Search found 5 matches

by Right2Carry
Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:51 am
Forum: 2011 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.035
Replies: 103
Views: 46571

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

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.
:iagree: :hurry:
by Right2Carry
Fri Feb 18, 2011 3:27 pm
Forum: 2011 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.035
Replies: 103
Views: 46571

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

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Right2Carry wrote:
Charles L. Cotton 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. Maybe not, but? :???:
Every step we take away from traditional law enforcement in terms of allowing concealed carry in new locations, the better the chance of getting what Rick Perry wants -- all CHL's to be exempt as are law enforcement.

I understand the sentiment, but this could be helpful in moving the CHL "not applicable" provisions from merely applying to TPC §46.02 to TPC §§46.02, 46.03, 46.035. It would be a powerful argument for 2013 to attend a public hearing and say "why should you be exempt, but not the voters in your district?"

Again, I understand the sentiment and this is not a TSRA/NRA bill, nevertheless, it could be very useful in greatly reducing or eliminating areas off-limits to CHLs.

Representative Kleinschmidt is a good friend and he's working his tail off as the "author" of the employer parking lot bill. That bill now has 76 sponsors and co-sponsors do in large part to his work. Let's not paint him as the enemy because we don't like this one bill.

Chas.
Charles I do understand your points, but to me this is just more elitist behaviour from those who have been elected to be the voice of the people. This is a self serving bill for those that put themselves above the people they pretend to represent. IMHO if it's good enough for elected officials that hold a CHL, then it should be good enough for everyone that holds a CHL. Our elected officials haven't attended any additional training or background checks than any other CHL so why should they be treated any differently than anyone else who holds a CHL?
I agree with everything you said and I don't support the bill. It's not our bill, we aren't helping it, we will never support it, and I'll be happy if it doesn't pass. I'm just saying that if it passes, we'll use it to our advantage. It's very much a situation of when you are given lemons, make lemonade.

Rep. Kleinschmidt is a very good friend to gun owners. As author of HB681, the employer parking lot bill, he's working his tail off and the Bill now has 76 sponsors and co-sponsors, due in large part to his work. It is a mistake to paint him as the enemy simply because one doesn't like HB1463. If you are going to contact his office, I suggest that you ask him to amend the bill (and the caption) so that it applies to all CHL's. This is what Gov. Perry wants.

Chas.
Sorry if I painted him as the enemy, that certainly wasn't my intention at all. I am glad to hear that he is hard at work on HB 681 which we really need to get passed this time around. I don't plan to contact Rep. Kleinschmidt at this time, instead I contacted my Rep. to voice my concerns about HB 1463. I did state my concerns about the bill and that I would have no problem with the bill if it was amended to include all CHL holders.
by Right2Carry
Fri Feb 18, 2011 2:46 pm
Forum: 2011 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.035
Replies: 103
Views: 46571

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

ELB wrote:I understand the realities of changing things incrementally -- as far as I am concerned, the whole CHL business is a big increment (not a final stop) on putting some muscle on the 2A.

But what that legislator is proposing ain't an incremental step, it is an "I'm more important" ego bill, and no amount of incremental lipstick is going to make it any less of a pig.

Talk about tone-deaf. This is a perfect way to alienate Texas 2A supporters. The comments above are correct -- this is the kind of nonsense I would expect to see in California or New York, not Texas.
Every step we take away from traditional law enforcement in terms of allowing concealed carry in new locations, the better the chance of getting what Rick Perry wants -- all CHL's to be exempt as are law enforcement.
Sorry, but this dog don't hunt. He is not filing the bill because threats can happen to people anywhere -- he is filing it because of all those people there, legislators are the only ones important enough to be able to protect themselves with a gun in certain venues. Eveyone else is just too immature or unimportant.

Look, Judges and prosectors got special exemptions for themselves too, and it hasn't done squat for citizens.

If he feels "unsafe" because of the Arizona thing, he should consider this: 19 people were hit and six were killed, and only one of them was a legislative rep. One staffer was killed, and a judge. The other four killed were joe citizens. Of the thirteen wounded, only three were associated with the legislature -- Gifford and two staffers. And the first one shot was Gifford, the legislator, who under Kleinschmidt's scheme would have been the only one armed at a bar, sporting event, etc etc.

So since legislators are clearly so dangerous to have around, here is a better law: restrict legislators as to where they can go. No sporting events, no hospitals, no schools, no bars, nada -- in fact, just lock them up in the State Capitol until the end of their term. It's for the children.

Look, the Republicans got elected in droves last December because the Democrats got waaaaaaaayy too big for their britches and disregarded the people. The big fear and warning of Tea Partiers and everyone else is that the Republicans would do what they did the last time they got control --- forget who brought them to the dance and turn into a bunch of power-mad, self-centered elitests. We are watching the national and local legislators like hawks, and a stunt like this, a special carve out for legislators but not citizens, is EXACTLY the kind of "power corrupts," hey-I'm-special-privileges-for-me-but-not-the-little-people foolishness that will get them booted.

Kleinschmidt might usually be an OK guy, but this is a clueless move. If he doesn't realize that, then he is already corrupted. And if he think being a legislator is too dangerous -- there's plenty of people in his district that would be happy to take his place.

NO. NO. NO!

Now I am going to get on the phone to the Capitol.
Well stated!!!!!!! I couldn't agree more.
by Right2Carry
Fri Feb 18, 2011 2:08 pm
Forum: 2011 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.035
Replies: 103
Views: 46571

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

Charles L. Cotton 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. Maybe not, but? :???:
Every step we take away from traditional law enforcement in terms of allowing concealed carry in new locations, the better the chance of getting what Rick Perry wants -- all CHL's to be exempt as are law enforcement.

I understand the sentiment, but this could be helpful in moving the CHL "not applicable" provisions from merely applying to TPC §46.02 to TPC §§46.02, 46.03, 46.035. It would be a powerful argument for 2013 to attend a public hearing and say "why should you be exempt, but not the voters in your district?"

Again, I understand the sentiment and this is not a TSRA/NRA bill, nevertheless, it could be very useful in greatly reducing or eliminating areas off-limits to CHLs.

Chas.
Charles I do understand your points, but to me this is just more elitist behaviour from those who have been elected to be the voice of the people. This is a self serving bill for those that put themselves above the people they pretend to represent. IMHO if it's good enough for elected officials that hold a CHL, then it should be good enough for everyone that holds a CHL. Our elected officials haven't attended any additional training or background checks than any other CHL so why should they be treated any differently than anyone else who holds a CHL?
by Right2Carry
Fri Feb 18, 2011 2:00 pm
Forum: 2011 Texas Legislative Session
Topic: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.035
Replies: 103
Views: 46571

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

I just notified my Representitive of my distaste for this bill. I also let him know that I would fully support this bill if it was ammended to include all CHL's.

Return to “HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.035”