The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
http://texaschlforum.com/
Why bother when we already know who did or didn't sign on to HB 560 this year?Beiruty wrote:I did not want to comment again, but in next elections, each nominee would be asked would you co-author and sponsor HB 560?
This is part of what frustrates me. Even if we DO round up all these supportive sponsors, endorsers, etc. in the legislature, it still just takes one person to sink it.Lambda Force wrote:They didn't vote on the floor. That's true.
But Beruity proposed asking each candidate at election time if they would co-author or sponsor a bill similar to HB 560. I think that is unnecessary and possibly misleading. What politicians say to get our votes doesn't always match what they do in office. A better indication of where they stand is whether or not they signed on as a co-author or sponsor to HB 560 this session.
This is what is wrong in Austin and in Washington!!Ruark wrote:This is part of what frustrates me. Even if we DO round up all these supportive sponsors, endorsers, etc. in the legislature, it still just takes one person to sink it.Lambda Force wrote:They didn't vote on the floor. That's true.
But Beruity proposed asking each candidate at election time if they would co-author or sponsor a bill similar to HB 560. I think that is unnecessary and possibly misleading. What politicians say to get our votes doesn't always match what they do in office. A better indication of where they stand is whether or not they signed on as a co-author or sponsor to HB 560 this session.
I emailed my representative, J. D. Sheffield, about it last spring and never received a reply. That tells me where he stands.Liberty wrote:We really don't know! 560 was silently and pretty anonymously killed. Was killed by the homeland security committee. The rest of the lege didn't get a chance to take a stand. The problem with the process is that the state reps have almost complete plausible deniability. They can claim one position behave contrary to it and then claim it was beyond their control. A Texas State Reps decisions and actions are often more about positioning and politicking than it is about real issues. This is why gun bills, if they get to the open floor, always get approved by large margins but have such a difficult time actually getting put to an open vote.
Boxerrider wrote:I emailed my representative, J. D. Sheffield, about it last spring and never received a reply. That tells me where he stands.
Be careful what you wish for there. That has been used to ensure that the Legislature and ONLY the Legislature has that power. Otherwise cities would be free to create their own ordinances and regulations regulating the wearing of arms.CleverNickname wrote:HJR (whatever) - The Every Child Should Have a Cute Puppy or Kitten Act - modifies Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution to remove the phrase "but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”
Except that they are preempted by State law from doing so and removing the Legislature's specific grant of power to regulate, doesn't seem to make counties and municipalities able to do so. That is if they haven't found that power somewhere in the other 199 pages of the Texas Constitution.Papa_Tiger wrote:Be careful what you wish for there. That has been used to ensure that the Legislature and ONLY the Legislature has that power. Otherwise cities would be free to create their own ordinances and regulations regulating the wearing of arms.CleverNickname wrote:HJR (whatever) - The Every Child Should Have a Cute Puppy or Kitten Act - modifies Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution to remove the phrase "but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”
I wonder when that clause was added to the Texas Constitution - something tells me it was not in there originally... and whoever added it was a liar (it's always about control, not crime).CleverNickname wrote:HJR (whatever) - The Every Child Should Have a Cute Puppy or Kitten Act - modifies Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution to remove the phrase "but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”
During reconstruction.locke_n_load wrote:I wonder when that clause was added to the Texas Constitution - something tells me it was not in there originally... and whoever added it was a liar (it's always about control, not crime).CleverNickname wrote:HJR (whatever) - The Every Child Should Have a Cute Puppy or Kitten Act - modifies Article 1, Section 23 of the Texas Constitution to remove the phrase "but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”