TexasCHLforum.com

TexasBill

SB905 isn't on the Local and Uncontested Calendar for today (May 24). I don't know if that means it hasn't yet been scheduled or if five representatives have indicated they oppose it, which would prevent it being added to the LUC.

TexasBill

Never did have a problem with extended privileges for judges and similar officials - they really do have a higher risk of attack and their jobs are full-time. A judge up in New York was killed by a retired NYPD captain upset over the fact his daughter lost a sexual harassment lawsuit.

Frankly, I have never understood why judges didn't have the same carry privileges as peace officers.

TexasBill

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
TexasBill wrote:Yes, as far as SB905 goes, I am for "all or nothing." Every holder of a CHL should be treated the same, legislator or not.
Your "I want it all now" attitude isn't limited to SB905, as is easily seen in your ranting posts.

Chas.

Rants? How about debating points? I have not engaged in insults or ad hominem attacks against you or any member of this forum. When presented with an opposing argument, I have presented verifiable sources to support my contentions. Passionate? Yes, indeedy: I believe what's happening is wrong and I advocate a proper way for those who agree with my position to oppose it.

The "all" I want isn't going to happen anytime soon. But the Act of April 12, 1871 wasn't a baby step: it was a giant leap to an absolute prohibition on the citizens of Texas carrying handguns outside of their homes or places of business or "traveling" (a term so poorly defined it took two sessions of the legislature over a hundred years later to set it straight). I believe we should strive to take more than "baby steps" to regain the rights we once enjoyed: at the very least, we should graduate to toddling.

Furthermore, I know the Legislature is the last step. We need to do a better job of marshaling public opinion. We need to set a long-term goal and devise strategies and tactics to achieve it. But long-term doesn't mean "sometime, never."

Bill

TexasBill

Address a couple of additional points:

Please understand I don't post things I haven't checked. The Austin Police Department says it can take 4-6 weeks to clear an applicant but the usual time is much less than that; sometimes as little as a week. The Department of Public Safety gets up to nine months, 39 weeks, to make a final decision on a CHL.

I don't know every in and out of the Texas Legislature, but I am very well acquainted with the process. I have had friends and acquaintances in the Legislature (still have one there now) and covered the sessions when I worked in the news department of an Austin radio station.

My Mother's side of the family has been in Texas since before it was a state. At least one of my ancestors fought at the Battle of San Jacinto. My Dad's side of the family settled here before the Civil War. I've been here for all but 14 of my nearly 62 years. Not bragging, just letting you know we've been here a while so I don't have any qualms about discussing the Texas Legislature.

Does the extension of privileges under SB905 make me personally jealous? Nope. I don't go to bars, the only sporting events I attend are my son's football games, played on public school property, and I feel a bit funny about wearing a gun in church. I can lock my gun in my car at my place of employment, but that's a bit silly because I can wear my gun at my place of employment. Campus carry wouldn't apply to me because my daughter attends a private university. My daughter was considering getting her CHL but, since she wouldn't be able to have a gun on campus, even in her car, she decided against it for now. 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?

There's talk of some hidden surprise that will make us all happy or something like that. Sorry, I'm a skeptic. What I see is Senators who shot down campus carry voting to give themselves special consideration and that just doesn't give me any warm, fuzzy feelings that something good will come out of it. And the "third-time renewal" thing is patently ridiculous. No, it's worse: it's pandering.

Yes, as far as SB905 goes, I am for "all or nothing." Every holder of a CHL should be treated the same, legislator or not.

I've said my piece. I've written my Representative. You folks should do what you think is right. 'Nuff said.

TexasBill

CWOOD wrote:I HAVE BEEN CONVINCED!!!!
darn THE TORPEDOES, REVERSE COURSE!!

NO MORE PARTIAL MEASURES...ALL OR NOTHING!!

I now suggest that we contact our legislators and urge them to STOP SB905 with or without amendments. If everyone cannot carry almost everywhere, let NO ONE carry anywhere. ALL OR NOTHING!

Let's also urge the legislators to STOP the Employer Parking Lot bill too. It is unacceptable that those in the oil refining/chemical plant industry should be denied the right to have their weapons in their vehicles. If it is not good for all of us, then by gosh, none of us should participate. ALL OR NOTHING!

Campus Carry, heck NO!. I think we should not accept that only some of us would be able to carry our weapons on campus. If the folks at the private institutions or those with teaching hospitals cannot carry then it would be patently unfair for others to be permitted to do so until all of us can do it. ALL OR NOTHING!

In fact, I think it would only show the conviction of our beliefs for us to actively lobby the legislature to right some of the injustices of the past. We must persuade them to renounce and repeal the laws which permitted us to carry (without 30.06) in churches, amusement parks, hospitals, and meetings of governmental bodies. Additionally, we should have them include the government building provision in the repeal. It can only be right and good that with the force of our ideas we make them see that until we can carry everywhere, we cannot, in good conscience carry anywhere regarding these locations. ALL OR NOTHING!

I have become so convinced of the correctness of our principals on this matter that we cannot fail to have them really force their hand. I propose that we free ourselves from ALL hypocrisy. It is fundamentally unconstitutional that we should have our right of self defense regulated and taxed by the State. Why should we have to even take the training class. It infringes on our rights of self actualization and we cannot permit this sad state of affairs to exist. These facts are all the more egregious considering the fact that we cannot all carry all the time and everywhere. There can be no room for compromise.

We must DEMAND that the legislature immediately, in this session, strike from the books ALL vestiges of the entire existing CHL law. We should then require them to replace it with "Constitutional Carry". We must all be allowed to carry everywhere, in any manner, at any time what ever we want and until they see fit to recognize the true and just nature of that position WE SHALL ACCEPT NOTHING SHORT OF THAT PRINCIPLED POSITION. WE ARE ALL CITIZENS WITH THE COURAGE AND STEADFASTNESS OF OUR POSITION. ALL OR NOTHING!!

I have decided that I am going to cut up my CHL tonight. And I am mailing it to my Representative and Senator...half each. I know that many of you are with me on this and I would be happy to repost the names and addresses of all our representatives.

COME ON ALL CHL'ERS LET'S GET THIS BANDWAGON ROLLING When they see nearly 500,000 cut up CHL's come back in the mail they will know that they have fouled up and will surely be convinced by our actions. Saddle up!

Jeez, don't ya just hate an convert?

Well, people who use "an" before a consonant do give me the heebie-jeebies....

You want to chop up your CHL? It's okay by me; all I asked is for people to contact their state representatives and either stop or modify a piece of self-serving legislation.

As for "All or nothing," the reality is that with only a short time remaining in the session, we've gotten nothing. Did we get campus carry? Nope: It had to be piggybacked onto SB5 to retain any chance at all. How about keeping your gun locked in your car at work without getting fired? Not yet and not assured. The truth is that, so far, we've gotten nothing but the Senate falling all over itself to pass some special privileges for itself. But apparently we're supposed to be so thrilled that we might get a bone if the rocket scientists and Nobel laureates in Austin judge us worthy that we'll applaud them taking extraordinary measures to deal with statistically nonexistent threats to themselves. That may seem just dandy to you, but it doesn't sit well with me.

Just to make my position clear, I am for getting it all: Constitutional Carry, open or concealed: no permit required. The Second Amendment doesn't limit who may not infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it just says they shall not be infringed. The Texas Legislature approved our state constitution after it passed the Act of April 12, 1871 and incorporated the language allowing the legislature to regulate the carrying of weapons because it already had. For an interesting analysis of the history of legislative gun control in Texas, read Stephen Halbrook's The Right to Bear Arms in Texas: The Intent of the Framers of the Bills of Rights http://www.guncite.com/journals/haltex.html.

TexasBill

artx wrote:Do you consider campus carry and employee parking lots baby steps? The bills that didn't pass for 3 straight sessions (parking lots) or one session ( campus carry), even with the full force of NRA/TSRA and grassroots support?

Who are the folks that are able to make these huge gains that are worth supporting at the expense of any smaller forward progress? Where is the coalition of legislators? Someone has to put these groups of reps/senators together and get them to agree on the legislation/companion bills to be filed, champion bills, make sure they are assigned to friendly committees, get placed on the right calender, be voted on without gutting amendments, be reconciled if necessary between the house/senate, and finally meet the approval of the governor.

Remember anything with SB905 is a bonus, making lemonade out of the original lemon bill.

I don't consider campus carry a baby step and Senator Wentworth, who got the amendment tacked on, keeping campus carry alive, doesn't either. However, that didn't stop him from being one of the six Senators who voted against SB905. He also voted against the suspension of the rules that allowed it to be fast-tracked through.

I am all for advancement but advancement should be for everyone, not just a privileged few whose actual statistical risk is less than negligible. This is just like the moron in the U.S. House of Representatives who wanted to pass a law making it illegal to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of any government official (The dog catcher? The government employee to whom you are married or related?)

If Texas wants to be in the forefront, it better get a move on. We claim pride in our western heritage yet Texas is one of just two states (and Oklahoma may leave it as the only state) that doesn't permit unlicensed open carry in some form. Even California allows it in some circumstances. We have one of the most onerous licensing processes in the U.S.: it's actually quicker to be cleared to be a police officer in Texas than it is to get a CHL.

The parking lot issue should have been a slam-dunk long ago. Campus carry should not have to be passed through parliamentary procedures -- it should have sailed through standing proud. Calling them baby steps doesn't make the Legislature's progress on either one cute.

In 1871, the Texas Legislature passed the most restrictive handgun law in the United States -- even in New York, you could get a permit to legally carry. It was a Jim Crow law, designed to keep guns out of the hands of newly-freed slaves, but it remained on the books until CHL legislation became law in 1995. After 124 years of denial, is there some particular reason we should continue to put up with the foot-dragging in Austin? And is there any reason we should put up with legislation that confers extra privileges on a few, who voluntarily sought and spent gobs of money winning, the offices they hold? They knew the risks when they ran; they haven't changed. If they can't share those privileges with those who put them in office, they don't deserve them.

TexasBill

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.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 7 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