Search found 5 matches

by ScooterSissy
Thu May 14, 2015 4:20 pm
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: Campus Carry revived, attached to open carry
Replies: 249
Views: 48932

Re: Campus Carry revived, attached to open carry

treadlightly wrote:Because of rent property, my annual property tax bill has been running about $18,000 a year, of which a large slice comes out of my 8-5 wages.

Local school district in my sparse county just passed a $15.5 million bond issue. Around $6 million was for football and contingency funds.

The lion's share of my tax bills is for school taxes, and that portion of my bill will go up by about 30%. If my shell-shocked math is with me, my next year's property tax bill will go up by about $3,000 a year, up to about $21,000. The extra three grand will be straight out of my 8-5 take home pay.

Fortunately, I already bought a P320 and a seductively sweet Kimber that will do anything I ask except miss.

Just after universal, basic rights issues, I'm all for property tax relief, just as soon as my citizenship is propped up. Campus carry, open carry, whatever can be reasonably done first, then we can talk about administrative issues like tax.

My reasoning is that if the colonists had reasoned with the British to repeal the Stamp Act, but at the cost of their militia and privately owned weapons, there would be no America.

I know. I sound like a kook. I'm harmless, I promise. Ease my property tax, ignore my gun. It will never speak unless spoken to.
While I agree with your sentiment, I'll point out one small difference in the comparison to the colonists and your tax bill.

Your fellow citizens voted for that particular tax increase.

Truth be told, if you're like most areas, the problem wasn't with those that were for the tax increase (bond), but rather those who didn't bother to show up. That's my biggest complaint about bond issues, the second is that the city/school district can use government funds to push the issue.
by ScooterSissy
Thu May 14, 2015 1:03 pm
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: Campus Carry revived, attached to open carry
Replies: 249
Views: 48932

Re: Campus Carry revived, attached to open carry

mojo84 wrote:
TXBO wrote:
v7a wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:It will be no different if HB910 is amended in the Senate -- but don't hold your breath waiting for Patrick to help.
I realize you might not be able to clarify that until after the session has ended, but I see two possible interpretations of that:

1. If the spat between House and Senate doesn't get resolved soon there won't be enough time to amend HB910 and get it through concurrence vote in the House
2. Patrick wants to pass HB910 without any amendments so that he gets credit for getting Open Carry to the governor (versus House getting credit for Open Carry AND Campus Carry)
Patrick wants a reduction in property tax.
Unfortunately, what he is pushing isn't going to work in my opinion. Rates and appraisals will be increased to offset the increased homestead exemption.

Maybe in missing something.
My understanding is that any increase in tax rates would have to be approved by 60% under the new bill. Most appraisals already increase at the max allowed by the state, so they would not be able to increase any more.
by ScooterSissy
Tue May 12, 2015 6:43 pm
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: Campus Carry revived, attached to open carry
Replies: 249
Views: 48932

Re: Campus Carry revived, attached to open carry

C-dub wrote:
ScooterSissy wrote:
Taypo wrote:
ScooterSissy wrote:
Taypo wrote:Personally, I'm more disappointed in the process than I am in the individual bills. The legislature seems to be a joke right now.

I flip flop on the merits of OC, but I'm in total agreement that campus carry should be available. I also think 30.06 needs to be reexamined to determine some form of requirements for posting. Being uncomfortable with guns shouldn't give a location the ability to deny a right.
I'm a little lost on the last one. If you're talking about a government facility, I agree; but they aren't permitted to do so now by law, some cities/counties just do it in spite of the law. If you're talking about private businesses, I have to disagree. They should be permitted to disallow guns for any reason they choose. I'm a big believer in 2A rights, but I'm also a believer in property rights. I'll let them know my displeasure by using my wallet.
OK, let's take this to an extreme for argument's sake, shall we? If a movie theater/restaurant/convention center posted a sign out front that said "No Whites allowed," do you think that would fly? How about "No Christians?"

If you honestly believe 2A grants everyone the power to carry, then how is it different than racial/religious/orientation discrimination?

Please do keep in mind that I'm very much middle of the road on this, but I'm curious to see where the line is for folks.
You may not like my answers (they've made me unpopular in a number of conversations)

First, the legal reasons - Race and Religion are protected classes. Carrying a firearm is not (nor is deciding not to wear shoes, or a shirt, see more on that in a moment).
That said, legal reasoning aside - I think providing protected classes in situations like this is a mistake, unless those being discriminated against can show that there are no other publicly available similar facilities available. That's right, I believe that a business owner should be able to put up a "no whites" or "no Christians", I say let them; and then let their customers decide what they want to do with that information. I can almost bet you that a business will open up across the street (or near by) that will allow those groups being discriminated against. The more open business will prosper.

However, the comparison isn't totally valid, since as I said, race and religion are protected classes. Gun carrying is not (nor do I think it should be). A more accurate comparison would be "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs. It is my right to decide to not wear shoes or a shirt. It's also a right for a business to refuse to let me in if they don't like that. Both are as things should be (in my opinion).
Don't worry too much Scooter. I agree with you on letting the market figure it out. However, I can also say that I and many people I know wouldn't go into a business that said only this group or that group. I don't want anything to do with folks with that kind of attitude.
Nor would I. And I consider myself a pretty open minded reasonable person; so I think a lot of folks would do the same thing.
Personally, I wouldn't touch a BBQ place or Cajun restaurant that catered solely to people that look and talk like me...
by ScooterSissy
Tue May 12, 2015 3:43 pm
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: Campus Carry revived, attached to open carry
Replies: 249
Views: 48932

Re: Campus Carry revived, attached to open carry

Taypo wrote:
ScooterSissy wrote:
Taypo wrote:Personally, I'm more disappointed in the process than I am in the individual bills. The legislature seems to be a joke right now.

I flip flop on the merits of OC, but I'm in total agreement that campus carry should be available. I also think 30.06 needs to be reexamined to determine some form of requirements for posting. Being uncomfortable with guns shouldn't give a location the ability to deny a right.
I'm a little lost on the last one. If you're talking about a government facility, I agree; but they aren't permitted to do so now by law, some cities/counties just do it in spite of the law. If you're talking about private businesses, I have to disagree. They should be permitted to disallow guns for any reason they choose. I'm a big believer in 2A rights, but I'm also a believer in property rights. I'll let them know my displeasure by using my wallet.
OK, let's take this to an extreme for argument's sake, shall we? If a movie theater/restaurant/convention center posted a sign out front that said "No Whites allowed," do you think that would fly? How about "No Christians?"

If you honestly believe 2A grants everyone the power to carry, then how is it different than racial/religious/orientation discrimination?

Please do keep in mind that I'm very much middle of the road on this, but I'm curious to see where the line is for folks.
You may not like my answers (they've made me unpopular in a number of conversations)

First, the legal reasons - Race and Religion are protected classes. Carrying a firearm is not (nor is deciding not to wear shoes, or a shirt, see more on that in a moment).
That said, legal reasoning aside - I think providing protected classes in situations like this is a mistake, unless those being discriminated against can show that there are no other publicly available similar facilities available. That's right, I believe that a business owner should be able to put up a "no whites" or "no Christians", I say let them; and then let their customers decide what they want to do with that information. I can almost bet you that a business will open up across the street (or near by) that will allow those groups being discriminated against. The more open business will prosper.

However, the comparison isn't totally valid, since as I said, race and religion are protected classes. Gun carrying is not (nor do I think it should be). A more accurate comparison would be "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs. It is my right to decide to not wear shoes or a shirt. It's also a right for a business to refuse to let me in if they don't like that. Both are as things should be (in my opinion).
by ScooterSissy
Tue May 12, 2015 1:35 pm
Forum: 2015 Legislative Session
Topic: Campus Carry revived, attached to open carry
Replies: 249
Views: 48932

Re: Campus Carry revived, attached to open carry

Taypo wrote:Personally, I'm more disappointed in the process than I am in the individual bills. The legislature seems to be a joke right now.

I flip flop on the merits of OC, but I'm in total agreement that campus carry should be available. I also think 30.06 needs to be reexamined to determine some form of requirements for posting. Being uncomfortable with guns shouldn't give a location the ability to deny a right.
I'm a little lost on the last one. If you're talking about a government facility, I agree; but they aren't permitted to do so now by law, some cities/counties just do it in spite of the law. If you're talking about private businesses, I have to disagree. They should be permitted to disallow guns for any reason they choose. I'm a big believer in 2A rights, but I'm also a believer in property rights. I'll let them know my displeasure by using my wallet.

Return to “Campus Carry revived, attached to open carry”