Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

This forum will be open on Sept. 1, 2016.

Moderators: carlson1, Keith B, Charles L. Cotton


tx85
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:26 pm

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#16

Post by tx85 » Tue Apr 25, 2017 3:26 pm

Don't California our gun laws! Exemptions and special privileges for LEOs (even when not on duty) is the defining characteristic of California's gun laws.

For instance, the vast majority of handgun models owned by Texans cannot legally be sold by an FFL to a non-LEO in California (this includes any new semi-auto handgun model launched after May 2013).

User avatar

Man from Nantucket
Banned
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#17

Post by Man from Nantucket » Tue Apr 25, 2017 5:58 pm

tx85 wrote:Don't California our gun laws! Exemptions and special privileges for LEOs (even when not on duty) is the defining characteristic of California's gun laws.
And Chicago.
And New York.
And Washington DC.

Do you really have that many carpetbaggers in the Texas legislature?


flechero
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1935
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 5:04 pm
Location: Central Texas

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#18

Post by flechero » Tue Apr 25, 2017 6:55 pm

He then asked them why they were even carrying a gun, "Are you going to throw it at them?" This trooper was not happy. He went on to ask what they were going to do if they saw an LEO that needed help?
Be a good witness and call 911. That's what mere citizens are supposed to do, right? It's not a batman license, remember, officer?

Funny how they want you to be ready to jump in if THEY need the help...

User avatar

ScottDLS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 4290
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 1:04 am
Location: DFW Area, TX

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#19

Post by ScottDLS » Tue Apr 25, 2017 7:33 pm

Man from Nantucket wrote:
tx85 wrote:Don't California our gun laws! Exemptions and special privileges for LEOs (even when not on duty) is the defining characteristic of California's gun laws.
And Chicago.
And New York.
And Washington DC.

Do you really have that many carpetbaggers in the Texas legislature?
And the United States... LEOSA

Rights for me, but not for thee. :evil2:
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"


1911 10MM
Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 187
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 7:59 am

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#20

Post by 1911 10MM » Tue Apr 25, 2017 10:10 pm

Don't urinate on my back and try to tell me it's raining!


ninjabread
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 574
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#21

Post by ninjabread » Wed Apr 26, 2017 6:19 pm

flechero wrote:
He then asked them why they were even carrying a gun, "Are you going to throw it at them?" This trooper was not happy. He went on to ask what they were going to do if they saw an LEO that needed help?
Be a good witness and call 911. That's what mere citizens are supposed to do, right?
After hearing the anti gun half truths and outright lies from LE groups this legislative session, I will mind my own business if I see their members having a roadside disagreement with #BLM. I used to be pro law enforcement, but there's only so much "us versus them" rhetoric a man can take.
This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

User avatar

nightmare69
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2024
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 9:03 pm
Location: East Texas

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#22

Post by nightmare69 » Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:04 am

This bill seems to be addressing a problem that doesn't exist. I've yet to be banned from carrying off-duty. Although I only carry concealed. The Texas Legislature should focus on extending the rights of the people and not the rights of those who can carry virtually anywhere already.
2/26-Mailed paper app and packet.
5/20-Plastic in hand.
83 days mailbox to mailbox.

User avatar

allisji
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 894
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2015 10:44 am
Location: Seabrook

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#23

Post by allisji » Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:19 am

ninjabread wrote:
flechero wrote:
He then asked them why they were even carrying a gun, "Are you going to throw it at them?" This trooper was not happy. He went on to ask what they were going to do if they saw an LEO that needed help?
Be a good witness and call 911. That's what mere citizens are supposed to do, right?
After hearing the anti gun half truths and outright lies from LE groups this legislative session, I will mind my own business if I see their members having a roadside disagreement with #BLM. I used to be pro law enforcement, but there's only so much "us versus them" rhetoric a man can take.
Unfortunately the police chiefs and police unions get to speak on behalf of all off their members. I would venture to guess that most of the members probably would prefer that they did not. By and large, LEOs are the good guys, even if the people who represent them are not...
LTC since 2015
I have contacted my state rep Dennis Paul about co-sponsoring HB560.

User avatar

mojo84
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 8352
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 4:07 pm
Location: Boerne, TX (Kendall County)

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#24

Post by mojo84 » Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:32 am

allisji wrote:
ninjabread wrote:
flechero wrote:
He then asked them why they were even carrying a gun, "Are you going to throw it at them?" This trooper was not happy. He went on to ask what they were going to do if they saw an LEO that needed help?
Be a good witness and call 911. That's what mere citizens are supposed to do, right?
After hearing the anti gun half truths and outright lies from LE groups this legislative session, I will mind my own business if I see their members having a roadside disagreement with #BLM. I used to be pro law enforcement, but there's only so much "us versus them" rhetoric a man can take.
Unfortunately the police chiefs and police unions get to speak on behalf of all off their members. I would venture to guess that most of the members probably would prefer that they did not. By and large, LEOs are the good guys, even if the people who represent them are not...
Very good point. People need to consider there is usually a huge difference in attitude/opinion between the rank and file officers and the chiefs and union leadership. It's important to not project the attitudes and opinions of one on the other.


ninjabread
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 574
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#25

Post by ninjabread » Fri Apr 28, 2017 5:28 pm

Their silence is deafening. When they need help, they should expect the same in return.
This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.


tx85
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:26 pm

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#26

Post by tx85 » Fri Apr 28, 2017 5:53 pm

While police chiefs are appointed, the leaders of police unions are not. From CLEAT's website:
CLEAT is led by officers elected by the members of CLEAT. All members may vote and seek elected office within the organization.


ninjabread
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 574
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#27

Post by ninjabread » Fri Apr 28, 2017 5:57 pm

1911 10MM wrote:Don't urinate on my back and try to tell me it's raining!
:iagree:
This is my opinion. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

User avatar

G.A. Heath
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2719
Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: Western Texas

Re: Rights for me but not for thee! HB 560 fading, HB 873 alive?

#28

Post by G.A. Heath » Fri Apr 28, 2017 8:24 pm

tx85 wrote:While police chiefs are appointed, the leaders of police unions are not. From CLEAT's website:
CLEAT is led by officers elected by the members of CLEAT. All members may vote and seek elected office within the organization.
Look at their bylaws and see how the union performs the election. They may only be electing a group of officers from 2 or more groups chosen by the existing leadership. This is a common union tactic so they can claim to be fairly elected while there is nothing fair about it.
I am also a Gun guy, Car Guy, and Computer Guy and a currently former podcaster.

Locked

Return to “2017 Texas Legislative Session”