TexasCHLforum.com

RHenriksen wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Truitt is my House Representative too. Isn't SB 905 a Senate bill?

Yes, but can't House representatives offer amendments to a Senate bill once it passes the Senate and comes to the House?

I must be behind the 8-ball. Is that what happened?

sherlock7 wrote:Charles, You have my support! I have called My Rep. ( Vicky Truitt ) and requested her to support Rep. Kleinschmidt's admendment to SB905 and to oppose any admendment that is not acceptable to to Rep. Kleinschmidt.

Truitt is my House Representative too. Isn't SB 905 a Senate bill?

GrillKing wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

JJVP wrote:I keep hearing that the ALL or Nothing approach will get us nothing. That we need baby steps to get us there. Fine, here is my proposal for baby steps. First remove the restrictions for Churches, for ALL CHL's. Next time they can remove the restrictions on profesional sporting events, for ALL CHL's. Then they can go for the 51%, again for ALL CHL's. Baby steps.

I will not support in any way a piece of legislation that exempts politicians from the laws we are expected to obey. I will also not support legislation that gives "special privileges" to some CHL's, but no others. Whatever is done should apply to ALL CHL's or to none.

I have great respect to what Charles has done for guns rights in Texas. This, however is a case where we will never see eye to eye.

How will you feel about it after his method has proven successful?

And it will prove unsuccessful. One step at a time got us where we are today and one step at a time will continue to get us where we want to be. I believe "all or nothing" will land us closer to nothing. I completely trust Charles, I appreciate his work on Texas RKBA, and will go with his suggestions on how we should proceed. I will do so even when some details cannot be made public at the time. His track record is PROVEN!

I think you misread my previous posts. I trust Charles too. I was the one urging others to trust him. SEE THIS POST FROM PAJAMAS MEDIA.

JJVP wrote:I keep hearing that the ALL or Nothing approach will get us nothing. That we need baby steps to get us there. Fine, here is my proposal for baby steps. First remove the restrictions for Churches, for ALL CHL's. Next time they can remove the restrictions on profesional sporting events, for ALL CHL's. Then they can go for the 51%, again for ALL CHL's. Baby steps.

I will not support in any way a piece of legislation that exempts politicians from the laws we are expected to obey. I will also not support legislation that gives "special privileges" to some CHL's, but no others. Whatever is done should apply to ALL CHL's or to none.

I have great respect to what Charles has done for guns rights in Texas. This, however is a case where we will never see eye to eye.

How will you feel about it after his method has proven successful?

TexasBill wrote:But there are CHL holders who do go to bars, do go to sporting events and do want to carry in church and they are exposed to exactly the same threats as a Texas Senator (except for political opponents -- a couple of legislators were killed by their opponents). Why shouldn't the citizens of the state enjoy the same right of self-defense our Senate wants to appropriate for itself?

Just a reminder.... they can carry in church now if they want to, unless the church is posted with a 30.06 sign. I certainly can't speak for all churches in Texas, but it is my experience so far that I've only ever seen one church with a compliant 30.06 sign. Naturally, I wouldn't attend a church that doesn't accept my right to self-defense by means of a firearm, or that doesn't think that a mass-shooting can't happen in their church. Fortunately for me, my church has no such sign, and there are a number of us who do carry in church.

I agree that Constitutional Carry is the desired ultimate goal, but I am a political realist, and I understand that it can only happen in an incremental manner......for the simple reason that there are other voters in this state who oppose it. Their objections will have to be overcome one point at a time. Charles provides this forum for discussion of these issues, and he doesn't ban people with whom he disagrees on how best to expand the RKBA, so long as they disagree within the behavioral guidelines called for in the forum rules. I think that Charles has more than earned our trust. If he says there is a good reason which he cannot disclose right now for why we should support the Kleinschmidt amendment to SB905, then that is good enough for me.

Maybe that makes me a suck-up. Maybe not. I don't care. It's what I think is right.

M2K wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Our newly joined members who have focused on this thread and bill need to look at my earlier post. I'm not saying SB905 is a good bill; I'm asking people to support the Kleinschmidt amendment to SB905. As many have said, there is a reason for this but I can't say at this time.

Chas.

I've read your earlier posts and most everything on this board for the last few years. It is one of the better boards on the internet consisting of a very intelligent membership. I’m usually not a “joiner” but I joined this board because I just couldn't stand the implied arrogance and elitism of this bill and the Kleinschmidt amendment.

Why should I accept your hidden reason at face value?

Mike

Mike, first, welcome to the board. You don't know me, and perhaps this answer will not sufficiently satisfy your question, but here is how I respond to it.....

Based on his resumé:
If we had to assign credit for having CHL in Texas today in the first place to the efforts of one person above all others, that person would be Charles Cotton. Charles has steadfastly stood—in every instance—for the steady (and intelligently applied) advancement of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Because of his national stature as a member of the NRA board, and because of his previous experience as the Executive Director of the TSRA, and because of his ongoing stature as an experienced lobbyist in the halls of the state Legislature, and because of his being an attorney who actually wrote large swaths of the currently existing law, Charles has more than earned both my respect, and my trust as a champion of my rights.

Charles has consistently sought to advance gun rights in various areas while wisely not trampling on gains already made on behalf of gun rights in other areas. He is able to do this because of the depth and breadth of his experience in legislative matters. This is not something which can be said about bomb-throwers (folks like the most vituperative of the Open Carry crowd), nor is it even something that can be said about the rest of the RKBA activist community who lack his experience.

Pretty much every single member of this board, you included, currently enjoys greater expression of the RKBA than was allowed prior to 1992, directly because of the efforts of Charles Cotton. We all owe him a debt of gratitude, and on that basis alone, you should accept his word at face value. If Charles says there is a good reason for not publicly revealing the tactics behind why you should support the Kleinschmidt amendment to SB905, then you are certainly free to decline, but the odds are that you would be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Personally, I don't think that Charles needs to prove why he can't discuss it. He has never misled the larger constituency of gun owners. There is no good reason to believe that he would start doing so now.

Based on his personal integrity:
I wish I knew Charles well enough to call him a close friend. I don't. Perhaps over time I will have that privilege. However, I have met him personally and spoken with him on several occasions, I've had a number of conversations on the phone with him, and I have done work for him on a website. He is a 100% straight shooter. If he said something was going to happen, it happened. He didn't argue about my fees, and I got paid in a timely manner. I have also attended a couple of his seminars on the use of deadly force in self-defense in Texas. As a lawyer, and as the guy who wrote most of the CHL law, it was an eye-opening perspective. I seriously doubt there are many other people with his understanding of it, and, he is more than willing to share that understanding with as many people as he can...... .....for FREE. He's not in it for the advancement of his own career, or for money, or some other hidden agenda. He's in it strictly because he believes the RKBA is a sacred thing, and he feels personally called to advance it.

I hope these two reasons are good enough for you to accept what Charles has said at face value, and to trust him.