Another False Allegation by LSCDL President Re: SB766

Discussions about relevant bills filed and their status.

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts: 16587
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Another False Allegation by LSCDL President Re: SB766

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Sat May 28, 2011 10:18 pm

A Member sent me a link to a post by Shane McCrary (a/k/a MR REDNECK), President of the Lone Star Citizens Defense League on OpenCarry.org. It deals with SB766, the range protection bill.

In the post, Mr. McCrary falsely claims that SB766 removed protections that the TSRA and NRA previously obtained for Texas gun owners. Specifically, he claims that SB766 deleted Tex. Local Gov't Code §229.001(c) & (d). Subsection (c) prohibits city regulation of firearms in certain areas like hunting grounds. Subsection (d) contains protection from firearm confiscation during emergencies (the "emergency powers bill" enacted to prevent a New Orleans style confiscation.) His claims are false.

All bills start with a description of the specific sections and subsections of codes and statutes that are added, amended, and/or repealed. (See the quote below.) This portion of SB766 makes it clear that the only changes to Tex. Local Gov't Code §229.001 were amendments to Subsections (a) and (b) and the addition of a new Subsection (e). Subsections (c) and (d) of which Mr. McCrary complains, are not listed because they were not changed, much less repealed, by SB766.

Mr. McCrary claims to have written the open-carry bill, HB2756. If this is true, then surely he must know how bills are drafted. More importantly, he must know that SB766 didn't repeal Tex. Local Gov't Code §229.001(c) & (d) as he claimed. No one can be sure why he would make such a blatantly false statement, but perhaps a second post in that thread gives some insight. According to Mr. McCrary:
Shane McCrary wrote:Oh yea, be sure to call the TSRA and thank them for "protecting" your rights! This was their bill and YOU were better off without it!

Mr. McCrary hates the NRA and TSRA and he will stop at nothing in his attempt to discredit both organizations. His motive for posting this latest false allegation is obviously to discourage OpenCarry.org readers from supporting the TSRA. If he will do this on OpenCarry.org, then we can only conclude that he will do likewise within the Lone Star Citizens Defense League, since he is the LSCDL President. This is the man and the organization that claims to be leading the fight for open-carry in Texas.

So once again, it becomes necessary to stop the spreading of yet another falsehood about the TSRA and SB766.

The bottom line is SB766 provides much needed protection for sport shooting ranges and it does not repeal any previously obtained protections. Does anyone want to give odds that Mr. McCrary will retract his false allegations? I didn't think so.

Chas.

SB766, Pg. 6, Section 5 wrote:SECTION 5. Section 229.001, Local Government Code, is amended by amending Subsections (a) and (b) and adding Subsection (e) to read as follows:
Image

User avatar

Paragrouper
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:47 pm
Location: Shady Shores, TX

Re: Another False Allegation by LSCDL President Re: SB766

Postby Paragrouper » Sat May 28, 2011 11:41 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:If he will do this on OpenCarry.org, then we can only conclude that he will do likewise within the Lone Star Citizens Defense League, since he is the LSCDL President.



You mean this call to veto SB766? http://www.lonestarcdl.org/community/index.php?topic=207.0

"SECTION 5. Section 229.001, Local Government Code, is amended by amending Subsections (a) and (b) and adding Subsection (e) to read as follows:..."
DCC
"Beware the fury of of the patient man." ~John Dryden


Mike1951
Senior Member
Posts: 3532
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:06 am
Location: SE Texas

Re: Another False Allegation by LSCDL President Re: SB766

Postby Mike1951 » Sun May 29, 2011 12:40 am

Am I correct in my reading that, since SB766 only specifies the changes to 229.001, that (c) and (d) are still present and unchanged?

It doesn't make sense that they would add (e) unless (c) and (d) were retained.
Mike
AF5MS
TSRA Life Member
NRA Benefactor Member

User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts: 16587
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Another False Allegation by LSCDL President Re: SB766

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Sun May 29, 2011 1:24 am

Mike1951 wrote:Am I correct in my reading that, since SB766 only specifies the changes to 229.001, that (c) and (d) are still present and unchanged?

It doesn't make sense that they would add (e) unless (c) and (d) were retained.


Correct, SB766 doesn't repeal subsections (c) and (d).

Everything in MR REDNECK'S post is false.

Chas.
Image

User avatar

G.A. Heath
Senior Member
Posts: 2647
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Western Texas

Re: Another False Allegation by LSCDL President Re: SB766

Postby G.A. Heath » Sun May 29, 2011 1:28 am

Paragrouper wrote:You mean this call to veto SB766? http://www.lonestarcdl.org/community/in ... opic=207.0

"SECTION 5. Section 229.001, Local Government Code, is amended by amending Subsections (a) and (b) and adding Subsection (e) to read as follows:..."

We who are not members of that forum aren't special enough to see that thread's contents. Oh well its not like they are "Sneaking Around" and such...


Mike1951 wrote:Am I correct in my reading that, since SB766 only specifies the changes to 229.001, that (c) and (d) are still present and unchanged?

It doesn't make sense that they would add (e) unless (c) and (d) were retained.

You are correct, (c) and (d) are still present and unchanged.

I had some other comments I was going to make in this thread, however they are beneath me and the clean image that folks here maintain for the forum. Essentially some parties feel that the NRA, TSRA, as well as others are against them and their goals so these parties will use half truths, lies, and misconceptions to spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt). I am seriously starting to wonder if GOA is somehow involved in getting these people riled up.
I am also a Gun guy, Car Guy, and Computer Guy and a currently former podcaster.

User avatar

Topic author
Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts: 16587
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: Another False Allegation by LSCDL President Re: SB766

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Sun May 29, 2011 1:31 am

Paragrouper wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:If he will do this on OpenCarry.org, then we can only conclude that he will do likewise within the Lone Star Citizens Defense League, since he is the LSCDL President.



You mean this call to veto SB766? http://www.lonestarcdl.org/community/index.php?topic=207.0


I'm not a member so I can't see the post. LSCDL has absolutely no political power whatsoever, so there's no danger they can get SB766 vetoed. But the fact that they want it vetoed is quite revealing.

Chas.
Image

User avatar

Paragrouper
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2011 7:47 pm
Location: Shady Shores, TX

Re: Another False Allegation by LSCDL President Re: SB766

Postby Paragrouper » Sun May 29, 2011 8:00 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Paragrouper wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:If he will do this on OpenCarry.org, then we can only conclude that he will do likewise within the Lone Star Citizens Defense League, since he is the LSCDL President.



You mean this call to veto SB766? http://www.lonestarcdl.org/community/index.php?topic=207.0


I'm not a member so I can't see the post. LSCDL has absolutely no political power whatsoever, so there's no danger they can get SB766 vetoed. But the fact that they want it vetoed is quite revealing.

Chas.


I'm not either. They removed the call to action. They still mention it in this link. http://www.lonestarcdl.org/community/index.php?topic=56.0
DCC
"Beware the fury of of the patient man." ~John Dryden

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts: 22859
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Another False Allegation by LSCDL President Re: SB766

Postby The Annoyed Man » Sun May 29, 2011 11:37 am

All I know is that I joined OCDO a few days ago because I had a specific question about OC in Arizona. The question got answered. But in perusing another thread, I saw MR. REDENCK (he can't even spell "redneck" correctly) posting a personal attack against Charles Cotton, so I challenged him on the specific misinformation he was spouting. It didn't go over very well with him. So here we have a guy who can't spell his own handle correctly offering to interpret laws. Worse yet, he has a preconceived conclusion, and then tries to twist the legal interpretation to fit his conclusion. To do so, he has to A) deliberately ignore the wording of certain sections; and B) flat out lie about what the other sections say. I've never seen a person with less personal integrity hold such sway over a national forum before. Absolutely incredible. It causes me to doubt the validity of whatever is posted by the "experts" about open carry in states that already have it.

And then, after my question got answered by someone with the handle "azcdlfred," he asked me to support open carry in Texas by joining LSCDL. If MR. REDENCK is the president of LSCDL, then I have to doubt the reliability of the information that azcdlfred gave me about OC in Arizona. And I certainly can't take on faith anything said there about other RKBA related Texas legislation.

I am all for Open Carry/Constitutional Carry as the endgame for Texas, but I feel that irresponsibility and bomb-throwing in pursuing it will do more harm than good. And even though this forum is dedicated to Concealed Carry in Texas, I think that this forum is also the best and most responsible place to discuss the eventual implementation of OC in Texas. Charles himself has stated that he would get behind an OC bill if certain—very reasonable—criteria were met. And for the record, those criteria have nothing to do with restrictions on OC, but rather on protecting the gains already made for CC—something about which knuckleheads like MR. REDENCK seem to be almost deliberately obtuse.

In fact, he is so deliberately ignorant about what the law actually says and about how laws ought to be written, and he's such a caricature of the "radica gun nut" feared and demonized by the lamestream media, that if I didn't know better I would suspect that he is a troll and a plant, deliberately sowing misinformation to help cloud the arguments in favor of advancing the RKBA. I certainly wish the man no ill-will in terms of his personal health, but I note that Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, was struck dumb because he refused to believe the prophesy foretelling his son's birth. He was unable to speak until the prophesy was fulfilled. I wish that for MR. REDENCK.
"Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself."—Hookalakah Meshobbab
"I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes."—The Annoyed Boy
"Id aegre et in omnibus semper."—Quod Homo Aegre


Mike1951
Senior Member
Posts: 3532
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 3:06 am
Location: SE Texas

Re: Another False Allegation by LSCDL President Re: SB766

Postby Mike1951 » Sun May 29, 2011 3:37 pm

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Mike1951 wrote:Am I correct in my reading that, since SB766 only specifies the changes to 229.001, that (c) and (d) are still present and unchanged?

It doesn't make sense that they would add (e) unless (c) and (d) were retained.


Correct, SB766 doesn't repeal subsections (c) and (d).

Everything in MR REDNECK'S post is false.

Chas.


The post was accessable last night, so it has been removed. I asked my question to be sure of the facts prior to joining and responding.

Others must have gotten the point across first.
Mike
AF5MS
TSRA Life Member
NRA Benefactor Member

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts: 22859
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Another False Allegation by LSCDL President Re: SB766

Postby The Annoyed Man » Sun May 29, 2011 4:27 pm

Mike1951 wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Mike1951 wrote:Am I correct in my reading that, since SB766 only specifies the changes to 229.001, that (c) and (d) are still present and unchanged?

It doesn't make sense that they would add (e) unless (c) and (d) were retained.


Correct, SB766 doesn't repeal subsections (c) and (d).

Everything in MR REDNECK'S post is false.

Chas.


The post was accessable last night, so it has been removed. I asked my question to be sure of the facts prior to joining and responding.

Others must have gotten the point across first.

What? No acknowledgment of the error?
"Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself."—Hookalakah Meshobbab
"I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes."—The Annoyed Boy
"Id aegre et in omnibus semper."—Quod Homo Aegre

User avatar

flintknapper
Senior Member
Posts: 4849
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:40 pm
Location: Deep East Texas

Re: Another False Allegation by LSCDL President Re: SB766

Postby flintknapper » Sun May 29, 2011 4:30 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote: if I didn't know better I would suspect that he is a troll and a plant, deliberately sowing misinformation to help cloud the arguments in favor of advancing the RKBA.



This very same thought occurred to me!

I've been following some of his posts on various subjects...and there is just no way a person could be so misinformed/inept and successfully lead anything!

I have REALLY tried hard not to take sides and I dislike the divide that exists between this forum and the OC forum. There are some good/reasonable folks over there, but that fella really takes the cake. I am not a person to disparage another (without a LOT of provocation first) but he seems to thrive on causing trouble.
Spartans ask not how many, but where!


RHenriksen
Senior Member
Posts: 1991
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:59 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Another False Allegation by LSCDL President Re: SB766

Postby RHenriksen » Sun May 29, 2011 6:15 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:All I know is that I joined OCDO a few days ago because I had a specific question about OC in Arizona. The question got answered. But in perusing another thread, I saw MR. REDENCK (he can't even spell "redneck" correctly) posting a personal attack against Charles Cotton, so I challenged him on the specific misinformation he was spouting. It didn't go over very well with him.


I saw that exchange, and I abandoned any hope of having a rational, constructive exchange w. MR REDENCK. I imagine a major challenge in 2013 would be making any attempts to advance OC or CC without getting any 'guilt by association' with that crowd.
I'll quit carrying a gun when they make murder and armed robbery illegal

Houston Technology Consulting
soup-to-nuts IT infrastructure design, deployment, and support for SMBs

User avatar

74novaman
Senior Member
Posts: 3648
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 7:36 am
Location: Temple, Republic of Texas
Contact:

Re: Another False Allegation by LSCDL President Re: SB766

Postby 74novaman » Sun May 29, 2011 6:29 pm

RHenriksen wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:All I know is that I joined OCDO a few days ago because I had a specific question about OC in Arizona. The question got answered. But in perusing another thread, I saw MR. REDENCK (he can't even spell "redneck" correctly) posting a personal attack against Charles Cotton, so I challenged him on the specific misinformation he was spouting. It didn't go over very well with him.


I saw that exchange, and I abandoned any hope of having a rational, constructive exchange w. MR REDENCK. I imagine a major challenge in 2013 would be making any attempts to advance OC or CC without getting any 'guilt by association' with that crowd.


Saw that little exchange as well. As long as he is at the helm of LSCDL or behind any OC push, I will not be supporting it.

Not because I don't want OC, but for the simple reason that I require at a minimum 2 things of anyone who wants to represent me before our legislators.
1) tact and the ability to be polite, even to those who disagree with you
2)the ability to spell and speak/write coherently.

As he seems to lack both, I will not support LSCDL as long as he is in a leadership position.
TANSTAAFL


RHenriksen
Senior Member
Posts: 1991
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:59 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Another False Allegation by LSCDL President Re: SB766

Postby RHenriksen » Sun May 29, 2011 6:38 pm

74novaman wrote:
RHenriksen wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:All I know is that I joined OCDO a few days ago because I had a specific question about OC in Arizona. The question got answered. But in perusing another thread, I saw MR. REDENCK (he can't even spell "redneck" correctly) posting a personal attack against Charles Cotton, so I challenged him on the specific misinformation he was spouting. It didn't go over very well with him.


I saw that exchange, and I abandoned any hope of having a rational, constructive exchange w. MR REDENCK. I imagine a major challenge in 2013 would be making any attempts to advance OC or CC without getting any 'guilt by association' with that crowd.


Saw that little exchange as well. As long as he is at the helm of LSCDL or behind any OC push, I will not be supporting it.

Not because I don't want OC, but for the simple reason that I require at a minimum 2 things of anyone who wants to represent me before our legislators.
1) tact and the ability to be polite, even to those who disagree with you
2)the ability to spell and speak/write coherently.

As he seems to lack both, I will not support LSCDL as long as he is in a leadership position.


I'm with you, but I was taking it a step further - if TSRA were to put OC on the agenda for 2013, and that bomb-thrower is still around, how awkward might that get? He could stomp around and unravel a lot of good/hard work by Alice.
I'll quit carrying a gun when they make murder and armed robbery illegal

Houston Technology Consulting
soup-to-nuts IT infrastructure design, deployment, and support for SMBs


artx
Senior Member
Posts: 220
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 8:14 pm
Location: SATX

Re: Another False Allegation by LSCDL President Re: SB766

Postby artx » Sun May 29, 2011 9:49 pm

I visit the AR15.com "Texas" hometown forum a lot as well as this forum. They are trying to stir up the same nonsense there.

Here are some of the comments from SB 905. While we had a great debate on it here, "LoneStarCDL"'s comments were off putting to say the least. Here's one of the comments and my response.

Originally Posted By ARTX:
Originally Posted By LoneStarCDL:
You need to visit the LoneStar CDL
We have people who work very hard to give you all the details about Texas gun legislation.
Even if your not a member you can see our Special Legislation page on the members forum. If you not a member, you need to fix that problem.


I realize we have never met and this is an internet forum, and things are hard to communicate sometimes in written word only.

But coming here and saying that it is a 'problem' that forum members aren't a member of your organization is not likely to get folks to join your organization. This sets a negative tone to everyone that has never heard of your organization.

I'm a TSRA and NRA life member. I also enjoy learning about new RKBA organizations. I believe the more organizations we have that want the same goals, the more likely we are to succeed. But I'd never tell someone who is talking about the TSRA or NRA that it is a 'problem' they aren't a member of those organizations. Instead I'd tell them why I think they should be members. Just a thought. I wish you well in your quest to enhance RKBA rights in Texas.



Return to “2011 Texas Legislative Session”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest