HB 357 - Constitutional Carry

[dogbone]

...
Now if Texas does go with “constitutional” carry laws. I will still maintain my LTC!

Why? Because i travel around the country all the time, and need my ltc to be legal in other states that recognize texas.

What i want to see passed is national reciprocity for our LTC. No different then our DL.

With that some worry about leaser guidlines to get a Ltc in another state.

How is that so different then a DL?
Some states will still let tou drive with 3 or 4 dui’s or a 100 speeding tickets, other states will revoke ur dl after the first DUI.

Lets focus more on padsing National reciprocity.

Why not both? While I would love to see both happen, I am afraid some legislative and political realities may make that difficult.

We have a fresh chance at getting Constitutional Carry here in Texas with HB 357. Despite some Democrat advances, the Republicans still maintain a majority in both chambers of the Texas legislature. It will still take a concerted effort by gun owners to make this happen.

H.R.38: Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 has been languishing in the Senate Judiciary committee since December 2017. If not acted upon within the short period left in the current session, this bill will die in committee. With a Democrat majority in the House in the next session, getting a new bill through Congress will be nigh on impossible.

 

[Brian Boru]

Lets focus more on padsing National reciprocity.

With Pelosi as speaker that's not happening. Let's focus on making Texas have the most pro gun laws in the country.

 

[jrbfishn]

With Pelosi, or anyone anywhere near as bad, anything progun has very little chance of getting to the floor in the House.
The Texas legislature on the other hand is a very different story. With enough push by citizens, Bills have a much better chance. Partly depends on who gets Speaker of the House. We already know how much a Rino can hurt.

Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[toddnjoyce]

Need an amendment (preferably) to repeal 30.06 and 30.07 since that only applies to license holders.

Don’t want either of those two to be re-worded to encompass license holders and constitutional carry.

Also, I’ll have to look up the number, but there’s a bill to reduce the 30.06 and 30.07 signs to no larger than 8.5x11 paper. That one is bad legislation.

It’s already difficult enough to quickly determine if a place is posted or not.

 

[benenglish]

With Pelosi, or anyone anywhere near as bad, anything progun has very little chance of getting to the floor in the House.

Yes, but.

I've been thinking lately about the way the NRA (well, Marion Hammer) sold out the shooting community regarding bump stocks. However, if Pelosi and company want to ban bump stocks, they won't be able to do it without becoming a laughingstock. Think about it. Machine guns are legal but a piece of plastic is going to be completely outlawed? That makes no sense.

No, I think we need to push for bump stocks to be declared machine guns. If that happens, we'll have leverage to repeal the Hughes amendment so that all those new machine guns can be added to the registry. Also, since lots of innocent people are in possession, we can also reasonably push for a repeat of the 1968 machine gun amnesty in order to get them all registered.

I'd be happy to let bump stocks be re-defined as machine guns if we can use that process to repeal the Hughes amendment and get a new amnesty. If it were sold properly, we might even be able to get Pelosi and the democrats to push for exactly those things.

Hey, it's bizarro world out there. I can dream, can't I?

 

[ian]

No compromises. If you let them take bump stocks, 3.5lbs AT triggers are next and then trigger jobs on single actions after that.

 

[benenglish]

No compromises.

I agree. On principle, I don't want to give up bump stocks.

But if we're going to lose them, I'd like to get something in return. The potential to get something major (repealing Hughes and a new amnesty) in return for bump stocks is there. We can't leave it sitting on the table if we lose the bump stock battle.

 

[leVieux]

Yes, but.

I've been thinking lately about the way the NRA (well, Marion Hammer) sold out the shooting community regarding bump stocks. However, if Pelosi and company want to ban bump stocks, they won't be able to do it without becoming a laughingstock. Think about it. Machine guns are legal but a piece of plastic is going to be completely outlawed? That makes no sense.

No, I think we need to push for bump stocks to be declared machine guns. If that happens, we'll have leverage to repeal the Hughes amendment so that all those new machine guns can be added to the registry. Also, since lots of innocent people are in possession, we can also reasonably push for a repeat of the 1968 machine gun amnesty in order to get them all registered.

I'd be happy to let bump stocks be re-defined as machine guns if we can use that process to repeal the Hughes amendment and get a new amnesty. If it were sold properly, we might even be able to get Pelosi and the democrats to push for exactly those things.

Hey, it's bizarro world out there. I can dream, can't I?

Sadly, “make sense” is of zero interest to our antiConstitutionalist anti-Gunner crowd. They seek any & every way possible to negate citizen self defense. Their model is Britain, where “knife control” is now law & “hammer control” is being devised. They are single purpose driven and care not whom or what they hurt in their quest. Even more sadly, many of our own children are already permanently brainwashed.

leVieux

 

[ian]

I agree. On principle, I don't want to give up bump stocks.

But if we're going to lose them, I'd like to get something in return. The potential to get something major (repealing Hughes and a new amnesty) in return for bump stocks is there. We can't leave it sitting on the table if we lose the bump stock battle.

Yes Sir. You are a reasonable man. Compromise is a respectable attribute.

Gun grabbers do not compromise.
I do not compromise with those who seek to take freedom from good people. Common sense gun laws do nothing but take freedom from people with common sense.

I urge you to rethink your position on bump stocks.

I have no need for bump stocks. Never used one. I don't see a use for them. A ban would not personally affect me. I couldn't care less about them.

I don't see a use for muzzle loaders or single action revolvers either. A ban on muzzle loaders or background checks and high taxes on black powder would not make a difference to me. At the same time I will never support the ban or further infringement of our 2nd Amendment right. The 2nd Amendment is more important than what you or I like or find useful. No concessions. No compromise.

 

[benenglish]

I urge you to rethink your position on bump stocks.

My position on bump stocks is that I have one, I think it's lots of fun, I don't want to lose or register it, and I think any attempt to take it away from me is a violation of basic human rights.

However, I recognize that Marion Hammer has set us up to lose on this issue. I think having a plan B to deal with losses and salvage some good from them is always a good idea.

I apologize for the wording of post #85 that may have given a different impression; that was 100% my fault. However, I hope I've made myself clear now. I really don't think we're disagreeing with each other.

 

[Bithabus]

I would trade bump stocks for (affordable) post 86 machine guns in a heartbeat. But I don't think they would let it be that simple.

 

[benenglish]

I would trade bump stocks for (affordable) post 86 machine guns in a heartbeat. But I don't think they would let it be that simple.

That's part of the reason I don't think a bump stock ban will happen. If they try to ban and confiscate bump stocks even some leftists and everyone in the middle won't be comfortable with kicking down all those doors. The alternative is to do what the NRA (in the person of Marion Hammer) suggested which is to re-define them as machine guns.

If they take the latter course, they're going to have to find some way to suspend or revoke the Hughes amendment to get it done. I'm saying that if we're going to lose on bump stocks, making that revocation permanent means that we will, in the aggregate, be taking a step forward.

Losing bump stocks is 1 step backward. Another amnesty would be 2 steps forward. Revoking Hughes would be 5 steps forward. As a package, I'll take the 6 steps forward.

The chance to make the anti-gunners look stupid at the same time is just a bonus.

When all this sinks in for the anti-gunners, I think they'll stop going after bump stocks.

 

[Bithabus]

Losing bump stocks is 1 step backward. Another amnesty would be 2 steps forward. Revoking Hughes would be 5 steps forward. As a package, I'll take the 6 steps forward.

I agree, repealing Hughes would be an enormous win. But I could see something like a bump-stock only amnesty.

 

[benenglish]

I agree, repealing Hughes would be an enormous win. But I could see something like a bump-stock only amnesty.

So maybe we lose on getting a repeat of the 1968 amnesty. I could see that.

That doesn't change the fact that if the government does what Marion Hammer suggested and re-defines bump stocks as machine guns, the only workable way forward is to put them on the registry. That will require suspending or revoking Hughes.

If we're going to lose on bump stocks, we need to make sure that we take the opportunity to make the revocation of Hughes permanent. That would be snatching a big victory from the jaws of a small defeat.

 

[Bithabus]

So maybe we lose on getting a repeat of the 1968 amnesty. I could see that.

That doesn't change the fact that if the government does what Marion Hammer suggested and re-defines bump stocks as machine guns, the only workable way forward is to put them on the registry. That will require suspending or revoking Hughes.

If we're going to lose on bump stocks, we need to make sure that we take the opportunity to make the revocation of Hughes permanent. That would be snatching a big victory from the jaws of a small defeat.

Well we'd have to do it real sneaky like. I can already see the headlines on CNN.

 

[Shady]

your right they are not going to kick down doors to get your bump stock.

They are going to tack on felony possession of a machine gun when you are stopped for a broken tail light and they find it when they smell marijuana or the dog indicates on your car even if no drugs are found.


And now you are no longer allowed to own a modern firearm.

 

[benenglish]

They are going to...

You're probably right and that's a major downer to contemplate. Phooey.

 

[toddnjoyce]

So maybe we lose on getting a repeat of the 1968 amnesty. I could see that.

Since ATF launched an NPRM early this year on bump stocks, and Trump has said eliminate 2 to get 1, AND there hasn’t been a whole lot of movement on the data gathered around bump stocks, I’m not so sure BATFE is going to do a whole lot with them, especially considering they have an agency opinion on file saying they are not prohibited.

I *think* ATF (therefore DOJ) going down the rulemaking road may end up a dead end. I think that because the federal rule making process is actually pretty well defined with structured timelines for everything to happen.

 

[TheDan]

I have to admit that I have some distaste for open carry by civilians and even police in civilian clothes. I live in the Houston area and open carry with a license is rarely encountered. If you like a lot of unwanted attention, then - by all means - carry openly. I believe an LTC should be required for carry in public. Most restaurants here do not allow open carry with an LTC but have no objection to concealed carry. That will not change if unlicensed carry is allowed and - in fact - is more likely to lead to more places forbidding all carry with or without a license. Most police officers like LTC by civilians but would be opposed to unlicensed carry by people who are not certified; I have to agree with them.

I have some distaste for people being imprisoned and financially burdened for carrying their desired tool for self defense in the manner they wish to carry it unless they pay a fee and meet an arbitrary certification.

 

[gshayd]

I believe the biggest obstacle to Constitutional Carry in Texas is Dan Patrick. Who also controls the Texas Senate. The citizens need to smack him around to get Constitutional Carry. I think he speaks out both sides of his mouth on this issue and blows smoke out of a certain orifice.