TexasCHLforum.com

Didn't see this already posted anywhere, I apologize if I'm doubling up

on today's Republican Primary ballot was the iniative on the 2nd Amendment:

SECOND AMENDMENT

Texas should support Second Amendment liberties by expanding locations where concealed handgun license-holders may legally carry. YES / NO

I'm curious as to what they are trying to accomplish with this other than a measure of what voter's temperature is on the topic? And what other locations are they referring to?

There were 6 propositions on the ballot. They all got my "Yes" vote:

1. Texans should be free to express their religious beliefs, including prayer, in public places.
YES or NO

2. Texas should support Second Amendment liberties by expanding locations where concealed handgun license-holders may legally carry.
YES or NO

3. Texas should abolish the state franchise tax, also known as the margins tax, to encourage business growth.
YES or NO

4. Texas recipients of taxpayer-funded public assistance should be subject to random drug testing as a condition of receiving benefits.
YES or NO

5. All elected officials and their staff should be subject to the same laws, rules, regulations, and ordinances as their constituents.
YES or NO

6. The Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare,” should be repealed.
YES or NO

agree, but what purpose are they serving other than some kind of measurement of voter sentiment?

That's my take on it. What better way for the party to figure out where the voter's sentiments lie?

I wound up voting yes on all them also.

I voted no on the random drug testing. You should not have to be subject to drug testing absent probably cause or consent whether or not you take government money. You don't lose your rights just because you go on the dole.

Voted yes on all of them.

Don't forget you'll have a precinct convention tonight (probably at 7:30 wherever your polling place was).

This is the ONLY place that new items can be added to the state Party platform. Proposals must be printed out (bring 3 copies) and voted on at the precinct level first. The ones that passed will go to district to be consolidated and voted on, etc. - this continues all the way to the state convention.

stroo wrote:I voted no on the random drug testing. You should not have to be subject to drug testing absent probably cause or consent whether or not you take government money. You don't lose your rights just because you go on the dole.

I disagree completely. If they're taking taxpayer money (MINE!) for food stamps, for instance, I want the money used for it's intended purpose. I don't want them buying T-bone steaks that they turn around and sell for 1/2 price so they can go get their next fix.

If you don't like the rules, don't go "on the dole."

stroo wrote:I voted no on the random drug testing. You should not have to be subject to drug testing absent probably cause or consent whether or not you take government money. You don't lose your rights just because you go on the dole.

I had to take one to get a job. Maybe the people getting assistance should have to work for the state in order to get their assistance instead of taking a drug test.

cwade wrote:SECOND AMENDMENT

Texas should support Second Amendment liberties by expanding locations where concealed handgun license-holders may legally carry. YES / NO

I'm curious as to what they are trying to accomplish with this other than a measure of what voter's temperature is on the topic? And what other locations are they referring to?

The purpose is as you say, i.e. judge support within the Republican base. The outcome is pretty much known, but the percentage of support will be interesting

Chas.

Very interested to know what comes of it as well.

I voted yes to all too, and if you are getting free money then you better be able to pass a drug test. If you can afford drugs, you can afford your own food. I don't need my tax dollars spent giving it to you. A drug test can been done with a simple mouth meter and takes all of five minutes to test a wide range of things. It does not hinder anyone's access to needed services.

stroo wrote:I voted no on the random drug testing. You should not have to be subject to drug testing absent probably cause or consent whether or not you take government money. You don't lose your rights just because you go on the dole.

Last I checked welfare was not a right in any sense. Look at it this way your selling your urine like others sell plasma.

fickman wrote:Don't forget you'll have a precinct convention tonight (probably at 7:30 wherever your polling place was).

This is the ONLY place that new items can be added to the state Party platform. Proposals must be printed out (bring 3 copies) and voted on at the precinct level first. The ones that passed will go to district to be consolidated and voted on, etc. - this continues all the way to the state convention.

Mine is at an elementary school. I'm already feeling disgruntled from having traded in my right to bear arms for my right to vote earlier today. Come to think of it, does the location even matter, or is it considered a government meeting or part of the election process so you can't carry anyway?

stroo wrote:I voted no on the random drug testing. You should not have to be subject to drug testing absent probably cause or consent whether or not you take government money. You don't lose your rights just because you go on the dole.

As a condition of continued employment, I am subject to the same per FAA/DOT regulations. It's not too great a burden.

cwade wrote:agree, but what purpose are they serving other than some kind of measurement of voter sentiment?

I wondered the same thing. Back in California (from whence I fled), the ballot initiative becomes law if passed. . . . . .at least until liberals overturn it in the courts.