TexasCHLforum.com

Austin American Statesman
http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-pol ... 83477.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

KXAN
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/texas_lege ... s-gun-bill" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Houston Chronicle
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7511515.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Texas Tribune
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-issue ... arry-bill/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

KLTV news
http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=14404202" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Considering that an Arizona Campus Carry bills (only for parts of campus) passed the full Arizona House at the very same time they were debating the issue in Texas, I'm thinking the senator might want to reconsider stating that Arizona has already let the bill die.

croc870 wrote:Considering that an Arizona Campus Carry bills (only for parts of campus) passed the full Arizona House at the very same time they were debating the issue in Texas, I'm thinking the senator might want to reconsider stating that Arizona has already let the bill die.

Might be a good talking point to bring up to his staffers.

Faxed this to Sen. Ogden just now:

I am a professor and live in College Station (obviously voicing my own individual viewpoint).

I am disappointed, and frankly baffled, with the argument that I heard you make on the Senate floor today. What I heard you say was 1) you oppose the bill because the alleged small percentage of CHL holders on campus won’t effectively make the campus safer, and 2) you oppose the bill because it isn’t inclusive enough of others, i.e., those younger than 21 years of age, international students, and private colleges.

Your first point is actually a good counterpoint to the faulty arguments of Sen. Ellis and others that this bill would make campuses less safe. There is, of course, many years of evidence dispelling the notion that concealed carry laws result in increased crime (confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences, no less). And there is no evidence from the fifteen years of the Texas CHL law to expect a decrease in safety. Trying to forecast some sort of aggregate “campus safety” measure misses the point. Sen. Wentworth repeated referred to this bill as a matter of personal security, which it is. It is not the fault of the bill that only a certain percentage of people are willing to get a CHL. That is an individual choice, which brings on that individual the ability to protect himself or herself (as well as attendant responsibility and potential liability). The person does that do protect their individual person, not the campus. If the campus benefits from the stopping of a spreading threat, then so much the better.

Your second point makes even less sense. Sen. Wentworth correctly noted that his bill is removing restrictions in current law and therefore increasing personal liberty with regards to self-defense. It is clearly not the fault of SB 354 that current CHL law requires applicants to be 21 years or older. Likewise, current law restricts concealed carry by CHL holders in buildings of all institutions of higher learning. Sen. Wentworth’s bill reduces that restriction to only buildings of private universities. It is an obvious and politically practical step forward in liberty. As he invited you, you are free to offer amendments to fix the problems that you raise. But to use them as arguments against SB 354 is incomprehensible.

Since you raised these two somewhat disparate points, let me tie them together. The main reason for CHL laws is individual personal security. Thus extending CHL carry rights to include campus buildings is a practical and helpful improvement in both liberty and personal security. Virginia Tech notwithstanding, the more likely need for extending legal concealed carry into campus buildings is to protect individual CHL holders en route to campus, in the dark parking area, coming home from the library at midnight, etc.

Spot on.

Going strictly by the remarks in this thread it is probably good taht I didn't watch the feed. I hope all of y'all that did watch it have had time to cool down.

texanron wrote:Going strictly by the remarks in this thread it is probably good taht I didn't watch the feed. I hope all of y'all that did watch it have had time to cool down.

I'll be calmed down some time in the next 24 hours. Right now I am righteously steamed.

baldeagle wrote:I'll be calmed down some time in the next 24 hours. Right now I am righteously steamed.

I hear ya Bro! Hang in there!

Who do we know are solidly for the bill?

Jasonw560 wrote:Who do we know are solidly for the bill?

14 coauthors, plus Whitmire and Huffman who voted for it in committee.

Woodseys tweeted step by step since I was asleep and couldn't this time
http://twitter.com/sgfstexas/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Duncan
Ellis
Ogden

hirundo82 wrote:

Jasonw560 wrote:Who do we know are solidly for the bill?

14 coauthors, plus Whitmire and Huffman who voted for it in committee.

S0 that's 16.

Hinojosa is probably on the fence.

Lucio will vote for it, if his amendment is any good and gets in.

Duncan...

Owens wrote:Duncan...

I know, me too. But we have to leave him alone. If we lose him, we don't have 21 votes to bring the bill to the floor. If we get it to the floor, it passes.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Owens wrote:Duncan...

I know, me too. But we have to leave him alone. If we lose him, we don't have 21 votes to bring the bill to the floor. If we get it to the floor, it passes.

Chas.

Lucio's in with his amendment. See my new post on it.