OK passes open carry & TSRA planning for Texas '11 session

[frazzled]

Those of us that have Reps that are generally pro gun need to be talked to also, They could have got some of the legislation through if they had used some statesmanship and political savy.

This is true. My senator (Wentworth) authored the Campus Cary bill, and my rep (Kuempel) was one of the co-sponsors of the Parking Lot bill. While they did everything they could (on those bills) to get them passed, I need to go back and see what they did on the other legislation (esp. Voter ID) to see if their work on those bills helped or hindered in other places.

Now, posing a somewhat rhetorical question to tacticool and frazzled: Should I vote these two guys out because the two bills didn't pass? From all accounts, they were in the thick of it (until Kuempel had his heart attack in the elevator, anyway) and did everything they could to get the bills out of the stupid calendar committee. I burned up their phone lines (as did thousands of others), and they knew what kind of pressure they were feeling from constituents.

Yes, vote FOR change, but vote in an informed and (shall I say) 'tactical' way that helps advance us forward from the last session. Let's not lose ground that has to be made up again.

That's why I'm a little conflicted about Sens. Lincoln (AR) and Specter (PA) today - if they lose their primaries, great! BUT, then there is no anchor point for deep anti-incumbent voter turnout in the general election this fall in those races, it will be back to the regular R vs. D, instead of "get THIS bum out".

Why would you vote them out because the bills didn't pass? Unless you are a one issue voter-which I can respect- you vote for the best candidate.
I have a bias against incumbents as these positions were never meant to be long term appointments, but its not the only factor.

[LarryH]

Why would you vote them out because the bills didn't pass? Unless you are a one issue voter-which I can respect- you vote for the best candidate.
I have a bias against incumbents as these positions were never meant to be long term appointments, but its not the only factor.

I believe that was his point. He was merely trying to determine the parameters of your previous statement.

[UpTheIrons]

Why would you vote them out because the bills didn't pass? Unless you are a one issue voter-which I can respect- you vote for the best candidate.
I have a bias against incumbents as these positions were never meant to be long term appointments, but its not the only factor.

I believe that was his point. He was merely trying to determine the parameters of your previous statement.

Yes. I was trying to see how far you wanted to go/where you wanted to go, and I based most of what I said on this exchange:

I don't understand how Oklahoma was able to get the parking lot bill passed and yet Texas has failed repeatedly to get this done.

Maybe the Oklahoma legislature didn't waste the first couple weeks of their session wishing their biggest donors an official Texas happy birthday.

Maybe the Oklahoma legislature is more competent or more ethical than the Texas legislature.

No maybe about it. I'm voting anti-incumbent based on the last session.

You can only get change if you vote FOR change.

If I misunderstood you, or unfairly portrayed you as a one-issue voter, then I apologize profusely.

I don't like "lifetime legislators" either, but sometimes it works in 'our' favor to have some people in office a little longer than others - still, it is a double-edged sword. They're just as likely to turn on us as a coyote on a lab puppy.

[SA-TX]

I'll have to prepare a more detailed reply to the questions you raise than I have time to do now. I'm heading to Charlotte tomorrow for NRA committee meetings, the Annual Meeting and a lot of other events. I promise I'll try to get to it sometime this week, but that may be impossible.

The bottom line is this; as Scalia stated, carrying a handgun was not an issue in Heller. I agree with you that there is good reason to believe that the Supreme Court will allow states to regulate the carrying of handguns. However, I don't think the Court will allow the absolute prohibition of carrying a handgun in view of its clear recognition of the right of self-defense. (This is the first S/Ct. opinion doing so and this is every bit as important as the Second Amendment portion of the opinion.) Also, I don't think Scalia's comments about concealed carry indicates a distinction between OC and CC. CC laws are now in 48 of the 50 states so it is natural that his dicta on "carrying" would be focused on CC. Further, I don't know if there are any states that issue a license solely for OC, but I may be wrong. If such laws exist, they are so few in number that they would not readily come to mind when Scalia was talking about carry laws. If this had been an issue briefed in the case, then a distinction between OC and CC would most definitely be significant.

I do not think there is a rational basis, and certainly no S/Ct. decisions, to argue that OC is a constitutionally protected right, but CC is not. Rather, I think the S/Ct. will allow states to decide for themselves whether either OC or CC will require a license. Some states may allow OC without a license and require one for CC under the guise that not being able to see if someone is armed somehow raises the threat level. While I disagree with that premise, I think the Court would find it rational and constitutional.

Chas.

Charles, have you had a chance to do any further research on 1) what was said in Heller particularly as it applies to McDonald and the arguments made? Given that a decision will be issued shortly, I'm sure the TSRA has contingency plans no matter how it is decided.

Thanks, SA-TX

[baldeagle]

There are some interesting things in Heller (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... vol=07-290" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) that have been little discussed, AFAIK.

Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

This part of the ruling does not preclude governments from requiring that even handguns kept exclusively in the home for the purpose of self defense be licensed. It also does not preclude governments from requiring that homeowners wishing to own handguns purely for self defense within the home obtain a license, which could require training as well as a financial cost (meaning a tax because all government fees are taxes) purely for keeping a handgun within the home for self defense.

Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

This part of the ruling leaves a dangerous hole through which anti-gun types could legislate further restrictions. The "in common use at the time" phraseology requires that all patriots continue to maintain the weapons of their choice in common use, lest they be found to not be in common use and therefore available for banning from any use. Particularly those weapons that are often called "assault weapons" are still at risk with this ruling. They merely have to be determined to be "dangerous and unusual" to be banned completely.

[sjfcontrol]

Ignoring "unusual" for the moment, what kind of folly is banning "dangerous" weapons? Of what use is a weapon that isn't dangerous? In fact, if it isn't dangerous, it isn't a weapon at all.

As for "unusual", all new weapons would be unusual, as they wouldn't be in popular use (yet), and would never become popular if they were banned. And current weapons would become unusual as they became outdated and fell out of popular use. With nothing new coming in, and older weapons becoming banned as they fell out of use, eventually the "pool" of available weapons would be totally depleted.

[C-dub]

It looks like the whole voter ID will be up for debate again. Governor Perry brought it up at the Texas Republican Convention. I hope they get the parking lot and campus carry bills out of the way first.

And, the reason the OK Gov. cited for vetoing the OC bill is ridiculous. How do the police tell the GG from the BG now? I'm just wondering, but could it be their actions?

[Charles L. Cotton]

And, the reason the OK Gov. cited for vetoing the OC bill is ridiculous. How do the police tell the GG from the BG now? I'm just wondering, but could it be their actions?

Yeah, that's mighty lame!

Chas.