General 2015 Legislative Session Discussion

[rogersinsel]

I am sure that you aren't actually asking a question, but I'll answer anyway. Put rather simply, Patrick needs to do his job. If OC is already DOA, then he and the entire Texas GOP that let it happen need to find work elsewhere. It is an embarrassment that Texas lacks OC of any type for any reason. Furthermore, it is astounding at the apparent lack of resolution that the Texas GOP has regarding 2a rights. It is part of our platform and I voted for them because of it. There are a lot of passionate people out there supporting this cause. It is unfortunate that Texas' elected leaders don't share that same passion. Mark this day Chas, if the Texas GOP doesn't start embracing their party values now, you, the GOP and all conservative Texans will find ourselves marginalized and forgotten once this state goes blue. You see, right or wrong, democrats stand by their values even if it means getting in your face over it. It rallies their base. Ex. You didn't see the democrats tuck tail and run when a bunch of women descended on Austin and shut down government to protest their right to kill babies. So the moral of this story is the Texas GOP had better wake up now and get to work passing legislation that matters. And I'll give you one more news flash...this matters!

You said you were going to answer the question, but you didn't. How is Patrick supposed to bring a bill to the floor of the Senate if it does not clear a committee? Hint: He cannot!

Not having open-carry is hardly an embarrassment. What is embarrassing is that a handgun of people act like being able to let everyone see you are armed is the most important issue facing Texas gun owners and the Texas Legislature. Texas has very liberal gun laws and that's because the NRA and TSRA have used their expertise to improve them over many years. There are no shortcuts.

Chas.

I did answer, you just don't want to recognize that I did. Your decision to not recognize fact is puzzling so I'll repeat. By doing his job. He is suppose to be the second and some would say first most powerful man in Texas. Act like it! He did on the 2/3rds rule, what happened with open carry. He has the authority and discretion in following Senate procedural rules. He can set up standing or special committees and appoint committee chairpersons and individual members. As part of both the legislative and executive branches of government and as President of the senate I kind of figure yeah he does have the political sway to get OC out of committee if he wanted to. And it doesn't just stop with Patrick, however it does begin with him. Once he shows he's weak what do you think the rank and file will do? Don't say he's not because even today he is trying to walk back his comments on the subject. I am told you're an ardent 2a supporter and an open carry supporter, but there are times I don't see that in your words. And believe me, people are listening, but they're not buying.

I can also give you five reasons why it is fact that Texas not having open carry is an embarrassment: California, Texas, Florida, New York and Illinois. Further more you never asked me why I prefer OC. Broad brush statements like "What is embarrassing is that a handgun of people act like being able to let everyone see you are armed is the most important issue facing Texas gun owners and the Texas Legislature" only serve to hurt our cause and show ignorance of the subject. Honestly, I feel if you listened more and criticized less those that have a slightly different view than you, you might just see our cause advance rather than tread water. BTW, if waiting for over one hundred years for something is taking a shortcut, I'd hate to see the long way in your book.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I am sure that you aren't actually asking a question, but I'll answer anyway. Put rather simply, Patrick needs to do his job. If OC is already DOA, then he and the entire Texas GOP that let it happen need to find work elsewhere. It is an embarrassment that Texas lacks OC of any type for any reason. Furthermore, it is astounding at the apparent lack of resolution that the Texas GOP has regarding 2a rights. It is part of our platform and I voted for them because of it. There are a lot of passionate people out there supporting this cause. It is unfortunate that Texas' elected leaders don't share that same passion. Mark this day Chas, if the Texas GOP doesn't start embracing their party values now, you, the GOP and all conservative Texans will find ourselves marginalized and forgotten once this state goes blue. You see, right or wrong, democrats stand by their values even if it means getting in your face over it. It rallies their base. Ex. You didn't see the democrats tuck tail and run when a bunch of women descended on Austin and shut down government to protest their right to kill babies. So the moral of this story is the Texas GOP had better wake up now and get to work passing legislation that matters. And I'll give you one more news flash...this matters!

You said you were going to answer the question, but you didn't. How is Patrick supposed to bring a bill to the floor of the Senate if it does not clear a committee? Hint: He cannot!

Not having open-carry is hardly an embarrassment. What is embarrassing is that a handgun of people act like being able to let everyone see you are armed is the most important issue facing Texas gun owners and the Texas Legislature. Texas has very liberal gun laws and that's because the NRA and TSRA have used their expertise to improve them over many years. There are no shortcuts.

Chas.

I did answer, you just don't want to recognize that I did. Your decision to not recognize fact is puzzling so I'll repeat.

I guess you think you're cute with this comment. No, you didn't answer and your latest attempt shows your lack of knowledge of how the Texas Senate works.

By doing his job. He is suppose to be the second and some would say first most powerful man in Texas. Act like it! He did on the 2/3rds rule, what happened with open carry. He has the authority and discretion in following Senate procedural rules. He can set up standing or special committees and appoint committee chairpersons and individual members.

Let's try again. Are you saying Dan Patrick can bring a bill to the floor of the Senate without a committee voting it out favorably? That's a yes or no question.

I can also give you five reasons why it is fact that Texas not having open carry is an embarrassment: California, Texas, Florida, New York and Illinois. Further more you never asked me why I prefer OC. Broad brush statements like "What is embarrassing is that a handgun of people act like being able to let everyone see you are armed is the most important issue facing Texas gun owners and the Texas Legislature" only serve to hurt our cause and show ignorance of the subject. Honestly, I feel if you listened more and criticized less those that have a slightly different view than you, you might just see our cause advance rather than tread water. BTW, if waiting for over one hundred years for something is taking a shortcut, I'd hate to see the long way in your book.

Your true colors are showing once again. Trying to compare Texas gun laws to California, Florida, New York and Illinois based solely on the open-carry issue speaks volumes.

I was responding to your absurd statement that the lack of open-carry was an embarrassment to Texas, so I don't care why you support open-carry. If you state your position without the hyperbole then people are far more willing to listen even when they don't agree. Unfortunately, you just can't discuss the issue rationally, as evidenced by more hyperbole such as "if waiting for over one hundred years for something is taking a shortcut, . . ." Show me where I said that.

I invite you to post with a bit more civility and fewer condescending comments. I'd be happy to exchange barbs with you, but neither of us are going to violate Forum rules or the spirit of those rules.

Chas.

[ScooterSissy]

... How is Patrick supposed to bring a bill to the floor of the Senate if it does not clear a committee? Hint: He cannot!
...

Maybe the mistake of many of us was not questioning him further when he ran. Instead of accepting that he would fight for OC as Lt Gov, maybe we should have been asking him exactly how he was going to do that.

[mojo84]

... How is Patrick supposed to bring a bill to the floor of the Senate if it does not clear a committee? Hint: He cannot!
...

Maybe the mistake of many of us was not questioning him further when he ran. Instead of accepting that he would fight for OC as Lt Gov, maybe we should have been asking him exactly how he was going to do that.

It's the representatives job to write, sponsor, promote and get bills passed. What do you want Patrick to do specifically?

[RoyGBiv]

being able to let everyone see you are armed

This is certainly not why I would like to see OC passed. Not anywhere on my list of reasons.
Although I would agree that this is a motivation for some.

[Charles L. Cotton]

being able to let everyone see you are armed

This is certainly not why I would like to see OC passed. Not anywhere on my list of reasons.
Although I would agree that this is a motivation for some.

I was responding to rogersinsel's absurd statement that the lack of open-carry is an embarrassment to Texas, not suggesting that all open-carry supporters simply want to show their guns.

Chas.

[XinTX]

I don't think it's an embarrassment or anything. I just believe people should have the right to make their own choice, not have government make it for them. And I can only think of one instance in which I might consider OC for myself. Specifically, in the aftermath of a hurricane. Having lived through that, OC can be an effective deterrent to looters. But I believe people should be able to decide for themselves. Though I do believe they have the responsibility to do so in a responsible and rational manner. What's that saying, a gentleman is someone who knows how to play the banjo, but has the good taste not to.

[ScooterSissy]

... How is Patrick supposed to bring a bill to the floor of the Senate if it does not clear a committee? Hint: He cannot!
...

Maybe the mistake of many of us was not questioning him further when he ran. Instead of accepting that he would fight for OC as Lt Gov, maybe we should have been asking him exactly how he was going to do that.

It's the representatives job to write, sponsor, promote and get bills passed. What do you want Patrick to do specifically?

That's why I said that maybe "we" (figuratively speaking) should have asked what specifically he planned on doing when he made OC part of his campaign. Apparently, he's now saying he can't do much, which is disappointing whether it's true or not, since he did make it part of his campaign.

[mojo84]

... How is Patrick supposed to bring a bill to the floor of the Senate if it does not clear a committee? Hint: He cannot!
...

Maybe the mistake of many of us was not questioning him further when he ran. Instead of accepting that he would fight for OC as Lt Gov, maybe we should have been asking him exactly how he was going to do that.

It's the representatives job to write, sponsor, promote and get bills passed. What do you want Patrick to do specifically?

That's why I said that maybe "we" (figuratively speaking) should have asked what specifically he planned on doing when he made OC part of his campaign. Apparently, he's now saying he can't do much, which is disappointing whether it's true or not, since he did make it part of his campaign.

Up to this point, I think he's done what he can and fulfilled his campaign promise. What more do you expect, specifically?

[ScooterSissy]

... How is Patrick supposed to bring a bill to the floor of the Senate if it does not clear a committee? Hint: He cannot!
...

Maybe the mistake of many of us was not questioning him further when he ran. Instead of accepting that he would fight for OC as Lt Gov, maybe we should have been asking him exactly how he was going to do that.

It's the representatives job to write, sponsor, promote and get bills passed. What do you want Patrick to do specifically?

That's why I said that maybe "we" (figuratively speaking) should have asked what specifically he planned on doing when he made OC part of his campaign. Apparently, he's now saying he can't do much, which is disappointing whether it's true or not, since he did make it part of his campaign.

Up to this point, I think he's done what he can and fulfilled his campaign promise. What more do you expect, specifically?

I guess I'm missing what he did to support it. Can you elaborate?

[mojo84]

... How is Patrick supposed to bring a bill to the floor of the Senate if it does not clear a committee? Hint: He cannot!
...

Maybe the mistake of many of us was not questioning him further when he ran. Instead of accepting that he would fight for OC as Lt Gov, maybe we should have been asking him exactly how he was going to do that.

It's the representatives job to write, sponsor, promote and get bills passed. What do you want Patrick to do specifically?

That's why I said that maybe "we" (figuratively speaking) should have asked what specifically he planned on doing when he made OC part of his campaign. Apparently, he's now saying he can't do much, which is disappointing whether it's true or not, since he did make it part of his campaign.

Up to this point, I think he's done what he can and fulfilled his campaign promise. What more do you expect, specifically?

I guess I'm missing what he did to support it. Can you elaborate?

Reduced what it takes to get a bill to a floor vote, made his chair appointments, indicated his support for open carry and reduced the number of democratic committee chairs. What more can he as Lt. Gov. do at this point.

He can't draft legislation and put it to a floor vote by himself. There is a process that has to be followed. Seems like some believe he has some authority to issue executive actions or such that will make OC a law. Do you guys expect him to pull an Obama?

viewtopic.php?f=133&t=75973" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[rogersinsel]

being able to let everyone see you are armed

This is certainly not why I would like to see OC passed. Not anywhere on my list of reasons.
Although I would agree that this is a motivation for some.

I was responding to rogersinsel's absurd statement that the lack of open-carry is an embarrassment to Texas, not suggesting that all open-carry supporters simply want to show their guns.

Chas.

Be careful here Charles Cotton. You're officially below the belt now. There is nothing absurd or factually inaccurate with anything I've said. Your choice to focus only on Patrick has seriously limited your position in this discussion. Is he in play here, certainly. Can he do it alone, No. Can he lead, Yes! Is he, I can't tell because one day OC is nearly dead and the next he's trying to walk back his comments. A lot like how you're trying to walk back your comment that open carry advocates just simply want to show off their guns. It was uninformed the first time and frankly your attempt to revise your intent furthers my point. We all want the same thing in that we cherish our 2a rights and want them expanded. This thread is Re: General 2015 Legislative Session Discussion, yet your focus is on one man. Mine is on the entire process. You are right in that Patrick cannot force a bill out of committee but that's not the point. If you actually pay attention to what he is saying and clue in on things like "votes aren't there" "political will" "larger agenda" or "there are more important 2a" then you can glean what he is really saying. He is saying that he likes OC, wishes it would pass, but won't because it would burn too much political capital or that it is too difficult to pass and is going to ensure it doesn't because he's not going to help it. You ask, why Roger do you feel that way? How do you know? Well it is actually really simple Mr. Cotton. As a kid there was a phrase often used to describe those who either tried to hide their appearance or fake it. It was " if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a duck!" Patrick ran on the GOP ticket and OC. The fact that he said one afternoon OC is nearly dead and then the next he is quoted as saying soemthing entirely different starts to make him look like a duck. Perhaps you should call him up and remind him that he cannot tell the senate to now focus and vote on an Open Carry bill because after all as you have already said " he can't".

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texa ... 046739.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ScooterSissy]

... How is Patrick supposed to bring a bill to the floor of the Senate if it does not clear a committee? Hint: He cannot!
...

Maybe the mistake of many of us was not questioning him further when he ran. Instead of accepting that he would fight for OC as Lt Gov, maybe we should have been asking him exactly how he was going to do that.

It's the representatives job to write, sponsor, promote and get bills passed. What do you want Patrick to do specifically?

That's why I said that maybe "we" (figuratively speaking) should have asked what specifically he planned on doing when he made OC part of his campaign. Apparently, he's now saying he can't do much, which is disappointing whether it's true or not, since he did make it part of his campaign.

Up to this point, I think he's done what he can and fulfilled his campaign promise. What more do you expect, specifically?

I guess I'm missing what he did to support it. Can you elaborate?

Reduced what it takes to get a bill to a floor vote, made his chair appointments, indicated his support for open carry and reduced the number of democratic committee chairs. What more can he as Lt. Gov. do at this point.

He can't draft legislation and put it to a floor vote by himself. There is a process that has to be followed. Seems like some believe he has some authority to issue executive actions or such that will make OC a law. Do you guys expect him to pull an Obama?

viewtopic.php?f=133&t=75973" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I suspect we're going to have to disagree, but here are my counters:

If "the votes aren't there", then reducing the number of of votes needed to bring it to a floor vote (with that number "apparently" still being too high) did nothing to advocate.
If the chair appointments he made aren't doing it, then did he make the right chair appointments?
Indicating "support" for a position that a politician believes won't be voted on is an old trick. It's been done for years now.

I suspect that there is plenty of "back room pressure" that can be applied by the most powerful position in Texas politics. Maybe he's doing that, and it ain't working. I don't know.

But, I don't buy the argument that "there's nothing he can do" when it's placed alongside of "he promised to do something". If the former is true, then he should have never done the latter.

[Charles L. Cotton]

being able to let everyone see you are armed

This is certainly not why I would like to see OC passed. Not anywhere on my list of reasons.
Although I would agree that this is a motivation for some.

I was responding to rogersinsel's absurd statement that the lack of open-carry is an embarrassment to Texas, not suggesting that all open-carry supporters simply want to show their guns.

Chas.

Your choice to focus only on Patrick has seriously limited your position in this discussion.

You need to go back to your 3rd preceding post before you make yet another groundless statement. I was discussing something with another Member, XinTX, and responded to his statement about Dan Patrick. You decided to stick your nose into the discussion and started ranting about how Patrick "needs to do his job." XinTx and I were talking about Patrick, you joined the discussion, now you claim that I'm trying to limit the focus to Patrick.

A lot like how you're trying to walk back your comment that open carry advocates just simply want to show off their guns. It was uninformed the first time and frankly your attempt to revise your intent furthers my point.

I am not backing off my statement about why some open-carry supporters want open-carry. The vast majority of open-carry supporters support the issue in a calm and statesmanlike manner, but a minority do not. Those who believe that the only bill that matters in 2015 is an open-carry bill to the exclusion of all others tend to fall in the latter category. So too with people who feel compelled to grossly exaggerate their positions as in claiming that the lack of open-carry is an "embarrassment" to Texas. Overstating the benefit of legislation or the ramifications for not passing it marginalize the person making those groundless statements as well as the issue they claim to support.

This thread is Re: General 2015 Legislative Session Discussion, yet your focus is on one man. Mine is on the entire process.

Again, you jumped into a narrow discussion about Dan Patrick and try to claim that all I want to do is focus "on one man." Read my posts and articles and you'll find taht nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, I'm trying to get open-carry zealots to realize that there are far more issues facing gun owners this session than merely open-carry, many of which have much greater impact on Texas gun owners.

You are right in that Patrick cannot force a bill out of committee but that's not the point.

At least you finally answered the question you have been trying so desperately to dodge; Dan Patrick cannot bring a bill to the Senate floor unless it clears committee.

You ask, why Roger do you feel that way? How do you know?

No Roger, I really didn't ask.

Perhaps you should call him up and remind him that he cannot tell the senate to now focus and vote on an Open Carry bill because after all as you have already said " he can't".

I think I'm beginning to see the problem. You are simply incapable of discussing an issue in a respectful manner without being condescending. Make your next insult the best you can do, because it will be your last.


Chas.

[mojo84]

... How is Patrick supposed to bring a bill to the floor of the Senate if it does not clear a committee? Hint: He cannot!
...

Maybe the mistake of many of us was not questioning him further when he ran. Instead of accepting that he would fight for OC as Lt Gov, maybe we should have been asking him exactly how he was going to do that.

It's the representatives job to write, sponsor, promote and get bills passed. What do you want Patrick to do specifically?

That's why I said that maybe "we" (figuratively speaking) should have asked what specifically he planned on doing when he made OC part of his campaign. Apparently, he's now saying he can't do much, which is disappointing whether it's true or not, since he did make it part of his campaign.

Up to this point, I think he's done what he can and fulfilled his campaign promise. What more do you expect, specifically?

I guess I'm missing what he did to support it. Can you elaborate?

Reduced what it takes to get a bill to a floor vote, made his chair appointments, indicated his support for open carry and reduced the number of democratic committee chairs. What more can he as Lt. Gov. do at this point.

He can't draft legislation and put it to a floor vote by himself. There is a process that has to be followed. Seems like some believe he has some authority to issue executive actions or such that will make OC a law. Do you guys expect him to pull an Obama?

viewtopic.php?f=133&t=75973" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I suspect we're going to have to disagree, but here are my counters:

If "the votes aren't there", then reducing the number of of votes needed to bring it to a floor vote (with that number "apparently" still being too high) did nothing to advocate.
If the chair appointments he made aren't doing it, then did he make the right chair appointments?
Indicating "support" for a position that a politician believes won't be voted on is an old trick. It's been done for years now.

I suspect that there is plenty of "back room pressure" that can be applied by the most powerful position in Texas politics. Maybe he's doing that, and it ain't working. I don't know.

But, I don't buy the argument that "there's nothing he can do" when it's placed alongside of "he promised to do something". If the former is true, then he should have never done the latter.

Keep in mind, there many other agendas and issues, many of which are very progressivelly passed also. Do we want it easier for those to get passed. The rules apply to those issues we like and to those we don't like. We all must try not to be so myopic.

The chair appointees haven't had a chance to do anything yet. How closely are you watching what is actually happening?