TexasCHLforum.com

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.

If you want my money or that of others ( goverment has no money, only what we the people donate ) you should be subject to whatever rules the we require.

This is coming from a guy that the believes the drug war is a joke and Marijuana should be decriminalized.

I voted yes...

CHL carry location expansion.
http://www.kens5.com/news/election/resu ... tions&t=58" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

97% for religious expression.
http://www.kens5.com/news/election/resu ... ession&t=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MotherBear wrote:

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?

No carry in a polling place.

PC §46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):
(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution;
(2) on the premises of a polling place on the day of an election or while early voting is in progress;

Pawpaw wrote: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

I thought this one shouldn't be on there for a number of reasons:
1. I don't think the government needs to be involved in religion period.
2. We are all already free to pray, anywhere we choose and to whomever we choose...unless you think the only way to pray is to do so out loud, so everyone else can hear and admire you. I'd wager most of us over the age of 50, have all endured a few of those folks that want to make sure they get the most out of their opportunity to pray, at great length, to a captive audience over a PA system.
3. I understand what they are looking to achieve...the right to have public prayers at group events...primarily public schools, but we must be careful what we wish for. Most of the 97% voting yes are thinking, in their minds, of THEIR religion, but would be against it, if it meant they also had to stand and listen to other, "non Christian", religious prayers before every ball game or any other event. I'm fine with a "moment of silence" that one can use as they see fit.

talltex wrote:

Pawpaw wrote: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

I thought this one shouldn't be on there for a number of reasons:
1. I don't think the government needs to be involved in religion period.
2. We are all already free to pray, anywhere we choose and to whomever we choose...unless you think the only way to pray is to do so out loud, so everyone else can hear and admire you. I'd wager most of us over the age of 50, have all endured a few of those folks that want to make sure they get the most out of their opportunity to pray, at great length, to a captive audience over a PA system.
3. I understand what they are looking to achieve...the right to have public prayers at group events...primarily public schools, but we must be careful what we wish for. Most of the 97% voting yes are thinking, in their minds, of THEIR religion, but would be against it, if it meant they also had to stand and listen to other, "non Christian", religious prayers before every ball game or any other event. I'm fine with a "moment of silence" that one can use as they see fit.

Government has been deeply involved in religion since the enactment of separation of church and state. If anything an initiative like this is a means of getting government less involved in our religious lives.
What I believe is being sought here is equality. If you believe "non Christian" religions do not currently receive accommodations that are not afforded to Christians, you would be sadly mistaken. Are Christian children allowed to bring and freely display religious items to school? Are they allowed to leave class in order to pray? Are they provided a place prepared specifically for them meeting specific requirements for the performance of those prayers?
The answer to these questions would be no. However your school is required to provide these accommodations to other religions. If you want government out of religion you need to be very politically active in passing laws that do exactly that.

I am shocked at how easily so many of you would give up your 4th Amendment rights.

You realize the way this is worded it would not only apply to welfare recipients but to Social Security recipients, Medicaid recipients, students receiving financial aid, anyone receiving subsidies under Obamacare, and arguable anyone receiving aid of any kind from the government such as your children attending government schools, maybe even driving on government roads (oh by the way, that is almost all the roads).

That means virtually all of us would now be subject to random drug testing as this initiative was worded.

NO THANKS.

While I don't want my tax money to go to pay for illegal drugs for anyone either, this isn't the way to do that. This just is another eating away of our rights.

stroo wrote:I am shocked at how easily so many of you would give up your 4th Amendment rights.

You realize the way this is worded it would not only apply to welfare recipients but to Social Security recipients, Medicaid recipients, students receiving financial aid, anyone receiving subsidies under Obamacare, and arguable anyone receiving aid of any kind from the government such as your children attending government schools, maybe even driving on government roads (oh by the way, that is almost all the roads).

That means virtually all of us would now be subject to random drug testing as this initiative was worded.

NO THANKS.

While I don't want my tax money to go to pay for illegal drugs for anyone either, this isn't the way to do that. This just is another eating away of our rights.

This is an opinion question, not a bill to become law. All of the discussion of this issue was limited to welfare, not any of the other funding opportunities you mentioned. Anyone wanting to avoid working (not Social Security since recipients have already paid into the system) and live off taxpayers' money should be able to do so if they legitimately cannot work for some legitimate reason that is/was not self-imposed. Junkies don't fit that description.

Chas.

Pawpaw wrote:

MotherBear wrote:

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?

No carry in a polling place.

PC §46.03. PLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED. (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly possesses or goes with a firearm, illegal knife, club, or prohibited weapon listed in Section 46.05(a):
(1) on the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private, unless pursuant to written regulations or written authorization of the institution;
(2) on the premises of a polling place on the day of an election or while early voting is in progress;

Thanks -- I thought that might be the case.

Pawpaw wrote: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

When I read this I thought.... "Well, what exactly do they intend?"

<bunch of stuff deleted to comply with forum rules>

All the others were an easy yes...

Did I see correctly the most popular initiative was the one that said no special privileges or exceptions for legislators?

If they learn anything, let that be it. No more Animal Farm style equal rights!

Charles,

It didn't read as limited to welfare. Moreover, if they can take rights away from welfare recipients because they have accepted tax payer money, they can take rights away from anyone who receives any tax payer money, which in one form or another at some point in our lives includes most of us.

And while it clearly is not any kind of legislation it is still shocking to me that people on this board and in Texas for that matter are so willing to give up their rights.

It is just bad precedent.

Like I said I don't want welfare recipients to use that money to support illegal drug use either. But taking away rights on this basis is not the way to attack the problem.

stroo wrote:Charles,

It didn't read as limited to welfare. Moreover, if they can take rights away from welfare recipients because they have accepted tax payer money, they can take rights away from anyone who receives any tax payer money, which in one form or another at some point in our lives includes most of us.

And while it clearly is not any kind of legislation it is still shocking to me that people on this board and in Texas for that matter are so willing to give up their rights.

It is just bad precedent.

Like I said I don't want welfare recipients to use that money to support illegal drug use either. But taking away rights on this basis is not the way to attack the problem.

You're right, the opinion poll was not worded to apply only to welfare, but it's just that, an opinion poll. The underlying discussion was limited to welfare. There was a bill that failed last session that would have required drug testing for welfare recipients and it is that bill that prompted the question.

Chas.

stroo wrote:Charles,

It didn't read as limited to welfare. Moreover, if they can take rights away from welfare recipients because they have accepted tax payer money, they can take rights away from anyone who receives any tax payer money, which in one form or another at some point in our lives includes most of us.

And while it clearly is not any kind of legislation it is still shocking to me that people on this board and in Texas for that matter are so willing to give up their rights.

It is just bad precedent.

Like I said I don't want welfare recipients to use that money to support illegal drug use either. But taking away rights on this basis is not the way to attack the problem.

I guess I look at welfare differently than you. I do not see it as a "right." I see it as an act of compassion from a sympathetic citizenry and as such, welfare can and should be dependent on the recipient participating in reasonable fraud safeguards.

I've had to take a drug test for pretty much every job I've ever had...so people who get "free" money can live with that minor inconvenience too.

talltex wrote:

Pawpaw wrote: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

I thought this one shouldn't be on there for a number of reasons:
1. I don't think the government needs to be involved in religion period.
2. We are all already free to pray, anywhere we choose and to whomever we choose...unless you think the only way to pray is to do so out loud, so everyone else can hear and admire you. I'd wager most of us over the age of 50, have all endured a few of those folks that want to make sure they get the most out of their opportunity to pray, at great length, to a captive audience over a PA system.
3. I understand what they are looking to achieve...the right to have public prayers at group events...primarily public schools, but we must be careful what we wish for. Most of the 97% voting yes are thinking, in their minds, of THEIR religion, but would be against it, if it meant they also had to stand and listen to other, "non Christian", religious prayers before every ball game or any other event. I'm fine with a "moment of silence" that one can use as they see fit.

But, I don't suspect you'll find many on this forum that would agree with you.
You're a gutsy guy.