HB 357 - Constitutional Carry

Bobk said:

It doesn't matter if there is only one or a hundred. It goes back to a money making revenue for the state.

How much money would the state lose if they did away with licensing and went to Constitutional Carry?

Click to expand...

You're pretty myopic - there's several other reasons for an LTC, which is why I'd never let mine lapse and fight any effort to do away with it - chief among them bypassing the NICS checks during purchase, plus carry reciprocity while traveling. I'd happily welcome CC - but leave LTC in place. And at $40 per license, the state ain't got much of a honey hole....

TexasRedneck said:

You're pretty myopic - there's several other reasons for an LTC, which is why I'd never let mine lapse and fight any effort to do away with it - chief among them bypassing the NICS checks during purchase, plus carry reciprocity while traveling. I'd happily welcome CC - but leave LTC in place. And at $40 per license, the state ain't got much of a honey hole....

Click to expand...

TexasRedneck glad you hopped in!

You make some valid statements but missing the main point of paying for a right.

So what is TSRA's position Constitutional Carry?

Do you know how much the state actually makes on LTC?
Does TSRA know?
What does the state do with the funds that are collected?

Just curious, I am lifetime member of the NRA and TSRA and enjoy a good conversation.

Now that you are at TSRA does your below statement and feelings remain the same, "I'm a member of TSRA......and IMO, both Tripp and Cotton have a pretty good rice bowl going. I'll take nothing from their lobbying/political skills, but they having spoken w/them, I find them arrogant and elitist. Neither wants to have anything to do with open carry, because folks from OpenCarry.org were "rude" and "confrontational" to them. So, because of that, they claim "no one in the membership has approached them to put this cause forward." Really? I know I have - and I've heard from others who have as well. So there's obviously more to the story than they'll discuss.... "
https://www.texasguntalk.com/threads/alice-tripp-talk-booooo.20947/

Bobk said:

TexasRedneck glad you hopped in!

You make some valid statements but missing the main point of paying for a right.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, I do NOT miss the point. Problem being, the legislative body we have to deal with is, in large, afraid of CC. I'm not defending their position - I'm simply stating a (sad) fact. We had them close a few years ago, but some lobbying efforts by other groups dropped a grenade into a carefully crafted agreement, and we (ANY pro-gun group) were pretty much persona-non-grata for a good while. We're still working to recover from that - it's unfortunately not an easy process.

Bobk said:

So what is TSRA's position Constitutional Carry?

Click to expand...

TSRA has actually supported CC for several sessions - honestly, this last session was the most publicly visible we've been on it. A number of us both within the organization and on the board felt it was time to "put it out there" in a much more public fashion. That effort will continue on into the next legislative session, but we need the support of members of both chambers to make it happen. We've got bills ready to go, we just need the folks willing to pick up the torch for us, which we are working on.

Bobk said:

Do you know how much the state actually makes on LTC?
Does TSRA know?
What does the state do with the funds that are collected?

Click to expand...

I honestly don't recall the numbers, but with the reduction from the previous $140 to $40, it's essentially revenue neutral. I do know that both myself and my daughter in law testified in favor of those reductions - her testimony was particularly poignant as a VERY petite mother of two with a single-earner family that was the target of a car-jacking attempt a few years prior. A number of other organizations were there in support of the reduction, as well. IIRC, the excess fees from the old licenses went to the General Fund, but I could be mis-remembering. I CAN tell you that the current fee structure is very close to their actual costs.

Bobk said:

Now that you are at TSRA does your below statement and feelings remain the same, "I'm a member of TSRA......and IMO, both Tripp and Cotton have a pretty good rice bowl going. I'll take nothing from their lobbying/political skills, but they having spoken w/them, I find them arrogant and elitist. Neither wants to have anything to do with open carry, because folks from OpenCarry.org were "rude" and "confrontational" to them. So, because of that, they claim "no one in the membership has approached them to put this cause forward." Really? I know I have - and I've heard from others who have as well. So there's obviously more to the story than they'll discuss.... "

Click to expand...

Allow me some discretion here for now, but suffice it to say (with regards to Mr. Cotton) he did NOT receive a vote from me for the NRA board. I don't foresee anything that would be able to change my position on that.

Alice IS a mixed bag, IMO - she's fought tooth and nail for 2nd Amendment rights here in Texas, and has given valuable insight on both the process AND the players involved for a number of years. Am I a fan? No - wouldn't begin to say that. I have seen too many examples of where she should (IMO) have been more supportive of some things. But I can also think of any number of persons that would have done a FAR worse job. There are times, however, when it's time to bring in new blood and some new ideas/direction. I think that will become evident in the coming weeks.

I greatly appreciate your open questions, as I feel they're asked sincerely. I'm at the point in my life that I don't know how much longer I have - God doesn't tell us those things. But I'm finally at the point in my life that I CAN speak my mind without being worried about an employer getting upset. Being self-employed, it might cost me a customer - but I'll gladly sacrifice that in the interest of the preservation AND expansion of our rights.

Let me close with just one reminder to ALL that work for the 2nd Amendment here in Texas. Fighting amongst ourselves serves NO one but those that would fan the flames to further divide us from our common goal. When we speak, we need to remember that the actions of one group might not "fit" the desires of some folks. Rather than fan that discontent, let's encourage them to acknowledge that the END GOAL is what's critically important, and that we should stand shoulder to shoulder against our common enemy - those that would deny us our right to keep and bear arms.

TexasRedneck said:

Let me close with just one reminder to ALL that work for the 2nd Amendment here in Texas. Fighting amongst ourselves serves NO one but those that would fan the flames to further divide us from our common goal. When we speak, we need to remember that the actions of one group might not "fit" the desires of some folks. Rather than fan that discontent, let's encourage them to acknowledge that the END GOAL is what's critically important, and that we should stand shoulder to shoulder against our common enemy - those that would deny us our right to keep and bear arms.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the honesty in your responses. I do agree that we all need to be united against our common foe. The fight isn't going to get any easier. They're going to want bans, registrations, and eventually confiscations.

God Bless you TexasRedneck!

Bobk

TexasRedneck said:

Alice IS a mixed bag, IMO - she's fought tooth and nail for 2nd Amendment rights here in Texas, and has given valuable insight on both the process AND the players involved for a number of years. Am I a fan? No - wouldn't begin to say that. I have seen too many examples of where she should (IMO) have been more supportive of some things. But I can also think of any number of persons that would have done a FAR worse job. There are times, however, when it's time to bring in new blood and some new ideas/direction. I think that will become evident in the coming weeks.

Let me close with just one reminder to ALL that work for the 2nd Amendment here in Texas. Fighting amongst ourselves serves NO one but those that would fan the flames to further divide us from our common goal. When we speak, we need to remember that the actions of one group might not "fit" the desires of some folks. Rather than fan that discontent, let's encourage them to acknowledge that the END GOAL is what's critically important, and that we should stand shoulder to shoulder against our common enemy - those that would deny us our right to keep and bear arms.

Click to expand...

As a life member of both, I pretty much agree with everything you said. I think that is why you have internal members in the NRA looking for a change. Hopefully they will get it. Just as you have responsibility to run South Central TX as a torch bearer for the 2A, members should constantly be asking if their ideas and needs are being met and donate to organizations that are doing the things the members want done. Being a past President of a very vocal group, I understand that is not an easy thing to do and it comes with a cost usually.

As early as this week, I had an email conversation with Alice and found it disappointing. I posted her response in another thread and maybe TSRA will have a booth at the NRA Expo in FtW so I can speak further about it. New Blood and a more focused clear directions is definitely needed in both groups as we face a renewed assault on both our 2A and 1A rights as the left basically promotes lawlessness.

Keep up the good work.

One thing everyone is missing about Constitutional Carry. It allows everyone to carry without a license. That would be nice BUT how does a peace officer figure out who is eligible IE: not a felon? Under a protective order etc. Run a background check? BEEP wrong answer, takes too long.

At least a LTC verifies that a background check has been done and with greater than 99% accuracy the person is eligible.

Simple solution, you have to have a current background check card on your person. MeThinks that's back to square one with no idea if the person even knows which end of a gun the bullet comes out of.

avvidclif said:

One thing everyone is missing about Constitutional Carry. It allows everyone to carry without a license. That would be nice BUT how does a peace officer figure out who is eligible IE: not a felon? Under a protective order etc. Run a background check? BEEP wrong answer, takes too long.

At least a LTC verifies that a background check has been done and with greater than 99% accuracy the person is eligible.

Simple solution, you have to have a current background check card on your person. MeThinks that's back to square one with no idea if the person even knows which end of a gun the bullet comes out of.

Click to expand...

For this to be an issue, wouldn't the officer have to have probable cause to assume the person is possibly a felon? LEO's can't pull over cars at random just to check for valid DL's, why should they be able to randomly check those OC'ing?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

seeker_two said:

For this to be an issue, wouldn't the officer have to have probable cause to assume the person is possibly a felon? LEO's can't pull over cars at random just to check for valid DL's, why should they be able to randomly check those OC'ing?

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Never seen or heard of a DL or DUI Checkpoint have you. Peace officers have a higher than average contact ratio with felons just FYI. I don't know how the states with CC do it, do you? Might be interesting to find out. In an ideal snowflake world everyone carrying would be a pillar of the community and a paragon of virtue.

What would an LEO do when encountering somebody without an LTC carrying a rifle or carrying a handgun under the MPA?

Whatever that is, do that.

avvidclif said:

Never seen or heard of a DL or DUI Checkpoint have you. Peace officers have a higher than average contact ratio with felons just FYI. I don't know how the states with CC do it, do you? Might be interesting to find out. In an ideal snowflake world everyone carrying would be a pillar of the community and a paragon of virtue.

Click to expand...

DL and DUI DWI checkpoints are illegal here in Texas, have been for quite a while. A peace officer has to have probable cause to stop someone.

It is my understanding that if a peace officer wants to know if someone is a felon all they have to do is run their license.

In an ideal snowflake world no one would be allowed to own a firearm.

Bobk said:

How much money would the state lose if they did away with licensing and went to Constitutional Carry?

Click to expand...

Just for easy math, we'll only assume the direct money the state takes in ($40) and that it renews every 4 years. So thats $10 per year. One of the "facts" in my LTC is there were over 800,000 CHL holders as of 2017. We'll also assume that number only increased to 900,000. Thats $9,000,000 per year. I have a hard time believing even with wasteful spending the necessary budget for LTC processing by DPS is anywhere near $9mil for the entire state.

OutlawStar said:

Just for easy math, we'll only assume the direct money the state takes in ($40) and that it renews every 4 years. So thats $10 per year. One of the "facts" in my LTC is there were over 800,000 CHL holders as of 2017. We'll also assume that number only increased to 900,000. Thats $9,000,000 per year. I have a hard time believing even with wasteful spending the necessary budget for LTC processing by DPS is anywhere near $9mil for the entire state.

Click to expand...

For a fully loaded cost, to include the free/no-fee LTCs, $10/yr seems about right, especially considering the DL is $25 and can be spread across a larger population and an extra year for renewals, and without the background check.

avvidclif said:

One thing everyone is missing about Constitutional Carry. It allows everyone to carry without a license. That would be nice BUT how does a peace officer figure out who is eligible IE: not a felon? Under a protective order etc. Run a background check? BEEP wrong answer, takes too long.

At least a LTC verifies that a background check has been done and with greater than 99% accuracy the person is eligible.

Simple solution, you have to have a current background check card on your person. MeThinks that's back to square one with no idea if the person even knows which end of a gun the bullet comes out of.

Click to expand...

Has that been an issue in other states that have CC? Might as well say there will be blood in the streets if we pass a license to carry.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

roadrunner said:

DL and DUI DWI checkpoints are illegal here in Texas, have been for quite a while. A peace officer has to have probable cause to stop someone.

It is my understanding that if a peace officer wants to know if someone is a felon all they have to do is run their license.

In an ideal snowflake world no one would be allowed to own a firearm.

Click to expand...

Learn something every day, since '94 to be exact. Been out of the loop to long and glad of it.

avvidclif said:

One thing everyone is missing about Constitutional Carry. It allows everyone to carry without a license. That would be nice BUT how does a peace officer figure out who is eligible IE: not a felon? Under a protective order etc. Run a background check? BEEP wrong answer, takes too long.

Click to expand...

The simple act of CC should not constitute probable cause for a check. If the gun in incidental to the encounter, there should be nothing more than a request to keep it holstered and untouched during the meeting. The fact that they are breathing should be their "eligibility".

TexasRedneck said:

...The fact that they are breathing should be their "eligibility".

Click to expand...

But it isn’t. Every constitutional carry law I’ve read is specifically not applicable to prohibited persons at a minimum.

Going back to the original question, how does LE deal with a non-licensed person with a firearm on or near their person today? The answer is it depends.

And that’s probably as good as answer as will be found because every agency is going to handle it differently.

OutlawStar said:

Just for easy math, we'll only assume the direct money the state takes in ($40) and that it renews every 4 years. So thats $10 per year. One of the "facts" in my LTC is there were over 800,000 CHL holders as of 2017. We'll also assume that number only increased to 900,000. Thats $9,000,000 per year. I have a hard time believing even with wasteful spending the necessary budget for LTC processing by DPS is anywhere near $9mil for the entire state.

Click to expand...

The feds charge $25 to process the prints. So the actual net to the state is $15.

I have reviewed the state budget. It costs more to run the program than it takes in

avvidclif said:

One thing everyone is missing about Constitutional Carry. It allows everyone to carry without a license. That would be nice BUT how does a peace officer figure out who is eligible IE: not a felon? Under a protective order etc. Run a background check? BEEP wrong answer, takes too long.

Click to expand...

It doesn't take that long, really. Cops try to ID everyone they come in contact with anyway, and run that information through dispatch while continuing contact with the subject. If there is a protective order against the subject, you'll get that right away. If something seems fishy, you can ask for prior criminal history too.

Obviously, this only for the people you come in contact with for a law enforcement related purpose. I don't stop every person I see carrying a firearm to check for a license, just like I don't stop every vehicle checking to see if the driver has a DL.

Vermont has always been a Constitutional Carry State. I’m sure their police officers have developed some good techniques to deal with prohibited people carrying, during their 240 plus years of Constitutional Carry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

avvidclif said:

One thing everyone is missing about Constitutional Carry. It allows everyone to carry without a license. That would be nice BUT how does a peace officer figure out who is eligible IE: not a felon? Under a protective order etc. Run a background check? BEEP wrong answer, takes too long.

At least a LTC verifies that a background check has been done and with greater than 99% accuracy the person is eligible.

Simple solution, you have to have a current background check card on your person. MeThinks that's back to square one with no idea if the person even knows which end of a gun the bullet comes out of.

Click to expand...

What you're not aware of or missing is the fact that CC will have/has had in other places very little effect on the number of who carry. Criminals dont obey laws and CC wont make that group carry more or less than they already do.
People who carry with a permit are committed to doing so and will continue to. People without a permit but otherwise leould be legal to carry wont all of the sudden start to carry and result in making the total of people who carry explode in numbers. This is because daily carry is a commitment in equipment clothing and planning around carry. If it's too much of a hassle to get a permit holster ammo belt, and importantly, proper clothing picked with the task in mind they arent going to all of the sudden do that just because of CC.

As for the police, it's not my concern for how people exorcising their rights and follow the laws effect them or how they go about doing their job. Your rights are your rights and not contingent of the opinions of others. That said they will figure it out and do the same thing as now with interview questions and techniques as well as training and tactics to minimize risks. It will make no difference to them irregardless of what political appointees, chiefs, bitch about.