TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Our marching orders are to go out and win and we can't do that by diluting the pro-gun votes for third-party candidates that have absolutely no chance of winning.

Is anyone else amused that this example involves three pro-gun candidates? Two A-rated TSRA major party candidates, and a libertarian who would presumably be A or A+ if the TSRA would rate LP candidates?

And yet the defense is that TSRA mustn't "dilute" pro-gun votes?

Liberty wrote:If that were the case why wouldn't they rate Libertarians that are running against a single candidate.

Neither organization can add a third-party candidate to some races (ones with only an incumbent and a Libertarian candidate) but not others that have both a Democrat and Republican running.

Liberty wrote:I don't believe that they should be giving every Libertarian a blank endorsement. Simply to acknowledge them and rate them as they would any other candidate.

That's where the potential pro-gun vote dilution come in. If there is a Democrat or Republican with an A or A+ rating running against an opponent with a B or lower rating, the addition of any third party candidate with an A rating will dilute the pro-gun vote.

And if TSRA and NRA rate Libertarians, would you also have us rate any other third party candidates? How about independent candidates? If not, why not? Why should the Libertarian Party rate special treatment not afforded to all third party and independent candidates? If you say "yes, rate everyone in the race," then there's even greater potential for pro-gun vote dilution.

Liberty wrote:Just ignoring us will not make us go away. If the NRA/TSRA wants to grow its numbers perhaps they might consider not alienating thousands of their supporters and working with them instead.

Neither the TSRA nor NRA are trying to make the Libertarian Party go away. If the Party appeals to enough people then it will grow and become a viable political force and it will win some elections. If that ever happens, then I'm confident that the NRA and TSRA will rate their candidates.

If Libertarians are alienated from the NRA and TSRA, then they are not as committed to the Second Amendment as they claim. Why would any true Second Amendment supporter ask the NRA or TSRA to act in a manner that could jeopardize gun rights? Diluting pro-gun votes and having an anti-gunner elected just to be "fair" to the Libertarian candidate would be a disservice to our members, to the entire gun-owning public and to our mission. Asking us to do so is putting the welfare of the Libertarian Party ahead of the Second Amendment and gun owners.

The Libertarian Party isn't singled out for special treatment. As many TexasCHLforum members know, I've been politically active in Second Amendment issues for 30 years. I've been on the NRA Board of Directors since 2001, I've worked with TSRA's Legislative Committee/Legislative Director since 1987, and I've "officially" been Vice-Chairman of the TSRA Legislative Committee since 2003. If I were to run for office as a Libertarian, I would not be rated by either the NRA or TSRA. If I ran as a Republican against an A or A+ rated Democrat, I'd get an A rating, but both the NRA and TSRA would endorse my opponent. That's the way it should be.

Let me ask two questions? First, have any Libertarian candidates running for state office against a Democrat or Republican been elected? (This isn't a loaded question, I really don't know. I don't think so, but I'm not at all sure.) Secondly, does the Libertarian Party claim to be "conservative" as many members claim on gun boards?

Chas.

KBCraig wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Our marching orders are to go out and win and we can't do that by diluting the pro-gun votes for third-party candidates that have absolutely no chance of winning.

Is anyone else amused that this example involves three pro-gun candidates? Two A-rated TSRA major party candidates, and a libertarian who would presumably be A or A+ if the TSRA would rate LP candidates?

And yet the defense is that TSRA mustn't "dilute" pro-gun votes?

Would you have the NRA and TSRA rate Libertarian candidates only in races that have A rated Democrat and Republican candidates?

BTW, I pointed out in my post that both the Republican and Democrat in the District 105 race were A rated. I also discussed the importance of who is Speaker of the House. A portion of my post is set out below.

Do you disagree with the premise that having two A rated candidates and one B or lower rated candidate dilutes the pro-gun vote? I'm not talking about House District 105, I'm speaking in general.

Chas.

Of note is the fact that this race also saw a Libertarian candidate garner 1,059 votes. In this race, both the incumbent Republican and the Democrat challenger are TSRA "A" rated, so that's much better than having a lower rated Democrat. However, we need to remember that the Castle Doctrine was voted out of committee by only one vote, in spite of a huge number of co-sponsors in the House. (I can't recall the precise number, but it was about 130) Who held it up and forced the removal of the "looser pays" provisions? Democrats, that's who. So if the Democrats regain control of the House, they will select the Speaker of the House and there is no reason to believe our agenda will be as well received as in several past sessions.

KBCraig wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Our marching orders are to go out and win and we can't do that by diluting the pro-gun votes for third-party candidates that have absolutely no chance of winning.

Is anyone else amused that this example involves three pro-gun candidates? Two A-rated TSRA major party candidates, and a libertarian who would presumably be A or A+ if the TSRA would rate LP candidates?

And yet the defense is that TSRA mustn't "dilute" pro-gun votes?

It has to do with the candidates stance on the 2nd amendment as well as the candidates party and therefore ability for the PARTY to influence legislation via committe control and the like. It's not just about diluting the vote but diluting ability to control legislation.




In my view, pragmatism beats idealism except on issues of great moral importance.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Let me ask two questions? First, have any Libertarian candidates running for state office against a Democrat or Republican been elected? (This isn't a loaded question, I really don't know. I don't think so, but I'm not at all sure.)

Without digging through too many lists, Andy Borsa and Don Gorman were elected to the NH state legislature as Libertarians back in the 90s, shortly after two Republicans already on their legislature changed parties to Libertarian.

As I recall, there were also a few others elected to lesser-known state offices around the country. (I hesitate to say less important, because it's hard to know what oddball-named-office might be a lot more powerful than it sounds in a given state.)

The only places firearms shouldn't be allowed are prisons/jails and inside the courtroom during court. IMO, it all starts with our Reps in the districts where we live, maybe we can set something up where we send letters/email all at once to our respective Reps at the same time everyone else does. Just a thought.

Some bills are in the works. They will be posted here, and that's the time to fax or call the representatives that are on the committee responsible for the bill.

Faxes are the way to go. I don't know what Texas reps do with U.S.P.S. mail, but mail to U.S. reps is sent somewhere to be gassed and gets to them quite late.

Elected officials rarely see e-mails because they get so many that low-level staffers filter them.

The political reality is that if a bill isn't drafted by now, it's very unlikely to go anywhere in the next session.

I would be overjoyed to see one prohibited place removed from the list every session. It took 150 years to get where we are. We're not going back in one giant step.

- Jim

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Liberty wrote:If that were the case why wouldn't they rate Libertarians that are running against a single candidate.

Neither organization can add a third-party candidate to some races (ones with only an incumbent and a Libertarian candidate) but not others that have both a Democrat and Republican running.

I don't understand why not?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Liberty wrote:I don't believe that they should be giving every Libertarian a blank endorsement. Simply to acknowledge them and rate them as they would any other candidate.

That's where the potential pro-gun vote dilution come in. If there is a Democrat or Republican with an A or A+ rating running against an opponent with a B or lower rating, the addition of any third party candidate with an A rating will dilute the pro-gun vote.

And if TSRA and NRA rate Libertarians, would you also have us rate any other third party candidates? How about independent candidates? If not, why not? Why should the Libertarian Party rate special treatment not afforded to all third party and independent candidates? If you say "yes, rate everyone in the race," then there's even greater potential for pro-gun vote dilution.

It would only be fair to list and rate all the candidates. To turn a blind eye and not even acknowledge that they exist is dishonest.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Liberty wrote:Just ignoring us will not make us go away. If the NRA/TSRA wants to grow its numbers perhaps they might consider not alienating thousands of their supporters and working with them instead.

Neither the TSRA nor NRA are trying to make the Libertarian Party go away. If the Party appeals to enough people then it will grow and become a viable political force and it will win some elections. If that ever happens, then I'm confident that the NRA and TSRA will rate their candidates.

If Libertarians are alienated from the NRA and TSRA, then they are not as committed to the Second Amendment as they claim. Why would any true Second Amendment supporter ask the NRA or TSRA to act in a manner that could jeopardize gun rights? Diluting pro-gun votes and having an anti-gunner elected just to be "fair" to the Libertarian candidate would be a disservice to our members, to the entire gun-owning public and to our mission. Asking us to do so is putting the welfare of the Libertarian Party ahead of the Second Amendment and gun owners.

The Libertarian Party isn't singled out for special treatment. As many TexasCHLforum members know, I've been politically active in Second Amendment issues for 30 years. I've been on the NRA Board of Directors since 2001, I've worked with TSRA's Legislative Committee/Legislative Director since 1987, and I've "officially" been Vice-Chairman of the TSRA Legislative Committee since 2003. If I were to run for office as a Libertarian, I would not be rated by either the NRA or TSRA. If I ran as a Republican against an A or A+ rated Democrat, I'd get an A rating, but both the NRA and TSRA would endorse my opponent. That's the way it should be.

Let me ask two questions? First, have any Libertarian candidates running for state office against a Democrat or Republican been elected? (This isn't a loaded question, I really don't know. I don't think so, but I'm not at all sure.) Secondly, does the Libertarian Party claim to be "conservative" as many members claim on gun boards?

Chas.

The NRA has a reputation for nor playing well with others. They tend to look at others with similar goals as the competition. They attempted sabotage on Parker vs DC was shameful. Believe me the Libertarians are not always united in everything, but I've never met a member of the LIbertarian party that didn't feel stronger about the RKBA than Jonquil Jackson. The big difference with the Libertarians is that they are focused on the whole package of freedoms and not just the single issue.

They didn't win any offices this time in Texas that I know of.

I don't believe Libertarians can be classified as Conservative or mostly Conservative.. They simply believe in freedoms from the Government. fer instance.
The government should be small. (most Republicans these days seem to like a fat government)
The Government shouldn't be deciding our moral values ..that should be up to moms and pops.
The Government isn't a Charity .. That's for our churches and organizations like the Red Cross.
The Government shouldn't be involved in religious functions like marriage
The Government needn't be making us be safe if we don't endanger others (Seat belts helmets)
Government needn't be sponsoring businesses and bailing them out.
The Government should be protecting us from crimminals and bad governments
We have a right to succeed and a right to fail.

Chas - do you have any suggestions how we can help remove prohibited places this legislative session (other than getting behind any bills that are filed and writing our reps and senators)?

seamusTX wrote:

srothstein wrote:The place I am thinking of is the polling place. It is critical that we do not allow anyone to intimidate others while voting. But I think the better way to handle that is through better laws and enforcement on intimidation.

Voter intimidation is already a crime, whether it is done with a handgun, a shotgun, a pitchfork, or verbally.

- Jim

RuhRoh...I told my daughter I would disown her if she voted for BO and I told my son I would break my leg off in his tail end if he voted for BO. Does this count as intimidation?

I am for no prohibited places. We went through a serious back ground check to get a CHL. This should mean something when it comes to where we can carry.

03Lightningrocks wrote:RuhRoh...I told my daughter I would disown her if she voted for BO and I told my son I would break my leg off in his tail end if he voted for BO. Does this count as intimidation?

Technically, yes. But that kind of thing goes on between relatives and friends.

It wouldn't have mattered who they voted for for president anyway. Reps and local races are another story.

- Jim

artx wrote:Chas - do you have any suggestions how we can help remove prohibited places this legislative session (other than getting behind any bills that are filed and writing our reps and senators)?

I've already written the bill, now we have to get the right sponsor. Calls and faxes to our elected officials will be critically important, when we approach committee hearings.

Chas.