OC v. CC -- Hatfields v. McCoys All Over Again

[Purplehood]

I don't think that some of the more avid supporters of immediate OC get the whole point of what some of us who support slow and careful incremental steps are trying to say.
It has nothing to do with fear or satisfaction with the state of 2A laws in TX as they stand now. It has to do with our perception that one needs to choose their battles and set ourselves up for the next one, in essence, plan a campaign.
The ultimate goal for many of us is Constitutional-carry. That simply means the right to have and carry a gun with very few restrictions for the law abiding citizen.
OC is simply a battle in that campaign. What I gather from Charles posts on this subject is that he has no objections to pursuing it, but only as long as it is part of a well-planned strategem to do so. If that is the case, I agree.

[TexasRedneck]

Charles -
I respect your position, and understand it. Having said that, I ask - when was the last time of poll of TSRA members was taken w/regards to OC? I'm a relative newcomer to TSRA - long-time NRA member, but late coming to the TSRA...

[flintknapper]

I ask - when was the last time of poll of TSRA members was taken w/regards to OC?

Not to answer for Charles, but rather not to burden him unecessarily.

The person you need to contact for that information is listed below.

Sometimes this subject (and others) create circumstances where Charles is forced (or wants to) respond... in order to offer information or share his point of view. This can inadvertently lead to him spending more time here than is reasonable...(when other sources for the answer are available).



Alice Tripp:
AGTripp@aol.com
Texas State Rifle Association
314 E. Highland Mall Blvd. Suite 300, Austin, Texas 78752-3731
866-TX RIFLE-Hot Line, 800-462-TSRA (8772), 512-615-4200, 512-615-4123 (Fax)

[TexasRedneck]

Okay...email sent - let's see what the answer is...

[Charles L. Cotton]

Charles -
I respect your position, and understand it. Having said that, I ask - when was the last time of poll of TSRA members was taken w/regards to OC? I'm a relative newcomer to TSRA - long-time NRA member, but late coming to the TSRA...

I'll answer the question. TSRA has never polled it membership because that is impossible. With 37,000 to 40,000 members, mailing a questionnaire to the membership would be cost prohibitive; something on the order of $25,000 or more. Online polls are not secure, so that's out.

More importantly, polling the membership is not necessary. Our members contact us about issues they feel are important. They talk to the Directors and Regional Directors at gun shows. They talk to TSRA officials at the TSRA Annual Meeting. There is far more contact between TSRA and its members than there is between elected officials and voters.

So there's no reason to ask Alice Tripp if TSRA polls its members.

Chas.

[baldeagle]

It may be just my impression, but it appears that some people think the TSRA speaks for them. It does not. It speaks for its membership - all the members. And just like the US Congress, sometimes all the members want something different from what you think is important. Your opinion is important, but so are the opinions of the other 37,000 to 40,000 members. Apparently yours (if you think OC is the most vital issue facing gun owners) your opinion is in the minority. That doesn't mean you shouldn't continue to express it. It just means you should recognize the fact that others apparently disagree with you. Either that or the TSRA is not doing what its members (in the aggregate) want, in which case it won't last long. (But I believe it's been around a long time and will be around a lot longer.)

[TexasRedneck]

Okay...now, maybe I'm fixin' to get my back up over nothing, but frankly I'm a bit tired of feeling like I'm on the defensive here. I've tried to ask questions politely and without rancor, and get (IMO) talked down to in return.

Charles, you've repeatedly said that there's been no indication from the members that OC was an issue to them. I asked about the last poll....and got no response. I know from previous discussions otheres had w/Alice what she has responded to them. In the interest of fairness, I won't repeat it here, since I didn't hear it personally from her. And that's the thing - I've tried to ask as politely as I know how and I don't feel like I getting straightforward answers.

The comment was made that TSRA doesn't "speak" for me, but for the members. If I as a member have an issue that's important to me, yet my questions are ignored - then what good is it? I don't think anyone can point out a response I've received where I retorted with a rude comment, even if I didn't "like" the response. When I ask a question, it's because I don't know the answer - and I'm trying to gather information. If the answers aren't what *I* like, then I need to evaluate my own ideas. If I still think my position is a good one, then I can look at the responses and see what can be done to try to change minds and present my own thoughts/ideas.

In my mind, the OC issue is much the same. Charles pointed out early on that CC and PL issues were ones that had already been worked on, and were near to fruition. I personally wouldn't want to do anything to impede those two bills - in fact, I'm ready to do whatever I can to support 'em. If that's at the "expense" of OC this session, that's fine - and from the sounds of it, OC would essentially be impossible to get pushed through this session anyways. Do I like it? Of course not - but I'm also a realist AND a gun owner, and inasmuch as I see the ability to have folks on campuses and in employee parking lots (and, therefore, to and from the workplace) be able to be lawfully armed to be of far higher value, I'd gladly defer to their passage first.

It's obvious that others have been here before me, being very antagonistic and forceful. Guys, I understand - but, stop making me pay for what they did! As I said before - I'm fairly new to TSRA, but I'm a 3rd-generation NRA Life member (an Endowment member, actually), and a big supporter of NRA via the FNRA committees, both by serving on them AND bidding during them. I'll happily put my time AND my money where my mouth is, but if I'm going to just get slapped around because someone wants to shoot the messenger, then at some point I'm gonna slap back.

[RHenriksen]

Well, I took it upon myself to email Alice Tripp a few months ago to volunteer my take (as both an NRA & TSRA member) on legislative priorities.

Probably no surprise to anyone, but I let her know that *I* thought that the campus carry & parking lot bills deserved the lobbying focus and priority right now. After those are in the bag, then OC deserved a look. I *do* like the idea of HB181, though! (no sales on guns or ammo). I'm also very attuned to the small window we have every two years to get our issues crammed into the calendar alongside the BIG issues like multi-billion dollar budget shortfalls, immigration issues, and the like. Remember - there are about eight THOUSAND bills filed during each 16 week session, every two years.

I am interested in the idea of tightening the feedback loop between TSRA officers and its members. I can sympathize w. the cost of a traditional snail mail poll, but surely in the 21st century we could come up with a secure, cost-effective method for polls & other communication?

Just brainstorming here about secure polls... what about a closed forum, where registration was only possible using a PIN number, or TSRA membership number, that was snail mailed out to the TSRA membership or otherwise communicated to them (us) as part of the normal mailers? I've received a few snail mails from TSRA asking for money (which I've responded to); you could add the PIN or membership number to the mailing label, or to existing content inside the envelope.

Such a forum wouldn't have to be an opened-ended place for discussion; I'd hate to see the critical mass of a great place like this diluted. You could keep the function & focus of the TSRA forum down to just answering polls, for instance.

[baldeagle]

TexasRedneck, I take it from your last that I may have irked you a little. If so, I apologize. I'm certainly not trying to belittle your position. The point of my post is that we all think our opinion is the most important one, but we have to keep in mind that 37,000 other people feel the same way. Is it irritating to have to inch forward when we'd like to leap? Of course it is, but wiser, cooler heads should prevail. As RHENRIKSEN points out, there are almost 8000 bills filed every session. Think about that for a moment. A legislative session is about 100 days. That means you have to read, understand and decide on 80 bills every day, including Saturday and Sunday. Or, take someone else's word for what's in them, which is usually what happens. Then you have guys fighting against you, trying to undermine you, end-run around you, etc., etc. It's amazing much of anything gets done in a session. (And no, I absolutely do NOT want the legislature to meet longer or more often. They do enough damage in the little time we give them now!) So, if folks like Charles, who have been around the block and know how the game is played, tell us that we should focus on campus carry and employee parking lot bills this year, then that's what we ought to do.

Again, if I've irked you, please accept my apology. I never meant to.

[Hoi Polloi]

Surveymonkey would cost-effectively fit the need for contacting that number of people securely.

[flintknapper]

baldeagle wrote:

It may be just my impression, but it appears that some people think the TSRA speaks for them. It does not.

Well....actually it does on certain matters, not on others.

It speaks for its membership - all the members

.
Huh? ALL the members (or for that matter...even the majority)! Please tell me how they determine that... if ALL the members have not been contacted (or called of their own volition). Charles just stated they NEVER poll their members, right?

And just like the US Congress, sometimes all the members want something different from what you think is important.

Again, how do you know what all the members want? Not all (or even the majority) of the members have spoken about it...have they? The ONLY thing that can be gleaned from the current method is: A general feel for what the few members (moved to action) consider most important. In other words, the concerns of a relatively small number of members (those who care enough to contact the TSRA) are the ones who are represented. This is in no way a reflection of what "support" might exist for future legislative efforts.

Your opinion is important, but so are the opinions of the other 37,000 to 40,000 members.

Agreed. Each opinion carries equal weight, however we don't know the opinion of all 40,000 members and never will...unless we ask them. I don't know the internal workings of the TSRA and whether or not... calls, emails, letters, petitions, etc are actually tallied/recorded and reviewed, or if the board members simply meet at certain times to compare notes on the general "feel" for issues expressed by members. I'd like to know the answer to that.

If the "Squeaky Wheel" method is being used.....then maybe there is room for more exploration in terms of what the entire membership might want. I would hope the concerns of a few are not being taken and extrapolated to decide what issues to persue each session.

Apparently yours (if you think OC is the most vital issue facing gun owners) your opinion is in the minority.

I agree with you here. I do not believe that OC is anything close to being the most vital issue this session, but I am not expecting a bill this time, only consideration for it....and ground work to get it out before the people for future pursuit.

Either that or the TSRA is not doing what its members (in the aggregate) want

,
How can the TSRA be doing what the aggregate of the members want....if the aggregate hasn't been polled? I am not suggesting that EVERY legislative issue be polled to 51% before the TSRA gives it's support or decides to move forward, but on occassion...when extraordinary issues arise, it might be wise to do so. The TSRA can do this if they want to.

in which case it won't last long. (But I believe it's been around a long time and will be around a lot longer.

Lets hope that it will continue to exist....and fight for our gun rights (as many as we can get). Though they won't make the claim....the TSRA is the "gatekeeper" of legislative action in this State. Little, if anything... passes without their involvement and approval.

As with the NRA, they can not be all things to all people and can not take on EVERY concern each session. It is not a perfect organization (none are), but it remains the most effective we have at present.

If Campus Carry and Parking Lot storage pass this session....I may cool off some and regain some lost confidence in the TSRA and our legislators, but honestly...I am not holding my breath on the Parking Lot issue.

We'll see.

Flint.

[longtooth]

baldeagle wrote:

It may be just my impression, but it appears that some people think the TSRA speaks for them. It does not.

Well....actually it does on certain matters, not on others.

It speaks for its membership - all the members

.
Huh? ALL the members (or for that matter...even the majority)! Please tell me how they determine that... if ALL the members have not been contacted (or called of their own volition). Charles just stated they NEVER poll their members, right?

And just like the US Congress, sometimes all the members want something different from what you think is important.

Again, how do you know what all the members want? Not all (or even the majority) of the members have spoken about it...have they? The ONLY thing that can be gleaned from the current method is: A general feel for what the few members (moved to action) consider most important. In other words, the concerns of a relatively small number of members (those who care enough to contact the TSRA) are the ones who are represented. This is in no way a reflection of what "support" might exist for future legislative efforts.

Your opinion is important, but so are the opinions of the other 37,000 to 40,000 members.

Agreed. Each opinion carries equal weight, however we don't know the opinion of all 40,000 members and never will...unless we ask them. I don't know the internal workings of the TSRA and whether or not... calls, emails, letters, petitions, etc are actually tallied/recorded and reviewed, or if the board members simply meet at certain times to compare notes on the general "feel" for issues expressed by members. I'd like to know the answer to that.

If the "Squeaky Wheel" method is being used.....then maybe there is room for more exploration in terms of what the entire membership might want. I would hope the concerns of a few are not being taken and extrapolated to decide what issues to persue each session.

Apparently yours (if you think OC is the most vital issue facing gun owners) your opinion is in the minority.

I agree with you here. I do not believe that OC is anything close to being the most vital issue this session, but I am not expecting a bill this time, only consideration for it....and ground work to get it out before the people for future pursuit.

Either that or the TSRA is not doing what its members (in the aggregate) want

,
How can the TSRA be doing what the aggregate of the members want....if the aggregate hasn't been polled? I am not suggesting that EVERY legislative issue be polled to 51% before the TSRA gives it's support or decides to move forward, but on occassion...when extraordinary issues arise, it might be wise to do so. The TSRA can do this if they want to.

in which case it won't last long. (But I believe it's been around a long time and will be around a lot longer.

Lets hope that it will continue to exist....and fight for our gun rights (as many as we can get). Though they won't make the claim....the TSRA is the "gatekeeper" of legislative action in this State. Little, if anything... passes without their involvement and approval.

As with the NRA, they can not be all things to all people and can not take on EVERY concern each session. It is not a perfect organization (none are), but it remains the most effective we have at present.
If Campus Carry and Parking Lot storage pass this session....I may cool off some and regain some lost confidence in the TSRA and our legislators, but honestly...I am not holding my breath on the Parking Lot issue.

We'll see.

Flint.

This is so true. I have said it many times to folks opposing the NRA in some area (especially soliting $$$$$s). There is also an added factor that makes it even harder for them even if they did approach the impossible perfection. Add in the multitude of different "single issue desires" w/in a single issue organization + the few real beligerants & it makes a hard job even harder.

[baldeagle]

It may be just my impression, but it appears that some people think the TSRA speaks for them. It does not.

Well....actually it does on certain matters, not on others.

What I meant by that is that the TSRA doesn't speak for any one member while ignoring all others.

It speaks for its membership - all the members

.
Huh? ALL the members (or for that matter...even the majority)! Please tell me how they determine that... if ALL the members have not been contacted (or called of their own volition). Charles just stated they NEVER poll their members, right?

Like any similar organization, the TSRA listens to their members concerns, weighs those concerns against political realities and then decides the best course of action to represent the members' views and their stated mission before the legislature.

And just like the US Congress, sometimes all the members want something different from what you think is important.

Again, how do you know what all the members want? Not all (or even the majority) of the members have spoken about it...have they? The ONLY thing that can be gleaned from the current method is: A general feel for what the few members (moved to action) consider most important. In other words, the concerns of a relatively small number of members (those who care enough to contact the TSRA) are the ones who are represented. This is in no way a reflection of what "support" might exist for future legislative efforts.

It's really quite simple. If the TSRA doesn't do what its members want, it will cease to exist. The fact that it still exists and continues to grow is all the proof you need to know that it does in fact speak for its members.

This ain't rocket science.

Your opinion is important, but so are the opinions of the other 37,000 to 40,000 members.

Agreed. Each opinion carries equal weight, however we don't know the opinion of all 40,000 members and never will...unless we ask them. I don't know the internal workings of the TSRA and whether or not... calls, emails, letters, petitions, etc are actually tallied/recorded and reviewed, or if the board members simply meet at certain times to compare notes on the general "feel" for issues expressed by members. I'd like to know the answer to that.

The TSRA works just like any other similar organization. It listens to the people who speak to it, pays attention to whether or not its membership is growing or not and determines appropriate courses of action based on those inputs. Of course they don't get the opinion of every single one of the 40,000 members. But the 40,000 members, each and every one, votes with their wallet. Those who have lifetime memberships have said, by their payments, that they approve of what the TSRA does and fully support it. That doesn't mean they support each and every discrete action the TSRA takes but that they fully support the mission of the TSRA and the way it carries out that mission.

If the "Squeaky Wheel" method is being used.....then maybe there is room for more exploration in terms of what the entire membership might want. I would hope the concerns of a few are not being taken and extrapolated to decide what issues to persue each session.

There's another method? Charles has told you that polls are expensive and unscientific. What other methods do you think they would use than squeaky wheels? (Squeaky wheels includes not only phone calls, emails, and other means of personal communication but also checks in the mail.)

Apparently yours (if you think OC is the most vital issue facing gun owners) your opinion is in the minority.

I agree with you here. I do not believe that OC is anything close to being the most vital issue this session, but I am not expecting a bill this time, only consideration for it....and ground work to get it out before the people for future pursuit.

And Charles has stated here that he supports OC and that the groundwork for it has been going on for some time now.

Either that or the TSRA is not doing what its members (in the aggregate) want

,
How can the TSRA be doing what the aggregate of the members want....if the aggregate hasn't been polled? I am not suggesting that EVERY legislative issue be polled to 51% before the TSRA gives it's support or decides to move forward, but on occassion...when extraordinary issues arise, it might be wise to do so. The TSRA can do this if they want to.

I think by now I've explained that thoroughly. I don't know what else I could say to make it more clear.

in which case it won't last long. (But I believe it's been around a long time and will be around a lot longer.

Lets hope that it will continue to exist....and fight for our gun rights (as many as we can get). Though they won't make the claim....the TSRA is the "gatekeeper" of legislative action in this State. Little, if anything... passes without their involvement and approval.

My State Senator's Chief of Staff told me on the phone that if the TSRA isn't behind a gun-related bill it will not pass. I think that makes their clout pretty clear.

As with the NRA, they can not be all things to all people and can not take on EVERY concern each session. It is not a perfect organization (none are), but it remains the most effective we have at present.

If Campus Carry and Parking Lot storage pass this session....I may cool off some and regain some lost confidence in the TSRA and our legislators, but honestly...I am not holding my breath on the Parking Lot issue.

We'll see.

Flint.

I think you can stop holding your breath on the parking lot bill. I believe, based on what Joe Driver told me, that a parking lot bill will pass this session. It may not be perfect. It may have provisions that some don't like to placate the private property rights crowd to some degree (like a designated parking area, for example), but I think you will see a bill pass. Campus carry, I think, is a foregone conclusion unless the Dems can find a way to game the system to stop it from coming to a vote (which I do not think they will do.) Campus carry had the support of a majority of the members in the last session. It also has the support of many student organizations. I expect to see most, if not all the Republicans in the House to support it as well as some Democrats, which means it should pass with almost two thirds of the vote at least. Governor Perry will certainly sign it into law.

The parking lot bill is more iffy because it will take some compromises to get it through. But I do think it will pass. The political winds are blowing in the right direction.

[74novaman]

I think you can stop holding your breath on the parking lot bill. I believe, based on what Joe Driver told me, that a parking lot bill will pass this session. It may not be perfect. It may have provisions that some don't like to placate the private property rights crowd to some degree (like a designated parking area, for example),

Sort of a "Break into these cars first because they have guns" section????

This is a TERRIBLE idea.

[The Annoyed Man]

Regarding the feasibility of TSRA polling, I just got an email from NRA a little bit ago. Here is a screen snapshot of it (below). Notice that it contains a "click here to vote in poll" button. I'm wondering if that is something TSRA has the funds to do. Perhaps not, but if they do, there is no technical reason not to. It's only a matter of the will to do it.