TexasCHLforum.com

Here's a site to find results and updates.
http://www.kens5.com/news/election/results" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let us know if you have a more user friendly one.

Of interest, Expand CHL locations Republican Prop. 2:

Republicans - Prop. 2 Expand CHL Locations
Precincts Reporting: 2573 out of 8829 precincts 29%
Candidate Votes Vote % Winner
In Favor 727,990 87%
Against 108,923 13%

http://www.kens5.com/news/election/resu ... tions&t=37" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is Dan Patrick a 'good guy'? I didn't get my NRA recommendations until the day after I voted.

Oldgringo wrote:Is Dan Patrick a 'good guy'? I didn't get my NRA recommendations until the day after I voted.

Dan Patrick is very pro-gun and he will be very good on our issue. He earned well-deserved criticism for his part in amending HB508 with elitist provisions that ultimately killed the bill in the House. He understands the extent of this political "mistake" and I would be surprised if he repeats it. I also think he may, I saw MAY, be someone to have an indirect impact on Speaker Straus in that he would be in a position to kill House bills.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:Is Dan Patrick a 'good guy'? I didn't get my NRA recommendations until the day after I voted.

Dan Patrick is very pro-gun and he will be very good on our issue. He earned well-deserved criticism for his part in amending HB508 with elitist provisions that ultimately killed the bill in the House. He understands the extent of this political "mistake" and I would be surprised if he repeats it. I also think he may, I saw MAY, be someone to have an indirect impact on Speaker Straus in that he would be in a position to kill House bills.

Good news, thanks.

Oldgringo wrote:Is Dan Patrick a 'good guy'? I didn't get my NRA recommendations until the day after I voted.

He's better than Dewhurst. Now if we can just get rid of Strauss, we'll have a twofer.

Charles: Thanks for the information. I was disappointed to see Patterson lose out for the runoff, but this helps me vote for Patrick with a little less trepidation.

Jason K wrote:Charles: Thanks for the information. I was disappointed to see Patterson lose out for the runoff, but this helps me vote for Patrick with a little less trepidation.

What, if anything, does the Patterson vot tell us about support for gun issues? I thought he would have had better support.

jmra wrote:

Jason K wrote:Charles: Thanks for the information. I was disappointed to see Patterson lose out for the runoff, but this helps me vote for Patrick with a little less trepidation.

Jason K wrote:Charles: Thanks for the information. I was disappointed to see Patterson lose out for the runoff....

In that, you are not alone!

Charles L. Cotton wrote:...
Dan Patrick is very pro-gun and he will be very good on our issue. He earned well-deserved criticism for his part in amending HB508 with elitist provisions that ultimately killed the bill in the House. He understands the extent of this political "mistake" and I would be surprised if he repeats it.

Do you have any idea if that 'mistake' was the reason for the question about making office holders and their staff liable for laws like us peons?

mojo84 wrote:What, if anything, does the Patterson vot tell us about support for gun issues? I thought he would have had better support.

Rather little about gun issues. It seemed like immigration was the hot button issue that several of the Lt. Gov candidates used to try and outflank each other (and help spin their campaign as anti-federal and anti-Obama, all of which would score political points).

I am guessing that name general recognition was important in the Lt. Gov primary. I don't expect as many primary voters really knew who Staples and Patterson were.

Lastly, the kind of lower key, pragmatic, git-er-done candidates that I prefer (like Patterson) may not necessarily the ones that do best in the campaign/election process.

mojo84 wrote:What, if anything, does the Patterson vot tell us about support for gun issues? I thought he would have had better support.

There's no way to tell, but I suspect that Jerry Patterson received a huge percentage of the knowledgable gun-owner vote. By that I mean people that know how much Patterson meant to the CHL effort. Jerry's problem is that his involvement is not as well known statewide, even with gun owners who either don't have a CHL or don't know what he did in 1995 and 1997. Dewhurst and Patrick have much more money to get their names and faces in the media.

I hate to see Jerry out of the runoffs; he's a great guy and a true Second Amendment advocate.

Chas.

n5wd wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:...
Dan Patrick is very pro-gun and he will be very good on our issue. He earned well-deserved criticism for his part in amending HB508 with elitist provisions that ultimately killed the bill in the House. He understands the extent of this political "mistake" and I would be surprised if he repeats it.

Do you have any idea if that 'mistake' was the reason for the question about making office holders and their staff liable for laws like us peons?

I don't have any information on the party platform questions, but I wouldn't be surprised. It could be targeted more to the U.S. Congress than Texas because the feds exempt themselves from many of the more onerous laws to which they subject us mere mortals. Either way, it sends a great message!

Chas.