TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote: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.

And while I may not agree that they really are any not any more important than anyone else from being able to protect ourselves, contacting a Representative or Senator and denouncing these bills may be detrimental to other pending firearms legislation that we are trying to pass. As long as the legislation is gaining ground for 2A rights and not taking them away, my opinion is you should let it pass. In the long run it may be beneficial to us to have this as a law. It is a lot easier to add 'This includes anyone with a Concealed Handgun License' into the statute in a subsequent session than to try and get a whole new section added under a bill

hirundo82 wrote:

speedsix wrote:...it's just one more way to say they're more important than we are...I understand that they're in danger...and should be armed...most of 'em, anyways...but no more so than we are living daily in the world they created for us...legally speaking...I prefer the Guvnah's policy...if we can go there...we can carry there...now THAT'S the way it oughta read!!!

I agree. They all have the right to defend themselves, but their right to do so is no greater that the right the rest of us have to do the same.

I'm sure I'm repeating what others have posted, but wouldn't it be far simpler, and more politically palatable, to simply extend those exemptions to ALL CHL holders?

I can understand how it would be easier for them to pass the proposed bill in an environment where democrats held a bigger share of the power pie in the capitol, but they don't have to deal with that with the current makeup of the Legislature. They could easily extend it to all CHL holders with the current balance of power. They only need to political will to do it.

On the other hand, if they do pass it as is, particularly with the exception extending beyond their terms of service to their CHL renewal dates, then how long will it be before someone mounts an "equal access before the law" challenge to it?

There was a similar bill to HB 1463 filed in the Senate today, SB 905.

The Senate version of the bill also exempts "a noncommissioned employee of the Department of Public Safety, designated by the director of the department" from PC §46.035(b)(1), (2), (4)-(6), and (c).

I hope this isn't a step toward exempting all state employees from the CHL restrictions--I could see the DPS director exempting all DPS employees, then next session the legislature comes back and exempts all state employees.

WildBill wrote:

Teamless wrote: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.

Republicans have a huge majority in both houses of the Texas legislature. It's time for some Texas Republicans to stop acting like babies and take adult steps. I'm not saying they have to take giant steps, although they do have a giant majority.

Governor Perry is also in favor of taking adult steps to restore gun rights in Texas.

Ameer is EXACTLY on target.

Like we are going to get a better chance -- WHEN????? --HOW????

Just Say NO to 'animal farm' bills - PERIOD.

If WE don't TRY for some adult steps then they CANNOT happen.
AT LEAST TRY FOR SEVERAL NOW!

The Annoyed Man wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:

speedsix wrote:...it's just one more way to say they're more important than we are...I understand that they're in danger...and should be armed...most of 'em, anyways...but no more so than we are living daily in the world they created for us...legally speaking...I prefer the Guvnah's policy...if we can go there...we can carry there...now THAT'S the way it oughta read!!!

I agree. They all have the right to defend themselves, but their right to do so is no greater that the right the rest of us have to do the same.

I'm sure I'm repeating what others have posted, but wouldn't it be far simpler, and more politically palatable, to simply extend those exemptions to ALL CHL holders?

I can understand how it would be easier for them to pass the proposed bill in an environment where democrats held a bigger share of the power pie in the capitol, but they don't have to deal with that with the current makeup of the Legislature. They could easily extend it to all CHL holders with the current balance of power. They only need to political will to do it.

On the other hand, if they do pass it as is, particularly with the exception extending beyond their terms of service to their CHL renewal dates, then how long will it be before someone mounts an "equal access before the law" challenge to it?

I made the same points with my local Representative's contact today on the phone. I told her that I respected the need for our elected officials to protect themselves and would encourage them to do so - just as I would any other Texan.

But I also told her that I, as a voter, would absolutely not stand for elitist legislation in Texas. I pointed out that our elected officials in Washington had carved out situation after situation which either gave them special treatment or exempted them from the rules that were supposed to be good for the rest of us. I cited Janet Napolitano's refusal to go through the same back scatter scanners as she was demanding that the rest of us use. We get Obamacare and they get a specially designed health care package.

I told her that I would very much appreciate it of our representative helped to make amends with the citizens of Texas and particularly the hand gun licensed community within it. I referred her to the DPS website which documents the stellar record the CHLs have held since the original bill was passed and asked for the representative's support in amending this bill to recognize CHLs as part of the covered group within the bill. I told her I could very much support then legislation with that change.

We'll see what happens. While I was at it, I put in plugs for the campus carry and parking lot bills.

chasfm11 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:

speedsix wrote:...it's just one more way to say they're more important than we are...I understand that they're in danger...and should be armed...most of 'em, anyways...but no more so than we are living daily in the world they created for us...legally speaking...I prefer the Guvnah's policy...if we can go there...we can carry there...now THAT'S the way it oughta read!!!

I agree. They all have the right to defend themselves, but their right to do so is no greater that the right the rest of us have to do the same.

I'm sure I'm repeating what others have posted, but wouldn't it be far simpler, and more politically palatable, to simply extend those exemptions to ALL CHL holders?

I can understand how it would be easier for them to pass the proposed bill in an environment where democrats held a bigger share of the power pie in the capitol, but they don't have to deal with that with the current makeup of the Legislature. They could easily extend it to all CHL holders with the current balance of power. They only need to political will to do it.

On the other hand, if they do pass it as is, particularly with the exception extending beyond their terms of service to their CHL renewal dates, then how long will it be before someone mounts an "equal access before the law" challenge to it?

I made the same points with my local Representative's contact today on the phone. I told her that I respected the need for our elected officials to protect themselves and would encourage them to do so - just as I would any other Texan.

But I also told her that I, as a voter, would absolutely not stand for elitist legislation in Texas. I pointed out that our elected officials in Washington had carved out situation after situation which either gave them special treatment or exempted them from the rules that were supposed to be good for the rest of us. I cited Janet Napolitano's refusal to go through the same back scatter scanners as she was demanding that the rest of us use. We get Obamacare and they get a specially designed health care package.

I told her that I would very much appreciate it of our representative helped to make amends with the citizens of Texas and particularly the hand gun licensed community within it. I referred her to the DPS website which documents the stellar record the CHLs have held since the original bill was passed and asked for the representative's support in amending this bill to recognize CHLs as part of the covered group within the bill. I told her I could very much support then legislation with that change.

We'll see what happens. While I was at it, I put in plugs for the campus carry and parking lot bills.

hirundo82 wrote:There was a similar bill to HB 1463 filed in the Senate today, SB 905.

The Senate version of the bill also exempts "a noncommissioned employee of the Department of Public Safety, designated by the director of the department" from PC §46.035(b)(1), (2), (4)-(6), and (c).

I hope this isn't a step toward exempting all state employees from the CHL restrictions--I could see the DPS director exempting all DPS employees, then next session the legislature comes back and exempts all state employees.

OK, so thinking about it more I doubt that is what would happen. I'll bet there is a class of noncommissioned DPS employees whose job puts them at a higher danger (although I don't know who that would be; first thought would be Child PRotective Services but they aren't DPS), and DPS wants them to be able to protect themselves.

Even if I can think of a rationale, I still don't like the trend of carving out special exemptions for elected officials and government employees.

hirundo82 wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:There was a similar bill to HB 1463 filed in the Senate today, SB 905.

The Senate version of the bill also exempts "a noncommissioned employee of the Department of Public Safety, designated by the director of the department" from PC §46.035(b)(1), (2), (4)-(6), and (c).

I hope this isn't a step toward exempting all state employees from the CHL restrictions--I could see the DPS director exempting all DPS employees, then next session the legislature comes back and exempts all state employees.

OK, so thinking about it more I doubt that is what would happen. I'll bet there is a class of noncommissioned DPS employees whose job puts them at a higher danger (although I don't know who that would be; first thought would be Child PRotective Services but they aren't DPS), and DPS wants them to be able to protect themselves.

Even if I can think of a rationale, I still don't like the trend of carving out special exemptions for elected officials and government employees.

You are correct and it's part of an article I'm going to write on the carving out of a portion of the CHL population. Hopefully, it'll get some traction in Austin, but I don't think for a moment we'll be able to get all CHLs exempt from TPC §§46.02 and 46.03, although that's been my quest since the 2001 session.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:You are correct and it's part of an article I'm going to write on the carving out of a portion of the CHL population. Hopefully, it'll get some traction in Austin, but I don't think for a moment we'll be able to get all CHLs exempt from TPC §§46.02 and 46.03, although that's been my quest since the 2001 session.

Chas.

I agree that it is probably not feasible to exempt CHLs from §46.03 at this time (aren't we already exempt from §46.02 [ETA: at least as it pertains to handguns]?), although it would be nice to start chipping away at it with the campus carry bill.

I think it may be feasible to eliminate §46.035(b), and moving correctional institutions to §46.03, but you are obviously in a better position to judge that than I am.

I was just reading the text of the Senate bill and I see some interesting things in it. I do not support the exceptions and want to see the bill killed. I think our best ally in this might just be the DPS troopers themselves.

I was trying to think of why a non-commissioned employee might need to be armed. After all, the boss can just train and commission any of them that could pass a CHL background check anyway. But troopers cost money. They are on a different pay scale and even have a higher pension. So who would he want to give this permission to? Well, it would be people who he is going to assign to some job that is somewhat dangerous. My guess is that this is a job currently performed by troopers. This could include almost any job that does not require arrest authority. The two that immediately came to mind were driver's license inspectors (some people get very angry when denied and there is a danger of kidnap/rape or robbery when they are in someone else's car) and weight and commercial vehicle inspectors. The ones who drive around need to be commissioned but the ones who just sit at the weigh stations and wait around do not need any other authority.

So, I could see the DPS Colonel asking for this so he could put more non-sworn employees in these positions instead of troopers, thus cutting the budget. And I think the troopers association might not like this idea and could help us kill this bill.

srothstein wrote:I was trying to think of why a non-commissioned employee might need to be armed.

If they do, why can't they get a CHL like the rest of us?

Are they criminals and therefore not eligible?

Also, there's no legitimate reason they need to carry anywhere that we don't need to carry.

cbr600 wrote:

srothstein wrote:I was trying to think of why a non-commissioned employee might need to be armed.

If they do, why can't they get a CHL like the rest of us?

Are they criminals and therefore not eligible?

Also, there's no legitimate reason they need to carry anywhere that we don't need to carry.

If they have a need to be armed, arming non-commissioned employees as part of their job is bound to be a liability nightmare for the state.

It's a moral and ethical issue, and unethical behavior is a deal-breaker for me, all talk of nose-cutting notwithstanding.

tacticool wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

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.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I could not in good conscience vote for a politician I believed was taking bribes, even if they were pro-gun and fiscally conservative. It's amoral and ethical issue, and unethical behavior is a deal-breaker for me, all talk of nose-cutting notwithstanding.

Now you've gone too far. Feel as you will about the bill, but nothing in this bill has anything to do with "taking bribes." Stop now.

Chas.