Charles Cotton did great at SB378 hearing

CWOOD · #1

After everyone else had spoken on and on and on (often saying very little) the committee decided to limit testimony to 5 Minutes. Unfortunately, Charles was the only remaining person to testify!

I was watching a video archive from the meeting as I couldn't make it in person. You should all try to watch it. Charles really packed a lot of good facts into five minutes.

Thank goodness, his and other testimony and a good bill caused it to be referred to the full senate with a favorable recommendation.

I really look forward to reading his comments when he gets home and has has a chance to rest up from what was, no doubt, a long day.

PERSONAL NOTE:

As a side note, I want to thank everyone for the gracious comments and encouragement in the last couple of days. These are my first comments on this forum and I am very appreciative of your hospitality.

I promise not to be so long winded in the future.

Thanks again.

Mithras61 · #2

I had a chance to catch part of this live. I was surprised by the amount of misdirection, misinformation and flat-out lying that took place about the bill on the part of those opposed to it.

I was deeply impressed with Charles' testimony and his demeanor in front of the committee. He never called anyone a liar, even though there were a few that quite clearly were lying. He merely pointed out that their "information" was wrong and that under the bill shootings in self-defense would still have limits and that the presumptions the bill would codify into law could still be challenged (and even that HOW to challenge them was built into the proposed law!).

I think the most frightening of those testifying against the bill was the attorney from East Texas(I believe he said it was the Palestine area). He kept going on about how they all loved their guns and could "just blow someone away" if the need arose with no fear of criminal prosecution. It made me think that this law will need some serious explaining to some of the knotheads that carry firearms in this state, 'cause he really seemed to think it was a "shoot first & figure out if you shoulda shot later" law.

After the testimony, the committee voted, and I got the impression that if anyone had been undecided, that Charles' testimony helped sway them to our side.

Thank you, Charles, for going to this hearing and presenting our side so clearly. I truly wish you could have had a fair slice of time to present your testimony as prepared. It would have been nice of them to give you as much time as those testifying against it got.

MrDrummy · #3

CWOOD,

Thanks for all the updates, and PLEASE don't worry about being long-winded! For those of us who live too far away to make a trip, it sure is nice to have someone in there giving us the play-by-play! Welcome to the board.

hi-power · #4

CWOOD,

I'll second that - please don't worry about being long-winded. I look forward to your posts since here at work my firewall won't let me view any of the video streams - whether live or archived.

Your is the only information I get from the committees. Keep up the good work!

BigGlockFan · #5

CWOOD great info I'm glad you posted it, it really helps us stay in the loop!

SC1903A3 · #6

I'm watching the Senate video now. I'll post the link later and the times the senate committee starts debating the bill and when Charles speaks in order to scroll thru the verbal dreck.
I'm back, here's the link.
http://www.senate.state.tx.us/avarchive ... m=00003081

Scroll forward 19 minutes 11 seconds (how appropriate is that

) for the start of SB 378 debate. To skip forward to Charles' presentation scroll forward to 1 hour 41 seconds. To quote my children Charles "pwned" the people against the bill. Charles I salute you

jrosto · #7

Did the Senate Committee change the wording like the House committee did?

CWOOD · #8

jrosto wrote:Did the Senate Committee change the wording like the House committee did?

Yes. My new Senator, Kirk Watson, added a very good ammendment to the Committee Substitute which would eliminate the 'presumption of reasonableness' if a person were in a place he did not have a right to be or if he were engaged in criminal activity (other than Class C traffic violations) at the time of the incident, or if he provoked the initial assault.

The purpose of this change was to address the concerns that a real 'Bad Guy' might offer the presumption as a means to defend against prosecution. As an example, a dope dealer selling out of his car who gets hijacked or a thug in a bar with a firearm (a felony) who shoots another thug in the bar. A DWI/DUID violator could not use this defense.

They still would start with the presumption of innocence (properly so) but they could not use the presumptions of this bill, as its purpose is to protect truly law abiding folks who were met with a forcible threat through no fault of their own.

I was impressed with Sen. Watson's grasp of the situation and his well-thought-out ammendment. He is a former Mayor of Austin, and he gave me a very pleasant suprise.

I have not yet been able to find the exact wording of the Committee Substitutes of either bill at this point.

Will938 · #9

Very well articulated argument. I've gotta admit I was gritting my teeth at some of the pro-speakers I saw, but if you had to go I'm glad it was the last impression they had.

MrDrummy · #10

Charles, great job.

I really would have enjoyed listening to the rest of your presentation, as I found it to be one of the most informative, and most convincing that I've seen yet, regardless of my (obvious) pro-bill stance.

Lumberjack98 · #11

This is great stuff! Thanks for posting updates and links. It makes it very easy for me to go and watch.

#12

Thanks folks, I appreciate the kind words. I'm playing catch-up at the office, so I'll try to get a summary posted sometime this weekend.

Chas.

40FIVER · #13

SC1903A3 wrote:I'm watching the Senate video now. I'll post the link later and the times the senate committee starts debating the bill and when Charles speaks in order to scroll thru the verbal dreck.
I'm back, here's the link.
http://www.senate.state.tx.us/avarchive ... m=00003081

Scroll forward 19 minutes 11 seconds (how appropriate is that ) for the start of SB 378 debate. To skip forward to Charles' presentation scroll forward to 1 hour 41 seconds. To quote my children Charles "pwned" the people against the bill. Charles I salute you

When I click on the link, I get a popup box asking what program do I want to use to run this file? I'm a computer dummy, so what program do i need?

Thanks

Mithras61 · #14

40FIVER wrote:
SC1903A3 wrote:I'm watching the Senate video now. I'll post the link later and the times the senate committee starts debating the bill and when Charles speaks in order to scroll thru the verbal dreck.
I'm back, here's the link.
http://www.senate.state.tx.us/avarchive ... m=00003081

Scroll forward 19 minutes 11 seconds (how appropriate is that ) for the start of SB 378 debate. To skip forward to Charles' presentation scroll forward to 1 hour 41 seconds. To quote my children Charles "pwned" the people against the bill. Charles I salute you
When I click on the link, I get a popup box asking what program do I want to use to run this file? I'm a computer dummy, so what program do i need?

Thanks

This program requires RealPlayer. You can get it free by clicking this link http://forms.real.com/netzip/arcade.htm ... OLD_rs.exe. Save the file and run it locally on your system to install it. It will try to install several other components, like Yahopo! or Google toolbars & stuff, but you can uncheck everything but the Real Player and you'll be good to go. You'll probably have to reboot after installation. You should then be able to see the video.

tsteven1 · #15

Thank you CWOOD and Charles for relevant and important info. From wayyy out West.