TexasCHLforum.com

I looked up the statistics for the 2009 regular session:

Signed: 1656
Unsigned: 12

So, it looks like he signed the vast majority of bills from the 2009 ssession. Since he's only signed 277 bills so far from this session, I'm guessing his pen is going to be pretty busy between now and Monday and I suspect there's still a good chance the parking lot bill will be among them. The vast majority of bills from this session are still unsigned, not just parking lots.

Brian

seeker_two wrote:Just curious....what anti-gun policies/laws did Paul support?

HR 5092 - Among other things, makes it harder to revoke an FFL for minor violations
HR 5827 - Allows a person filing bankruptcy to exempt a firearm valued under $3,000
HR 6842 - Partial repeal of the DC handgun ban

Hardly an exhaustive list, and it's only "yes" votes on pro-gun legislation. "No" votes on anti-gun laws would be equally important in determining actual status, as well as any explanatory statements. (After all, with the randomness of included bits in Federal laws, one can probably find a good reason to vote against a bill that proclaims the sky to be blue by looking for that clause that raises taxes to fund a transvestite luxury nudist colony.)

KD5NRH wrote:(....a transvestite luxury nudist colony.)

That's odd, the first thing that sprang into my mind on reading that was "Napalm." Go figure....

74novaman wrote:Don't know if I'm the only one that's noticed it this week, but the paulbots seem to be out in force after the debate.

Isolationism isn't a foreign policy, it is a lack of one.

Whats that got to do with Ron Paul?

I have lots of things I don't agree with Paul about, but he's not isolationist. The INTERVENTIONIST people keep Americans more isolated. It's harder to travel around the world and have free trade now than if we weren't making enemies by our foreign policy. Paul says over and over he wants free trade with all. Just like Jefferson, "trade with all alliance with none". Works pretty good for the Swiss, they're not isolationist.

Bullwhip wrote:

74novaman wrote:Don't know if I'm the only one that's noticed it this week, but the paulbots seem to be out in force after the debate.

Isolationism isn't a foreign policy, it is a lack of one.

Whats that got to do with Ron Paul?

I have lots of things I don't agree with Paul about, but he's not isolationist. The INTERVENTIONIST people keep Americans more isolated. It's harder to travel around the world and have free trade now than if we weren't making enemies by our foreign policy. Paul says over and over he wants free trade with all. Just like Jefferson, "trade with all alliance with none". Works pretty good for the Swiss, they're not isolationist.

After looking up the definition of isolationism, I have been misusing the word. He's not an economic isolationist, but he wants to end foreign aid (I like that, I'm okay with us not sending money to people who want to kill us anymore) and has said close down the bases, bring the troops home, etc.

While in a perfect world, that should would be great....reality kind of butts up against it. If you cannot pressure a country economically, and will not intervene militarily, then your foreign policy consists of looking pretty and asking nicely for them to do things that don't conflict with US interests.

So you're right, it isn't isolationism...it is asknicelywithnootherdiplomaticoptionism.

As for the Swiss, there are two reasons it works so well for them.

1)Geography...good luck invading Switzerland. You could argue that the Atlantic and Pacific do the same thing for us as the Alps do for the Swiss...however,
2) BANKING. No one is willing to harm Switzerland because everyone wants to do business with them and more specifically, their banking system. I'm not a financial expert, but it seems to me that dismantling the Fed as Paul talks about constantly (mentioned it 18 times in the debate this week) is likely to spur a withdrawal of international money, not spur investment. Perhaps if private banks were able to step up and prove themselves, that would change over the 5-10 years after the Fed was dismantled. But the immediate result would be foreigners withdrawing US investments, and everyone in the world knowing the man in the White House isn't willing to use the military overseas for anything. Seems like an interesting time....

Charles L. Cotton wrote:
I don't remember all of them, but I'll call headquarters and see if I can get a list. I remember virtually every time one of our bills, or a bill with our provisions in it, he voted against it. I believe the most recent one was the bill changing the requirements for gun manufacturers to report and pay federal excise taxes every 90 days like every other manufacturer in the country, instead of every two weeks. Another poster mentioned in another thread that he didn't sign the amicus brief in McDonald supporting incorporation of the Second Amendment to the states. I believe he also voted against the Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but I may be wrong on that. Again, I'll try to get a list of his votes on gun issues.

I don't believe ever voted for a true anti-gun bill, but he rarely supports a pro-gun bill. I take him at his word that he believes the Second Amendment is an individual right, but not supporting incorporation to the states shows his deep-seated and extreme Libertarian views. Most Libertarians I know agree that the Bill of Rights must apply to the states.

Chas.

Thank you....I'll eagerly await the full list....

From what you've said, he's opposed treating the gun industry preferentally over other corporations, and I'm somewhat OK with that. I wouldn't mind if the gun companies were treated like oil companies or energy companies.....tax breaks, subsidies, and all....

The lack of support for Heller & McDonald is troubling....makes me wonder what other BOR rights he opposes incorporating.....

As for Romney, Perry, & the other RINO's.....I'm not so sure anymore that they're "Republican in NAME only"....considering the current GOP leadership, they're acting like good Rockefeller Republicans/Liberal Light-types who don't care about the Constitution or fiscal responsibility....the kind of guys that Reagan ran against....

.....maybe we should give candidates like Cain & Bachmann the RINO label.....as a badge of honor and respect....

seeker_two wrote: From what you've said, he's opposed treating the gun industry preferentally over other corporations, and I'm somewhat OK with that. I wouldn't mind if the gun companies were treated like oil companies or energy companies.....tax breaks, subsidies, and all....

Paul opposed treating the gun industry in a discriminatory manner in contrast to other industries. What's preferential about that?

SQLGeek wrote:

seeker_two wrote: From what you've said, he's opposed treating the gun industry preferentally over other corporations, and I'm somewhat OK with that. I wouldn't mind if the gun companies were treated like oil companies or energy companies.....tax breaks, subsidies, and all....

Paul opposed treating the gun industry in a discriminatory manner in contrast to other industries. What's preferential about that?

This is an example of what is known as irony....I bet every gun industry CEO would love for their businesses to get the same treatment as the oil industry.....

SQLGeek wrote:

seeker_two wrote: From what you've said, he's opposed treating the gun industry preferentally over other corporations, and I'm somewhat OK with that.

Paul opposed treating the gun industry in a discriminatory manner in contrast to other industries. What's preferential about that?

My original statement was not clear, let me rephrase (and remove the non-relevant point from your quote).

Paul voted to continue treating the gun industry in a discriminatory manner in contrast to other industries. What's preferential about that?

Now that Governor Perry has signed SB 321 into law, I think we can rule out that the Governor was afraid of this hurting his chances if he decides to run!!!!

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=SB321" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Right2Carry wrote:Now that Governor Perry has signed SB 321 into law, I think we can rule out that the Governor was afraid of this hurting his chances if he decides to run!!!!

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=SB321" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kudos to Perry for signing this.....and I don't think it'll hurt his chances...he's done a lot of pro-business stuff that this won't hurt....

Right2Carry wrote:Now that Governor Perry has signed SB 321 into law, I think we can rule out that the Governor was afraid of this hurting his chances if he decides to run!!!!

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=SB321" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah... it makes me wonder why he didn't add campus carry to the emergency session, though.

seeker_two wrote:From what you've said, he's opposed treating the gun industry preferentally over other corporations, and I'm somewhat OK with that.

You completely misunderstood what Charles said.

The issue was that all other industries except gun manufacturers were dealt with in a completely different way in the tax code. The gun manufacturers were required to file the same taxes every two weeks, instead of the longer intervals required of all other manufacturers. In other words, they did not enjoy the same protections under the law as ALL other types of manufactures, including (yes) oil companies, clothing manufacturers, (yes) auto manufacturers, fast food chains, hardware stores, dry cleaners, die-casters, meat processors, aerospace firms, machine shops, airlines, cobblers, wheat farmers, computer manufacturers, home appliance manufacturers, etc., etc., etc.

The law as it previous stood was, in fact, discriminatory, specifically against gun manufacturers. When a law was put before Congress to deal with it and rectify the problem, Ron Paul was one of the votes against rectifying it. In other words, he was happy with continued tax discrimination against gun manufacturers.....

....and you support this? Please.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

seeker_two wrote:From what you've said, he's opposed treating the gun industry preferentally over other corporations, and I'm somewhat OK with that.

You completely misunderstood what Charles said.

The issue was that all other industries except gun manufacturers were dealt with in a completely different way in the tax code. The gun manufacturers were required to file the same taxes every two weeks, instead of the longer intervals required of all other manufacturers. In other words, they did not enjoy the same protections under the law as ALL other types of manufactures, including (yes) oil companies, clothing manufacturers, (yes) auto manufacturers, fast food chains, hardware stores, dry cleaners, die-casters, meat processors, aerospace firms, machine shops, airlines, cobblers, wheat farmers, computer manufacturers, home appliance manufacturers, etc., etc., etc.

The law as it previous stood was, in fact, discriminatory, specifically against gun manufacturers. When a law was put before Congress to deal with it and rectify the problem, Ron Paul was one of the votes against rectifying it. In other words, he was happy with continued tax discrimination against gun manufacturers.....

....and you support this? Please.

If so, then I misunderstood....I'd actually like to see gun companies treated more preferentially (being a business connected with the 2nd Amendment and all)....sorry if I misled....

mamabearCali wrote:It seems to me that Gov Perry may be looking at making a presidential run.

This explains why Perry did not support Arizona when a lot of other states were calling for a boycott over Arizona’s immigration laws.