TexasCHLforum.com

JJVP

If SB905 ends up passing, I would suggest we start a campaign of letters, faxes, emails and calls to Perry indicating our wish that he vetoes the bill.

JJVP

CWOOD wrote:The Criminal Jurisprudence Committee of the House committee amendment basically removed from the bill all of the provisions which would apply to elected officials and non-commissioned employees of DPS.

Does that mean that Perry would not be exempt since he is an elected official? Yeah, he'll sign that, Not.

JJVP

clarionite wrote:
While I don't like the idea of different classes of CHL, I can't say that I agree with your logic here. The third, who looses his right to his license and takes a ride should have known the law and not attempted to enter the event. The second shouldn't be offended when his license is ran to make sure it's valid. I'm not offended when an officer runs my DL to make sure it's valid.

I agree with you, CHL#3 should have know the law. However, that was not the point of my fictitious scenario. I was just trying to point out how 3 CHL holders who took the same training, passed the same background check, applied and received the same CHL license would be receive very different treatments for doing exactly the same thing.

As far as not being offended for the officer running the CHL to confirm the validity of the 3rd renewal claim, it is very different than an officer checking on your DL. Very doubtful you will be handcuffed and put on the back of a police car while they check your DL. Very likely you will on the presented scenario. If you are not offended by that, more power to you.

My problem with this bill is that SB905 creates an elitist group (legislators) that will receive special privileges not afforded to the rest of us. A proposed amendment, which I personally have not seen and might never be offered, further creates another group of CHL's with special privileges. We are supposed to support this amendment, which I don't agree with, based on information that something else is in the works that will make things wonderful for all of us. I don't like this back room secret negotiations that might or might not come to pass, whatever they are. Just because they agree on some back room deal to do this "unknown fantastic thing that will be wonderful for all" does not mean that they will not renege at the last minute and we will be stuck with SB905 as originally written. How soon we forget how 2 senators that supported campus carry changed their minds and opposed it. What should have been a catwalk for campus carry has turned into a nightmare and at the end of the day there are no guarantees that it will be passed. Like I said in a previous post, I don't trust ANY politician. At the end of the day, they ALL have their best interests at hand, not ours.

While I have the greatest respect and trust for Charles, I cannot in good conscience support an unseen amendment to a bad bill and an unseen who knows what "secret" that will make things right.

This will be my last post on this issue.

JJVP

CleverNickname wrote:
JJVP wrote:CHL #2 hands his CHL and informs the officer he is on his 4th renewal. The officer informs him, he can't take his word for it and since DPS is closed till Monday, he is now under arrest until they can verify his claim.
How does an officer verify a CHL is valid, period, and not a counterfeit? He puts the info in his squad car's computer, which contacts DPS's system and shows whether it's valid or not, right? And said system is available 24x7, right? If this amendment passes then the law will go into effect on Sep 1, which should give DPS time to modify their system to display whether a particular CHL is at or over 3 renewals.

There's good reasons to not like this amendment, but I don't think this is one of them.

OK, so CHL#2 does not spend the weekend in jail. He will still be put on the back of the patrol car in handcuffs until the officer checks the CHL. The fact still stands, 3 people, who took the same training, passed the same background check, applied and received the same piece of plastic will be treated very different for doing exactly the same thing. One will walk trough, another will be mildly inconvenienced and the third will go to jail and lose his right to that piece of plastic. Again I ask, is that fair? Is that what you want? I sure don't.

JJVP

tbrown wrote:
JJVP wrote:CHL #2 hands his CHL and informs the officer he is on his 4th renewal. The officer informs him, he can't take his word for it and since DPS is closed till Monday, he is now under arrest until they can verify his claim. He also arrests CHL#3. He then proceeded to escort both CHL#2 and CHL#3 to the back of a squad car in handcuffs and gives them a free ride to the downtown jail. Monday morning, after calling DPS and verifying CHL#2 information, CHL#2 is released with an apology from the PD. CHL#3 will remain in jail and will be prosecuted.
Do you really think CHL#2 would get an apology?

It was a hypothetical situation, so anything is possible.

JJVP

hirundo82 wrote:
I'm not sure that's true, with the possible exception of government meetings. The rest of the places listed (at least those not owned by government entities) can still be validly posted with 30.06 signs, and the proposed bill only provides a defense to prosecution to §46.035, not §30.06. I'd think they could still be prosecuted for trespass if they carried past a valid sign at one of the places in question, same as anywhere else.

The bill says:
(h-2) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsections
(b)(1), (2), and (4)-(6), and (c)

Subsections 4 (hospital), 5 (amusement park) and 6 (churches) are already OK for CHL holders unless 30.06 posted. Why would they grant themselves an exemption for (4)-(6) if they are already exempted like everyone else? They only reason I can see is if they are also exempting themselves from 30.06 signs at those locations. But then again, IANAL, so who knows.

JJVP

sherlock7 wrote:Charles, You have my support! I have called My Rep. ( Vicky Truitt ) and requested her to support Rep. Kleinschmidt's admendment to SB905 and to oppose any admendment that is not acceptable to to Rep. Kleinschmidt.

Where is this Kleinschmidt amendment? Other than Charles original post, I have not seen any amendments to the bill. Is this a "proposed" amendment that might or might not be offered? And what if it is offered and voted down, then what?

Let's say it passes and will add the 3rd renewal CHL's to the list of "special" CHL's that can ignore the laws that the rest of us have to obey. How will a cop on the street know who is an exempt CHL and who is not? This will be a nightmare to enforce.

Let's look at a potential scenario. Three friends, all CHL's and all carrying, walk to the baseball park to see the Astros on a Friday night. CHL #1 is a member of the legislature and just got his CHL that morning, first time. CHL #2, is on his 4th renewal and CHL#3 got his CHL a couple of years ago, so no renewals. Police stop them after they enter the stadium and ask the if they are armed. They say yes. CHL #1 produces his CHL and Legislator ID. He gets escorted to his box seat. CHL #2 hands his CHL and informs the officer he is on his 4th renewal. The officer informs him, he can't take his word for it and since DPS is closed till Monday, he is now under arrest until they can verify his claim. He also arrests CHL#3. He then proceeded to escort both CHL#2 and CHL#3 to the back of a squad car in handcuffs and gives them a free ride to the downtown jail. Monday morning, after calling DPS and verifying CHL#2 information, CHL#2 is released with an apology from the PD. CHL#3 will remain in jail and will be prosecuted. Does that seem fair to anyone?

I can't get excited about an ill conceived amendment that has not been offered and has not passed. Or the fact that there is a supposed "secret" that will make it all right. I guess senators Birdwell, Davis, Ellis, Ogden, Rodriguez, and Wentworth are not in in the secret since they all opposed the bill. Call me skeptical, but I don't trust any politician to have MY best interest at hand. I will believe it when I see it and so far I have not seen anything.

JJVP

mgood wrote:
JJVP wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:
TexasBill wrote:But there are CHL holders who do go to bars, do go to sporting events and do want to carry in church. . .
Just a reminder.... they can carry in church now if they want to, unless the church is posted with a 30.06 sign. . . .
. . . Fine, here is my proposal for baby steps. First remove the restrictions for Churches, for ALL CHL's.
Church carry is ok.
Churches are no different from grocery stores. CHLs may carry there unless they're posted 30.06.

Yet the bill exempts churches (46.035 b(6). What this bill will do, as filed, is that legislators, etc, will be able ignore a 30.06 sign at a hospital, amusement park, church and government meetings. The rest of us, will be arrested.

(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
serving as a member of the legislature and possessed a concealed
handgun license under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
if the person is no longer a member at the time of the offense and if
the license has not yet been subject to renewal since the person
ceased to be a member. This subsection expires on September 1,
2020.

JJVP

The Annoyed Man wrote:
TexasBill wrote:But there are CHL holders who do go to bars, do go to sporting events and do want to carry in church and they are exposed to exactly the same threats as a Texas Senator (except for political opponents -- a couple of legislators were killed by their opponents). Why shouldn't the citizens of the state enjoy the same right of self-defense our Senate wants to appropriate for itself?
Just a reminder.... they can carry in church now if they want to, unless the church is posted with a 30.06 sign. I certainly can't speak for all churches in Texas, but it is my experience so far that I've only ever seen one church with a compliant 30.06 sign. Naturally, I wouldn't attend a church that doesn't accept my right to self-defense by means of a firearm, or that doesn't think that a mass-shooting can't happen in their church. Fortunately for me, my church has no such sign, and there are a number of us who do carry in church.

I agree that Constitutional Carry is the desired ultimate goal, but I am a political realist, and I understand that it can only happen in an incremental manner......for the simple reason that there are other voters in this state who oppose it. Their objections will have to be overcome one point at a time. Charles provides this forum for discussion of these issues, and he doesn't ban people with whom he disagrees on how best to expand the RKBA, so long as they disagree within the behavioral guidelines called for in the forum rules. I think that Charles has more than earned our trust. If he says there is a good reason which he cannot disclose right now for why we should support the Kleinschmidt amendment to SB905, then that is good enough for me.

Maybe that makes me a suck-up. Maybe not. I don't care. It's what I think is right.

I keep hearing that the ALL or Nothing approach will get us nothing. That we need baby steps to get us there. Fine, here is my proposal for baby steps. First remove the restrictions for Churches, for ALL CHL's. Next time they can remove the restrictions on profesional sporting events, for ALL CHL's. Then they can go for the 51%, again for ALL CHL's. Baby steps.

I will not support in any way a piece of legislation that exempts politicians from the laws we are expected to obey. I will also not support legislation that gives "special privileges" to some CHL's, but no others. Whatever is done should apply to ALL CHL's or to none.

I have great respect to what Charles has done for guns rights in Texas. This, however is a case where we will never see eye to eye.

JJVP

TexasBill wrote:Amendment or no, I can't support SB905. In fact, I am ashamed that Dan Patrick, the conservative Republican senator who represents my district, was one of the authors of this totally unnecessary bill.

The claim, voiced by Sen. Patrick, is that legislators, judges, statewide elected officials and others, like non-commissioned employees of the Department of Public Safety are high-profile targets for assassins. For some reason, the Governor, city mayors, elected municipal and county officials and non-sworn employees of the state's police and county sheriff departments are not. Let's look at the facts: since 1815, exactly 19 people who would qualify under SB905 have been assassinated in the United States. One was in Texas (John Woods, a federal judge, killed by a hitman for a Mexican drug lord in 1979). Ten of those killings occurred in the last 100 years. Likewise, ten happened in the period from 1871, when the Texas Legislature stripped the citizens of Texas of the right to legally carry a handgun at all, until 1995, when George W. Bush signed a limited restoration of those rights under strict state control. That's ten in the entire country; I'll bet a lot more than ten Texan citizens were murdered in that period who would have been alive had they or another citizen been able to legally carry a handgun. Heck, we lost more than ten at Luby's in 1991!

To put the numbers in another perspective, whooping cough, scarlet fever and malaria are rare in the United States. Yet more Americans died of those diseases in 2007 alone than all federal and state legislators and judges assassinated in the last century.

Here's another kicker: Not one of these assassinations took place in a location that would be authorized by SB905. Most happened either in the victim's home or at the victim's place of work. The attack on Gabrielle Giffords, in which federal judge John Roll was killed) took place in a supermarket parking lot in the middle of the morning. Under Texas law, not even a CHL would have been required for armed intervention: Texans can carry a concealed handgun in their personal vehicle without a permit.

You can talk about "baby steps" all you want; babies fall down, too, and SB905 is a prime example of this. Unless a potential amendment extends the same expansion of permitted carry to all CHL holders, SB905 needs to end its days in the House, without passage. This is sheer, naked elitism and self-serving on the part of our elected officials; the so-called justification does not hold water, even under the most cursory examination.

SB905 is scheduled for public hearings on May 17. If you are in Austin, a visit to the State Capitol might be worthwhile. In the meantime, you should contact your Texas State Representative (http://www.house.state.tx.us/resources/ ... s/#who_rep) and left them know you oppose SB905 as passed by the Senate. Tell them the language needs to be extended to cover all Texans with Concealed Handgun Licenses or the measure needs to be defeated.

Well said.

JJVP

Charles L. Cotton wrote:When SB905 comes to the House Floor, Rep. Kleinschmidt plans to offer an amendment that extends it provisions from just elected officials to all CHL's who are on their 3rd or later renewals. Some will ask why the amendment will not cover all CHLs, but I can't go into that now. It's going to be hard enough to fight off a point-of-order.

Please call your Representative and ask him/her to support any amendment to SB905 that is offered by Rep. Kleinschmidt and to oppose any amendments to the Kleinschmidt amendment that are not acceptable to the author (Kleinschmidt).

Thanks,
Chas.

House Members

I'm sorry Charles, but I can't support this bill at all unless they exempt ALL CHL's. I am getting tired of politicians making laws and then exempting themselves from them. That amendment is nothing more than a bone to keep us quiet. If they are planning to offer this amendment with the thought of maybe exempting all CHL's during the next session, then as far as I am concerned they can wait. I will not support anything else. All or NON.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 11 matches

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905

Re: CALL TO ACTION: SB905