HB195 v. HB??/SB??: Are storm clouds gathering?

[CJ Grisham]

Before I begin, in full disclosure, approximately 70% of my criticism against the NRA/TSRA is directed at the TSRA. However, because the TSRA is the NRA...

Show me where the NRA, TSRA or I have said OCT would only last 6 months?

I can't find this statement nor did I record every phone call I've had with NRA/TSRA.

What achievements? All you've done is create a battle to pass open-carry when it was almost a certainty before you decided to walk into stores with long guns.

If open carry was "almost a certainty" prior to our founding, why wasn't it? We had two sessions where NOTHING was done. You told me it wasn't a priority last year. Alice Tripp open carry isn't something Texans care about. It wasn't a priority until we made it a priority, along with groups like Come and Take It Texas, Texas Carry, and Gun Rights Across America. The all-powerful "house" couldn't even make it a campaign issue, but we did.

Do you count negative TV and radio news casts an accomplishment?

We don't base our rights or our defense of those rights on what the liberal media thinks. Overall, our media coverage has been positive in Texas. We didn't cause negative media coverage. That was a result of the well-funded, anti-gun Bloomberg machine. Surely the NRA, frequently attacked in the media, understands this. Does the NRA base its effectiveness on negative/positive media? I doubt it.

Do you think the fiasco in Houston where Quanell X made you look like an incompetent novice on every major network TV station in the Houston viewing area?

The premise of this question is false. We made Q10 out to be the racist he is. In fact, our efforts there garnered a LOT of membership from the black community and emails to OCT assuring us that Q10 doesn't speak for them or their community. You love the liberal media, it appears.

Was it an accomplishment when you went to Oklahoma and openly carried a handgun, then refused to state that you had a license from some state such that your actions were not unlawful?

My right to keep and bear arms is not dependent upon government permission. I lost my TEXAS license. Being in the military for over 20 years and stationed in multiple CHL states where a license costs a mere $10-20 isn't beyond reason that I have multiple CHLs. Regardless, the ONLY people making it an issue are the gun control extremists, you and Mr. Heath. It speaks volumes that you, a "gun rights advocate" would attack the right of a man to keep and bear arms in a state where legal. It also shows that you seem to have a strange fixation on me and everything I do/say. I'm also well-known to carry toy, training, and replica firearms around in a holster, so when did I ever mention whether or not I was even carrying a real firearm in those pictures.

The only thing we did was try to get you and OCT to stop carrying long gun into private property and in your demonstrations. We expressly stated that it was causing problems with legislators in Austin and it was generating negative news coverage. This can be confirmed in the Open Carry Report podcast and in the recoding of Gun Talk Radio when I was a guest and you called in. You later made public statements that OCT would no longer demonstrate with long guns. You even stated this policy change was due to the fact that you/OCT came to realize that that type of demonstration was counterproductive.

Wrong. We stated that openly carrying rifles into businesses was shifting the discussion away from our mission, not openly carrying rifles. You practically begged us to stop exercising our rights legally, which would completely vacate our entire mission which is to reverse the public brainwashing you seem to want to perpetuate - that people should be afraid of a firearm simply because of what it looks like. This policy change about firearms occurred last year. We had issues with one of our local groups continuing to do this and we split from that group that became OCTC. Regardless, instead of attacking law abiding citizens and jumping on the Bloomberg/Moms Demand Action bandwagon, the NRA (you) passed up an opportunity to educate the public that there was nothing to be afraid of. Instead, you bolstered their fear mongering by trying to shut us down .

Do you have anything other than your Facebook page and Facebook closed group? Both of those have shown little "growth" in months. I suspect it's your increasingly radical, hate-filled posts that are driving people away.

There you go again. If you don't know what our membership is, how can you even claim to know of anyone being driven away. If people leaving our organization is cause for labeling us radical, I could say the same about the NRA/TSRA, especially since we've collected over 1320 cut up NRA/TSRA membership cards over the past six months. You continue to confirm my original statement. No, our membership is not gauged by our Facebook. We have a membership form on our website, though currently it's down. Only about 60%% of our members are on Facebook. Our older members typically don't use Facebook or social media.

What races were you involved in? Give some specifics.

Our members were heavily involved in the District 1, District 23, District 94 and a handful of others. We don't engage in direct lobbying, even though we're organized as a (c)(4). We are a grassroots organization whose strength is in its membership.

You say open-carry is a "virtue [sic] certainly;" do you mean HB195 unlicensed open-carry? If you are going to claim an OCT victory, then anything other than HB195 will be a loss because you made that clear on your latest podcast.

We've also made clear that any progress in taking back our rights is a step in the right direction. But, we won't settle on anything less than full restoration of our rights. We don't start from a position of weakness by advocating for licensing away our rights. THAT is our goal and THAT is what we are fighting for. If we get something less than what we want, but more than what we have, it will always be a win.

While some might call you a pro-gun group, there are others who think your are an anti-gun group in disguise, based upon the damage you have done to the open-carry effort and the focus you have drawn to TPC §30.06. Once again you claim success when you haven't passed a single bill, nor have you killed an anti-gun bill.

And there it is - the classic NRA belief that the lawful carry of a firearm is damaging. We haven't done any damage to the open carry effort. A real gun rights group sees that the damage was caused by the Bloomberg-funded astroturf efforts of Moms Demand Action. While businesses were being targeted at the national level, what national gun rights group was standing against it? Or, at least, what gun rights group wasn't blaming the victims of those attacks? The NRA/TSRA was the only "gun rights" group attacking us instead of the real enemy. The fact that you are perpetuating or repeating the absurd idea that we are "an anti-gun group in disguise" also says a lot about you. You seem to care a lot about that. We haven't passed a bill or killed a bill because this is our first legislative session. That's an easy claim to make to which we agree. As a counter, it's also easy to claim that you've done nothing to counter the anti-gun machine bullying businesses. Where was "the House" encouraging its members to sign a petition that would be delivered to businesses? Where was "the House" doing anything other than jumping on their bandwagon? AWOL.

Wait a minute. You have stated on a few occasions, including Gun Talk Radio, that you tore up your NRA member card and resigned from the organization. Now you claim to be a member. Which is the truth?

I did tear up my membership cards, but barring going out of my way to contact the NRA I'm still on their books as an endowment life member. That's not difficult to understand, I would think. The stickers on my car were removed, my hats and shirts were donated to Goodwill, and my license plate cover was thrown in the trash. I simply refuse to give the NRA any more money, so I don't consider myself a member any longer. Getting a little petty now, aren't you?

This statement speaks volumes about you and OCT and I need not say more.

It does. It says we actually mean it when we say we believe in gun rights, not just some of them. I'm proud of that association and I understand how you wouldn't because they are eating into NRA support and challenging "the House."

Again, are you talking about HB195, unlicensed open carry? You must be since you have described HB106 as a "crappy bill" and that your members should say "no no no no" to anything other than HB195.

I'm talking about any open carry legislation. It wasn't a promise from a governor and dozens of members of the legislature in the past. It is now. 106 is a crappy bill and our members should say no. Absolutely!

The only thing we tried to get you to do was stop carrying long guns into private property. You did precisely that, claiming it was your decision and it was made because you learned that that was not a good tactic.

No, it was diverting our main mission. There is nothing wrong with legally carrying any firearm into anyplace. However, our goal wasn't to fight for gun rights in private businesses.

It's a sad day that Charles Cotton continues his attacks on our members without cause. He must be getting desperate and bitterly clinging to his relevance. Perhaps he should focus more on unity and gun rights and less on splintering gun owners.

I've never attacked your members, so this is just your latest lie.

You should go back and read your post that initiated this thread. You attacked OCT. Therefore, you attacked our members.

This post of yours however is a clear indication that the gloves have come off.

The gloves came off long ago when you failed to keep your TSRA spokesmouth from targeting us in the media with name-calling and uncalled for attacks. You are the TSRA and the TSRA is you. Own it. The first salvo was fired by your organization, not ours. I was a proud NRA member until you and Tripp came along and showed your true colors. Then I started really looking into what I was associating myself with. Brady Bill. NFA. Universal Background Checks. Licensing. You and Tripp opened my eyes and the eyes of tens of thousands of people across the country. When it comes to fighting for gun rights, we don't need gloves.

I have a 35+ year history of working for gun owners and the Second Amendment and I'll put my record against your as often as you like.

Congratulations on being older than me.

The next time you attack me personally, be ready for your entire recent history and the truth about your legal problems to be fully aired here on the Forum.

My entire "legal history" involves TWO arrests - both for non-crimes and only ONE of which I was only charged for. I have never been charged in the Austin arrest because I was never breaking a law. Again, you prove here that you aren't about rights, but power and rhetoric. Instead of noting that I was not breaking laws and merely exercising my legal rights, you focus just on the arrest. I've never had legal problems prior to that, so I have no problems with you airing my "legal problems." Do you also talk this way about Heller and others? It's unbecoming of someone with "a 35+ year history of working for gun owners." By the way, when did you ever work on my behalf in either of my cases? Where is the NRA/TSRA defending unlawful arrests of open carriers in Texas? We got an acquittal out west without the help of the NRA/TSRA. We have had many other cases dropped without the help of the NRA/TSRA. In fact, the only open carry case pending is out in Beaumont and he wasn't a member of any open carry organization until after his arrest. Where is the NRA/TSRA over there?

You called me and asked to bury the hatchet. I pointed out that I had not attacked you personally and that I wanted you to stop lying about the NRA. You agreed, but the false attacks about the NRA continued on the OCT website.

That's because you are the TSRA and the TSRA is you and you've never stopped. Maybe you personally did (until this post and I'm sure in others I'm not aware of), but your surrogates did not.

There, I responded to all of your questions. I'm done engaging you. Good luck in the 84th Legislature.

[CJ Grisham]

You guys oust Grisham and get people in leadership who do not have their egos wrapped up in their title, who answer questions forthrightly, who can lead a horse to water without poisoning the well, who do not casually and boastfully break the law the way Grisham did in Oklahoma, and who are consistently truthful, and who are able to see where they've made mistakes, acknowledge those mistakes and move on, and I'll begin to respect OCT. But as long as he is your titular head and inspiration, your entire organization is tainted by it because he is a seriously deficient leader and spokesperson, and I and thousands of liberty-minded Texas gun owners will never agree to having that stain added to our own characters.

It really is a matter of character. My character and reputation are important to me. Until OCT stops being led by the character-deficient, I can't have anything to do with it.

Maybe this post violates rules, and will be deleted, but hopefully it will be up long enough for you to see the REAL problem you have, and to get your organization's leadership to act on it.......or your group will ultimately die off.

It's okay. Since you oppose OCT, it's ok to violate rules. Admin won't bother you. Carry on.

As for "breaking laws," see my post to Charles. you THINK you know truth, but you don't. And, believe me, I will gladly give up the reigns and along with it the stress, the baseless attacks, etc. It takes a thick skin and a lot of self confidence to subject oneself to the kinds of attacks that the leader of pro-gun organization gets on a daily basis, especially from the so-called "gun rights" crowd. I'll admit I wasn't prepared for the friendly fire, but I've adjusted. Others should get some. But, I will never give up on our constitution and truly fighting for it. If I were wrapped up in my title, why didn't I use it in my original response? Why haven't I used it anywhere in this thread? My loyalty to my beliefs, values, and principles. Those are supportive and complementary to the Constitution. But, I'm curious. To what "character deficiency" are you referring?

[CJ Grisham]

But don't answer this question until you answer my others, otherwise your response will be deleted.

And I'm accused of being wrapped up in a title...

[Cedar Park Dad]

I can't find this statement nor did I record every phone call I've had with NRA/TSRA.
***So you have no proof for your statement.

Overall, our media coverage has been positive in Texas.
***It has? Proof would be helpful here. Please cite articles from reputable news sources that could be called positive by a 3rd party.

We made Q10 out to be the racist he is.
***As above. Proof would be helpful here. Please cite articles from reputable news sources that could be called positive by a 3rd party.
In fact, our efforts there garnered a LOT of membership from the black community
***How many?

You love the liberal media, it appears.
***Can’t resist an attempted insult. However there are many who think you are working with them yourself.

My right to keep and bear arms is not dependent upon government permission. I lost my TEXAS license. Being in the military for over 20 years and stationed in multiple CHL states where a license costs a mere $10-20 isn't beyond reason that I have multiple CHLs.
***The fact you didn’t cite which states you have them in gives the presumption that you don’t actually in fact, have one. I should follow with an additional query. Can you legally purchase firearms in Texas? After all the requirements are extremely similar.

And there it is - the classic NRA belief that the lawful carry of a firearm is damaging.
****Er no it has nothing to do with that (attacking the NRA again). It has everything to do with your antics hurting, not only OC, but also firearms rights in general. As noted, at least two chains killed out gun owners because of you. In the real world, you’ve done more than Bloomberg has. Thanks a bunch.

It does. It says we actually mean it when we say we believe in gun rights, not just some of them. I'm proud of that association and I understand how you wouldn't because they are eating into NRA support and challenging "the House."
***Really? Everyone was on the same page until the public antics started occurring. As noted the NRA has at least 3mm members now. How many do you have? Its not a statistically significant comparison.

I'm talking about any open carry legislation. It wasn't a promise from a governor and dozens of members of the legislature in the past. It is now. 106 is a crappy bill and our members should say no. Absolutely!
***So you’re saying only your legislation. He’s right (again).

[nightmare69]

Popcorn.gif

[anygunanywhere]

This is liken to pig rasslin'.

[Cedar Park Dad]

This is liken to pig rasslin'.

Never wrestle with pigs, you'll just get muddy and the pig will enjoy it.

Its so much fun though. Does that make me the pig?

[SA-TX]

But don't answer this question until you answer my others, otherwise your response will be deleted.

And I'm accused of being wrapped up in a title...

C.J.,

A) Thank you for your years of service to our country.
B) Best wishes on your appeal. I disagree with the verdict.

As one who has been rebuked for my "support" of you and/or OCT (which I've always denied but was simply trying to be open- minded when assessing your impact both positively and negatively), I respectfully suggest that this thread has been counter-productive. I say to you and everyone who wants to advance the cause in Texas to work cooperatively with Charles and TSRA to do so. Now is the time! There has never been a better opportunity. The past can be rehashed later, if necessary, and we can bicker over credit in the future if we must. For now, please, align OCT with TSRA/NRA and let's pass a bill. Fighting diminishes our chances. We need to do everything possible to work for success even if you view it as an enemy of my enemy is my friend situation.

SA-TX

[Charles L. Cotton]

Before I begin, in full disclosure, approximately 70% of my criticism against the NRA/TSRA is directed at the TSRA. However, because the TSRA is the NRA...

So you think the TSRA with 40,000+ members is the NRA with it's 5 million+ Members? I think I see part of the problem.

Show me where the NRA, TSRA or I have said OCT would only last 6 months?

I can't find this statement nor did I record every phone call I've had with NRA/TSRA.

So you have no proof. Will you retract this false allegation?

What achievements? All you've done is create a battle to pass open-carry when it was almost a certainty before you decided to walk into stores with long guns.

If open carry was "almost a certainty" prior to our founding, why wasn't it? We had two sessions where NOTHING was done. You told me it wasn't a priority last year. Alice Tripp open carry isn't something Texans care about. It wasn't a priority until we made it a priority, along with groups like Come and Take It Texas, Texas Carry, and Gun Rights Across America. The all-powerful "house" couldn't even make it a campaign issue, but we did.

Please answer the question, I'm not interested in your canned speeches. What are OCT's "achievements?"

Do you count negative TV and radio news casts an accomplishment?

We don't base our rights or our defense of those rights on what the liberal media thinks. Overall, our media coverage has been positive in Texas. We didn't cause negative media coverage. That was a result of the well-funded, anti-gun Bloomberg machine. Surely the NRA, frequently attacked in the media, understands this. Does the NRA base its effectiveness on negative/positive media? I doubt it.

I don't know where you saw the positive media coverage, but in the Houston viewing area, it was negative. It wasn't liberal media, it wasn't Bloomberg hacks, there were man-on-the-street interviews with Houstonians who almost to a person condemned OCT in-your-face tactics.

Do you think the fiasco in Houston where Quanell X made you look like an incompetent novice on every major network TV station in the Houston viewing area?

The premise of this question is false. We made Q10 out to be the racist he is. In fact, our efforts there garnered a LOT of membership from the black community and emails to OCT assuring us that Q10 doesn't speak for them or their community. You love the liberal media, it appears.

He made you look like a fool! You also proudly proclaimed that Quanell X hadn't scared OCT off and that you would be marching in Houston's Fifth Ward. Did I miss that march?

Was it an accomplishment when you went to Oklahoma and openly carried a handgun, then refused to state that you had a license from some state such that your actions were not unlawful?

My right to keep and bear arms is not dependent upon government permission. I lost my TEXAS license. Being in the military for over 20 years and stationed in multiple CHL states where a license costs a mere $10-20 isn't beyond reason that I have multiple CHLs. Regardless, the ONLY people making it an issue are the gun control extremists, you and Mr. Heath. It speaks volumes that you, a "gun rights advocate" would attack the right of a man to keep and bear arms in a state where legal. It also shows that you seem to have a strange fixation on me and everything I do/say. I'm also well-known to carry toy, training, and replica firearms around in a holster, so when did I ever mention whether or not I was even carrying a real firearm in those pictures.

Once again, please answer the question and stop the canned speeches. You stated in the Gun Talk Radio program that if licensed open-carry were to pass, that you would still have to carry a rifle since you lost your CHL. Since Texas has reciprocity with most other states that issue licenses, and since Texas residents can carry on those licenses, then you either don't have another state's license, or you statement on Gun Talk Radio was false.

More importantly, I have called for you to clear up the Oklahoma issue and tell the public what other state license you have so the media cannot claim you violated Oklahoma law. I want everyone to know that you didn't thumb your nose at Oklahoma law! Rather than take this issue away form the anti-open-carry folks, you try to play childish word games that everyone can see is merely an attempt to avoid admitting the unfortunate truth. You did so on your Facebook page and you're still doing it here. If you weren't violating Oklahoma law, then why don't you just say so and show the license from this mysterious other state?

Do you have anything other than your Facebook page and Facebook closed group? Both of those have shown little "growth" in months. I suspect it's your increasingly radical, hate-filled posts that are driving people away.

There you go again. If you don't know what our membership is, how can you even claim to know of anyone being driven away. If people leaving our organization is cause for labeling us radical, I could say the same about the NRA/TSRA, especially since we've collected over 1320 cut up NRA/TSRA membership cards over the past six months. You continue to confirm my original statement. No, our membership is not gauged by our Facebook. We have a membership form on our website, though currently it's down. Only about 60%% of our members are on Facebook. Our older members typically don't use Facebook or social media.

I simply asked a question, but it obviously hit a nerve. So your Membership application is down. Interesting.

What races were you involved in? Give some specifics.

Our members were heavily involved in the District 1, District 23, District 94 and a handful of others. We don't engage in direct lobbying, even though we're organized as a (c)(4). We are a grassroots organization whose strength is in its membership.

So you can only name three districts and you consider that having an impact. Are you claiming victory in those races?

You say open-carry is a "virtue [sic] certainly;" do you mean HB195 unlicensed open-carry? If you are going to claim an OCT victory, then anything other than HB195 will be a loss because you made that clear on your latest podcast.

We've also made clear that any progress in taking back our rights is a step in the right direction. But, we won't settle on anything less than full restoration of our rights. We don't start from a position of weakness by advocating for licensing away our rights. THAT is our goal and THAT is what we are fighting for. If we get something less than what we want, but more than what we have, it will always be a win.

Answer this question directly or don't post again. In your latest podcast, you told all your members to say "no no no" to HB106 and anything other than HB195, unlicensed open-carry. This is a clear message that OCT will not be supporting any licensed open-carry bill. So I ask again; if HB195 does not pass in 2015, will you still claim an OCT victory?

While some might call you a pro-gun group, there are others who think your are an anti-gun group in disguise, based upon the damage you have done to the open-carry effort and the focus you have drawn to TPC §30.06. Once again you claim success when you haven't passed a single bill, nor have you killed an anti-gun bill.

And there it is - the classic NRA belief that the lawful carry of a firearm is damaging. We haven't done any damage to the open carry effort. A real gun rights group sees that the damage was caused by the Bloomberg-funded astroturf efforts of Moms Demand Action. While businesses were being targeted at the national level, what national gun rights group was standing against it? Or, at least, what gun rights group wasn't blaming the victims of those attacks? The NRA/TSRA was the only "gun rights" group attacking us instead of the real enemy. The fact that you are perpetuating or repeating the absurd idea that we are "an anti-gun group in disguise" also says a lot about you. You seem to care a lot about that. We haven't passed a bill or killed a bill because this is our first legislative session. That's an easy claim to make to which we agree. As a counter, it's also easy to claim that you've done nothing to counter the anti-gun machine bullying businesses. Where was "the House" encouraging its members to sign a petition that would be delivered to businesses? Where was "the House" doing anything other than jumping on their bandwagon? AWOL.

Stop lying about me or you won't be here long. I didn't say you were an anti-gun group in disguise. I said some people are convinced that is a fact.

We (NRA/TSRA) have passed numerous pro-gun bills that have been beneficial to millions of Texas gun owners over the years and not even you can claim otherwise. What you do claim is that, since we haven't passed open-carry, then none of that matters. Thankfully, only a handful of Texans share that myopic view. We haven't passed open-carry up to this point because we haven't tried. We had far more important things to work on than open-carry and, in my opinion, we still do. The only reason I'm supporting open-carry and working for it's passage, is because I'm a good soldier.

Your response proves what I have been saying about OCT for a long while. All OCT cares about is open-carry, your claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Your vaunted HB195, the very Bill you claim OCT and NAGR wrote, doesn't even address the numerous off-limits areas that should be repealed. While I and 99+% of Texas gun owners are far more concerned about who can carry and where we can carry, all you care about is how you can carry. As long as you can let others see you have a handgun, it doesn't matter that we Texans cannot carry in any of the locations set out in TPC §46.03 and §46.035. I'm certain you will loudly proclaim otherwise, but talk is cheap. If you really cared, then the bill OCT/NAGR drafted would have repealed those locations, but you didn't.

Wait a minute. You have stated on a few occasions, including Gun Talk Radio, that you tore up your NRA member card and resigned from the organization. Now you claim to be a member. Which is the truth?

I did tear up my membership cards, but barring going out of my way to contact the NRA I'm still on their books as an endowment life member. That's not difficult to understand, I would think. The stickers on my car were removed, my hats and shirts were donated to Goodwill, and my license plate cover was thrown in the trash. I simply refuse to give the NRA any more money, so I don't consider myself a member any longer. Getting a little petty now, aren't you?

You expressly stated that you resigned from the NRA, now you claim you did not. Which CJ Grisham statement should we beleive? How am I getting petty when you list as part of your credentials in your Forum post that "I'm an Endowment Life and Golden Eagles member of the NRA, so I'm not speaking from the outside here[?] On a radio talk show you claim to have resigned from the NRA. Then you tell your OCT members to do likewise and you claim that "we've collected over 1320 cut up NRA/TSRA membership cards over the past six months. Did you tell the OCT members you encouraged to resigned from the NRA and/or the TSRA that you didn't really resign like you claimed? Do you think it's ethical to deceive your members like this?

This statement speaks volumes about you and OCT and I need not say more.

It does. It says we actually mean it when we say we believe in gun rights, not just some of them. I'm proud of that association and I understand how you wouldn't because they are eating into NRA support and challenging "the House."

Well, at least I don't have to type a lengthy response showing what you should already know; Dudley Brown/NAGA has been denounced by numerous pro-gun, pro-Second Amendment-supporting groups. I can just copy an earlier post. BTW, NRA membership, fundraising and political clout haven't been damaged by NAGR in the least. I presume this is yet another false allegation you cannot support. Now for the response:

• In the same post on the OCT Facebook page, OCT proudly claims that it has joined with GOA and Dudley Brown's National Association of Gun Rights (NAGR). Well, Larry Pratt, GOA President stated in a Houston radio station interview that he was not supportive of OCT's long gun demonstrations, but later courted OCT when the NRA editorial was improvidently posted.
  
  More importantly, any person or organization that "joins with" or supports NAGR must not have done the least bit of research about Dudley Brown or NAGR. Here is a link to a post by the Second Amendment Foundation. Read about some of NAGR's escapades. Be sure to read the letter from Students for Concealed Carry President Daniel Crocker to Dudley Brown in response to NAGR's attempt to claim credit for a legal victory to which NAGR was not a party.
  
  The Minnesota Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance responded on its Facebook page to a bogus NAGR/Dudley Brown solicitation email that claimed the gun rights group was supporting gun control. "There is an inflammatory email being sent to Minnesotans by an out-of-state individual who has never actually accomplished anything for Minnesota gun rights (or those of any other state that we can see). The real purpose of this email is the same as all the rest of the emails this individual sends: to solicit donations."
  
  This Dudley Brown/NAGR that has been condemned by long-standing gun rights organizations is the same Dudley Brown/NAGR that OCT proudly claims as an ally. I am reminded of the old adage that "one who lays down with dogs gets up with fleas." The true nature of OCT is becoming clear.
  
  Chas.

Again, are you talking about HB195, unlicensed open carry? You must be since you have described HB106 as a "crappy bill" and that your members should say "no no no no" to anything other than HB195.

I'm talking about any open carry legislation. It wasn't a promise from a governor and dozens of members of the legislature in the past. It is now. 106 is a crappy bill and our members should say no. Absolutely!

Answer the question CJ. Since OCT will only be supporting HB195, will you consider OCT as having had a successful 2015 Texas Legislative session if only licensed open-carry passes?

Here's two more questions. Since you're telling OCT member to say "no no no" to licensed open-carry bills, is OCT going to support any licensed open-carry bills? Are you going to oppose any licensed open-carry bills?

The only thing we tried to get you to do was stop carrying long guns into private property. You did precisely that, claiming it was your decision and it was made because you learned that that was not a good tactic.

No, it was diverting our main mission. There is nothing wrong with legally carrying any firearm into anyplace. However, our goal wasn't to fight for gun rights in private businesses.

That's precisely what we told you was happening, in addition to creating negative backlash in Austin.

It's a sad day that Charles Cotton continues his attacks on our members without cause. He must be getting desperate and bitterly clinging to his relevance. Perhaps he should focus more on unity and gun rights and less on splintering gun owners.

I've never attacked your members, so this is just your latest lie.

You should go back and read your post that initiated this thread. You attacked OCT. Therefore, you attacked our members.

Follow your own advice, reread my first post. I called for rational support of our respective bills. Quote the precise words that you claim constitute an attack against your member.

I have a 35+ year history of working for gun owners and the Second Amendment and I'll put my record against your as often as you like.

Congratulations on being older than me.

It's not merely an age difference CJ, it's a world of difference in political/legislative experience, the years of service to gun owners and my ability to create relationships that get pro-gun bills passed. It's the difference between a man who has worked for the benefit of others and one who seeks only to gain fame for himself and get the law changed to avoid the consequences of his irresponsible acts.

The next time you attack me personally, be ready for your entire recent history and the truth about your legal problems to be fully aired here on the Forum.

My entire "legal history" involves TWO arrests - both for non-crimes and only ONE of which I was only charged for. I have never been charged in the Austin arrest because I was never breaking a law. Again, you prove here that you aren't about rights, but power and rhetoric. Instead of noting that I was not breaking laws and merely exercising my legal rights, you focus just on the arrest. I've never had legal problems prior to that, so I have no problems with you airing my "legal problems."

You went way off the reservation CJ. I wasn't talking about these events and I didn't even know about them. I was talking about your arrest and conviction for interfering with the duty of a peace officer.

By the way, when did you ever work on my behalf in either of my cases?

Are you claiming I owed you a duty to represent you? The day will never come when I represent a hothead whose problems are of their own making. We want plaintiffs/clients who make a good impression on the court because it increases the likelihood of getting a favorable opinion that will benefit all gun owners. There an old saying in the law, bad facts make bad law. There's another equally accurate saying among lawyers, "don't violate the Fat Ugly Plaintiff Rule." Since I'm sure you will try to twist the meaning of this old saying, it's not referring to a party's size or beauty, it refers to a plaintiff/client that will not be well received by a jury.

I think your arrest was unlawful. Had you gone to jail quietly, you may well have had a great §1983 civil rights case against the officer and his agency. This is a result that would have greatly helped the open-carry cause. But no, you decided to resist arrest in spite of Tex. Penal Code §9.31(b)(2) that expressly states that you cannot resist even an unlawful arrest.

You called me and asked to bury the hatchet. I pointed out that I had not attacked you personally and that I wanted you to stop lying about the NRA. You agreed, but the false attacks about the NRA continued on the OCT website.

That's because you are the TSRA and the TSRA is you and you've never stopped. Maybe you personally did (until this post and I'm sure in others I'm not aware of), but your surrogates did not.

I am the TSRA and the TSRA is me huh? Wow, I don't know how to respond to such lunacy.

There, I responded to all of your questions. I'm done engaging you.

Well yes, you responded but you provided very few answers choosing to rely upon canned speeches.

Chas.

[anygunanywhere]

This is liken to pig rasslin'.

Never wrestle with pigs, you'll just get muddy and the pig will enjoy it.

Its so much fun though. Does that make me the pig?

Nope. Actually I think the saying goes that it will just annoy the pig. I have never thought you were annoying.

[The Annoyed Man]

You guys oust Grisham and get people in leadership who do not have their egos wrapped up in their title, who answer questions forthrightly, who can lead a horse to water without poisoning the well, who do not casually and boastfully break the law the way Grisham did in Oklahoma, and who are consistently truthful, and who are able to see where they've made mistakes, acknowledge those mistakes and move on, and I'll begin to respect OCT. But as long as he is your titular head and inspiration, your entire organization is tainted by it because he is a seriously deficient leader and spokesperson, and I and thousands of liberty-minded Texas gun owners will never agree to having that stain added to our own characters.

It really is a matter of character. My character and reputation are important to me. Until OCT stops being led by the character-deficient, I can't have anything to do with it.

Maybe this post violates rules, and will be deleted, but hopefully it will be up long enough for you to see the REAL problem you have, and to get your organization's leadership to act on it.......or your group will ultimately die off.

It's okay. Since you oppose OCT, it's ok to violate rules. Admin won't bother you. Carry on.

As for "breaking laws," see my post to Charles. you THINK you know truth, but you don't. And, believe me, I will gladly give up the reigns and along with it the stress, the baseless attacks, etc. It takes a thick skin and a lot of self confidence to subject oneself to the kinds of attacks that the leader of pro-gun organization gets on a daily basis, especially from the so-called "gun rights" crowd. I'll admit I wasn't prepared for the friendly fire, but I've adjusted. Others should get some. But, I will never give up on our constitution and truly fighting for it. If I were wrapped up in my title, why didn't I use it in my original response? Why haven't I used it anywhere in this thread? My loyalty to my beliefs, values, and principles. Those are supportive and complementary to the Constitution. But, I'm curious. To what "character deficiency" are you referring?

Cry me a river. If it's that hard, then quit. And you couldn't be further from the truth. You will find literally hundreds of posts I've written in favor of Constitutional Carry, both on this forum and on FaceBook. I just really object to you, because as your post above eminently demonstrates, you consistently ignore the facts and speak falsehoods. You make the mistake of conflating your selfish interests with the interests of OCT. IF you'd quit, I'd stop trashing the group. But unfortunately for them, YOU are their face, and that is a disaster for OCT.

Your organization literally suffers under your leadership, and I said as much to your man in Houston. I stand by that. YOU personally are the reason your organization will never be more than a smallish group of bomb-throwers. It is a shame. We need responsible activism. Because of your leadership, OCT's activism is not responsible. You don't have to like that, but it is true. Deal with it.

The very best thing that you can do for Open Carry/Constitutional Carry in Texas is to resign from leadership of OCT. Allow OCT to become mainstream instead of being a bunch of outside-the-wire bomb-throwers. Allow some of the more rational men (and women) in your organization to assume its control and direction, so that it can work with NRA/TSRA instead of against them. If you are that worn out by the slings and arrows, then quit and let someone else take up the cudgel. That is the only way OCT has a prayer of getting the "access" to the inner workings of the Texas political process valno600 spoke of in a previous post.

As far as the Oklahoma thing goes, you dodged questions, refused to answer, accused the curious of being "anti-gun" (your very tired and worn out fallback mantra). You danced around and pussyfooted around the issue because you knew you got your butt caught in the wringer with another one of your indiscretions......because you can't help yourself....and you started making up stuff to explain it. It's just so "high school".

An honest person with a valid license would have just said, "yeah, I still have active licenses from XYZ states" and been done with it. You did not......most likely because you could not, because you knew it would catch up with you if you did. So you jiggered around and made up stories about unnamed carry licenses and carrying toys.

Gimme a break.

Step down. Let OCT recover from your leadership. Stop dragging it down. Return to private life.

[CoffeeNut]

You guys oust Grisham and get people in leadership who do not have their egos wrapped up in their title, who answer questions forthrightly, who can lead a horse to water without poisoning the well, who do not casually and boastfully break the law the way Grisham did in Oklahoma, and who are consistently truthful, and who are able to see where they've made mistakes, acknowledge those mistakes and move on, and I'll begin to respect OCT. But as long as he is your titular head and inspiration, your entire organization is tainted by it because he is a seriously deficient leader and spokesperson, and I and thousands of liberty-minded Texas gun owners will never agree to having that stain added to our own characters.

It really is a matter of character. My character and reputation are important to me. Until OCT stops being led by the character-deficient, I can't have anything to do with it.

Maybe this post violates rules, and will be deleted, but hopefully it will be up long enough for you to see the REAL problem you have, and to get your organization's leadership to act on it.......or your group will ultimately die off.

It's okay. Since you oppose OCT, it's ok to violate rules. Admin won't bother you. Carry on.

As for "breaking laws," see my post to Charles. you THINK you know truth, but you don't. And, believe me, I will gladly give up the reigns and along with it the stress, the baseless attacks, etc. It takes a thick skin and a lot of self confidence to subject oneself to the kinds of attacks that the leader of pro-gun organization gets on a daily basis, especially from the so-called "gun rights" crowd. I'll admit I wasn't prepared for the friendly fire, but I've adjusted. Others should get some. But, I will never give up on our constitution and truly fighting for it. If I were wrapped up in my title, why didn't I use it in my original response? Why haven't I used it anywhere in this thread? My loyalty to my beliefs, values, and principles. Those are supportive and complementary to the Constitution. But, I'm curious. To what "character deficiency" are you referring?

Cry me a river. If it's that hard, then quit. And you couldn't be further from the truth. You will find literally hundreds of posts I've written in favor of Constitutional Carry, both on this forum and on FaceBook. I just really object to you, because as your post above eminently demonstrates, you consistently ignore the facts and speak falsehoods. You make the mistake of conflating your selfish interests with the interests of OCT. IF you'd quit, I'd stop trashing the group. But unfortunately for them, YOU are their face, and that is a disaster for OCT.

Your organization literally suffers under your leadership, and I said as much to your man in Houston. I stand by that. YOU personally are the reason your organization will never be more than a smallish group of bomb-throwers. It is a shame. We need responsible activism. Because of your leadership, OCT's activism is not responsible. You don't have to like that, but it is true. Deal with it.

The very best thing that you can do for Open Carry/Constitutional Carry in Texas is to resign from leadership of OCT. Allow OCT to become mainstream instead of being a bunch of outside-the-wire bomb-throwers. Allow some of the more rational men (and women) in your organization to assume its control and direction, so that it can work with NRA/TSRA instead of against them. If you are that worn out by the slings and arrows, then quit and let someone else take up the cudgel. That is the only way OCT has a prayer of getting the "access" to the inner workings of the Texas political process valno600 spoke of in a previous post.

As far as the Oklahoma thing goes, you dodged questions, refused to answer, accused the curious of being "anti-gun" (your very tired and worn out fallback mantra). You danced around and pussyfooted around the issue because you knew you got your butt caught in the wringer with another one of your indiscretions......because you can't help yourself....and you started making up stuff to explain it. It's just so "high school".

An honest person with a valid license would have just said, "yeah, I still have active licenses from XYZ states" and been done with it. You did not......most likely because you could not, because you knew it would catch up with you if you did. So you jiggered around and made up stories about unnamed carry licenses and carrying toys.

Gimme a break.

Step down. Let OCT recover from your leadership. Stop dragging it down. Return to private life.

Couldn't agree more.

[infoman]

I support licensed carry, whether open or concealed. I do not support unlicensed "anyone" can carry with zero background checks. I have no sympathy for someone convicted of domestic violence from not being able to carry in public for example. I think unlicensed carry has potential to be dangerous. I get the argument that the "bad guys" will carry anyway, but I still don't want to purposely make it easier for them. I like that someone who has a DWI is disqualified for 5 years. I like all the eligibility criteria currently in place. these are just my opinions.

[Selcouth]

Does anyone have a list of what businesses have put up 30.06 signs due to OCT walks?

How could anyone possibly know that? There's no registration that someone posting a 30.06 sign has to make saying why they are posting the sign.

That's my point. There's no proof that more businesses have put more signs up due to OCT walks. So someone using that as an argument is laughable at best.

[srothstein]

Mr. Grisham and valno600,

Thank you for joining our forum and expressing your opinions on these issues. I understand that it can be hard to join a forum that you do not feel welcome in and where you may have been attacked in the past or attacked when you post.

Charles,

Thank you for allowing Mr. Grisham and valno600 to remain a member and post in this thread. I know it is also hard to allow a person in who has attacked you in the past and may attack you in the new posts.

An open discussion between people of opposing viewpoints can only be educational. In addition to providing some clarification on the points of the subject matter, it allows us to make personal judgments on the people involved. In this case, I need to judge Mr. Grisham, Mr. Cotton, and the three organizations. My personal bias in the past has been toward some support of the NRA and full support of the TSRA. I have disagreed with both in the past on some items. When I first saw the open carry demonstrations, I felt that they were a good thing for us as gun owners. I have since been convinced, based on the actions of a few people participating in them and on the large scale media reporting on them, that the demonstrations were not working for our cause as well as I had believed in the past (and you can find my posts on this board where I took the positions and showed why I changed). I do not always agree with the TSRA though I have never worked against anything they proposed, just remaining neutral on a few issues. I have disagreed with the NRA much more than I have TSRA, though with the same thoughts in general.

As I have said before on this board, my end goal is the total repeal of Penal Code Chapter 46, the GCA of 1968 and the NFA of 1934. Based on what I have seen so far, I will continue to work with the TSRA and the NRA on my goals. There are many other organizations working towards my goals, such as OCT, SAF, and JFPO. I am not putting any organization down, but I have to admit that the TSRA is the most successful lobbyist for my firearm rights in Texas and the NRA is the same at the national level. I certainly hope we can cut out the in-fighting and work together, but until that happens, I am going with the NRA and TSRA.