TexasCHLforum.com

ninjamedic2293 wrote:Really Cling? . . . Seriously? This is the attitude that is going to set us us back 20 years.

He is trying to get his post count up so he can sell something. He must have read rule 13.

Anygunanywhere

ninjamedic2293 wrote:Really Cling? . . . Seriously? This is the attitude that is going to set us us back 20 years.

Exactly. Saying we support open carry only if it's already legal is not going to win anything.

cling wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Here is a clarification on the NRA's position on open carry. This is the official position of the NRA and it is presented to avoid any confusion that may have recently arisen.

Chas.

"We support the right of law-abiding persons to carry a firearm for all lawful purposes in the manner of their choosing, consistent with existing laws." - NRA

Does that include unconstitutional laws?

Which laws are you referencing?

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

cling wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Here is a clarification on the NRA's position on open carry. This is the official position of the NRA and it is presented to avoid any confusion that may have recently arisen.

Chas.

"We support the right of law-abiding persons to carry a firearm for all lawful purposes in the manner of their choosing, consistent with existing laws." - NRA

Does that include unconstitutional laws?

Which laws are you referencing?

Chas.

As an NRA member I find the statement above quite disturbing. The NRA quote, if taken at face-value, would seem to support pre-Heller gun laws in Washington DC. It is really no statement at all.

Purplehood wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

cling wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Here is a clarification on the NRA's position on open carry. This is the official position of the NRA and it is presented to avoid any confusion that may have recently arisen.

Chas.

"We support the right of law-abiding persons to carry a firearm for all lawful purposes in the manner of their choosing, consistent with existing laws." - NRA

Does that include unconstitutional laws?

Which laws are you referencing?

Chas.

As an NRA member I find the statement above quite disturbing. The NRA quote, if taken at face-value, would seem to support pre-Heller gun laws in Washington DC. It is really no statement at all.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Heller; it was issued after a brand new grassroots employee responded to an email and OpenCarry.org posted it on their website as an endorsement of open-carry legislation.

Chas.

I presumed that it had nothing to do with it. But at face-value it can be easily misconstrued. I was disappointed with the statement in general.

Perhaps I should have re-phrased it as,

"could seem to support".

Purplehood wrote:I presumed that it had nothing to do with it. But at face-value it can be easily misconstrued. I was disappointed with the statement in general.

The statement clearly indicates that the NRA supports open-carry where it is legal under existing law. It does not state that it opposes changing the law where open-carry is not legal, nor does the statement indicate the NRA is supporting any current legislation or legislative efforts in the open-carry arena. The NRA doesn't make global statements of support of open-carry legislation for the same reasons TSRA will not do so. (I covered that in another post.)

The NRA had to make a statement since it's name was erroneously being linked to specific efforts in Texas.

Chas.

Charles,

I am not trying to initiate an attack on the organization that I am a member of. I am stating that I find the statement is too neutral or ambiguous to be of any real value.

I realize that I may not be the brightest kid on the block, but if I see the statement as not leaning one way or another, I suspect that a good part of the general population might also come to the same conclusion.

I am pro-NRA, and feel like "we" should come down a little more forcefully and succinctly on the matter.

Purplehood wrote:Charles,

I am not trying to initiate an attack on the organization that I am a member of. I am stating that I find the statement is too neutral or ambiguous to be of any real value.

I realize that I may not be the brightest kid on the block, but if I see the statement as not leaning one way or another, I suspect that a good part of the general population might also come to the same conclusion.

I am pro-NRA, and feel like "we" should come down a little more forcefully and succinctly on the matter.

I didn't think otherwise. I guess my frustration caused by the NRA being forced into a position where it had to issue a statement on open-carry is showing through; sorry about that. The NRA was put in a bad position, not wanting to hurt anyone's legislative agenda, while trying to clarify that it was not involved in any national or state legislative efforts on this issue.

Chas.

jamcgowan wrote:I am a new member...just joined today....

May I say that the courtesy and gentlemanly manner in which this topic has been discussed, makes me proud to be a Texas Gun Owner.

I am a member of the NRA, TSRA, and OCDO. I am a legally armed citizen and have encouraged my oldest daughter (now pregnant with her 2nd), to obtain her CHL (I purchased her a S&W M&P 9mm for Christmas).

What else can I do to promote 2nd Amend. issues here in Texas? I'm no lawyer, just a humble pastor, but I am ready to become more active. I just need direction.

TIA

jamcgowan,

WELCOME!


I am relatively new to this forum as well, but I would like to welcome you. As for what you can do; one relatively easy thing that can be of great support is to contact your legislators directly and let them know your opinions on these items.

Have a nice day in HIS name!

Purplehood wrote:I am not trying to initiate an attack on the organization that I am a member of. I am stating that I find the statement is too neutral or ambiguous to be of any real value.

That wa my point. The statement is so wishy washy to be meaningless. I'm trying to imagine the NAACP being asked about Rosa Parks and answering like this. "We support the right of law-abiding persons of every race to sit in any unoccupied seat on a bus, consistent with existing laws."

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I didn't think otherwise. I guess my frustration caused by the NRA being forced into a position where it had to issue a statement on open-carry is showing through; sorry about that. The NRA was put in a bad position, not wanting to hurt anyone's legislative agenda, while trying to clarify that it was not involved in any national or state legislative efforts on this issue.

I would rather we say we don't see anything in the 2nd amendment requiring the people to conceal their arms, but we have no official position on the OCO's proposed legislation.

FWIW, I am an NRA member and I support OC in theory but I didn't like the OCO bill I saw.

The statement was intended to be meaningless.

A staffer had erroneously issued a statement saying the NRA supported open carry in Texas.

The NRA purposely issued a non-committal release to negate the earlier comment while not officially taking a public position at this stage.

Mike1951 wrote:The statement was intended to be meaningless.

A staffer had erroneously issued a statement saying the NRA supported open carry in Texas.

The NRA purposely issued a non-committal release to negate the earlier comment while not officially taking a public position at this stage.

Chas.

People can really foul things up when they are part of an organization and go and do something on their own without guidance.

bdickens wrote:People can really foul things up when they are part of an organization and go and do something on their own without guidance.