HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.035

Discussions about relevant bills filed and their status.

Moderator: Charles L. Cotton


speedsix
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 5608
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:39 am

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

#61

Post by speedsix » Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:22 am

...IF it passes...what will it accomplish at street level? the elected officials who would be carrying because of it in most locations would be the LEAST likely to either notice or respond to any threat...it's much more likely that an everyday Joe would see/be able to stop the threat to the politician than that he would act on his own behalf...unless at home or in a jogging/sports environment...I lived a lot of years in a state where there were no CHLs...and a lot of politicians and wealthy/influential carried with a little note from the Chief...it did no good to the citizenry and little to those priviliged few...and rightfully created resentment as we have seen here...there are better ways to say thank you to a hard-working politician who's giving us his best...without giving him "rights" that we, the people, don't have...Gov. Perry said it well at the end of the last legislature...he said anyone who qualifies for a CHL should be able to carry ANYWHERE...now there's common sense in action...we don't turn stupid upon entering our child's school...city hall, or anywhere else...except, as we all know, when we enter a Federal facility...then we're just a" subject"...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4763469.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Topic author
hirundo82
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 13
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:44 pm
Location: Houston

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

#62

Post by hirundo82 » Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:30 am

speedsix wrote:Gov. Perry said it well at the end of the last legislature...he said anyone who qualifies for a CHL should be able to carry ANYWHERE...now there's common sense in action...we don't turn stupid upon entering our child's school...city hall, or anywhere else...except, as we all know, when we enter a Federal facility...then we're just a" subject"...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4763469.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Governor Perry saying that is why I voted for him in November, despite the fact that as a libertarian I disagree with him on many other isses. :thumbs2:
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Barack Obama, 12/20/2007


speedsix
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 5608
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:39 am

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

#63

Post by speedsix » Tue Mar 01, 2011 8:35 am

...he's right on some things...wrong on others...a true Texan...just glad he's right on OUR "thang"!!!

User avatar

tacticool
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 1486
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 2:41 pm

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

#64

Post by tacticool » Tue Mar 01, 2011 6:02 pm

speedsix wrote:Gov. Perry said it well at the end of the last legislature...he said anyone who qualifies for a CHL should be able to carry ANYWHERE...now there's common sense in action...
:iagree: There is already too much discrimination in chapter 46. An off duty CPA with a CHL should be able to carry everywhere an off duty LEO can carry. More discrimination against voters is not the answer. It would be wrong to give special treatment to more people who are supposed to be public servants.

Unethical behavior is a deal-breaker for me and I feel HB 1463 and SB 905 are unethical. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience vote for anyone who votes for those bills, no matter what possible redeeming features they may have.
When in doubt
Vote them out!


e-bil
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 133
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:23 pm

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

#65

Post by e-bil » Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:46 am

Why the provisions to allow them to carry in a church? I thought that had already been removed from the list of places you could not carry as a CHL.

User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 17918
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

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

#66

Post by Keith B » Wed Mar 02, 2011 10:56 am

e-bil wrote:Why the provisions to allow them to carry in a church? I thought that had already been removed from the list of places you could not carry as a CHL.
Look at the date on that article. It is from May 1, 2007, before the exemptions in 46.035 (i) were added to the bill that passed and went into effect on Sept. 1, 2007. :thumbs2:
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4


Topic author
hirundo82
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 13
Posts: 1001
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:44 pm
Location: Houston

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

#67

Post by hirundo82 » Wed Mar 02, 2011 11:20 am

The old statutes on the legislature's website don't go back before 2004, but 46.035(i) is a lot older than 2007. IIRC it was added very soon after CHL came into effect, maybe 1997.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." Barack Obama, 12/20/2007


seeker_two
Banned
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 182
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:19 am
Location: Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State

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

#68

Post by seeker_two » Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:18 pm

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.
I'm glad to hear that TSRA & NRA aren't associating themselves with this boondoggle....after hearing Mr. Kleinschmidt try to explain his bill on Jeff Ward's show on KLBJ 590AM, the only one who needs to suffer the bad press from this is Mr. Kleinschmidt.....
Howdy y'all. Glad to be here.....

User avatar

boba
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 597
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 1:28 pm

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

#69

Post by boba » Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:27 pm

seeker_two wrote:I'm glad to hear that TSRA & NRA aren't associating themselves with this boondoggle....after hearing Mr. Kleinschmidt try to explain his bill on Jeff Ward's show on KLBJ 590AM, the only one who needs to suffer the bad press from this is Mr. Kleinschmidt.....
If things go well, the bill will fail and an elitist will be challenged by one of "We The People" in the primaries.
IMMA CHARGIN MAH LAZER

User avatar

Keith B
Moderator
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 17918
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:29 pm

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

#70

Post by Keith B » Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:31 pm

hirundo82 wrote:The old statutes on the legislature's website don't go back before 2004, but 46.035(i) is a lot older than 2007. IIRC it was added very soon after CHL came into effect, maybe 1997.
Yeah, it was 1997, not 2007.
Keith
Texas LTC Instructor, Missouri CCW Instructor, NRA Certified Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun Instructor and RSO, NRA Life Member

Psalm 82:3-4

User avatar

Charles L. Cotton
Site Admin
Posts in topic: 12
Posts: 17052
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: Friendswood, TX
Contact:

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

#71

Post by Charles L. Cotton » Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:45 pm

boba wrote:
seeker_two wrote:I'm glad to hear that TSRA & NRA aren't associating themselves with this boondoggle....after hearing Mr. Kleinschmidt try to explain his bill on Jeff Ward's show on KLBJ 590AM, the only one who needs to suffer the bad press from this is Mr. Kleinschmidt.....
If things go well, the bill will fail and an elitist will be challenged by one of "We The People" in the primaries.
Rep. Kleinschmidt is carrying HB681 (employer parking lots) and it working very hard to get it passed. Remember that when you call for his defeat.

Chas.
Image


seeker_two
Banned
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 182
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 11:19 am
Location: Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State

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

#72

Post by seeker_two » Wed Apr 06, 2011 6:25 am

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
boba wrote:
seeker_two wrote:I'm glad to hear that TSRA & NRA aren't associating themselves with this boondoggle....after hearing Mr. Kleinschmidt try to explain his bill on Jeff Ward's show on KLBJ 590AM, the only one who needs to suffer the bad press from this is Mr. Kleinschmidt.....
If things go well, the bill will fail and an elitist will be challenged by one of "We The People" in the primaries.
Rep. Kleinschmidt is carrying HB681 (employer parking lots) and it working very hard to get it passed. Remember that when you call for his defeat.

Chas.

Oh, yes....we'll remember....it's filed under "Useful Idiots".....
Howdy y'all. Glad to be here.....


speedsix
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 5608
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 8:39 am

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

#73

Post by speedsix » Wed Apr 06, 2011 7:56 am

...that last post calls for a little baking soda...we are all on the same team...and the history of CHL inTexas has been give and take, bit by bit...and it's worked fine...we've accomplished a lot...unfortunately, we don't all get what we want when we want it...and , though I want to be exempt, too...I won't throw someone under the train because he gets it first...as long as he's working as hard for us as this fella is...the good thing about forums such as this is we gain information that we didn't have...and sometimes our opinions change...and sometimes they should...

User avatar

Teamless
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 3151
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:51 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

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

#74

Post by Teamless » Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:15 am

speedsix wrote:we are all on the same team...and the history of CHL inTexas has been give and take, bit by bit...and it's worked fine
:iagree: and I appreciate the hard work of everyone involved to get the rights we should have, even if its not fully uninfringed upon by gov't.
But....
speedsix wrote:.I won't throw someone under the train because he gets it first...as long as he's working as hard for us as this fella is
.
I am curious though as to why the safety of current legislatures, judges or DA's is more important than my or my families safety?
When they go to a baseball game at Reliant, or a race at Sam Houston Race Park, or to a college building, are they in more risk than I am? What if they are targetted and I am sitting next to them?
Houston, TX
Yankee born, but got to Texas as fast as I could! NRA / PSC / IANAL


SlickTX
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 4:43 pm
Location: Coppell, TX

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

#75

Post by SlickTX » Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:59 am

I'm coming to this thread late, but I'd like to add my voice.

I don't think the author of this bill is either immoral or unethical, but I do believe he is unprincipled. One must have central principles to guide ones life and decision making.

A, if not THE, central principle adopted by our founders in the Declaration of Independence is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Rep. Kleinschmidt's authorship of a bill such as the one being discussed shows that he either does not subscribe to certain principles or has strayed from them in a good-faith but mis-guided effort to fix a perceived problem. Why are we not all equal? Do we not all have the right to life (i.e., why is one life more important that another)? Do we all not have the right to liberty (i.e., why are some men more free than others)? Do we not all have the right to seek happiness (i.e., preserving my life and the lives of my family and enjoying the same liberties as all other men would make me happy)?

I will clarify the equality argument a bit more. The Declaration says we are born equal, and we all know that our paths through life vary from that point on. But in the right to carry argument, shouldn't those of us who have proven themselves as being law-abiding and trustworthy be worthy of the same trust that our legislators enjoy? I would be the first to agree that those who have proven themselves to less than trustworthy when it comes to emotional or physical reaction should not enjoy these same liberties to carry.
[Insert pithy witicism here]

Proudly carrying since 09/10.

Locked

Return to “2011 Texas Legislative Session”