TexasCHLforum.com

I wrote to Sheriff Parnell McNamara of McLennan County last week, thanking him for his plain-spoken, common-sense endorsement of armed citizens before the Texas Senate. That was the same hearing in which Austin Police Chief Avevedo offered rape counseling as a better alternative to ventilated attackers.

About 30 minutes ago, I got a call from Sheriff McNamara thanking me for my letter.

Talk about a nice guy, genuinely committed to public safety and service - he spoke to me for about ten minutes, outlining why he thinks the way he does.

I still remember his comments on a KWTX interview after the Colorado theater shooting. He said if that heinous act had been attempted in Texas, he felt there would have been law abiding citizens willing to "swap lead with that coward."

If only my banker had half that kind of horse sense. Dratted 30.06 signs...

Better yet, if Chief Acevedo would accept some good-natured counseling from Sheriff McNamara my old home town would be a nicer place.

treadlightly wrote:If only my banker had half that kind of horse sense. Dratted 30.06 signs...

Time to find a new bank.

mr1337 wrote:

treadlightly wrote:If only my banker had half that kind of horse sense. Dratted 30.06 signs...

Time to find a new bank.

I've never had to disarm at a Chase.

Glad to see your Sheriff responded with more than a form letter. I've sent emails, letters and phone calls to many and at best all I've ever gotten is a form letter response. A 10 minute phone call is pure gold.

Looks like the Homeland Security / Public Safety Committee has some work to do. Everything is stuck there.

Can someone explain the current status of SB 11? http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... &Bill=SB11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; The "Not again placed on intent calendar" is confusing me.

chop249 wrote:Can someone explain the current status of SB 11? http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... &Bill=SB11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; The "Not again placed on intent calendar" is confusing me.

Means it will not be brought up for consideration on that calendar day.
It was placed on intent calendar but didn't get around to it but the following day it was "not again" reposted on intent calendar. Follow me?

chop249 wrote:Can someone explain the current status of SB 11? http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... &Bill=SB11" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; The "Not again placed on intent calendar" is confusing me.

That was probably a mistake because it's not eligible for debate and vote until 3/13/15.

Chas.

treadlightly wrote:That was the same hearing in which Austin Police Chief Avevedo offered rape counseling as a better alternative to ventilated attackers.

There's only one logical reason he's afraid of empowering women who think "no means no" in Texas.

Postby CleverNickname » Thu Feb 19, 2015 7:37 pm

I haven't seen any discussion on HB 1179 which would require Texas CLEOs to sign off on NFA paperwork. I'm about NFA'ed out (I've bought or built 9 suppressors and 3 SBRs in the last year and a half), but it would be nice to be able to continue to do so in the future once my gun budget recovers.

According to:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... ill=HB1179

It's Scheduled for public hearing on . . . 03/10/2015

FYI...HB554 Springer - Relating to a defense to prosecution for the offense of possessing or carrying a weapon in or into the secured area of an airport, was discussed in today's Homeland Security & Public Safety meeting.

K5GU wrote:FYI...HB554 Springer - Relating to a defense to prosecution for the offense of possessing or carrying a weapon in or into the secured area of an airport, was discussed in today's Homeland Security & Public Safety meeting.

What was your impression of the legislator's attitude toward it?

mojo84 wrote:

K5GU wrote:FYI...HB554 Springer - Relating to a defense to prosecution for the offense of possessing or carrying a weapon in or into the secured area of an airport, was discussed in today's Homeland Security & Public Safety meeting.

What was your impression of the legislator's attitude toward it?

Springer was very convincing talking about the intent. Most of them looked positive. One of them commented that the bill wasn't really needed if prosecutors would heed the existing wording in PC 46.03 that says '...if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm... But Springer said one of the things the bill should do is cause avoidance of $$$ and time, arrest, etc., by someone who is law-abiding, has a license, and forgets the weapon is in his brief case, pocket, etc. when he gets to the security checkpoint, similar to what happens under 30.06 where the person carrying gets the chance to leave the posted area. Forgot to mention, Pickett (companion bill author) also testified FOR HB554.

Thanks

Just read where CJ and his hooligans are going to push for the removal of the license requirement on HB910; correct me if I'm wrong but that's the whole reason why this bill has progressed versus HB195.

CJ if you're on here, I beg and implore you and your group not to foul this up for the rest of us. Better yet don't even be in Austin this day.