TexasCHLforum.com

Jasonw560 wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:

Hoi Polloi wrote:I agree with the thinking, but I don't think it hits the target. Go onto a college campus and ask around what they are passionate about and I don't think you'll hear "reducing crime." That's kinda an abstract idea for most, really. Protecting and helping victims (especially women, minorities, homosexuals, domestic partners, etc) will come up frequently, though. Two sides of the same coin, but they resonate with the latter far more than with the former. I think hirundo has hit the nail on the head.

I think the obvious solution is we need to find a black or Hispanic lesbian who is confined to a wheelchair after being attacked while walking back to her car at night after class. I'd love to see the Democrats try to block that one.

Well, RPB claims to be a Violence Prevention Activist. Maybe the Violence Prevention Act?

Wasn't there a young lady who testified for this that actually was attacked?

She testified for the "Amanda Collins Self Defense Act" (Or something like that- not an official name, but should have been)
The mother of the deceased girl did too
This is the same Nevada bill endorsed by the Nevada State Law Officers association or whatever it's called
nevada "Senate Bill 231"
http://www.google.com/search?q=nevada+% ... =firefox-a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Background
http://bit.ly/kOJz4H" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Official name of the almost forgotten bill is "the Nevada Campus Protection Act, "

passed Senate .... got forgotten ... but trying to revive interest in it

Major Nevada Law Enforcement Group Supports Campus Carry
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?id=6809" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Recently, the Nevada State Law Enforcement Officer's Association (NSLEOA) has announced it support for Senate Bill 231, the Nevada Campus Protection Act. The NSLEOA sent an e-mail message to the Nevada Senate asking them to move this bill forward and indicated that should it be sent to the Assembly, they will lobby for its passage.

unless you mean the girl at A&M and the one at UT-Austin who were attacked


One testified in the campus carry hearing, the other in the anti-stalking hearing


both still carry scars IIRC

RPB wrote:unless you mean the girl at A&M and the one at UT-Austin who were attacked


One testified in the campus carry hearing, the other in the anti-stalking hearing


both still carry scars IIRC

Those are the ones. But both reasons are valid to this cause.

With almost monthly on campus armed robberies at Alamo colleges, should be someone for our cause, except most of those are Jr. Colleges .... most victims too young to have a CHL so far, though I went to Jr. College *again* at age 26/27 to get an Associates degree in Real Estate I wanted (TREC was changing regulations at that time to later require that many credit hours to get a broker license, which I already had)

flintknapper wrote:CHL Extension Act (2013).

"CHL" denotes exactly what it is (as opposed to the ambiguous license extension label).

There is no need to include any of the "protection" labels either, everyone knows the purpose of a CHL.

A CHL extension act could encompass more than just Carry on a University Campus (if desired) and by designating it by year... the same name could be used in future efforts to introduce bills...by simply changing the year/date.

The thrust of any arguments for this bill should revolve around simply "extending" the ability a CHL holder ALREADY has.... to the campus environment. The words "Student and Campus Carry" need to be dropped immediately! Much too easy for the anti's to misrepresent the intent of that (and they are all too happy to do so).

CHL Extension Act is a great start for the reasons Flintknapper mentioned.

hirundo82 wrote:As much as I hate harm to come to anyone, we really need a victim's face to put on campus carry. The "Jane Everywoman Campus Self-Defense Act" has a much better ring than "campus carry."

And this is the very thing to use. It does not need to just be on campus crimes. These crimes happen 24/7 every day, year round, everywhere, to anyone, at any place, sad to say at any time of day or night. Strengthen the use for having a CHL to all qualified in Texas by, “the way it is” education. I know it’s sad, but it’s true. It doesn’t have to be through fear, just the fact that you don’t have to take it any more, I repeat, YOU DON’T HAVE TO TAKE IT ANYMORE. If we could get Nike to sponsor just one commercial that says “CHL – JUST DO IT” our work would be done. Silly example I know, but you see what I mean.

Another thing to think about is the age required to get your CHL. When my daughters started college, we tried to buy them everything but the kitchen sink to get them going on a good comfortable start. Seven years apart from each other, both know and respect firearms and all that pertains, but 3 years away from a CHL at college time. I’m not saying the age should be changed. That is a whole new topic. I do believe though, that the majority of the student opposition (voter qualified} were not age qualified for a CHL. Two to three years for these students is like a life time to them. How do you reach them and they realize, I DON’T HAVE TO TAKE IT ANYMORE? Give them something to look forward to? I don’t know. I do feel that most of these students don’t respond well to in your face, see it my way. – just my 2 more bits.

4copas wrote:Another thing to think about is the age required to get your CHL. When my daughters started college, we tried to buy them everything but the kitchen sink to get them going on a good comfortable start. Seven years apart from each other, both know and respect firearms and all that pertains, but 3 years away from a CHL at college time. I’m not saying the age should be changed. That is a whole new topic. I do believe though, that the majority of the student opposition (voter qualified} were not age qualified for a CHL. Two to three years for these students is like a life time to them. How do you reach them and they realize, I DON’T HAVE TO TAKE IT ANYMORE? Give them something to look forward to? I don’t know. I do feel that most of these students don’t respond well to in your face, see it my way. – just my 2 more bits.

I think this is an excellent point, and I agree that most of the opposition came from those too young to get a CHL. Speaking as someone who is less than a decade removed from that age, you do not realize what the real world is like when you are a traditional undergrad. I know that my worldview changed a lot in the couple years after I graduated college and was working for a living.

Easy: The 2013 Constitutional Carry Act.

Oooh... Since it's much harder for someone to steal something from your holster than your car, how about the "Keep Guns Away From Criminals Act"?

Dave2 wrote:Oooh... Since it's much harder for someone to steal something from your holster than your car, how about the Prevent easy access to guns for non-student Criminals on campus Act"?

Edited your suggestion ..... Name's a bit long; I like the logic/concept though

Since guns should be secured safely on body in holster, instead of off-body in car

Loose guns on Campus prevention/reduction act
Maybe even a Brady would vote for something with that caption/summary
Description: (something like) Concerning the Securing of weapons brought onto college campuses by CHLs


Since it doesn't affect MPA, it "reduces" the number of off-body guns CHLs have in cars. .... "reducing loose guns on campus"

"Less loose guns on campus"
(Not "more guns on campus" which they say isn't 'the answer' .... not sure what the question was)

I tried showing one guy who kept saying xxxx isn't 'the answer' The Answer, by Tucker gunleather. This is 'The Answer"

RPB wrote:

Dave2 wrote:Oooh... Since it's much harder for someone to steal something from your holster than your car, how about the Prevent easy access to guns for non-student Criminals on campus Act"?

Edited your suggestion ..... Name's a bit long; I like the logic/concept though

We'll just call it the PEATGFNSCOC Act for short. Everybody can remember that, right?

I like the emphasis on personal or individual security (versus "campus safety"), hence I voted for personal security on campus. But it should be stressed that campus carry effectively enables CHLs to carry off campus while en route to campus. Especially if they hike, bike, or ride the bus.

Thought about it, what it's meant to do, talked it over with the smartest person in the room (I was alone, so I was talking to the chair), decided to combine two and came up with:

The Personal Security Extension Act.

I really hate to sound cynical on this but we really need an emotional name and emotional tie. I sometimes wish I could be like the Brady bunch and dance in victim's blood. Then we could name it the Jane Doe Act after some pretty female rape victim on campus. Have you ever seen how those types of bills gather almost no public opposition? How can you be against a pretty young girl defending herself from a rapist?

srothstein wrote:I really hate to sound cynical on this but we really need an emotional name and emotional tie. I sometimes wish I could be like the Brady bunch and dance in victim's blood. Then we could name it the Jane Doe Act after some pretty female rape victim on campus. Have you ever seen how those types of bills gather almost no public opposition? How can you be against a pretty young girl defending herself from a rapist?

Hate to admit it, but you're right. I woldn't feel right, though, unless she was part of this process. Don't want to take advantage of her situation.

Jasonw560 wrote:

srothstein wrote:I really hate to sound cynical on this but we really need an emotional name and emotional tie. I sometimes wish I could be like the Brady bunch and dance in victim's blood. Then we could name it the Jane Doe Act after some pretty female rape victim on campus. Have you ever seen how those types of bills gather almost no public opposition? How can you be against a pretty young girl defending herself from a rapist?

Hate to admit it, but you're right. I woldn't feel right, though, unless she was part of this process. Don't want to take advantage of her situation.

If it was literally called "The Jane Doe Act", there wouldn't be any specific she.