charge, only applicable if the carrier refuses to leave?

Anyone have connections with other Concealed Carry groups or TSRA (or is TSRA worth a shit)?

That one. The 51% penalty is absurd.

For what it's worth, Texas GOP has Constitutional carry as their top issue. As you said, with licensing optional for reciprocity purposes. Why not?

Agreed about 51%. Moving towards no gun free zones sounds good. We got church and campus carry. Why not malls and movie theaters next?

I'm iffy on private businesses, it should be their prerogative. I on the fence for them eating liability for any injuries due to prohibited carry as well. It's a tight rope to walk.

Agreed in principle, but that's going to rub a lot of property rights folks the wrong way.  IDK what the good solution there is.

Property rights are just as important as second amendment rights and negating one in favor will reduce support. Voting with dollars seems to me, at least, to be the only logical way to address that particular issue.

You're right. For some reason I was thinking they were included in the law like sporting events and hospitals.

Tagged

I'm interested in this one, I missed the Virginia 2A Rally because of work

What's the word on ex SEAL Floyd McLendon? He just sent me a dollar bill to get my attention

R for 32nd congressional district

Looks good to me. His stance on 2A from his website:

"As a former Navy SEAL, I understand firsthand the importance of firearm ownership. Good guys with guns keep bad guys with guns in check. While Democrats, who refer to an AR-15 as an “assault rifle”, continue to play politics with the 2nd Amendment, I will always stand firm on this foundational freedom. The 2nd Amendment is clear: shall not be infringed. I will always fight to ensure our right to keep and bear arms is protected."

His letter was extremely pro trump, god fearing and pro 2a

I can get behind that

Thanks

I am so in!

Texas NEEDS this;
https://static.timesofisrael.com/www/uploads/2020/01/AP_20020486066257.jpg
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/226828/2320540B-E679-4EA5-B688-28ED897302A9-1244384.jpg
https://twitter.com/DC_Draino/status/1219383710564388864/photo/1
https://preview.redd.it/rvbxnoq07zb41.jpg?width=640&height=480&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=323072a0c015cb6aafd52f2c27a7b4bc8af20700

The VA rally was so thoroughly excellent; I want us to repeat it --even as a pale imitation-- in as many places as we can.  It was Woodstock with guns instead of acid, and yesterday's Flower Children are today's holy-roller scolds in the government.

And Austin especially needs this
https://preview.redd.it/3x35hrngc8c41.jpg?width=640&height=769&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=ebb629d7a7d0ba2b77209a9fd80280dd15208d4e
https://i.redd.it/843ydm1kp5c41.jpg

What we don't need is only a dozen people to show up, like the last time I drove all the way to Austin for a gun rally

I'm pretty sure I can make it on February 26th at 10am.

Exactly. Let’s hope we never NEED to have that. With that being said, it was big in large part because of what VCDL did. And we can do those same things here.

VCDL was along for the ride & steering, but they weren't stomping the accelerator.  It's crazy, that Sanctuary stuff just spontaneously blossomed all over, and all those new activists were what really drove the Lobby Day turnout.

Pardon my ignorance, but what sort of audience will we have?  Is it just one senator, or do we get to speak with many legislators?

I would consider going if it's a worthwhile event.  I'm a license to carry instructor in DFW who has plenty of public speaking experience and unlike many instructors, I fully support constitutional carry.

There ain't enough gun owners in Texas to pick up all the trash in Austin.  But bring a few bags, and we'll get what we can in the Capitol area.

No idea.  From the announcement posted in the OP, it's a public hearing held by the State Affairs Committee of the Senate.  IDK how many committee members usually attend, or staffers, or what.

But having people there to speak, to listen, and just to fill seats is never a bad thing.

@TX-Zen. I’m 87% sure I’m in. I have the day off and I’m working to confirm with the wife that it’s for this purpose (it been a crazy week with 2 night shifts for me and she’s  currently OOT ).

We need to discuss rally point, attire, and possible signage.

ETA: I’m in. Wife unit may accompany me.

I'm going in a button-down and good jeans, and a IWB holster.   I'm not going to show up in battle rattle unless battle is a definite possibility.  
I wear a duty belt and armor every day.  Fuck that shit on a day off.  

I think lower-key re: signage might the best option FOR NOW, if only because I don't feel sense of hostility toward gun owners from this committee.  If that changes, so will my opinion.

I'm all for getting engaged BUT ya'll need to understand what we're up against. CORRUPTION AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS. lYING. CHEATING. More than you know.
https://www.click2houston.com/news/texas/2020/01/31/stepping-into-gop-primaries-dennis-bonnen-donates-to-seven-texas-house-incumbents/

MY State rep just got $15,000 from Bonnens PAC. Tell me Bonnen won't be calling the shots behind the scenes. As the old saying goes "Money talks and Bullshit walks". This is a rigged rigged rigged game we're playing in. REMEMBER what Bonnen did by putting Pancho Nevarez in as the chairman of the Public Safety Committee. Pancho shit canned Constitutional Carry by putting the bill in limbo per Bonnens request and it NEVER GOT A HEARING in committee. Later that same session Pancho Nevarez was busted by the Texas DPS FOR cocaine possession.https://www.texastribune.org/2019/11/14/texas-democrat-poncho-nevarez-caught-dropping-envelope-containing-coca/

Now I'm not an experienced LE Investigator but shit. Put the dots together. Nevarez is from the BORDER. Constitutional Carry isn't good for the Cartels. Nevarez gets cash from Bonnen. Nevarez has Coke in AUSTIN. He got CAUGHT only once. Imagine what shenanigans went on on the days he DIDN'T drop his coke on the tarmac.

If I were to EVER have any influence here I'd suggest that this issue be brought up and used to STINK UP the whole damn place as corrupt. If my Rep from good ol' salt of the earth East Tx. is taking money from a guy KNOWN to associate with KNOWN coke users/dealers/shenanigan players then we're in a world of hurt. I suspect that Panch was on a coke fuele dpower trip and has dirty info on a LOT of people. He was an "insider" and a lawyer. Bonnen is as dirty as they come and has such an inflated ego that even though he isn't running for office again he feels like he's EARNED the right to be the shot caller in the Austin swamp.

Now that Bonnen's ass is out of there (thanks entirely to his own scheming sleaziness) I can maybe believe them when they say it really is a priority.

Honestly, reinforcing support for the CC effort should be central; I'm a believer in honey vs. vinegar, so I think it's more important to show these reps that gun rights are a winning issue, than to threaten them with ouster (or imply something much worse to people who are ostensibly our allies)

But those other policy areas are excellent opportunities for any "what else do ya'll want?" moments.  A state wide RKBA sanctuary status really needs to be a thing, but I think it requires a lot more distributed local planning & execution as was seen in VA before it should be brought up.

Other lower priority issues could be;

-Legislative affirmation of exactly what the congress & AG's office hold the RKBA to mean.  A symbolic mainstream declaration of support & justication for RKBA, denouncement of potential future gun laws, and possibly even denouncement of existing specific federal gun laws, ideally written in part by respected legal figures (I assume active judges are out, but possibly former judges).  The purpose would be to have a handy 'guide' that could be referred to in the future for state court cases.  I think it'd be harder to convince a judge that today's law is lawful, when even a few years earlier there was a bill passed that not only declared it was not within the congress' authority to pass new gun laws, but also provided legal arguments to support that position.

-A state law making it illegal for any chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) to retain or catalog the required ATF notice paperwork/personal data/gun data submitted to them as part of the tax stamp application process.  This should be an easy one, since practically no CLEO's do this anyway, and only vindictive jackbooted dickheads would ever have any need for that information in the first place (no offense meant to any vindictive ATF jackbooted dickheads who may be reading)

-Greater legal protection for existing gun ranges accused of losing rounds over berms or having lead pollution.  Ideally we could have some sort of statewide regulatory pre-emption that puts gun ranges at the mercy of a single published set of standards, rather than the often arbitrary or outright crooked whims of local city/county councils or managers.  There's practically a cottage industry of shakedowns for ranges that dare to endure near expanding suburbs, often involving clearly fraudulent or unsupportable allegations.  The general public gets their assurances that there are rules keeping gun ranges safe, gun ranges are able to see and get in front of any potential issues with their facilities, and it becomes much harder for land developers to conspire with local governments to squeeze them out of business with ridiculous berm/etc requirements.  Yes, the statewide regs could be maliciously abused if anti-gun officials are allowed to take root, but the local regs often already are & won't be reined in otherwise.

I agree on the liability, but I think that's gonna have to be kicked off by a judicial ruling, not a law.  Business lobbies simply have too much pull to allow the Texas legislature to saddle them with even that level of liability.  Once a court rules that businesses are responsible for patrons' privacy if they require them to be disarmed & helpless, then you can lobby for the particulars; criminal & civil immunity for the actions of anyone carrying in violation of the owner's signage same as police officers (incidental property damage or minor injury caused in the course of defending themselves), civil suit standing for anyone who suffered damages after disarming specifically to enter the establishment, etc.  Stuff that makes it *really* expensive to maintain a no guns policy in an area where violence frequently warrants shooting in self defense (would result in practically all ghetto areas being liberated).

But carry does not inherently attack property rights the way disarmament without additional protective measures does the right to defend our lives.  I hate phrase it like the frequent hyperbole of anti-gunners, but rights do have limits --but only when they clash with each other.  That's the primary purpose of the Supreme Court, to resolve these sorts of contradictions with a solution that impacts individual rights the least.

Now, if you can make the case that carry in and of itself negatively impacts a person's ownership of property to a worse extent than the severity:risk quotient of disarming visitors, then yes, public weapons can be justly banned from the premises.  Open carry bans would be upheld since visible guns can influence stupid people in bad ways & bump into stuff, but concealed carry bans would be indefensible outside of rooms with MRI machines or ambient temperatures of 320F.  Everyone gets what they want, except the people who simply want to restrict carry for tyrannical reasons.

And Bonnen was busted for conspiring against his "fellow" Republican house members, which is why he's retiring.  Best bet would be to spread the news of your reps' complicity in Bonnen's plans far & wide, while encouraging the rep to return the money as a show of solidarity with his party & constituents.  Same tactics used against people that Soros or Bloomberg or Steyer buy off.  Media would LOVE to be able to portary a Texas Republican as corrupt, even if he's being bought off by one of their 'moderate' pets --work that angle to apply pressure.  Get people to keep a close watch on him & investigate his activities, since this probably isn't the first time he's been bought off; there may be an opportunity to have him removed as a criminal.

If you can't get that rep removed by ballot or court, make him useless by turning him into a pariah within the party.  Work to get donations to anyone willing to publicly denounce the rep & insist he be stripped of all possible assignments or responsibilities as a 'tainted' figure.  If he's only good for a single house vote, he's practically worthless to his paymasters and they'll drop his ass like a bad habit.

@nictra

Roger that, I do believe I will be in as well

I think it's an understatement to say that he's fairly pro 2A. He got something like eight pro 2A bills through in the last legislative session. I have run into him at a fund raiser and at a charity event and I have had occasion to briefly talk about 2A issues with him. He seems to pretty sincerely believe in it. Angela Paxton as well.

Now, I doubt either one of them is going to advocate for recreation nukes, but it's a start.

You hit the nail on the head. Despite all the dire prophecies, open carry has not resulted in blood in the streets, nor has campus carry. I went back to school fairly late in life (law school in my 30s, and I've recently taken some classes at a local community college as well), and I have carried every day without incident. No one has any indication that I carry, because normally functioning adults are discreet.

With respect to open carry, outside of gun functions (like going to the range or hunting), I've only ever seen one person open carrying who wasn't a cop. It was at the barber shop (I have two adopted kids, my son is African American, and I take him to get his hair cut at a traditional black-owned barber shop) and he was an African American gentleman who was very outspoken and passionate about gun ownership, safety, and training. Hardly the stereotype of a "typical" open-carrier that we were warned about.

With respect to licensing fees, poor people are far more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than are the rest of us. The market has provided inexpensive firearm options for them, but the licensing fees are an impediment to their being armed. In short, the people who need guns the most face a disproportionate burden to carrying guns. The Fifth Circuit has recently ruled that requiring a license to vote (even one that is provided at a reduced cost to indigent people) is an unconstitutional impediment to one's constitutional right to vote. I find it impossible to reconcile that notion with a licensing scheme that restricts the exercise of another constitutional right.

There are advantages to carry licenses. The main one is that the folks who carry are a segmented group that is more law-abiding on average than even the police. I'm sure most of you are familiar with this statistic already, but in case you're not, The State of Texas tracks crimes committed by LTC holders and has found that our rate of committing crime is absurdly far below the average, and even the police have a higher rate of criminality (that's not a dig at law enforcement, rather it's an illustration of just how seriously most LTC holders are about following the law). So, there is an advantage in being able to say that, despite what the anti-gunners want to claim, we are not the bad guys. If we were to have constitutional carry, surely those statistics would change by virtue of the fact that some bad guys would carry guns as well (as they presently do), yet we wouldn't be able to rely upon a categorical divide that separates us from them. So, there is a downside.

However, I'm a firm believer that constitutional rights aren't subject to a cost-benefit analysis. Matters of principle are not adhered to because of the utility they provide nor because they make us feel good. In fact, sticking to one's principles often has negative consequences, but we stick to them anyway because it's worth it. On that basis, I have a hard time seeing how we could possibly rationalize not having constitutional carry. Moreover, numerous other states have constitutional carry and it has resulted in meaningful change in the rate of shootings. Per the usual, drug turf wars and suicides account for the overwhelming majority of shootings in those states as well.

As a strategic matter --and at the risk of pissing everyone off-- I think the biggest impediment to constitutional carry is the approach taken by constitutional carry advocates.

Agreed. The desired effect can be accomplished by simply keeping in place the law that makes it illegal to carry a handgun while intoxicated. I sometimes go to bars for social occasions, even though I don't drink. Why should I as a sober person be forced to leave my gun in my car?

Josh, you've got your head screwed on straight. I agree with you on all points you've made in this thread. There is all the difference in the world between a government entity refusing to allow me to carry and a business owner doing the same.