HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.035

Discussions about relevant bills filed and their status.

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts: 16526
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Fri Feb 18, 2011 7:16 pm

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


I respectfully but strongly disagree. Even suggesting that a "yes" vote on this bill should cost pro-gun elected officials is truly cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Chas.
Image


Topic author
hirundo82
Senior Member
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:44 pm
Location: Houston

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Postby hirundo82 » Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:21 pm

Since this thread seems to be gaining traction, I'll post this here instead of making a new thread.

There was another of these bills giving government officials special carry privileges filed today, HB 1530. This one exempts members of the commisioners court from the §46.035(c) prohibition on carrying at meeting of government entities. Side note: I'm not familiar with local Texas governmental structure having not grown up here--commissioners court wouldn't qualify as "the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court" per §46.03?

This makes 3 bills exempting government officials from different sections of the Texas carry laws (the third being HB 698, exempting school board members and school administrators attending school board meetings). I really don't like this trend, and I'm wondering why it is happening this year--I've been following CHL bills for the last couple of legislative sessions and don't remember these kind of bills being filed before, and a quick glance over the CHL bills for the 79th and 80th legislative sessions doesn't reveal any.
Last edited by hirundo82 on Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Barack Obama, 12/20/2007

User avatar

Liberty
Senior Member
Posts: 5325
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 8:49 pm
Location: Galveston
Contact:

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Postby Liberty » Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:48 pm

Keith B wrote: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' Even suggesting that a "yes" vote on this bill should cost pro-gun elected officials is truly cutting off your nosers since they are in the public limelight and may be targeted for an unpopular decision.


I don't believe these folks are exposed to any more danger than a young nurse who works shifts at an inner city hospital or a store clerk at a convienience store. Unless their name happens to be Kennedy, being a politician is not a high risk occupation. Making a normal living is considerably more dangerous,
Liberty''s Blog
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." John F. Kennedy


RHenriksen
Senior Member
Posts: 1990
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:59 pm
Location: Houston

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Postby RHenriksen » Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:14 pm

The underlying logic of these bills is need-based exemptions to restrictions. I told Kleinschmidt's staff that based on that logic, my wife should also be allowed to carry in areas normally restricted to CHL holders.

Why? Well, I'm a healthy adult male, 6', 180#, and have a 3rd degree black belt. But my wife is 4'10", 105#, petite/attractive/Asian. Surely she's both more of a target, and more vulnerable? So she should also be allowed to carry in all the areas where they feel that elected officials should also get an exemption - and where my own need for self-defense is deemed to be less important than some nebulous, perceived public good.
I'll quit carrying a gun when they make murder and armed robbery illegal

Houston Technology Consulting
soup-to-nuts IT infrastructure design, deployment, and support for SMBs


CWOOD
Senior Member
Posts: 730
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Postby CWOOD » Sat Feb 19, 2011 10:55 am

hirundo82 wrote:Since this thread seems to be gaining traction, I'll post this here instead of making a new thread.

There was another of these bills giving government officials special carry privileges filed today, HB 1530. This one exempts members of the commisioners court from the §46.035(c) prohibition on carrying at meeting of government entities. Side note: I'm not familiar with local Texas governmental structure having not grown up here--commissioners court wouldn't qualify as "the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court" per §46.03?

This makes 3 bills exempting government officials from different sections of the Texas carry laws (the third being HB 598, exempting school board members and school administrators attending school board meetings). I really don't like this trend, and I'm wondering why it is happening this year--I've been following CHL bills for the last couple of legislative sessions and don't remember these kind of bills being filed before, and a quick glance over the CHL bills for the 79th and 80th legislative sessions doesn't reveal any.


Just a small correction.
The offending bill regarding the carrying of handguns by school board members and administrators at school board meetings is actually HB698. Your link was to the correct bill but the text of the post refers to HB598.

Thank you for bringing this important info to our attention.
SIGN UP! The National Alliance for an Idiot Free America


aardwolf
Senior Member
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 6:47 pm
Location: Sugarland, Texas
Contact:

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Postby aardwolf » Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:53 pm

Does anyone remember the 7th Commandment in the book Animal Farm?

:rules:

P.S. Isn't this bill constitutional?

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

How does denying citizens the same rights as officials "prevent crime" anyhow?
We're here. With gear. Get used to it.


Topic author
hirundo82
Senior Member
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:44 pm
Location: Houston

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Postby hirundo82 » Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:55 am

CWOOD wrote:Just a small correction.
The offending bill regarding the carrying of handguns by school board members and administrators at school board meetings is actually HB698. Your link was to the correct bill but the text of the post refers to HB598.

Thanks for the heads-up; I fixed the bill number in my post.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Barack Obama, 12/20/2007


KD5NRH
Senior Member
Posts: 3118
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:25 am
Location: Stephenville TX

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Postby KD5NRH » Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:12 pm

WildBill wrote: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.


And what, if any, ground have we gained from LEOSA?


Shoot Straight
Member
Posts: 152
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 2:28 pm

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Postby Shoot Straight » Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:27 pm

KD5NRH wrote:
WildBill wrote: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.


And what, if any, ground have we gained from LEOSA?

Nothing if you're one of the the "little people" who pay the bills for the government, but have less rights than the "public servants" who think they're the public's masters. That's why the LEOSA note in the bio for Roy Innis doesn't do much to motivate me to vote for him. Quite the opposite.
Ride
Shoot Straight
Speak the Truth

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts: 16526
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Postby Charles L. Cotton » Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:48 pm

KD5NRH wrote:
WildBill wrote: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.


And what, if any, ground have we gained from LEOSA?


Nothing directly, but we are using it to help gain support of national reciprocity as a stand alone bill. LEOSA applies to former LEOs as well as active ones and there have been no problems with non-COPS carrying. We then tie this to the excellent track record of CHLs (especially Texas since we have the documentation).

NRA's support of LEOSA also gained a lot (a whole lot) of goodwill from the law enforcement community and as a result, they have supported many NRA initiatives all over the country. Politics doesn't stop at the doors of the capitol.

Chas.
Image


srothstein
Senior Member
Posts: 3815
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Postby srothstein » Sun Feb 20, 2011 9:22 pm

KD5NRH wrote:
WildBill wrote: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.


And what, if any, ground have we gained from LEOSA?



There are two areas where you will see some improvement from LEOSA, in my opinion. The first is the most important, and that is the number of individual cops who will now support CHLs. Some did before, obviously, but there are some who took their word seriously and are now working to promote CHLs because of the support the gun community gave them. My big complaint with this is the large organizations like FOP or IACP (not sure of their positions but listed them as examples) are going back on their word and not supporting CHL laws. I will point out that the IACP is still not supporting LEOSA as it should either, so I am not surprised at their claims against CHLs.

The second is that LEOSA is slowly getting widened. This can only help overall. For example, in October they modified LEOSA to remove the requirement for a pension and lowered the time in service requirement to 10 years. As this group proves it is not a harm, I expect to see it lowered even further. Each time it is lowered, it will add to the pool of people carrying guns. This can only help the issue of CHLs. It could even be expanded to interstate CHL (which may be a bad thing, I still oppose LEOSA because of its tenuous claim to interstate commerce).

Having said all that, I will agree that I generally see the laws carving out special exceptions for politicians as a bad thing. My only argument would be to use it to our advantage. I would make sure that the legislators know we do not like their special exceptions and that if it is passed and an expansion to the general CHL populace is not passed by the end of the next legislative session, there will be repercussions. This may give them too much time - an extra election for the representatives is in the way - but it really is the best tactic, IMHO.
Steve Rothstein


RHenriksen
Senior Member
Posts: 1990
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:59 pm
Location: Houston

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Postby RHenriksen » Wed Feb 23, 2011 10:01 am

Just placed a follow up call to Brandy, a legislative aide w. Kleinschmidt's office. She did pass along my (our?) objections to HB1463 to him. She said he disagrees that it's elitist and I get the impression he has his heels dug against about the idea of changing the bill to apply to all CHL holders. Bah.

I've sent emails to all members of the homeland security committee expressing support for HB750 (campus carry) and objecting to HB 698 (special exemptions for school board members allowing them, and only them, to carry at school board meetings). I'll be doing the same if/when HB1463 goes to committee...
I'll quit carrying a gun when they make murder and armed robbery illegal

Houston Technology Consulting
soup-to-nuts IT infrastructure design, deployment, and support for SMBs

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts: 11585
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Postby C-dub » Wed Feb 23, 2011 12:49 pm

I'm coming late to this thread.

I don't think any politician is any more important than I am, but I do recognize that they are a higher priority target than I am. It may be elitist, but I also thought that if it passes we can use it as leverage to push for those same exemptions for all CHLs in the future.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.


Topic author
hirundo82
Senior Member
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:44 pm
Location: Houston

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Postby hirundo82 » Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:28 pm

C-dub wrote:I don't think any politician is any more important than I am, but I do recognize that they are a higher priority target than I am.

If they're so concerned about their own safety they can hire a off-duty LEOs on their own dime to provide protection.

Allowing themselves to carry places the rest of us can't, without requiring any more training, sends the message that those places aren't off limits because it would be dangerous to have CHLs carry there, but rather that we don't deserve to be able to protect ourselves in those places.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Barack Obama, 12/20/2007

User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts: 11585
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Postby C-dub » Wed Feb 23, 2011 1:51 pm

:iagree:

I don't like it, but I'm ready to make lemonade, like Charles, if it passes.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.


Return to “2011 Texas Legislative Session”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest