New TX rights group: Lone Star Citizens Defense League

[TexasRedneck]

Glenn, I don't know what you do, but in my line of work when I'm on ranches I'm working - which usually translates to being sweat-soaked - not a thing that makes me want to tote a pistol in a sweat-lined pocket.

And TSRA does *not* support OC per my discussions with the leadership. They're not opposing it, but they have chosen to "remain nuetral". Prior discussions with certain staff members said that TSRA saw no need to push for OC based on the "lack of desire of TSRA members to promote OC" (paraphrasing there). When asked about poll numbers, etc., it was revealed that there had been no polling, but just a "gut feel" about the general consensus. Well, I AM a TSRA member, and it's obvious that I DO want OC.

Rather than to say the things that the prior leadership and others closely connected w/TSRA have said, the new board appears to be leaning more towards "first things first" - a move I applaud. However, I think it's important that the leadership communicate some sort of long-term goals/ideas to works toward, because I can assure you that the general public consensus is that TSRA will not work towards or openly support OC under any circumstances - and that is *not* the impression I've gotten with some recent discussions - but it was also readily apparent that the folks I spoke with were not aware of some comments made by others representing TSRA. It may well be that the new direction simply hasn't made its' way down the line yet - no large organization turns or redirects quickly, and I understand that.

But rather than try to tell someone that's been CC'ing for over 15 years how to do it, and implying that finding it difficult is somehow indicative of a lack of mental capacity, if you are REALLY in favor of OC, then so state and become part of a process of determining how to best address the issue. I always welcome constructive suggestions on the subject of CC - as long as it's done with the understanding that I've done it for many years - and likely in ways that took a bit more ingenuity than some might think.

 

[JohnKSa]

And TSRA does *not* support OC per my discussions with the leadership. They're not opposing it, but they have chosen to "remain nuetral".

They don't support it in the sense that they're not putting their resources behind any current attempts to pass OC legislation. I have explained at length the need to prioritize efforts and resources.

That is *not* the same thing as opposing it or being against it. It just means they are putting their resources to work elsewhere. "Elsewhere" means bills that are goals for a large number of TSRA members and that have the popular support to make headway.

Prior discussions with certain staff members said that TSRA saw no need to push for OC based on the "lack of desire of TSRA members to promote OC" (paraphrasing there).

Yeah, I think we've covered this at length. A member driven, member funded organization with limited resources is going to allocate those resources in an attempt to keep as much of the membership happy as possible.

Well, I AM a TSRA member, and it's obvious that I DO want OC.

One member does not amount to a majority or even a significant percentage. The idea that your statement somehow contradicts what the TSRA is telling you is totally without base in logic or fact.

The fact that there are some members who want OC is not the same thing as there being enough of a drive from the membership to make OC bill support practical. And even if there were sufficient drive, without popular support it would be pointless to expend valuable and limited resources trying to pass legislation that has no chance of passing when those same resources could be used to actually make significant headway in the fight for expanding gun rights.

Nobody's claiming there is NO support for OC among the membership, the point is that there's not ENOUGH support at this time.

...I can assure you that the general public consensus is that TSRA will not work towards or openly support OC under any circumstances...

TSRA responds to the wishes of the membership. It will do what the membership wants. The idea that there's nothing that would make them put their support behind an OC bill doesn't even begin to make sense.

...but it was also readily apparent that the folks I spoke with were not aware of some comments made by others representing TSRA. It may well be that the new direction simply hasn't made its' way down the line yet - no large organization turns or redirects quickly, and I understand that.

The TSRA isn't a large organization in any sense of the word. The gross revenues from membership dues is only about $1 Million. How many people do you think they can employ with that even if they were to use all of that revenue for salaries leaving nothing for any other uses?

 

[TexasRedneck]

You seem hell-bent on finding a way for us to disagree rather than common ground....so then tell me - when I call and ask TSRA staff about support for OC legislation, who makes note of that? Because I'm aware of quite a few who have done so....and yet no one claims to have any knowledge of it.

If TSRA isn't open to membership input, they stop giving it.....and their membership dues. Ever occur to you that some staff members *may* have their own perception as to the goals of our organization? It's human nature - and if one isn't cognizant of the potential and guards against it, it can destroy an organization.

 

[JohnKSa]

You seem hell-bent on finding a way for us to disagree rather than common ground....

Apparently your idea of common ground is for me to agree with you that the TSRA is an unresponsive, unaware organization that puts the personal agenda of its staff above those of the members. I'm not going to agree to that because I've seen nothing credible to support such allegations and because my experience with them has been just the opposite.

Because I'm aware of quite a few who have done so....and yet no one claims to have any knowledge of it.

In my opinion you're taking casual comments made by TSRA staff and treating them as if they're carefully crafted official press release statements.

The TSRA gets a lot of input from the membership. I am sure that some of it is in support of OC. What they're telling you is that there's not a practically significant amount of support for OC from the membership.

I do not believe anyone has told you straight up that there is zero support from the TSRA membership for OC. What they were trying to get across to you is that there's not enough support from the membership to make it a good use of the member-provided resources. Maybe they weren't careful about exactly the wording and you came away with the mistaken impression that they're saying there is zero support. Let me assure you that no one at the TSRA is stupid enough to try to make anyone believe that there are absolutely no TSRA members who want or support OC.

If TSRA isn't open to membership input, they stop giving it.....and their membership dues.

It has not been my experience that the TSRA is closed to membership input nor have I ever heard anyone else make a reasonable allegation along those lines. Given that membership is at an all-time high, and using your reasoning, it seems highly improbable that the TSRA is angering a significant percentage of its members by ignoring them.

I have seen people who don't understand the practical considerations surrounding getting legislation passed who are frustrated that the TSRA, a small organization with a handful of employees and minimal funding isn't putting enough effort behind their pet causes that have no chance of being passed at the time; all the while ignoring the truly amazing effectiveness of the TSRA at getting other pro-gun legislation passed and at blocking anti-gun legislation.

Basically people who are hacked off that the TSRA isn't doing everything all at once.

Ever occur to you that some staff members *may* have their own perception as to the goals of our organization?

If the TSRA has the wrong impression about what the members want it's because the members aren't making their wishes known. In this era of instant, free and simple communication, that can't be held against the TSRA.

At any rate I don't believe it's true. My experience with the TSRA is that they're very aware of what the membership wants and do a very good job of working towards achieving the goals that keep the membership happy.

 

[TexasRedneck]

Apparently your idea of common ground is for me to agree with you that the TSRA is an unresponsive, unaware organization that puts the personal agenda of its staff above those of the members.

Really? Can you show me where I say that? I state my perceptions and viewpoints based on my own personal observations based both on conversations with others and my own personal experience. Unless you were there during these conversations, you might disagree with my conclusions - but I can do without the attempts to shoot the messenger, my friend. In fact, I've gone to great pains to attempt to point out that I understand much of what's going on - but there are any number of times that I've seen TSRA staff saying that there was no support for OC.....and in the next sentence that there had been no polling done to support the claim.

That's not trying to tear down an organization - that's trying to understand and diagnose things. Where my perception was wrong I can deal with - where there is misinformation being given out by staff - only the TSRA board can deal with it - which they need to be made aware of before that can happen. I CAN tell you that I've had discussions w/TSRA board members who HAVE told me what I wrote earlier - that there are priorities - and I can understand (and even support) that. Thing is....there's two ways to deal with this situation. You can attack me (and I've got pretty thick skin) and send the message to folks that the Emperor is never wrong - or you can deal with the subject in a logical, polite and friendly manner. It's really up to you - because in my mind, there's several instances where you come pretty close to calling me a liar - an' that ain't cool.

In my opinion you're taking casual comments made by TSRA staff and treating them as if they're carefully crafted official press release statements.

In my opinion you're drawing unsupported conclusions and attributing things to me without knowing all the facts.

The TSRA gets a lot of input from the membership. I am sure that some of it is in support of OC. What they're telling you is that there's not a practically significant amount of support for OC from the membership.

Really? Tell me something....what position do you serve on w/the TSRA? Are you a paid staffer, or what? Because otherwise, you're another outsider looking in - and have no specific knowledge of these issues. I don't either - I have only my perceptions based on my contact with them - which I've tried to be clear about. By continuing to attack my perceptions, you minimalize them - which will either shut me up or tick me off and make me go off on a tangent......which gains nothing for anyone.

So....shall we discuss things without rancor, or just attack?

 

[JohnKSa]

So....shall we discuss things without rancor, or just attack?

I haven't attacked you, and implying that I have done so or will do so is not going to change the focus of this discussion nor will it persuade me to let your arguments stand unanswered if they don't have merit.

I will continue to discuss this without rancor in accordance with the forum rules. So will you.

Quote:

Apparently your idea of common ground is for me to agree with you that the TSRA is an unresponsive, unaware organization that puts the personal agenda of its staff above those of the members.​

Really? Can you show me where I say that?

Because I'm aware of quite a few who have done so....and yet no one claims to have any knowledge of it.

It's not on the personal agenda of key staff members - THAT is why it ain't on their agenda.

...but since they don't "like" the bill, that ain't gonna happen.

You started off with the claim that the TSRA was basing their actions on personal agendas and have repeatedly said that they can't/don't know what the membership supports because they don't poll them.

...there are any number of times that I've seen TSRA staff saying that there was no support for OC.....and in the next sentence that there had been no polling done to support the claim.

Again, the fact that the TSRA doesn't poll its membership is not evidence that they don't know what the membership supports. As pointed out, members (like you and me, to name a couple) who actually support a measure are not shy about letting the TSRA know what they support.

Members who don't care enough to let the TSRA know what they support don't really support anything regardless of what they might say or think. It costs nothing but a few minutes to send an email and even for those who don't have email it only costs a few cents to make a phone call.

The point is that the TSRA can find out what its members support without paying money to find out--without even making any effort--and therefore it's meaningless to continue to assert that the fact that they don't actively poll the membership means that they don't know what the membership wants and supports.

Ok, here's one disconnect.

You apparently believe that the TSRA has told you that there is absolutely zero support for OC among their membership. I say that based on the fact that you have twice indicated that your support (and the support of other TSRA members) for OC is contradictory to their statements. In other words, you seem to think that because you and some other TSRA members support OC and have told them that you do, that contradicts their statements that there is "no support".

I certainly believe that the TSRA has told you that there is "no support" in the sense that not enough of the membership supports OC for them to allocate resources to push OC at this time, but the idea that anyone at the TSRA would have used the term "no support" to attempt to lead anyone to believe that there are no TSRA members at all who support OC is not really credible.

I'm not saying that you're being disengenuous, I'm saying that what you seem to think contradicts TSRA statements doesn't actually contradict what they're saying unless one takes an unreasonably narrow view when interpreting the phrase "no support".

As far as the personal agenda thing, if you've had a TSRA staffer tell you straight up that that the TSRA isn't supporting OC due to personal agendas or likes/dislikes of the staff members then that's one thing. So far you have not made the claim that you're quoting someone who has special knowledge about the TSRA staff when you've commented about personal agendas and likes/dislikes. Give that state of affairs, it's certainly fair and accurate to call your comments speculation.

That's not trying to tear down an organization...

What would you call it when someone says that a member driven/member funded organization:

1. Won't get off their duffs and support measures that the membership wants because they don't "like" the bill.

2. Is staffed by people who put their personal agenda above finding out what the membership wants.

3. Disregards calls from members and then claims to have no knowledge of such calls.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Not to beat a dead horse - but if one works on a ranch, it is private property - I assume.

The owner can give you permission to open carry just as they could ban carry. If it is your land, you can open carry. Done it on friends' ranches.

So, here's my deal:

1. I don't object to open carry.

2. As stated before, I think there is more important legislation that has a chance to pass and affects more people - giving them a chance to protect themselves. If we can accomplish something now for the great good, let's do it. We can revisit open carry later.

3. Thus, I support the TSRA's analysis and legislative agenda. Charles Cotton has written quite reasonable explanation on the texaschlforum.com site.

I've carried in TX since the law was passed, by the way. However, I'm not buying into arguments that carry is impossible without open carry because of the heat. I've seen that claim made on this forum and it is just not true.

I remember in the TX debate over the first carry law, the local GOA had a big fit about the law - said we shouldn't pass it but only push for what we now call constitutional carry. They were willing to lose the whole package for the correct ideological position. Luckily they lost. In Missouri, Mas reported that a similar attack sunk the MO carry law for several years.

I'm not willing to lose a chance that expands carry for many for not getting open carry right now. We took the first law that banned church carry and fixed it.

The same can open with open. In fact, taking the steps for parking/lot and campus sets the ground for more expansion.

That is unless we see the curse of the gun rights folks - we would rather have a noble defeat and rant than make a less than totally, ideologically perfect law but that is pretty good.

In way, it parallels the hysteria on MSNBC about gun bans. Their commentator says that he knows that Obama won't push gun legislation but he wants McCarthy, Schumer and Feinstein to push for it because the noble defeat is worthy. Might there be some reasonable look at the mental health/NICS issue - no, just ban them all! They have the same noble defeat as compared to practical steps issues (which is good for us).

As to what I do - my name and profession is not secret. Ha!

 

[TexasRedneck]

It's amazing....no matter what I might say, someone's trying to twist things around. Glenn, you need to read what I've written - I am supportive of "first things first" - but I AM getting sick and tired of folks that won't even talk about "next steps", and instead want to push on folks. I'm done with this -- so VERY done with it.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

That's not what was said. If you read what was written in reply to you, you would get it. If you are done with it - that's your choice.

The issue was to discuss the rationale for the TSRA's strategy. I was also asked my view on open carry. I also expressed my view on the logic of some of the open carry folks discussing why they couldn't carry concealed mandating open carry as their only option.

Such is life.

 

[MLeake]

JohnKSA and GEM...

... kudos for keeping your ends of the debate civil, and on point. I thought you made your cases quite well.