HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.035

[Keith B]

While I understand the feeling that we should have the same rights as those in elected offices, we all know that sometimes folks in these positions like to feel special. And, in some aspects they do face a little more of a risk than most CHL'ers since they are in the public limelight and may be targeted for an unpopular decision.

As Charles stated, if they can get this passed to allow exemptions for them, then we are just that much closer to making a little change in 2013 for all CHL's to be exempt. If we try to push too hard to regain our rights all at once, those that make the decisions to remove the restrictions may balk or become disenamored with us and we will be faced with legislators who will decide to shun us like they did the Open Carry rabble rouser's last session.

So, maybe in this case it would be good to give the inch now to gain the mile soon?

[RHenriksen]

Even if the end game is 'eventually' it helps CHLs, when? how? and Why is it good for the goose but not the gander?

Baby steps.

While I understand that logic, I also think that the November election results represent strong push-back from the electorate against politics as usual. And this sort of 'feathering ones own nest' behavior is a classic example of wrong-headed thinking by our elected officials. Why not pressure them to take their horrible idea, and turn it into a wonderful idea, by making it inclusive of ALL of us card-carrying 'good guys'?

[ELB]

I understand the realities of changing things incrementally -- as far as I am concerned, the whole CHL business is a big increment (not a final stop) on putting some muscle on the 2A.

But what that legislator is proposing ain't an incremental step, it is an "I'm more important" ego bill, and no amount of incremental lipstick is going to make it any less of a pig.

Talk about tone-deaf. This is a perfect way to alienate Texas 2A supporters. The comments above are correct -- this is the kind of nonsense I would expect to see in California or New York, not Texas.

Every step we take away from traditional law enforcement in terms of allowing concealed carry in new locations, the better the chance of getting what Rick Perry wants -- all CHL's to be exempt as are law enforcement.

Sorry, but this dog don't hunt. He is not filing the bill because threats can happen to people anywhere -- he is filing it because of all those people there, legislators are the only ones important enough to be able to protect themselves with a gun in certain venues. Eveyone else is just too immature or unimportant.

Look, Judges and prosectors got special exemptions for themselves too, and it hasn't done squat for citizens.

If he feels "unsafe" because of the Arizona thing, he should consider this: 19 people were hit and six were killed, and only one of them was a legislative rep. One staffer was killed, and a judge. The other four killed were joe citizens. Of the thirteen wounded, only three were associated with the legislature -- Gifford and two staffers. And the first one shot was Gifford, the legislator, who under Kleinschmidt's scheme would have been the only one armed at a bar, sporting event, etc etc.

So since legislators are clearly so dangerous to have around, here is a better law: restrict legislators as to where they can go. No sporting events, no hospitals, no schools, no bars, nada -- in fact, just lock them up in the State Capitol until the end of their term. It's for the children.

Look, the Republicans got elected in droves last December because the Democrats got waaaaaaaayy too big for their britches and disregarded the people. The big fear and warning of Tea Partiers and everyone else is that the Republicans would do what they did the last time they got control --- forget who brought them to the dance and turn into a bunch of power-mad, self-centered elitests. We are watching the national and local legislators like hawks, and a stunt like this, a special carve out for legislators but not citizens, is EXACTLY the kind of "power corrupts," hey-I'm-special-privileges-for-me-but-not-the-little-people foolishness that will get them booted.

Kleinschmidt might usually be an OK guy, but this is a clueless move. If he doesn't realize that, then he is already corrupted. And if he think being a legislator is too dangerous -- there's plenty of people in his district that would be happy to take his place.

NO. NO. NO!

Now I am going to get on the phone to the Capitol.

[Right2Carry]

I understand the realities of changing things incrementally -- as far as I am concerned, the whole CHL business is a big increment (not a final stop) on putting some muscle on the 2A.

But what that legislator is proposing ain't an incremental step, it is an "I'm more important" ego bill, and no amount of incremental lipstick is going to make it any less of a pig.

Talk about tone-deaf. This is a perfect way to alienate Texas 2A supporters. The comments above are correct -- this is the kind of nonsense I would expect to see in California or New York, not Texas.

Every step we take away from traditional law enforcement in terms of allowing concealed carry in new locations, the better the chance of getting what Rick Perry wants -- all CHL's to be exempt as are law enforcement.

Sorry, but this dog don't hunt. He is not filing the bill because threats can happen to people anywhere -- he is filing it because of all those people there, legislators are the only ones important enough to be able to protect themselves with a gun in certain venues. Eveyone else is just too immature or unimportant.

Look, Judges and prosectors got special exemptions for themselves too, and it hasn't done squat for citizens.

If he feels "unsafe" because of the Arizona thing, he should consider this: 19 people were hit and six were killed, and only one of them was a legislative rep. One staffer was killed, and a judge. The other four killed were joe citizens. Of the thirteen wounded, only three were associated with the legislature -- Gifford and two staffers. And the first one shot was Gifford, the legislator, who under Kleinschmidt's scheme would have been the only one armed at a bar, sporting event, etc etc.

So since legislators are clearly so dangerous to have around, here is a better law: restrict legislators as to where they can go. No sporting events, no hospitals, no schools, no bars, nada -- in fact, just lock them up in the State Capitol until the end of their term. It's for the children.

Look, the Republicans got elected in droves last December because the Democrats got waaaaaaaayy too big for their britches and disregarded the people. The big fear and warning of Tea Partiers and everyone else is that the Republicans would do what they did the last time they got control --- forget who brought them to the dance and turn into a bunch of power-mad, self-centered elitests. We are watching the national and local legislators like hawks, and a stunt like this, a special carve out for legislators but not citizens, is EXACTLY the kind of "power corrupts," hey-I'm-special-privileges-for-me-but-not-the-little-people foolishness that will get them booted.

Kleinschmidt might usually be an OK guy, but this is a clueless move. If he doesn't realize that, then he is already corrupted. And if he think being a legislator is too dangerous -- there's plenty of people in his district that would be happy to take his place.

NO. NO. NO!

Now I am going to get on the phone to the Capitol.

Well stated!!!!!!! I couldn't agree more.

[RHenriksen]

Talk about tone-deaf. This is a perfect way to alienate Texas 2A supporters. The comments above are correct -- this is the kind of nonsense I would expect to see in California or New York, not Texas.

Sorry, but this dog don't hunt. He is not filing the bill because threats can happen to people anywhere -- he is filing it because of all those people there, legislators are the only ones important enough to be able to protect themselves with a gun in certain venues. Eveyone else is just too immature or unimportant.

Look, Judges and prosectors got special exemptions for themselves too, and it hasn't done squat for citizens.

So since legislators are clearly so dangerous to have around, here is a better law: restrict legislators as to where they can go. No sporting events, no hospitals, no schools, no bars, nada -- in fact, just lock them up in the State Capitol until the end of their term. It's for the children.

Look, the Republicans got elected in droves last December because the Democrats got waaaaaaaayy too big for their britches and disregarded the people. The big fear and warning of Tea Partiers and everyone else is that the Republicans would do what they did the last time they got control --- forget who brought them to the dance and turn into a bunch of power-mad, self-centered elitests. We are watching the national and local legislators like hawks, and a stunt like this, a special carve out for legislators but not citizens, is EXACTLY the kind of "power corrupts," hey-I'm-special-privileges-for-me-but-not-the-little-people foolishness that will get them booted.

Kleinschmidt might usually be an OK guy, but this is a clueless move. If he doesn't realize that, then he is already corrupted. And if he think being a legislator is too dangerous -- there's plenty of people in his district that would be happy to take his place.

NO. NO. NO!

Now I am going to get on the phone to the Capitol.

Nicely said, and *please* do call the Rep's office. I just got off of the phone w. his legislative assistant, Brandy. Had a good conversation with her, and she swears up and down that he's not an elitist, that wasn't the intent, that this bill was brought to their office by DPS after DPS had been getting complaints/concerns about post-AZ paranoia, etc. She said she'd already heard from another forum member here, she's been reading this website, etc etc and that she's going to speak w. Kleinschmidt Monday when he returns to the Austin office. More voices will help - their office # is 512-463-0682.

I told her that the idea of removing some of the 'off limits' areas currently in effect was a WONDERFUL idea, and that I completely support his efforts - but WITHOUT the 'elected officials only' limitation. He should be all means push forward vigorously w. his bill... as soon as he retracts, amends, refiles, whatever - the offending portion.

[chasfm11]

I've placed a call to my representative, too, my story is going to be a little different. I agree with Charles that I'm not sure that it is good thing to be opposed to this bill completely. I do want to talk with my representative about the elitist attitude in this or any other bill. I want him to understand that our Legislature at all levels of government should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us - period. That applies to all laws - healthcare coverage for Legislators, exemptions from the PC for handguns, etc. Elitism is elitism, regardless of the subject matter to which it is applied.

I do want to add the encouragement that opening up the number of places where handguns are permitted is a good thing. I want to remind him that there can be no arguing with the success of the CHL population in Texas and that to exempt us from this bill seems to ignore that success.

I'd rather see this bill amended to include CHLs, regardless of what the bill was originally intended to do, than to see it defeated completely. A good way to prove that it isn't elitist in intent is to make sure that it doesn't just cover the Legislators.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I may be changing my mind about this. Maybe if all of the elected officials start carry guns they may not think it's such bad idea for the "little people". That was some of the rational for LEOSA. Maybe not, but?

Every step we take away from traditional law enforcement in terms of allowing concealed carry in new locations, the better the chance of getting what Rick Perry wants -- all CHL's to be exempt as are law enforcement.

I understand the sentiment, but this could be helpful in moving the CHL "not applicable" provisions from merely applying to TPC §46.02 to TPC §§46.02, 46.03, 46.035. It would be a powerful argument for 2013 to attend a public hearing and say "why should you be exempt, but not the voters in your district?"

Again, I understand the sentiment and this is not a TSRA/NRA bill, nevertheless, it could be very useful in greatly reducing or eliminating areas off-limits to CHLs.

Representative Kleinschmidt is a good friend and he's working his tail off as the "author" of the employer parking lot bill. That bill now has 76 sponsors and co-sponsors do in large part to his work. Let's not paint him as the enemy because we don't like this one bill.

Chas.

Charles I do understand your points, but to me this is just more elitist behaviour from those who have been elected to be the voice of the people. This is a self serving bill for those that put themselves above the people they pretend to represent. IMHO if it's good enough for elected officials that hold a CHL, then it should be good enough for everyone that holds a CHL. Our elected officials haven't attended any additional training or background checks than any other CHL so why should they be treated any differently than anyone else who holds a CHL?

I agree with everything you said and I don't support the bill. It's not our bill, we aren't helping it, we will never support it, and I'll be happy if it doesn't pass. I'm just saying that if it passes, we'll use it to our advantage. It's very much a situation of when you are given lemons, make lemonade.

Rep. Kleinschmidt is a very good friend to gun owners. As author of HB681, the employer parking lot bill, he's working his tail off and the Bill now has 76 sponsors and co-sponsors, due in large part to his work. It is a mistake to paint him as the enemy simply because one doesn't like HB1463. If you are going to contact his office, I suggest that you ask him to amend the bill (and the caption) so that it applies to all CHL's. This is what Gov. Perry wants.

Chas.

[RHenriksen]

I've placed a call to my representative, too, my story is going to be a little different.

I'd rather see this bill amended to include CHLs, regardless of what the bill was originally intended to do, than to see it defeated completely. A good way to prove that it isn't elitist in intent is to make sure that it doesn't just cover the Legislators.

Thanks for the idea - I went ahead & called my rep's office as well - they hadn't heard of 1463 yet, and I let them know that I'd love to see it passed *if* amended to include all CHL holders. Or shot down in flames if it moves forward as originally written (ie, 'let them eat cake!').

[Right2Carry]

I may be changing my mind about this. Maybe if all of the elected officials start carry guns they may not think it's such bad idea for the "little people". That was some of the rational for LEOSA. Maybe not, but?

Every step we take away from traditional law enforcement in terms of allowing concealed carry in new locations, the better the chance of getting what Rick Perry wants -- all CHL's to be exempt as are law enforcement.

I understand the sentiment, but this could be helpful in moving the CHL "not applicable" provisions from merely applying to TPC §46.02 to TPC §§46.02, 46.03, 46.035. It would be a powerful argument for 2013 to attend a public hearing and say "why should you be exempt, but not the voters in your district?"

Again, I understand the sentiment and this is not a TSRA/NRA bill, nevertheless, it could be very useful in greatly reducing or eliminating areas off-limits to CHLs.

Representative Kleinschmidt is a good friend and he's working his tail off as the "author" of the employer parking lot bill. That bill now has 76 sponsors and co-sponsors do in large part to his work. Let's not paint him as the enemy because we don't like this one bill.

Chas.

Charles I do understand your points, but to me this is just more elitist behaviour from those who have been elected to be the voice of the people. This is a self serving bill for those that put themselves above the people they pretend to represent. IMHO if it's good enough for elected officials that hold a CHL, then it should be good enough for everyone that holds a CHL. Our elected officials haven't attended any additional training or background checks than any other CHL so why should they be treated any differently than anyone else who holds a CHL?

I agree with everything you said and I don't support the bill. It's not our bill, we aren't helping it, we will never support it, and I'll be happy if it doesn't pass. I'm just saying that if it passes, we'll use it to our advantage. It's very much a situation of when you are given lemons, make lemonade.

Rep. Kleinschmidt is a very good friend to gun owners. As author of HB681, the employer parking lot bill, he's working his tail off and the Bill now has 76 sponsors and co-sponsors, due in large part to his work. It is a mistake to paint him as the enemy simply because one doesn't like HB1463. If you are going to contact his office, I suggest that you ask him to amend the bill (and the caption) so that it applies to all CHL's. This is what Gov. Perry wants.

Chas.

Sorry if I painted him as the enemy, that certainly wasn't my intention at all. I am glad to hear that he is hard at work on HB 681 which we really need to get passed this time around. I don't plan to contact Rep. Kleinschmidt at this time, instead I contacted my Rep. to voice my concerns about HB 1463. I did state my concerns about the bill and that I would have no problem with the bill if it was amended to include all CHL holders.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I may be changing my mind about this. Maybe if all of the elected officials start carry guns they may not think it's such bad idea for the "little people". That was some of the rational for LEOSA. Maybe not, but?

Every step we take away from traditional law enforcement in terms of allowing concealed carry in new locations, the better the chance of getting what Rick Perry wants -- all CHL's to be exempt as are law enforcement.

I understand the sentiment, but this could be helpful in moving the CHL "not applicable" provisions from merely applying to TPC §46.02 to TPC §§46.02, 46.03, 46.035. It would be a powerful argument for 2013 to attend a public hearing and say "why should you be exempt, but not the voters in your district?"

Again, I understand the sentiment and this is not a TSRA/NRA bill, nevertheless, it could be very useful in greatly reducing or eliminating areas off-limits to CHLs.

Representative Kleinschmidt is a good friend and he's working his tail off as the "author" of the employer parking lot bill. That bill now has 76 sponsors and co-sponsors do in large part to his work. Let's not paint him as the enemy because we don't like this one bill.

Chas.

Charles I do understand your points, but to me this is just more elitist behaviour from those who have been elected to be the voice of the people. This is a self serving bill for those that put themselves above the people they pretend to represent. IMHO if it's good enough for elected officials that hold a CHL, then it should be good enough for everyone that holds a CHL. Our elected officials haven't attended any additional training or background checks than any other CHL so why should they be treated any differently than anyone else who holds a CHL?

I agree with everything you said and I don't support the bill. It's not our bill, we aren't helping it, we will never support it, and I'll be happy if it doesn't pass. I'm just saying that if it passes, we'll use it to our advantage. It's very much a situation of when you are given lemons, make lemonade.

Rep. Kleinschmidt is a very good friend to gun owners. As author of HB681, the employer parking lot bill, he's working his tail off and the Bill now has 76 sponsors and co-sponsors, due in large part to his work. It is a mistake to paint him as the enemy simply because one doesn't like HB1463. If you are going to contact his office, I suggest that you ask him to amend the bill (and the caption) so that it applies to all CHL's. This is what Gov. Perry wants.

Chas.

Sorry if I painted him as the enemy, that certainly wasn't my intention at all. I am glad to hear that he is hard at work on HB 681 which we really need to get passed this time around. I don't plan to contact Rep. Kleinschmidt at this time, instead I contacted my Rep. to voice my concerns about HB 1463. I did state my concerns about the bill and that I would have no problem with the bill if it was amended to include all CHL holders.

The "enemy" comment was a general comment, not directed at you. Sorry if it appeared that way.

Chas.

[RHenriksen]

I'd just like to say I have a big warm fuzzy that we've got some legislators' phones ringing today! Please keep up the good work - anyone on this thread who hasn't let their fingers do some walking, please take 5 minutes to do so this afternoon...

[ELB]

I called both my rep (Kuempel) and Kleinschmidt's office, told them what i thought was wrong with this bill, and yes, said it should be changed to remove the restrictions on ALL chl holders. I was very polite, and very firm.

I don't think Rep Kuempel's office was aware of it yet. The call taker sounded surprised. Whoever took my call at Rep Kleinschmidt's office sounded a bit.... weary.

I would be delighted if he changed the bill (or dispensed with it). But as great a friend of gunowners as he is, it disturbs me that he did not see anything wrong with a carve-out for elected officials. I was dead serious in my comments about why Dems are out and Republicans are in, and Reps could be out just as fast. People are tired of legislators and elected officials at any level just assuming that they deserve special treatment. Appearances and leadership by example count.

[TrueFlog]

Remember, just because the NRA/TRSA doesn't support a bill, that doesn't mean we should always withhold our support. They work for us, not the other way around.

That said, I'm split on this bill. I agree that this bill will create a special "privileged" class that gives members of the government more rights than "We the People". Their lives aren't any more important than ours, nor do they face a danger any more imminent or grave. What's more, it smells like a knee-jerk reaction to the Arizona killings, and I oppose that just on principle.

Then again, I find it hard to oppose any bill that expands 2A rights. To say, "If I can't have it, then neither can you" sounds an awful lot like sour grapes. Restoring parts of their right to carry costs me nothing, so why should I oppose it? It's not as though they're voting themselves a pay raise on my tax dollars. Plus, I agree with Charles that this could be a foot-in-the-door opportunity for us. We can come back in 2013 and complain about the "privileged class" legislation and argue that our rights should be restored in the same manner.

[hirundo82]

That said, I'm split on this bill. I agree that this bill will create a special "privileged" class that gives members of the government more rights than "We the People". Their lives aren't any more important than ours, nor do they face a danger any more imminent or grave. What's more, it smells like a knee-jerk reaction to the Arizona killings, and I oppose that just on principle.

What I'm afraid of happening is something like what happens in my home state of Virginia, where every legislative session there are a few bills introduced to give some class of government employees special carry rights--usually exempting them from obtaining a permit (in a shall-issue state). I think it was members of Coast Guard boarding parties last session, and correctional officers this session. I don't want to see that happen here.

[tacticool]

The bill is immoral. Any legislators who vote for it are voting against the people who elected them, and should lose their jobs.