HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.035

Discussions about relevant bills filed and their status.

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton


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 Apr 10, 2011 7:35 pm

Let's suppose there was a bill that said

SECTION 1. Section 46.035(h-1), Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
(h-1) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsections (b)(1), (2), and (4)-(6), and (c) that at the time of the commission of the offense, the actor was not:
(1) a statewide elected official; or
(2) a member of the legislature.

SECTION 2. Section 46.035, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subsection (h-2) to read as follows:
(h-2) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsections (b)(1), (2), and (4)-(6), and (c)
that at the time of the commission of the offense, the actor was a person who, on September 1, 2011,
was not serving as a member of the legislature.


Do you think the legislature would support that? Why or why not?
Ride
Shoot Straight
Speak the Truth


magillapd
Senior Member
Posts: 366
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 9:44 am
Location: DFW

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

Postby magillapd » Mon May 09, 2011 3:28 pm

“I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant”
NRA- Life member
TSRA - Member

User avatar

tacticool
Senior Member
Posts: 1486
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 2:41 pm

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

Postby tacticool » Mon May 09, 2011 3:36 pm

Maybe we can get the "not" added like above. :lol:
When in doubt
Vote them out!


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 » Mon May 09, 2011 9:15 pm

tacticool wrote:Maybe we can get the "not" added like above. :lol:


How about one of those "creative definitions" like the Feds use so often; define "statewide elected official" as any person who has never been voted out of a statewide office.

User avatar

Ashlar
Member
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:48 pm
Location: Coppell, TX

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

Postby Ashlar » Mon May 09, 2011 11:21 pm

Sen. Patrick, for all his virtues, fails to grasp a fundamental tenet of democracy and rule of law

Namely, that the legislative branch of government should on no account be permitted to exempt its members from the laws it imposes on the general citizenry. It is the basic deterrent against the creation of bad law that the lawmakers themselves will be affected by it if they adopt it.

The quote, "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS" springs to mind.

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts: 22704
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: Grapevine, Texas
Contact:

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

Postby The Annoyed Man » Tue May 10, 2011 9:40 am

Ashlar wrote:Sen. Patrick, for all his virtues, fails to grasp a fundamental tenet of democracy and rule of law

Namely, that the legislative branch of government should on no account be permitted to exempt its members from the laws it imposes on the general citizenry. It is the basic deterrent against the creation of bad law that the lawmakers themselves will be affected by it if they adopt it.

The quote, "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS" springs to mind.

I agree with you, and quoting Animal Farm is perfect. That said, I'm not going to make a stink about this to my representative or senator, because once is a fact of law, I can use it to bludgeon them into giving my rights the same respect they give their own, and I can hold that over their heads as a campaign threat if I ever decide to support an opponent or run myself.
"Give me Liberty, or I'll get up and get it myself."—Hookalakah Meshobbab
"I don't carry because of the odds, I carry because of the stakes."—The Annoyed Boy
"Id aegre et in omnibus semper."—Quod Homo Aegre

User avatar

sjfcontrol
Senior Member
Posts: 6231
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:14 am
Location: Flint, TX

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

Postby sjfcontrol » Tue May 10, 2011 9:55 am

My email footer has for some time, read:
28th Amendment, Proposed:
"Congress shall make no law that applies to citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to citizens of the United States."


Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target."
Never Forget. Image


chasfm11
Senior Member
Posts: 3108
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:01 pm
Location: Northern DFW

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

Postby chasfm11 » Tue May 10, 2011 9:59 am

The Annoyed Man wrote:
Ashlar wrote:Sen. Patrick, for all his virtues, fails to grasp a fundamental tenet of democracy and rule of law

Namely, that the legislative branch of government should on no account be permitted to exempt its members from the laws it imposes on the general citizenry. It is the basic deterrent against the creation of bad law that the lawmakers themselves will be affected by it if they adopt it.

The quote, "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS" springs to mind.

I agree with you, and quoting Animal Farm is perfect. That said, I'm not going to make a stink about this to my representative or senator, because once is a fact of law, I can use it to bludgeon them into giving my rights the same respect they give their own, and I can hold that over their heads as a campaign threat if I ever decide to support an opponent or run myself.

:iagree:

...but the fact is that we have a lot of situations at the State and the Federal level where the Elites have granted themselves results that will never be available to we common folk. I can only hope that there is some leverage from the existence of this legislation that can help us obtain the same results. I hope it isn't another flying pig scenario.
6/23-8/13/10 -51 days to plastic
Dun Spiro Spero

User avatar

Ashlar
Member
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 9:48 pm
Location: Coppell, TX

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

Postby Ashlar » Tue May 10, 2011 1:07 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote:I agree with you, and quoting Animal Farm is perfect. That said, I'm not going to make a stink about this to my representative or senator, because once is a fact of law, I can use it to bludgeon them into giving my rights the same respect they give their own, and I can hold that over their heads as a campaign threat if I ever decide to support an opponent or run myself.


In theory, I agree, but look at Illinois- aldermen (and other elected city officials) are considered 'peace officers' and can therefore carry. That hasn't really helped the cause of concealed carry in IL-- matter of fact it probably hurt due to the couple of them who've waved guns at folks.

Granted, that's IL politics, and is not representative of TX politicians, but still. I can only *hope* it will help us.


Originalist
Senior Member
Posts: 463
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

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

Postby Originalist » Tue May 10, 2011 4:34 pm

Doesn't this violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution?
US Air Force Security Forces Craftsman
Glock 27/22
Remington Model 770 .270/Escort Magnum SA 12 gauge Shotgun/Olympic Arm AR-15
Project One Million: Texas - Get Involved!

User avatar

mgood
Senior Member
Posts: 964
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2008 9:07 am
Location: Snyder, Texas
Contact:

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

Postby mgood » Tue May 10, 2011 5:35 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote: . . . I'm not going to make a stink about this to my representative or senator, because once is a fact of law, I can use it to bludgeon them into giving my rights the same respect they give their own. . . .

THIS :iagree:

We're shortening the list of places we can not carry. When I first got my CHL back in the nineties, there was a long list of such places that included churches and amusement parks and hospitals. Now it looks like a big one, colleges and universities, is about to come off the list.

From the other end, we're shortening the list of people who can not carry in places on that list. A while back it was decided that it's ok for judges to carry in those places. I haven't heard of a lot of judges getting into drunken gunfights because they were allowed to carry in bars. Now we're going to let state legislators carry there.

We're moving towards the goal of allowing all CHLees to carry pretty much anywhere a LEO can carry.

We've made it so that everyone (who can legally possess a handgun) can carry in an automobile, with or without a license. More progress.
Maybe we'll get to the point that we don't have to have the state's permission, in the form of a license, to exercise our 2A rights.

So while it makes me a little hot under the collar for our employees to set themselves up with a right to self defense which the rest of us do not enjoy, I think in the long run it can be seen as another step toward freedom.

User avatar

XinTX
Senior Member
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:27 pm
Location: League City

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

Postby XinTX » Mon May 30, 2011 8:08 am

Count me as one STRONGLY opposed to this bill. For those who say this will forward the goal of gaining the same access for all CHL'ers, I disagree. Once the 'ruling class' has theirs, what is the incentive to extend that to the rest of us 'little people'? As was mentioned about IL, the polly-tic-ians see no need for people to carry because they're nice and safe.

Remember 'Ma' Richards? She vetoed a CHL bill years ago. After doing so, she was pretty soundly defeated. And one thing a lot of folks pointed to (myself included) was that she was fully protected by an armed DPS detail, while the rest of us 'little people' had to fend for ourselves. But she stated she saw no 'need' for it. Of course she didn't. She was covered. Rest of us, not so much.

And for myself, I'm not overly worried about being in a place like Reliant. However, getting from my car in to Reliant (or whatever venue) is another matter. Also, this past weekend I went to a Little League game. One field was NOT in a nice neighborhood. Gang banger all around the place. Not all 'organized sporting events' are at places like Reliant or JerryWorld.
“Public safety is always the first cry of the tyrant.” - Lord Gladstone

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts: 16523
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 » Mon May 30, 2011 8:25 am

XinTX wrote:Count me as one STRONGLY opposed to this bill. For those who say this will forward the goal of gaining the same access for all CHL'ers, I disagree. Once the 'ruling class' has theirs, what is the incentive to extend that to the rest of us 'little people'? As was mentioned about IL, the polly-tic-ians see no need for people to carry because they're nice and safe.

Remember 'Ma' Richards? She vetoed a CHL bill years ago. After doing so, she was pretty soundly defeated. And one thing a lot of folks pointed to (myself included) was that she was fully protected by an armed DPS detail, while the rest of us 'little people' had to fend for ourselves. But she stated she saw no 'need' for it. Of course she didn't. She was covered. Rest of us, not so much.

And for myself, I'm not overly worried about being in a place like Reliant. However, getting from my car in to Reliant (or whatever venue) is another matter. Also, this past weekend I went to a Little League game. One field was NOT in a nice neighborhood. Gang banger all around the place. Not all 'organized sporting events' are at places like Reliant or JerryWorld.


Neither SB905 nor its companion HB1463 passed.

Chas.
Image

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 » Mon May 30, 2011 9:24 am

XinTX wrote:And for myself, I'm not overly worried about being in a place like Reliant. However, getting from my car in to Reliant (or whatever venue) is another matter. Also, this past weekend I went to a Little League game. One field was NOT in a nice neighborhood. Gang banger all around the place. Not all 'organized sporting events' are at places like Reliant or JerryWorld.

Off topic Iknow but I can't let this go without correction. Being organized has nothing to do with it. We can 't carry at a proffessionall sporting event , nor a school spocered event. Little League games is OK.
I am not real sure but even if they are at a school, they aren't a school activity. But in a a city park it is certainly OK

Just because they play better than this years Astros, doesn't mean they are proffessional.
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


Return to “2011 Texas Legislative Session”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest