Author Archive

posted by Charles L. Cotton on Jan 16

I am on the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association and recently returned from our winter, 2013 meetings.  It comes as no surprise that the Obama administration’s predictable and despicable  response to the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a major topic of discussion.  The information revealed during these meetings makes it abundantly clear that Americans are not facing merely a legislative battle, but a war on our very culture and way of life.

For decades, there have been numerous attacks on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American gun owners.  These attacks are always based on lies and the false claim that by giving up one’s constitutional right they will be safer.  History and experience prove that these allegations are false, yet those who would deprive American citizens of the right to possess and carry firearms for all lawful purposes are not deterred.  Apparently, they ascribe to the theory that a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth.

Who are trying to deprive Americans of their Second Amendment rights?

The current assault on the rights of American gun owners is like nothing seen before.  The combined efforts of President Obama, multi-billionaires Michael Bloomberg and George Soros, Hollywood media moguls, and numerous other liberal anti-gun organizations have coalesced in an effort to deprive law-abiding Americans of the ability to possess and use firearms for self-defense as well as other lawful purposes.  The money available to this Obama-Bloomberg Coalition is virtually limitless.  Michael Bloomberg was recently asked how much he was planning to spend in an effort to deprive Americans of their Second Amendment rights.  His response was, “Oh, I don’t know, I spent between $600 million and $700 million trying to stop kids from using tobacco products.”  Bloomberg’s wealth is estimated between $18 – $20 billion, so he could easily afford to spend several hundred million dollars trying to deprive Americans of the right to self-defense.  Coupled his wealth with that of George Soros, supporters as well as Hollywood liberals, and it is clear that law-abiding Americans are  facing the biggest challenge to their constitutional rights since the British tried to force us to keep flying the Union Jack.

Anti-rights plan was in place long before the Sandy Hook shooting.

To every honest American with even a shred of humanity and decency, the senseless slaughter of 20 six-year old first graders and six brave adults trying to protect those innocent children in the Sandy Hook shootings was a heart-stopping, gut-wrenching event that sent them to their knees in prayer for the victims’ grief-stricken families.  For the Obama-Bloomberg Coalition, however, it was a political opportunity to launch their already organized offensive against the Second Amendment.  An attack on the American Constitution of the size and scope currently seen requires a great deal of planning, financing, preparation and coordination.  An effort of this scale cannot be kept secret and information had been leaking out for months.

The anti-gun response by all of those making up the Obama-Bloomberg Coalition was too rapid, too coordinated, too well-funded, and too consistent to have been an impromptu response to the tragedy in Newtown Connecticut.  President Obama obviously wanted to wait until after the presidential election to launch his the anti-gun campaign.  This should come as no surprise since the President had previously been heard telling the Russian President to wait until after his last election when he would have more “flexibility.”  (President Obama made this comment believing the microphone he was wearing was not live.)  The shameful truth is that the Obama-Bloomberg Coalition used the Sandy Hook shootings as a Hollywood-like soundstage to launch their long planned attack on the Second Amendment.  Regardless of the political issue, this tactic is despicable.  I am so proud that the NRA took the high road and allowed the families of the victims the time and privacy they needed, rather than launching a blatant political attack as did our opposition.  Character does matter.

Cultural war, not merely legislative war

The Obama-Bloomberg Coalition knows full well that passing anti-Second Amendment legislation is going to be difficult with the current Congress.  For this reason, Vice-President Joe Biden first hinted that President Obama may use his “authority” to issue executive orders to achieve many of his gun control goals.  President Obama soon followed Biden’s statement by claiming that he was going to issue numerous executive orders that would directly and negatively impact law-abiding Americans.  Since President Obama learned his political antics in the most corrupt city in the most corrupt state in the entire country, there is every reason to believe he will not view the United States Constitution as any limitation on his authority.

Regardless of the short term impact of President Obama’s executive orders, the Obama-Bloomberg Coalition is well aware that the courts will provide an avenue for Americans to overturn unconstitutional executive orders.  Unfortunately, this will take time and money and the anti-Second Amendment Coalition will not remain idle.  Their goal is to change American culture so that firearms are universally perceived as evil tools that no decent, honest, law-abiding citizen would ever want to possess.  This is where the Hollywood element of the Obama-Bloomberg Coalition comes into play.  For decades, Hollywood producers, directors and actors have used movies, sit-coms, inaccurate news reporting, and so-called “investigative reporting” to promote a liberal agenda.  This machine is already preparing to direct its efforts against American gun owners.  While some believe it will take at least one generation to effectively brainwash a majority of Americans, the impact of an all-out war by the liberal entertainment industry and the Obama-Bloomberg Coalition against the Second Amendment could do irreparable  damage in far less time.

Second Amendment Supporters Must Unite and Join the Fight

It would be a tragic and disastrous mistake to underestimate the power and impact of the Obama-Bloomberg Coalition and its virtually unlimited funding.  The only way the Second Amendment can be preserved is by getting all law-abiding American gun owners and potential gun owners to unite and fight against the anti-Second Amendment Coalition.  The only organization capable of uniting Americans and leading the fight to preserve the Second Amendment is the National Rifle Association of America.

There was a time when having one member of the family join the NRA was sufficient, but that time has passed.  If you are not an NRA member then join today.  If you are a member, then get every member of your family to join the NRA as well.  If you have gun-owning friends who are not NRA members then strongly encourage them and all of their family members to join.  Be sure to donate to the NRA as often as you can.  Donations of any amount are appreciated and when combined with millions of other American gun owners, they help provide the NRA with the resources necessary to counter the lies of the Obama-Bloomberg Coalition.  Consider setting up an automatic monthly donations to the NRA.  Regardless of the generosity and support of American gun owners it will not be possible to keep up with the Obama-Bloomberg Coalition spending, but it is not necessary to match them dollar-for-dollar.  It is necessary only that we have sufficient resources to get the truth to the American people who would otherwise be misled by the campaign of lies that will be launched against the Second Amendment.

NRA’s Approach to Defending the Second Amendment against Obama-Bloomberg Coalition

The NRA realizes that the only way to oppose the Obama-Bloomberg Coalition’s attempt to disarm American citizens is to approach the fight the same way we do a political campaign.  We must get the truth to the American people so they are not deceived by the daily dose of lies they are going to see coming from Hollywood, the media and the White House.  Campaigns also require that Americans get involved and contact their senators and congressmen to let them know they will not tolerate any additional infringement upon their Second Amendment rights.  If your Senator and Congressman support the Second Amendment, then be sure to call and write them to express your thanks and your support for their position.  If they do not support the Second Amendment then you must contact them and tell them that that you demand nothing less than their unfaltering support of your right to keep and bear arms.

Many in Washington are true believers in the Second Amendment and they will be unwavering in their opposition to gun control legislation.  Many others, however, currently support the Second Amendment with far less enthusiasm and they could well waiver under the weight of political pressure at home, and through unrelenting media attacks.  They will feel the need to “do something” so they can go home and tell their constituents they have taken action to protect innocent children.  It is critical that these lukewarm friends of the Second Amendment understand that their constituents will not accept further restrictions on their Second Amendment rights.  The NRA is the only organization that can get the word out to millions of American gun owners of this critical need to make direct contact with their elected representatives.  But as noted below, we need your help to win this fight to save the Second Amendment.

What Can Each of Us Do?

It is human nature that the majority of people supporting a cause or a belief are not actively involved in the effort.  Unfortunately, most have heard the statement that “90% of the work is done by 10% of the people.”  If this phenomenon holds true in the current battle to save the Second Amendment, then American gun owners will lose the fight.  Every one of us must be on the playing field; none of us can sit in the stands and cheer.

It is not sufficient for us to merely be members of the NRA, each of us must be NRA recruiters.  Do not merely suggest or request that a friend or family member join the NRA, pull up the NRA website on your laptop or your mobile device and ask them to do it now.  Impress upon them that time is of the essence as this battle can be lost in the opening weeks if the response of Americans supporting the Second Amendment is lacking.

The battle to save the Second Amendment is comprised of three critical time periods, the immediate fight to prevent and overturn unconstitutional executive orders, the legislative battle that will wage until at least the 2014 mid-term elections, as well as the long-term cultural battle that will last for years.  Joining tomorrow is too late; thinking about joining is not sufficient.  If we lose the short term battles, the war on the Second Amendment could be lost.  The only way to counter the limitless funding of the Obama-Bloomberg Coalition is by growing the NRA far beyond its current four million members.  We need to be 20, 30, 40 million strong or more to provide a lasting and effective bulwark against efforts to destroy the Second Amendment.

State level efforts and opportunities

The strength of the NRA is in its grassroots capability.  Tens of millions of American gun owners willing to answer calls-to-action with letters, faxes and telephone calls comprise a political force that no anti-gunners can defeat.  But merely being in uniform is not sufficient, people must stand ready to act each and every time they are requested to make phone calls and write letters or send faxes.  Not just one letter either, we must be ready to answer each and every call-to-action.  We cannot think “I’ve done my part, now someone else can respond.”  All of us must stay engaged and resign ourselves to the fact that this is going to be a long battle.  The impact these communications have on elected officials cannot be overstated, so let no one think we are asking people to engage in trivial acts or mere “busy work.”  Fear of  the American electorate is the only way we can fight the financial strength of the Obama-Bloomberg Coalition.

When we make contact with elected officials, when we have the opportunity to engage in public speaking, or when we are talking with friends and families we must remember to keep our emotions in check.  Making threats or engaging in “saber rattling” is not only ineffective in communicating our message, it is counterproductive because it destroys our credibility by making us appear to be unstable zealots.  Liberals and others seeking to destroy the Second Amendment often try to bait us by making inflammatory or insulting remarks hoping that we will respond in kind.  The best approach to engaging others about the importance of the Second Amendment is to be “resolute but respectful.”

The simple and sad truth is that we all have a clear-cut choice; we either join the fight or we sit on the sidelines and watch the Second Amendment become a mere historical footnote in the story of America.  To paraphrase Joshua’s deathbed speech, for me and my family, we choose to fight.

posted by Charles L. Cotton on Dec 22

If you were to stop ten people on the streets of most cities and towns in Texas and ask them how they feel about “open-carry” the vast majority of them would have no idea what you are asking.  Some would probably think you were talking about walking down the street with an open beer in your hand, relating it in their mind to the Texas law against having open containers in a motor vehicle.  “Open-carry” for purposes of this article refers to legally carrying a self-defense handgun in a holster that it is not concealed from public view.

A significant percentage of Texas residents believe that open-carry is currently legal in Texas, but they are mistaken, except in a few locations.  One can openly carry a handgun on their own property, while engaging in sporting activities in which handguns are commonly used (ex.  hunting and shooting matches), and in their place of business or employment under certain circumstances.

Other Texans mistakenly believe that there is a law in Texas that specifically prohibits carrying handguns openly.  There is no law in Texas that specifically addresses open-carry except in the limited context of a Concealed Handgun licensee carrying a handgun.  (CHL’s must keep their handguns concealed.)  This distinction in the law is not merely trivia for your amusement; it is a critical factor in legislation that seeks to legalize the carrying of self-defense handguns openly.

Representative Lavender introduced an open-carry bill in the 2009 Texas legislative session, and he is fully expected to do so again in 2013.  Since this subject will again be raised in the Texas Legislature, it is this writer’s goal to provide useful information to my fellow Texans so they will not needlessly fear the concept of openly carrying a self-defense handgun.

History of Open-Carry in Texas

It will probably be helpful to briefly cover the history of open-carry in Texas before getting into the issues that have arisen in the past and that we can expect to hear again in 2013.  Since shortly after the end of the Civil War, it is been illegal for Texans to carry handguns outside your home, except in very limited circumstances (see above).  In 1995, the Texas Legislature passed the first concealed handgun statute creating a system whereby Texans and nonresidents could obtain a Concealed Handgun License.  The statute requires everyone who carries a handgun under the authority of their Concealed Handgun License to keep their handgun concealed so it will not be seen by the general public.

It is also legal for Texans to have a handgun in their motor vehicle, or a motor vehicle under their control, without first obtaining a Texas Concealed Handgun License.  However, Texas law requires that persons carrying a handgun in their motor vehicle make sure that their gun is not in plain view.  So although Texas has never had a stand-alone law prohibiting open-carry of handguns, it has been illegal to do so either because of the general prohibition on carrying handguns, or due to the restrictions placed on concealed handgun licensees and motorists with handguns in their cars.

Licensed v. Unlicensed Open-Carry

People who are unfamiliar with the open-carry topic are likely to hear discussions about licensed open-carry vs. unlicensed open-carry and wonder about the difference.  (Some people refer to unlicensed open-carry as “constitutional carry.”) Licensed open-carry means that only people who hold a Texas Concealed Handgun License, or a license issued by another state that is recognized under Texas law, will be able to openly carry a handgun.  Unlicensed open-carry would allow all citizens who can legally possess firearms under both Texas and Federal law to openly carry a handgun.

This article will be dealing only with licensed open-carry since that is the bill that was introduced in the 2009 Texas Legislative Session and that is what is expected to be filed by Representative Lavender in the 2013 Texas Legislative Session.

Three Groups of People

Generally speaking, people who support, oppose, or fall somewhere in the middle, in terms of  open-carry in Texas, fall into three groups.  Some strongly support open-carry and these people tend to prefer unlicensed open-carry but will reluctantly acquiesce to requiring a Texas Concealed Handgun License in order to legally open-carry.  The number of people falling into this first group is unknown, but it is relatively small in comparison to the total Texas population.

The group of people who strongly oppose open-carry is small.  It is comprised primarily of law enforcement officers and people who support citizens carrying self-defense handguns, but who have strong reservations about the wisdom of openly carrying a self-defense handgun from a tactical viewpoint.  The vast majority of Texans have no strong feelings on either side of the issue, although there are some who fear that a poorly drafted open-carry bill could lead to large numbers of businesses posting their property as off-limits to anyone carrying a handgun, whether openly or concealed.

Common Claims and Allegations

Anyone taking enough interest in the open-carry issue to listen to the debates and read any of the Internet discussion boards are going to be faced with certain claims and allegations made by those on either side of the issue.  Most of the major claims and allegations are discussed below.

Americans Enjoy a Constitutionally Protected Right to Openly Carry Handguns

Many open-carry supporters claim that the United States Constitution guarantees citizens the right to openly carry a handgun without first obtaining a license.  These folks typically point to certain language in the Heller decision to support their position.

Appellate decisions, especially those issued by the United States Supreme Court, often contain language that does not directly impact the question at issue.  This language is called dicta and it cannot be cited as authority in any other cases.  However, dicta is valuable in that it gives some insight as to how the court will likely rule in future cases when this language is directly related to the ultimate issue in question.  Of course, this judicial hint may lose value if the makeup of the Supreme Court changes before a follow-up case is heard.

The bottom line is this; there is no United States Supreme Court decision recognizing a constitutional right to openly carry a handgun, either with or without a license.  There is a split of opinions in the courts of appeal in the federal system, with at least one recognizing that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution does protect a right to carry a concealed handgun with a license.  There are other federal appellate courts that have held the opposite, so the stage is set for the United States Supreme Court to take a case dealing with citizens’ right to carry a self-defense handgun.  Hopefully, we will have a decision in the not too distant future and that it will recognize that a citizen’s right to self-defense exists outside one’s home.

Forty-four States Currently Allow Open-Carry

While this may be technically correct, it is somewhat misleading.  In many states where there is no law prohibiting open-carry, it simply is not done.  Often this results in law enforcement officers receiving so-called “man with a gun” calls forcing them to interact with citizens openly carrying handguns.  Sometimes this interaction is benign, sometimes it is not.

Often, what is technically legal is not actually done.  For example, it is technically legal to carry a long gun (rifle or shotgun) virtually everywhere in Texas.  However, if one were to throw their AR-15 over their shoulder and walk down Main Street in downtown Houston, Houston Police officers will make sure the experience was unpleasant.

Open-Carry is Necessary in Texas to Prevent People from Being Arrested for Accidentally Exposing Their Handgun

This is one of the more commonly stated reasons for passage of open-carry in Texas.  Reliance upon this argument by open-carry supporters is misplaced as Texas law is abundantly clear.  In order to violate the current statute, a concealed handgun licensee must intentionally fail to conceal their handgun.  Requiring only intentional conduct, rather than the typical standard of doing something “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly,” means that accidental exposure of a handgun does not violate Texas law.

Some open-carry supporters provide anecdotal claims that Texans have been wrongfully arrested for accidental exposure of their handgun.  Even if these claims are accurate, such incidences are few in number and passage of open-carry will not relieve the problem.  Any Texas peace officer who would arrest someone for unintentionally or accidentally exposing their handgun is abusing their authority and is arresting someone for an act that is clearly not illegal.  Any officer willing to do this would find it even easier to arrest someone who is openly carrying simply by claiming that they put their hand on their handgun thus violating the Texas Disorderly Conduct statute.

Open-Carry Deters Crime

Some will argue that citizens openly carrying handguns will reduce crime in Texas.  The argument is that the sight of an armed citizen will deter someone from committing a criminal act.  Unfortunately, there is no empirical evidence to support this claim.  While it is possible that open-carry would have a positive impact on the crime rate, it is highly unlikely.  All a would-be hijacker would have to do is simply wait until the armed citizen left, then commit whatever criminal act they originally planned.  This claim is further weakened by the acknowledgement that relatively few people will exercise the option to openly carry a handgun.

Anyone Openly Carrying a Handgun Will be the First Person Shot by Criminals

It is sometimes claimed that openly carrying a handgun makes one the primary target for criminals.  While this is undoubtedly true for some criminals, the fear is probably overblown.  All but a few criminals do not want a fight, they do not want to get caught, and they do not want to go to prison.  As mentioned in their preceding paragraph, all a would-be criminal would have to do is wait until the armed citizen  leaves the premises, then carry out the planned crime.

Open-Carry Will Increase Crime

This is an absurd allegation and thankfully only the most ardent anti-gun activists make this false claim.  As previously noted, the bill that will be introduced by Representative Lavender would allow open-carry only by Texas concealed handgun licensees.  CHL’s have a sixteen year track record that is the envy of the entire nation.  Over the last four years, Texas CHL’s are fifteen times less likely to commit a crime than is the general population in Texas.  There is no basis to argue that these people would constitute a threat to public safety simply because they exercised the option to openly carry a self-defense handgun rather than conceal it.

People Wanting Open-Carry Are In-Your-Face Cowboys

Some Texans fear that the only people who would actually carry a handgun openly are those who want to draw attention to themselves, who are potentially confrontational, and simply want to present a tough-guy image.  While this claim is probably overblown, YouTube videos are available on the Internet of people in other states intentionally making a show of the fact that their openly carrying a handgun.  The same people often appear to be baiting police officers attempting to create an incident that will allow them to later claim police harassment.

Incidents like those described in the preceding paragraph seem happen more often in states that allow unlicensed open-carry.  There is every reason to believe that Texas CHL’s will behave as responsibly if open-carry passes, as they have for the preceding sixteen years.  While there may be some such instances, they are likely to be few in number and very infrequent.

Open-Carry Will/Won’t Result in More Businesses Posting No Trespassing Signs

This is probably the single biggest issue that causes friction between the most ardent supporters of open-carry and people who currently hold a concealed handgun license.  Open-carry supporters point to the experience in other states as evidence that there will not be a rash of “no guns” signs.  Those who are concerned about this issue fear a repeat of what happened in Texas from the passage of the initial CHL statute in 1995 until the law was changed in 1997.

The reality is no one can be certain if the sight of people openly carrying handguns will prompt businesses to post “no guns” signs are not.  However, with a carefully drafted bill such as the one Representative Lavender envisions, safeguards can be in place that will protect the interests of CHL’s who are concerned about losing the ability to carry into businesses that currently do not prohibit their entry with a handgun.

Criminals Will Have Access to More Guns by Mugging People Openly Carrying Handguns

This seems to be another argument primarily from those considered to be anti-gun overall.  There is no empirical evidence to indicate this is a problem in states in which open-carry is actually practiced.  As noted elsewhere in this article, criminals want compliant victims, not gun flights, so it is highly unlikely the criminal will confront someone they know is armed.


I have no idea if open-carry will pass during the 2013 Texas Legislative Session, but it is highly likely that it will pass at some point in the future.  Texans should feel secure in the knowledge that the people they will see openly carrying handguns are members of the most law-abiding and trustworthy segment of society.  This is not conjecture or hyperbole, it is a fact based upon an astounding sixteen year track record earned by CHL’s.

If open-carry does pass, it is incumbent upon those Texans exercising this option to be extraordinarily polite and courteous so as to allay the fears of those who, for the first time in their lives, will see people openly carrying handguns.  For sixteen years, our fellow Texans have been walking with, sitting next to, and eating among, hundreds of thousands of armed, law-abiding CHL’s.  Those choosing to openly carry a handgun should view themselves as ambassadors for those Texans who chose to continue to conceal their self-defense handguns.

posted by Charles L. Cotton on Dec 20

Charles L. Cotton photoHistory of Concealed Handgun Licensees in Texas

The time has come for the Texas legislature to reduce the number of locations that are “off-limits” to holders of a Texas Concealed Handgun License (CHL).  At the time Senate Bill 60 passed in 1995, it was considered by some as both a revolutionary and radical concept.  This opinion was even by some of the Bill’s supporters in the Texas Legislature.  Due to this uncertainty, SB 60 contained many provisions that were ultimately determined to be unnecessary.  These provisions included the designation of various locations as being off-limits to CHL’s carrying self-defense handguns.

The media-created hysteria that followed the passage of Texas’ first CHL’s statute in 1995 resulted in thousands of Texas businesses posting generic “no guns” decals.  Typically, they were either 2“X2” or 3”X3” clear decals placed on the lower corner of the business’ door.  The decals were easily missed by a CHL holder meaning they would unwittingly enter posted property.

Beginning with the 1997 Texas Legislative Session, the Texas CHL statute has been systematically amended to remove many of the unnecessary provisions.  A critical change came with the passage of HB 2909 in 1997.  This Bill made a number of amendments to Texas law, including the creation of Texas Penal Code Section 30.06 that established strict criteria to be followed by anyone wishing to exclude a CHL from their property.  As a result, very few businesses posted what became known as the “big ugly sign” greatly reducing the number of locations that were off-limits to CHL’s.

Over the following 15 years, the Texas concealed handgun license statute became a non-issue.  Texas was not reduced to a ghost town, there was no blood in the streets, and all of the other parade of horribles fervently preached by the news media did not come to pass.  Texans learned that CHL holders did not pose a threat to their safety and Texas peace officers have come to view the Texas Concealed Handgun License as a “good guy card.”

CHL’s Excellent Track Record

The Texas Dept. of Public Safety (DPS) publishes data setting out the conviction rates for the general public in Texas as well as CHL’s.  For several years, this writer has used this and other data to create a statistical analysis comparing crime rates on an annual basis.  The sixteen year track record achieved by Texas CHL’s is astounding.  Every year since SB 60 was passed in 1995, CHL’s have been far less likely to commit a crime than is the general public in Texas.  Over the years, this already excellent track record improved dramatically to the point that CHL’s are almost sixteen times less likely to commit a crime than is the general public in Texas.  Not only is this an astounding statistic, it is far better than that achieved by Texas law enforcement.

Off-Limits Areas

Most Texans are aware that Texas peace officers can carry their handguns virtually everywhere in the State, whether they are on duty or off duty.  Understandably, most people do not have a problem with having very few off-limits areas applicable to peace officers, but they are unaware of the large group of people who are classified as “peace officers” under Texas law.  A full discussion of the people that are legally defined as “peace officers” is beyond the scope of this article, but suffice it to say it is far more than police officers, deputy sheriffs, and constables.  (For more information, go to

Peace officers are not the only Texans who enjoy very few off-limits areas.  Parole officers, juvenile probation officers, community supervision officers, judges  (including city/municipal court judges and J.P. Court judges), district and county attorneys and their attorney employees are all treated as though they were peace officers in terms of where they can and cannot carry their handguns.  It is enlightening that many of the above-referenced people enjoy reduced off – limits locations only if they also have a Texas Concealed Handgun License.  So it is not their job title that reduces the number of off-limits locations, it is the combination of their job title and the fact that they have a CHL.

Time to Level the Playing Field for All Texas CHLs

We are no longer dealing with an unknown quantity as we were sixteen  years ago when SB 60 passed in 1995.  We have the benefit of the sixteen  year track record that clearly proves all Texas CHL holders are trustworthy, not merely those who happen to be judges or attorneys.  Indeed, CHL’s have proven themselves far less likely to commit a crime than even peace officers who are subject to a very few off-limits restrictions.

There is no compelling reason to exclude CHL’s from most of the existing off-limits areas; indeed, thousands of CHL holders who are not peace officers are legally allowed to carry in those areas under current Texas law.  For sixteen years, it has been the public policy of this State to empower honest, law-abiding citizens who have obtained a Texas Concealed Handgun License to carry a self-defense handgun to protect themselves and their loved ones.  In 1995, it was unknown how well this program would work, so the list of off-limits locations was unnecessarily long.  Now that we have proof that Texas CHL’s are the most law-abiding Texans, it is time to extend that public policy by reducing the number of off-limits locations applicable to CHL’s.

A proposed bill is under consideration and may be filed during the 2013 Texas Legislative Session.  If the bill passes, locations that are off-limits to CHL’s will be reduced, but they still will not be able to carry in bars (51% locations), while intoxicated, or in locations that are made off-limits by federal law.  Private property owners will still be able to prevent CHL’s from carrying a concealed handgun on their property, pursuant to Texas Penal Code Section 30.06.

Over the years during discussions of off-limits locations, one would often hear the question asked, “why would you need a gun in _____________[?].”  That question misses the mark because it ignores the area between the CHL’s car in the off-limits locations.  For example, I seriously doubt that my wife  would ever need to use her self-defense handgun while watching a Houston Texans football game in Reliant Stadium.  However, over the years there have been several people murdered, assaulted,  robbed and raped in the parking lot surrounding Reliant Stadium, so she could well need her handgun going to and from her car.  The question should not be “why would you need a handgun,” it should be “is there a compelling reason to exclude handguns?”  In view of the excellent track record CHL’s have earned over the past sixteen years, the unequivocal answer is “no.”

We must also remember that every time a CHL is forced to remove his or her handgun and leave it in their car, we are increasing the likelihood that a criminal will see the CHL disarming and will target that vehicle for a burglary.  It is ironic that the greater the likelihood of this happening, the more likely the CHL would need their handgun walking to and from the off-limits location.


The fear of the unknown that existed sixteen  years ago and prompted the creation of numerous off-limits areas applicable to Texas CHL’s no longer exists.  Empirical evidence proves that Texas CHL’s are honest, law-abiding responsible citizens who have earned our trust.  Every time we require a CHL to remove their self-defense handgun before entering an off-limits location, we are rendering defenseless the most law-abiding of our citizens.  It is time to recognize CHL’s for their outstanding record over the last sixteen years and give them equal standing with other CHL’s who have been singled out for preferential treatment.

posted by Charles L. Cotton on Dec 19

Charles L. Cotton photo

A bill has been prefiled for the 2013 Texas legislative session that seeks to reduce the minimum required class hours to obtain a Texas Concealed Handgun License (“CHL”) for the first time.  Current law requires these initial classes to be at least ten hours and no more than fifteen hours long.  Renewal classes must be between four hours and six hours long.  Both the four hour and ten hour minimums include the time spent on the range for the shooting portion of the class.

If it passes, HB 47 will reduce the class time for an initial license to four hours, excluding the time spent on the range.  Public support for this change seems to be strong and as of the writing of this article, there seems to be no significant opposition in the Texas legislature.  Few people have spoken against the change and their opposition is unwarranted.

That few people opposing HB 47 express concern that the material cannot be taught in only four hours.  Some even go so far as to argue that reducing class hours will have a detrimental effect on public safety.  Thankfully, people with these concerns can rest easy; Texas CHL instructors have been teaching the material in four hours for over fourteen years now.

Although the minimum time required for a CHL renewal class is four hours, the Texas Dept. of Public Safety requires instructors to administer the same test to renewal students as is given to initial students taking a ten hour class.  Since instructors have to administer the same test to new and renewal students, they have been teaching all of the statutorily-required subjects in four hours since 1998.  (The first CHL’s issued in 1996 were only good for two years, meaning the renewal process started in 1998.)  In fact, the current four hour renewal classes include the time spent on the range for the shooting portion of the class.  HB 47 establishes a four hour class for new and renewal students, but this does not include the time spent on the range.  So HB 47 and actually provides more time for classroom instruction, than is currently available for renewal students.

Unlike many states, the Texas legislature wisely chose to specify the specific subject matter that must be taught in Texas CHL classes.  Those of us who have been involved in passing the initial CHL statute in 1995 and the numerous improvements made in virtually every Texas legislative session since then, knew from the beginning that the material could be taught in far less than the ten hours mandated for an initial class.  Nevertheless, it was necessary to include time limits to prevent regulatory authorities from requiring ridiculously long classes running anywhere from two days to two weeks long.

Since instructors have been teaching the statutorily-mandated material to renewal students in less than four hours (remember, range time is currently included in the four hour classes), they obviously must add six hours of filler when teaching the ten hour initial class.  Depending upon the competency of individual instructors, some of the six hours of material added as filler may be excellent, but it is unnecessary to meet the legislative goal of teaching the mandated subject matter.  Forcing Texas gun owners to sit through a ten hour class to learn the same material that is taught in four hours to renewal students 1) is unnecessarily time consuming; 2) inflates the cost of obtaining an initial CHL; 3) increases student fatigue that hinders learning and retention; and 4) encourages Texans to obtain concealed carry licenses from other states with shorter class requirements.

Those who have expressed safety concerns can rest easy as well.  As previously noted, Texas CHL holders have been taking four hour classes since 1998 and over that time period they have garnered a track record that is nothing short of amazing.  Based upon data published by the Texas Dept. of Public Safety and census data, Texas CHL’s are fifteen times less likely to commit a crime than is the general public in Texas.  This track record is far better than that established by Texas peace officers.  Fourteen years of experience with four hour classes proves that reducing the initial class from an unnecessarily long ten hours to four hours can be done without any negative impact on public safety.

Some CHL instructors have complained that reducing the initial class from ten hours to four hours will have a detrimental impact on their revenue, because they cannot charge as much for four hour classes as they charge for ten hour classes.  There are two problems with this argument.  First, we are dealing with a constitutional right so the state is obliged to use the least restrictive methods possible when granting the Texas Concealed Handgun License.  Fourteen years experience with four hour classes proves that ten hour classes do not meet that obligation.  Secondly, it is highly likely that many more Texans will obtain a CHL when their investment in terms of time as well as money is significantly reduced.  This is a win-win for Texas gun owners and CHL instructors alike.

Ten hour initial classes are an unnecessary burden on Texas gun owners.  Representative Flynn deserves our support in our heart-felt thanks for introducing this much needed legislation.  Let your Representative and your Senator know that you support HB 47 and you want them to do so as well.

posted by Charles L. Cotton on Dec 18

Charles L. Cotton photoThe mass murder of twenty first grade children and six adults in Newtown Connecticut was a tragedy beyond comprehension.  Unfortunately, the news media is unintentionally increasing the odds that a copycat mass murderer will duplicate the massacre in another school.  Since the Newtown shootings on Friday, December 15, 2012, at least three people have been arrested for threatening to enter schools and kill students and faculty.  How many more are watching the unending television coverage of this event and dreaming of their “15 minutes of fame?”

Let me say up front that I am not a mental health professional.  However, as an attorney for many years and as a former police officer, I have dealt with numerous mentally unstable people.  A shared belief with a large percentage of these people is that society, or some identifiable segment thereof, has treated them unfairly.  The majority of these folks did not exhibit any tendency towards violence or revenge, but a few made it clear that they felt some form of retribution was an order, even though they stopped short of making actual threats.  The bitterness and antisocial behavior seems to be more prominent in people who feel they are ignored or belittled by the society they have come to fear or despise.

My experience is consistent with information provided by psychiatrists and other mental health professionals in response to prior mass murders at schools, movie theaters, and shopping malls.  The combination of feelings of rejection and/or ridicule coupled with feelings of inadequacy is potentially deadly.  Many of these people feel that they have nothing to live for and a small percentage of them want to make society take notice that they exist.  In their demented minds, the best way to accomplish that is to slaughter innocent people.  They believe that becoming a mass murderer will ensure that they have more than merely 15 minutes of fame.  Indeed, the higher the body count and the more innocent and defenseless the victims, the more television coverage they will enjoy.  Their names and faces will be on televisions and newspapers worldwide.

While the news media does not intend to encourage copycat killers by the extensive media coverage provided such events, they are fully aware of the facts set out in the preceding paragraphs.  Countless psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have previously been interviewed by the very networks and television stations that are currently broadcasting constant reports about the Newtown massacre.  During these interviews, the motivation for fame or merely recognition of their existence is commonly cited as the factor that triggered prior mass murderers.  While there is no “intent” in the legal sense, the media is knowingly engaging in actions that increase the likelihood that someone else will follow in Adam Lanza’s footsteps.

How many Adam Lanzas are sitting at home glued to their television watching the incessant media coverage of the Newtown tragedy?  How many realize that the level of society’s grief and the amount of media coverage is directly related to the age, innocence, and helplessness of the first grade children that were slaughtered?  How many will be prompted to launch their own murderous attacks and to target  elementary schools to gain the same level of infamy heaped on Adam Lanza by the media?

Many years ago the big three television networks viewed their newsrooms as public service operations.  Unfortunately, this philosophy changed and news broadcasts are also subject to Nielsen ratings.  With this change came the tendency not to merely report but to seek out the most titillating events that could be found.  This philosophy is not limited to the big three television networks any longer; it is pervasive throughout the media industry.

The sad truth is sex and blood sells and the media are willing to exploit society’s blood lust.  Oh, we shake our heads in disgust at the thought that ancient Romans would have made a sport out of gladiatorial combat or gruesome public executions in the Coliseum, but society is still intrigued by violent death.

Adam Lanza pulled the trigger but the media shares responsibility for the murder of 20 innocent children and six adults trying to protect those students.  Based on extensive media coverage of prior school shootings, there can be no doubt that Adam Lanza was aware that his actions were going to make his name a household word.

Let’s do something about this!  Light up the switchboards, web pages and Facebook accounts for every media outlet with demands to stop the media coverage that serves to encourage others to commit these heinous acts.  Let them know that the blood of the next child will be on their hands.

I wish I were naïve enough to believe that such actions would bring about a responsible change on the part of the American media.  Sadly, I know better but I can no longer sit back and do nothing while the media essentially conducts classes on how to become the next media darling.

posted by Charles L. Cotton on Dec 18

In the wake of the tragic Newtown massacre of 20 innocent first grade children and six adults, as a society we have to ask ourselves  “do we really want safe schools?”  The obvious answer is yes, but if we really mean it, then we must be ready to pass the necessary legislation and provide funding.

There are basically two ways to make our schools safer and each takes a dramatically different approach.  One amounts to the “gold standard” but it is incredibly expensive, while the other is less effective, but it is virtually cost-free.  If either of these methods are implemented, our precious children have a realistic chance of surviving the rampage of a would-be mass murderer.

Secured limited-access to school buildings

The first method involves truly securing school buildings such that unauthorized entry is virtually impossible.  To do this, every entry into a school building must be through double access doors.  These doors must contain bullet resistant glass that will withstand all 30 caliber rifle rounds with minimal damage and offering no opportunity to enter the building even when shattered.  These doors must also have high security locking mechanisms that are electrically controlled from a position inside the second door.  Standard commercial grade locks are not sufficient for this purpose.

The distance between the outer secured door in the inner secured door must be large enough to house metal detectors that everyone entering the building will have to pass through before being allowed to pass through the inner secured door.  Armed police officers must be stationed inside both the outer and the inner secure doors and the officer inside the innermost a secured door should also be armed with a 30 caliber semiautomatic rifle in the event the assailant is wearing body armor.

The procedure for entering the school would require that students, faculty and staff present their school identification cards to pass through the outer secured door.  Once within the secure buffer zone, each person would then go through metal detectors and their backpacks, briefcases, and any other packages would pass through an x-ray machine.  Once cleared, the officer manning the inner secured door can open the inner door to allow entry.  A faster alternative for larger schools would require the use of large revolving doors for the inner buffer zone that would allow more students to enter  each segment.  The doors would have to be constructed from the same bullet resistant glass and the officer guarding this door must be able to lock electronically by pressing a button.

The purpose of the two secure doors is to create an enclosed area that would serve both as a security buffer zone and as a deterrent to anyone who would attempt to enter the school with weapons.  If a would-be murderer were to gain access to the outer door by the use of a fake ID, or by following an authorized person and forcing his way in, he would be trapped in the security buffer zone.  The officer stationed within the security buffer zone should be able to neutralize the threat either by making an arrest or by engaging the armed intruder.  In a worst case scenario, if the officer is wounded or killed the armed intruder would be trapped and no escape would be possible.  While there could be innocent students, faculty or staffed also trapped, the number of potential victims would be greatly limited.  The close proximity of the potential victims to the assailant could also provide the opportunity for the assailant to be overwhelmed and disarmed, but this would hinge on the age and number of people within the buffer zone.

Double entry doors and a secure buffer zone are not the only changes that would be required.  Interior classroom doors need to be made of steel and they must be self-locking that can be opened from inside the classroom simply by pushing on a bar.   Entry from the outside will require a key or “smart card.”  The same bullet resistant glass must be in a window in the door, but it should be no more than 3 to 4 inches wide so that even if it were broken, the gap would be too small for an assailant to gain entry into the classroom.  Bullet resistant glass would also have to be used in all classroom windows and those windows could only be opened from inside the classroom.

At this point, you’re probably thinking that the above-described proposal is going to be shockingly expensive.  You are right, it will be incredibly expensive.  However, if the tragedy in Newtown is going to be the catalyst for discussion of school safety, then we need to discuss methods that can truly render our schools safe, not placebos such as gun control or mental health bogeymen.

Armed Teachers and Staff

The only other realistic alternative is to allow teachers and staff that have a concealed handgun license to carry handguns in school.  If the school opts to do so, it could provide additional training to teachers and staff wishing to carry handguns in school, so long as the school provides this training at no expense to its personnel.  It is quite likely that local police departments and sheriff departments will be more than happy to create training programs for such persons and provide the training at little or no cost to the school district.

Armed teachers and staff should be the last line of defense for the children, therefore reasonable steps should also be taken to secure the campus against unauthorized entry and the self-locking steel doors should be installed on each classroom.

Campus-Police Are Not Enough

Some will argue that it is not necessary to spend the millions of dollars required to create truly secure campuses as set out in the first alternative, or to authorize teachers and staff to carry handguns in school as set out in the second alternative.  The solution that will be offered is to simply require police officers to be present  in all schools.

While having police officers present is desirable, this alone is insufficient.  Schools that do have police officers  on campus typically have only one or two officers available to respond to threats.  This is insufficient even in a small school that has more than one entrance to the building and it is grossly inadequate in large schools that resemble junior colleges in their size and breadth.

Assuming the police officer is not killed attempting to protect students, it is quite likely that the presence of one or two officers will merely reduce the body count.  When we’re talking about our children, there is no such thing as an acceptable casualty rate.  If the lone officer is killed or incapacitated by the assailant, the students are defenseless and the tragedy at Newtown will be repeated.


We have a choice that must be made and it should be made during the 2013 Texas legislative Session.  We can accept the fact that school shootings are quite rare and do nothing.  Unfortunately, attacks on our schools may not remain rare in view of the extensive media coverage that actually encourages other would-be mass murderers to commit these atrocities to gain their a “15 minutes of fame.”  Regardless of the frequency however, to many Texans (this writer included) crossing our collective fingers and hoping for the best is unacceptable.

As noted previously, there are only two alternate methods of providing a reasonable level of security for our children.  The gold standard is to create a truly secure campus, but the cost of doing so will be staggering and beyond the financial capability of most school districts unless federal assistance is available.  Allowing licensed teachers and staff to carry handguns in school as they do everywhere outside of the school building, combined with self-locking classroom doors will establish a viable last line of defense for our children.

None of us like the idea of having to turn our schools into buildings that resemble a federal reserve bank or arming teachers and staff so they can prevent our sons and daughters from being butchered.  Sadly, for reasons not relevant to this article, this is the reality of the world in which we live.


posted by Charles L. Cotton on Apr 12

Jessie Jackson, Rep. Al Green, Al Shaprton and others are using the Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida to call for the repeal of all so-called “stand your ground” laws around the country.  Jessie Jackson was in Houston on April 12th calling for repeal of the Texas “Castle Doctrine.”  Jackson erroneously claims such laws promote “vigilantism.”  Jessie Jackson, Al Green and other self-appointed black leaders either do not know what the so-called Texas “Castle Doctrine” requires, or they know the truth and are lying to the public.

It is hard to determine what is at the center of complaints by Jackson and Green, as they never manage to state precisely what offends them about the Texas “Castle Doctrine.”  Based upon numerous statements made around the country, it appears that the repeal of the retreat duty is what Jackson, Green, Sharpton and others want to accomplish.  However, they argue that the lack of a retreat duty means people can used deadly force “anytime they feel threatened.”  Undoubtedly, they got this misinformation from the Brady Campaign to [Ban all Guns and Render Everyone Defenseless].

Let us brush aside the lies and rhetoric and look at the history of the retreat duty in Texas, as well as the actual provisions of the Texas version of the “Castle Doctrine.”  Prior to 1977, Texas was a “True Man State” meaning there was no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, but only if the use of  deadly force was  justified under Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code.  In 1977, the Texas Legislature amended the Penal Code to require a person to retreat before using deadly force, even in their own home!  This was the law until 1995 when the duty to retreat inside your home was repealed.  When SB378 passed in 2007, the retreat duty was repealed, but with safeguards.  There is no duty to retreat before using legally justified deadly force only if 1) the person is legally present at the location where they used deadly force; 2) the person did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and 3) the person using deadly force was not engage in illegal conduct at the time they used deadly force.  (See Tex. Penal code §9.32(c))

As noted earlier, repeal of the retreat duty does not change or diminish the long-standing requirements to use deadly force found throughout Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code.  The logic for repealing the retreat duty is sound and it was necessary to allow innocent people to defend themselves without fear of prosecution.  Prior to 2007, even if a person “reasonably believed deadly force was immediately necessary to prevent the other person’s use of unlawful deadly force” against them, they still had to try to get away before defending himself or herself.  If they got killed trying to escape, well too bad.  That was an absurd legal requirement that valued the life of a criminal more than the life of their intended victim.

Jackson, Green, Sharpton and others are siding with violent criminals by calling for a return to the days when innocent people had to risk their lives before defending themselves against violent attacks.  Once again Jessie Jackson, Al Green and Al Sharpton are trying to raise money and get some free air time by sprinkling themselves with Trayvon’s blood and lying about so-called “stand your ground” statutes.  Unfortunately, their despicable actions are not a surprise.  This has been their game plan for many years.

posted by Charles L. Cotton on Oct 26

The latest comparison of crime statistics between Texas Concealed Handgun Licensees and the general population in Texas (over age 20) is shocking — shockingly good that is!  The comparison is so good I started not to publish the information because 2009 will be a very hard act to follow.  However, facts are facts and these a worthy of a party.

The latest crime statistics published by the Texas Dept. of Public Safety are for 2009.   In spite of a 56% increase in the number of Texas CHL’s (258,168 in 2006; 402,914 in 2009), CHL’s were 15 times less likely to commit a crime than the general public in Texas, as compared to 7 times less likely in 2006.  That’s right, an already excellent track record was over twice as good.

Here are some examples of what the data show for the calendar year 2009:

In 2009, there were 402,914 active CHLs, but only 101 total convictions.  (Down from 140 in 2006)
Overall – The general population over age 21 is over 15 times as likely to commit any offense listed by DPS as are CHLs
Assault – The general population over age 21 is over 26 times as likely to commit an assault as are CHLs
Burglary – The general population over age 21 is almost 223 times as likely to commit a burglary as are CHLs
Terroristic threat – The general population over age 21 is over 10 over 10 times as likely to commit a terroristic threat as are CHLs
Prohibited Weapons – The general population over age 21 is over 26 times as likely to be convicted of possessing prohibited weapons as are CHLs.


posted by Charles L. Cotton on Sep 24

The short answer to the question is a resounding “YES!”  We really are that good and this article sets out the proof.  But first, here is  a short history lesson.

Let us turn the clock back about twenty five years when the idea of passing legislation that would allow law-abiding Texans to carry handguns for self-defense was an idea that was still in its infancy.  Supporters of what we now call a Texas Concealed Handgun License, or simply CHL for short, were thought to be few in number and we were dismissed an “just more gun nuts.”  To say these were frustrating times would be an understatement, but supporters pressed on.  The campaign took on a new persona when newly elected State Senator Jerry Patterson (now Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson) filed a CHL bill in the 1993 Texas Legislative Session.

When it became obvious then-Governor Ann Richards was doing everything in her power to keep the bill from passing and veto it if it did pass, the bill was amended to simply allow Texans to vote in a non-binding referendum to see if we wanted the right-to-carry in Texas.  This amendment was designed to force Governor Richards to show her true colors and deny Texans even the opportunity to express their opinion by voting on the issue.  Richards vetoed the bill, lost her bid for reelection and the rest is history.  George W. Bush was elected Governor, Senator Patterson’s SB60 passed and for the first time in over 120 years, Texans were allowed to carry handguns for self-defense.

Throughout the fight to provide law-abiding Texans the ability as well as the right to defend their lives, opponents painted a bleak and foreboding picture of what life would be like in Texas if citizens were allowed to carry defensive handguns.  This “parade of horribles” knew no bounds with dire predictions that “fender-benders” would become gunfights, enraged husbands would be killing their wives in great big bleeding batches, and children would die by the tens of thousands when they found their parents guns and accidentally shot themselves, their friends and family.  The fact that this did not happen in other states that had concealed carry did not seem to matter to those committed to keeping Texans unarmed and defenseless.

After SB60 passed in 1995, the media and some elected officials who had opposed concealed-carry anxiously awaited the blood-bath they felt would surely come so they could taunt us with “I told you so” and repeal the law in 1997.  As time passed, Texas cities were not awash in blood and our ears were not ringing from gunfire.  Most of those who predicted genocide on a Biblical scale either quietly abandoned their opposition, or were intellectually honest enough to publicly admit their opposition had been unfounded.  Some even became enthusiastic supporters of concealed-carry as did former Harris County District Attorney, John B. “Johnny” Homes.

Not only did Texas’ CHL statute not result in the death toll some predicted, in the fifteen years since SB60 passed, Texas CHL holders have earned a enviable record in terms of being law-abiding citizens.  During that time frame, concealed-carry became a non-issue politically speaking, as well it should have in view of the facts.  While those of us heavily involved intuitively knew CHL’s had garnered a great track record, there was no documented proof.  Yes, the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) published the crime statistics on its website, but those raw numbers were not terribly useful in revealing just how good Texas CHL’s really are.

In 2008, I decided it was time that Texas CHL’s and elected officials had documented facts and figures to prove what we knew to be true.  In the summer of that year, my law firm had a University of Texas engineering student as summer employee.  (I will not give her full name, but her first name is Allison.)   I assigned her the task of taking the crime statistics published by the DPS and put them in usable spreadsheets.  This was no easy assignment, in spite of the fact that much of the information was available on the DPS website.  At that time, it was difficult to find the yearly population of Texas residents by age.  Most population numbers were given in age ranges like 18 – 21, 22 – 25, etc.  But Allison was tenacious and she got all the data she needed to create what has become a cornerstone in terms of proof that Texas CHL’s are incredibly law-abiding citizens. She was also careful to document the source of information she used, so that anti-gunners could not falsely attack her work.  This documentation has been used by  Texas Senators and House Members, as well as Governor Perry and many others to show that Texas CHL’s are as responsible as we predicted all the way back in 1985.  I have only talked to Allison once since 2008, but I hope she knows what a valuable resource her work has become and how it has benefited almost 450,000 Texas CHL’s.  (Yes, we are approaching 450,000 CHL’s in Texas!)

Any statistical analysis of a large population can be somewhat daunting to comprehend.  When we are dealing with populations in the 15 million range, even a change of 1/10th of 1 percent is a lot of people.  Therefore, the data is presented in different formats; crimes per 100,000; total convictions; and conviction percentages.  Of these, the easiest for most of us to use and understand is the comparison per 100,000.   It should also be noted that crimes committed by the general population under age 21 years are not included in this analysis, to keep the comparison from being artificially skewed in favor of CHL’s.

The current datasheet covers the years 2002 through 2006.  When the work was done in 2008, DPS had not yet published the figures for 2007.  The spreadsheet will be updated to include those numbers, but this is no small task.  When the work is finished, it will be posted here and on Here are some examples of what the data show for the calendar year 2006, the latest year in the study.  Not all crimes set out in the study are included in this example:

  • In 2006, there were 258,162 active CHLs, but only 140 total convictions.
  • Overall – The general population over age 21 is over 7 times as likely to commit any offense listed by DPS as are CHLs
  • Assault – The general population over age 21 is over 8 times as likely to commit an assault as are CHLs
  • Burglary – The general population over age 21 is over 38 times as likely to commit a burglary as are CHLs
  • Prohibited Weapons – The general population over age 21 is over 21 times as likely to be convicted of possessing prohibited weapons as are CHLs
  • Robbery – The general population over age 21 is over 63 times as likely to commit a robbery as are CHLs

So Texas CHL’s, you can take a well-deserved bow.  The general public, the media and elected officials need to keep the truth in mind when dealing with legislation in the 2011 Texas Legislative Session that will be designed to increase public safety by reducing the locations that are statutorily off-limits to Texas CHL’s.  When emotional rhetoric fills the airways during the legislative session, we all must remember that so-called “gun free” zones, whether parking lots, schools, or elsewhere, are gun free only until would-be mass murderers decide to target those areas precisely because their intended victims will be defenseless.  Texas CHL’s have proven themselves to be responsible, law-abiding citizens capable of properly using handguns to preserve innocent life.  It is past time to remove artificial and unnecessary barriers based upon discredited fear mongering by people unwilling to acknowledge the truth.


CHL crime comparison

posted by Charles L. Cotton on Aug 11

Charles CottonNRA endorsements are powerful, very very powerful, and every gun owner had better hope they remain so. Gun rights are not the only issue I care strongly about, but gun rights are a litmus test. If a candidate is wrong on guns, then I don’t care where they stand on anything else. Most people who take gun rights seriously feel the same way and that’s why NRA endorsements are so important in elections. Were it otherwise, Gore and/or Kerry would have been President and many legislative battles would have been lost. Like it or not, admit it or not, those are the facts.

The general public tends to believe that Second Amendment supporters are conservatives, but we also have moderates and liberals in our ranks.   Good, as Second Amendment supporters we need people from every political persuasion if we are to protect gun rights and some day make the Second Amendment a non-issue. If we want guns to be off-limits to all political parties, then we had better make everyone welcome on our side of this issue. Otherwise, our future will always be in doubt and dependent upon the party in power.

The media are abuzz about the NRA’s presumed endorsement of Nevada Senator Harry Reid.  However, the NRA has not endorsed Harry Reid.  Most of the time people who support the Second Amendment also support conservative values, so it’s relatively rare that we have a voting dilemma in supporting pro-gun candidates. This is precisely why the majority of pro-gun elected officials are Republicans and why most newly elected Democrats in Congress are considered “blue-dog” pro-gun Democrats.  Hopefully, this will change and we will see more Democrats supporting the Second Amendment.  I’d love to see the day when gun rights are absolutely safe regardless who is in power in Washington or Austin, so we can fight over abortion, taxes, school vouchers, immigration, prayer in school, and numerous other issues that will surely divide us. Unless we make guns a do-or-die issue above everything else, that day will never come. Politicians and Party leaders need to know that, no matter how divided we may be on other issues, we will come together to defend the Second Amendment and that we will vote “guns” above anything else.

The NRA has a “friendly noncombatant” policy that is crucial to its success. No offense intended, but anyone who thinks this policy is not absolutely necessary simply does not know how politics works in the real world.   As soon as an organization abandons someone who supports its programs, legislation and goals, that organization has lost power in Washington (or Austin). Reliability is just as important in politics as in combat.  If an elected official who votes as you want them to vote (even against his Party’s position) can’t depend upon your support during tough times as well as the good times, then you have lost influence not only with that politician, but with all elected officials.  Betrayal is a message that travels quickly through the halls of congress and its impact is both lasting and devastating.

Occasionally I have to take a position on an issue or candidate that really goes against the grain, but it’s necessary for the protection of the Second Amendment.  It reminds me of the days when my two sons were young.  Sometimes it was necessary spank them or ground them or take them to the doctor to get shots (I HATE needles); I hated doing it, I would loved to have found a way around it, but because I love them I did what was necessary for their protection.  I love the Second Amendment too, so I answer the call to protect it even when I’d rather say home.


Powered By Wordpress - Theme Provided By Wordpress Theme - Payday Loan