TexasCHLforum.com

tacticool wrote:The bill is immoral. Any legislators who vote for it are voting against the people who elected them, and should lose their jobs.

I respectfully but strongly disagree. Even suggesting that a "yes" vote on this bill should cost pro-gun elected officials is truly cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Chas.

Since this thread seems to be gaining traction, I'll post this here instead of making a new thread.

There was another of these bills giving government officials special carry privileges filed today, HB 1530. This one exempts members of the commisioners court from the §46.035(c) prohibition on carrying at meeting of government entities. Side note: I'm not familiar with local Texas governmental structure having not grown up here--commissioners court wouldn't qualify as "the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court" per §46.03?

This makes 3 bills exempting government officials from different sections of the Texas carry laws (the third being HB 698, exempting school board members and school administrators attending school board meetings). I really don't like this trend, and I'm wondering why it is happening this year--I've been following CHL bills for the last couple of legislative sessions and don't remember these kind of bills being filed before, and a quick glance over the CHL bills for the 79th and 80th legislative sessions doesn't reveal any.

Keith B wrote:While I understand the feeling that we should have the same rights as those in elected offices, we all know that sometimes folks in these positions like to feel special. And, in some aspects they do face a little more of a risk than most CHL' Even suggesting that a "yes" vote on this bill should cost pro-gun elected officials is truly cutting off your nosers since they are in the public limelight and may be targeted for an unpopular decision.

I don't believe these folks are exposed to any more danger than a young nurse who works shifts at an inner city hospital or a store clerk at a convienience store. Unless their name happens to be Kennedy, being a politician is not a high risk occupation. Making a normal living is considerably more dangerous,

The underlying logic of these bills is need-based exemptions to restrictions. I told Kleinschmidt's staff that based on that logic, my wife should also be allowed to carry in areas normally restricted to CHL holders.

Why? Well, I'm a healthy adult male, 6', 180#, and have a 3rd degree black belt. But my wife is 4'10", 105#, petite/attractive/Asian. Surely she's both more of a target, and more vulnerable? So she should also be allowed to carry in all the areas where they feel that elected officials should also get an exemption - and where my own need for self-defense is deemed to be less important than some nebulous, perceived public good.

hirundo82 wrote:Since this thread seems to be gaining traction, I'll post this here instead of making a new thread.

There was another of these bills giving government officials special carry privileges filed today, HB 1530. This one exempts members of the commisioners court from the §46.035(c) prohibition on carrying at meeting of government entities. Side note: I'm not familiar with local Texas governmental structure having not grown up here--commissioners court wouldn't qualify as "the premises of any government court or offices utilized by the court" per §46.03?

This makes 3 bills exempting government officials from different sections of the Texas carry laws (the third being HB 598, exempting school board members and school administrators attending school board meetings). I really don't like this trend, and I'm wondering why it is happening this year--I've been following CHL bills for the last couple of legislative sessions and don't remember these kind of bills being filed before, and a quick glance over the CHL bills for the 79th and 80th legislative sessions doesn't reveal any.

Just a small correction.
The offending bill regarding the carrying of handguns by school board members and administrators at school board meetings is actually HB698. Your link was to the correct bill but the text of the post refers to HB598.

Thank you for bringing this important info to our attention.

Does anyone remember the 7th Commandment in the book Animal Farm?



P.S. Isn't this bill constitutional?

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

How does denying citizens the same rights as officials "prevent crime" anyhow?

CWOOD wrote:Just a small correction.
The offending bill regarding the carrying of handguns by school board members and administrators at school board meetings is actually HB698. Your link was to the correct bill but the text of the post refers to HB598.

Thanks for the heads-up; I fixed the bill number in my post.

WildBill wrote:I may be changing my mind about this. Maybe if all of the elected officials start carry guns they may not think it's such bad idea for the "little people". That was some of the rational for LEOSA.

And what, if any, ground have we gained from LEOSA?

KD5NRH wrote:

WildBill wrote:I may be changing my mind about this. Maybe if all of the elected officials start carry guns they may not think it's such bad idea for the "little people". That was some of the rational for LEOSA.

And what, if any, ground have we gained from LEOSA?

Nothing if you're one of the the "little people" who pay the bills for the government, but have less rights than the "public servants" who think they're the public's masters. That's why the LEOSA note in the bio for Roy Innis doesn't do much to motivate me to vote for him. Quite the opposite.

KD5NRH wrote:

WildBill wrote:I may be changing my mind about this. Maybe if all of the elected officials start carry guns they may not think it's such bad idea for the "little people". That was some of the rational for LEOSA.

And what, if any, ground have we gained from LEOSA?

Nothing directly, but we are using it to help gain support of national reciprocity as a stand alone bill. LEOSA applies to former LEOs as well as active ones and there have been no problems with non-COPS carrying. We then tie this to the excellent track record of CHLs (especially Texas since we have the documentation).

NRA's support of LEOSA also gained a lot (a whole lot) of goodwill from the law enforcement community and as a result, they have supported many NRA initiatives all over the country. Politics doesn't stop at the doors of the capitol.

Chas.

KD5NRH wrote:

WildBill wrote:I may be changing my mind about this. Maybe if all of the elected officials start carry guns they may not think it's such bad idea for the "little people". That was some of the rational for LEOSA.

And what, if any, ground have we gained from LEOSA?

There are two areas where you will see some improvement from LEOSA, in my opinion. The first is the most important, and that is the number of individual cops who will now support CHLs. Some did before, obviously, but there are some who took their word seriously and are now working to promote CHLs because of the support the gun community gave them. My big complaint with this is the large organizations like FOP or IACP (not sure of their positions but listed them as examples) are going back on their word and not supporting CHL laws. I will point out that the IACP is still not supporting LEOSA as it should either, so I am not surprised at their claims against CHLs.

The second is that LEOSA is slowly getting widened. This can only help overall. For example, in October they modified LEOSA to remove the requirement for a pension and lowered the time in service requirement to 10 years. As this group proves it is not a harm, I expect to see it lowered even further. Each time it is lowered, it will add to the pool of people carrying guns. This can only help the issue of CHLs. It could even be expanded to interstate CHL (which may be a bad thing, I still oppose LEOSA because of its tenuous claim to interstate commerce).

Having said all that, I will agree that I generally see the laws carving out special exceptions for politicians as a bad thing. My only argument would be to use it to our advantage. I would make sure that the legislators know we do not like their special exceptions and that if it is passed and an expansion to the general CHL populace is not passed by the end of the next legislative session, there will be repercussions. This may give them too much time - an extra election for the representatives is in the way - but it really is the best tactic, IMHO.

Just placed a follow up call to Brandy, a legislative aide w. Kleinschmidt's office. She did pass along my (our?) objections to HB1463 to him. She said he disagrees that it's elitist and I get the impression he has his heels dug against about the idea of changing the bill to apply to all CHL holders. Bah.

I've sent emails to all members of the homeland security committee expressing support for HB750 (campus carry) and objecting to HB 698 (special exemptions for school board members allowing them, and only them, to carry at school board meetings). I'll be doing the same if/when HB1463 goes to committee...

I'm coming late to this thread.

I don't think any politician is any more important than I am, but I do recognize that they are a higher priority target than I am. It may be elitist, but I also thought that if it passes we can use it as leverage to push for those same exemptions for all CHLs in the future.

C-dub wrote:I don't think any politician is any more important than I am, but I do recognize that they are a higher priority target than I am.

If they're so concerned about their own safety they can hire a off-duty LEOs on their own dime to provide protection.

Allowing themselves to carry places the rest of us can't, without requiring any more training, sends the message that those places aren't off limits because it would be dangerous to have CHLs carry there, but rather that we don't deserve to be able to protect ourselves in those places.

I don't like it, but I'm ready to make lemonade, like Charles, if it passes.