HB 357 - Constitutional Carry

[leVieux]

Perhaps Hammer is simply choosing which battles to pursue.

leVieux

 

[leVieux]

HB 357 (I like that bill number) would allow permitless carry of a legally owned handgun in Texas.

https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/86R/billtext/html/HB00357I.htm

Unlicensed O.C. has ALWAYS been legal here in Louisiana, and has NEVER caused any significant problem.

Unlicensed C.C. & O.C. are now legal in several states; also without problems.

The REAL problem is that our legislators act on people's OPINIONS, no matter how misinformed or erroneous they may be.

leVieux

 

[benenglish]

Perhaps Hammer is simply choosing which battles to pursue.

That's a very charitable thought. I hope you're right. However, given her work in Florida, we should probably ask some Florida gun owners what they think. I believe they're mostly on record with less than kind thoughts about her style of "supporting" the Second Amendment.

 

[benenglish]

Trump has said eliminate 2 to get 1

I could live with that. I'm not sure which two things they could eliminate that are regulations instead of law. I know one of them would be the "sporting purposes" criteria for importation or any other purpose. I'm not sure what I'd choose for the second thing to discard.

I like the way you're thinking. The community should do more brainstorming on how (only if we're forced into it, of course) to give anti-gunners something they want while making part of the deal getting a whole hell of a lot more in return.

Example? If the leftists want universal background checks, I could support that if:

• I get to define "background check" (which will include ways for person-to-person sales to continue, unrecorded),
• "Sporting purposes" goes away,
• The Hughes Amendment goes away,
• We get a new 1968 amnesty, and
• We get a technical corrections bill to partially fix the NFA by, at minimum, removing SBRs, SBSs, and suppressors from control.

See? "Not one inch" is a useful mindset but it's not reality. When the political rubber meets the road, compromises can be conceived that are a net positive for the cause of freedom.

Whether such compromises could ever become reality is an open question but I can dream, can't I?

 

[ian]

I could live with that. I'm not sure which two things they could eliminate that are regulations instead of law. I know one of them would be the "sporting purposes" criteria for importation or any other purpose. I'm not sure what I'd choose for the second thing to discard.

I like the way you're thinking. The community should do more brainstorming on how (only if we're forced into it, of course) to give anti-gunners something they want while making part of the deal getting a whole hell of a lot more in return.

Example? If the leftists want universal background checks, I could support that if:

• I get to define "background check" (which will include ways for person-to-person sales to continue, unrecorded),
• "Sporting purposes" goes away,
• The Hughes Amendment goes away,
• We get a new 1968 amnesty, and
• We get a technical corrections bill to partially fix the NFA by, at minimum, removing SBRs, SBSs, and suppressors from control.

See? "Not one inch" is a useful mindset but it's not reality. When the political rubber meets the road, compromises can be conceived that are a net positive for the cause of freedom.

Whether such compromises could ever become reality is an open question but I can dream, can't I?

The American people have given enough freedoms away. Now is not the time to barter one freedom for another.

Gun grabbers don't plan on kicking in doors for our guns.
They plan on imposing 'common sense' restrictions on firearms until the Right to bear arms becomes a maze of laws that is impossible to navigate. Like the NKVD said, "Show me a man and I'll show you a criminal".
They plan on brainwashing young Americans by spreading fear and lies until even sight of a pistol on someone's hip causes alarm.
They plan on imposing taxes and fees on firearms so young Americans and average working folk can't afford our Right to bear arms.
They plan on taking away places to shoot.
They plan on taking ground inch by inch.

Compromising with these people is a bad mistake. Compromising for 'The greater good' tactic has been sold by freedom stealing dictatorships for 1,000's of years. We can't be fooled any more. That is reality.

Not one inch.

 

[Charlie]

"Common sense" doesn't mean what it used to mean. We used to take that literally, but the lefty idiots are twisting the meaning.

 

[benenglish]

They plan on taking ground inch by inch.
...
Not one inch.

I agree and that's what I'm saying - Not one more (net) inch.

 

[Shady]

logic would dictate that the 2 that need to be removed would need to be removed from the same general type of regulation as the one they want to add but we are dealing with the Federal gov.

So they can remove the cow fart study and spotted owl study

I could live with that. I'm not sure which two things they could eliminate that are regulations instead of law. I know one of them would be the "sporting purposes" criteria for importation or any other purpose. I'm not sure what I'd choose for the second thing to discard.

I like the way you're thinking. The community should do more brainstorming on how (only if we're forced into it, of course) to give anti-gunners something they want while making part of the deal getting a whole hell of a lot more in return.

Example? If the leftists want universal background checks, I could support that if:

• I get to define "background check" (which will include ways for person-to-person sales to continue, unrecorded),
• "Sporting purposes" goes away,
• The Hughes Amendment goes away,
• We get a new 1968 amnesty, and
• We get a technical corrections bill to partially fix the NFA by, at minimum, removing SBRs, SBSs, and suppressors from control.

See? "Not one inch" is a useful mindset but it's not reality. When the political rubber meets the road, compromises can be conceived that are a net positive for the cause of freedom.

Whether such compromises could ever become reality is an open question but I can dream, can't I?

 

[ian]

I agree and that's what I'm saying - Not one more (net) inch.

I understand Sir.

Two steps forward one step back. That still leaves us 1 step up..... but if we want to look at the bottom line American gun owners are in the red over the last 70 years. We need 3 steps forward, and then 3 more after that just to catch up. Americans should not negotiate with gun grabbers anymore. Dancing the two step with those who seek to take our freedoms has not served us well IMO.

 

[benenglish]

American gun owners are in the red over the last 70 years.

I really agree with that, going back to the NFA which needs to be repealed but, at minimum, has numerous technical errors that need correcting. But I should stop before I write a book about that and bore everybody to death. God knows I've ridiculously hijacked this thread and I'm supposed to know better.

 

[leVieux]

That's a very charitable thought. I hope you're right. However, given her work in Florida, we should probably ask some Florida gun owners what they think. I believe they're mostly on record with less than kind thoughts about her style of "supporting" the Second Amendment.

Ben,

I’m no fan of hers, nor of Little Wayne’s; but I still support our NRA.

They should stay out of LOCAL issues, as ILA refused to accept advice from us, who understand!

leVieux

I understand Sir.

Two steps forward one step back. That still leaves us 1 step up..... but if we want to look at the bottom line American gun owners are in the red over the last 70 years. We need 3 steps forward, and then 3 more after that just to catch up. Americans should not negotiate with gun grabbers anymore. Dancing the two step with those who seek to take our freedoms has not served us well IMO.

I agree. Every "compromise" has been to our and our Constitution's disadvantage. We should demand our full 2A RIGHTS be respected. Only, corrupt judges and legislators are a big problem now.

leVieux

 

[gshayd]

I think the guy that made most of the bump stocks is quitting the business. I think they are pretty useless and foolish and have never purchased one. There was a GAO report in 2011 that we used 250,000 rounds per enemy killed in the War on Terror. The bump-stock is a pray and spray proposition to me. I think there are bigger fish to fry such as getting rid of the $200 tax stamp to own SBRs and Silencers and instead of having to send a form to the ATF for silencers just have them done on a 4473. Then a nationwide law for concealed carry that permits nationwide recognition of CHL permits. Taking down the NFA in full.

 

[ian]

I think the guy that made most of the bump stocks is quitting the business. I think they are pretty useless and foolish and have never purchased one. There was a GAO report in 2011 that we used 250,000 rounds per enemy killed in the War on Terror. The bump-stock is a pray and spray proposition to me. I think there are bigger fish to fry such as getting rid of the $200 tax stamp to own SBRs and Silencers and instead of having to send a form to the ATF for silencers just have them done on a 4473. Then a nationwide law for concealed carry that permits nationwide recognition of CHL permits. Taking down the NFA in full.

Exactly. The bump stock is pretty much useless. The bump stock is not dangerous. So why would anyone with half a brain support a bumpstock ban??? Because we think we are pulling the wool over the gun grabbers eyes by conceding our rights? Serious?

If we compromise and let the gun grabbers ban a pretty much useless object, guess what they will ban next.

Not one inch.

 

[ian]

I really agree with that, going back to the NFA which needs to be repealed but, at minimum, has numerous technical errors that need correcting. But I should stop before I write a book about that and bore everybody to death. God knows I've ridiculously hijacked this thread and I'm supposed to know better.

I don't think you hijacked anything. It's just a organic progression of firearm enthusiasts taking to each other. Any time gun owners communicate its +1 for freedom.

I've never read the NFA but if it infringes on the very plain text of our 2nd Amendment I'm against it.

 

[toddnjoyce]

There was a GAO report in 2011 that we used 250,000 rounds per enemy killed in the War on Terror.

/Thread Drift ON/ source? I find it hard to believe even GAO could figure that out.

Ammunition expenditure quantity is not tracked at the individual level by any service.

Second, a basic combat load of 5.56 is 210 rounds, and 1,000 for a SAW at 2 per company. That GAO number implies essentially a BNs worth of basic load was fully expended per enemy casualty.

/Thread Drift OFF/

 

[Shady]

I bet they are including all the ammo used to train with test with ect ect. Not just the amount fired at bad guys.

So for example law enforcement purchased 4 million rounds and out of that 16 people got nuked.

/Thread Drift ON/ source? I find it hard to believe even GAO could figure that out.

Ammunition expenditure quantity is not tracked at the individual level by any service.

Second, a basic combat load of 5.56 is 210 rounds, and 1,000 for a SAW at 2 per company. That GAO number implies essentially a BNs worth of basic load was fully expended per enemy casualty.

/Thread Drift OFF/

 

[toddnjoyce]

I bet they are including all the ammo used to train with test with ect ect. Not just the amount fired at bad guys.

So for example law enforcement purchased 4 million rounds and out of that 16 people got nuked.

I would guess that, too but it is an unrealistic analogy as those rounds would be expended regardless. But I would also expect that GAO number to be much higher, too since the annual DoD production requirement for 5.55 is 1.3B rounds.

 

[dogbone]

...
The REAL problem is that our legislators act on people's OPINIONS, no matter how misinformed or erroneous they may be.

The problem I am having with my own state legicritter is he is giving more weight to the opinions of police and sheriffs than he is to the citizens who elected him. He claims they are opposed to Constitutional Carry because "it will make their job harder." Of course he has no objective evidence or data to support this, so I am making an effort to locate published interviews with LEO in states which have Constitutional Carry which clearly refute this.

Any other ideas on good solid evidence to help get this passed through this session?

 

[toddnjoyce]

The problem I am having with my own state legicritter is he is giving more weight to the opinions of police and sheriffs than he is to the citizens who elected him. He claims they are opposed to Constitutional Carry because "it will make their job harder." Of course he has no objective evidence or data to support this, so I am making an effort to locate published interviews with LEO in states which have Constitutional Carry which clearly refute this.

Any other ideas on good solid evidence to help get this passed through this session?

Start with why. Ask him why it makes an LEOs job harder.

 

[gshayd]

/Thread Drift ON/ source? I find it hard to believe even GAO could figure that out.

Ammunition expenditure quantity is not tracked at the individual level by any service.

Second, a basic combat load of 5.56 is 210 rounds, and 1,000 for a SAW at 2 per company. That GAO number implies essentially a BNs worth of basic load was fully expended per enemy casualty.

/Thread Drift OFF/

As an ex-military logistics manager in the Afghanistan theater, we track all the ammunition that comes in the theater and who has it and what was utilized. Inventories are also conducted. If you are issued a combat load it has to be accounted for by individual issue. We know pretty close what enemy casualties are. That figure is an average per enemy killed not hard to figure out at all. I wouldn't sell the GAO as doing sloppy work. We also had to do a daily report on all classes of supply that went through the chain to the Theater Command and then to Central Command, DoD and the White House. If you don't believe we tracked everything you would be wrong. I could tell you where the next toilet paper shipment was located at. In that theater, you couldn't just load up run down to the local stores and buy stuff. Most of the stuff had to go by air or vehicle convoy.