TexasCHLforum.com

Given Charles's recent announcement concerning reposting of articles, I'm not even going to link to the story, but the Congressman's web site tells you everything that you need to know: he is drafting a bill that would allow members of Congress to carry and gun in Washington, D.C.

I called his office and congratulated him for understanding that, unlike other member's proposals for more gun restrictions or security for Members, his recognizes a fundamental truth: everyone should be empowered to protect themselves.

I also asked that rather than restricting this to Members of Congress, why not simply have Washington D.C. recognize the licenses and permits issued by all jurisdictions? By doing so, Rep. Gohmert, if he has a license, is covered but so is everyone else that has to travel to D.C., which he rightly describes dangerous. As much as I applaud Rep. Gohmert for approaching the problem in a practical way, I cannot support yet another us/them division between elected officials and we, the citizenry. If the situation is bad enough that Rep. Gohmert needs to be armed, the same must be true for others who might actually find themeselves in those other less-secure-than-the-Capitol place more often that he does (such as shop owners, delivery drivers, couriers, etc.).

I plan on asking my Congressman, Ken Marchant, to support such an amendment to Gohmert's proposal. Given the number of pro-gun Members, two of which have already announced that they have licenses and may begin carrying in their home states -- Jason Chafitz (sp?) of Utah and Heath Schuler of NC, I would think that such a proposal would have a good chance of passing the House.

SA-TX

This bill is unnecessary, as congresscritters are, with few exceptions, already exempt from arrest while Congress is in session.

SA-TX wrote:Given Charles's recent announcement concerning reposting of articles, I'm not even going to link to the story, but the Congressman's web site tells you everything that you need to know: he is drafting a bill that would allow members of Congress to carry and gun in Washington, D.C.

Was the article on one of sites represented by the company that Chas. was talking about? He also mentioned he put in a word filter to reject links to these sites, though he also suggests you also check before linking.

Do you not find it incredibly arrogant that he only wants Congress to have the right to carry? The rest of us cretins should just fend off criminals as best we can with our bare hands?

How amazingly self-centered! Who does he think put him in Congress? Did he vote himSELF into office??

Really.

Crossfire wrote:Do you not find it incredibly arrogant that he only wants Congress to have the right to carry? The rest of us cretins should just fend off criminals as best we can with our bare hands?

How amazingly self-centered! Who does he think put him in Congress? Did he vote himSELF into office??

Really.

That's why I ask, "do they think that they are royalty with greater rights than the peons?" It's not really surprising when you think about it..... They voted themselves a better retirement plan than their constituents get, even though they seem to forget that their constituents pay for it. They voted themselves a better healthcare plan than their constituents get, better by FAR than the plan they rammed down our throats a few months ago, even though their constituents pay for their healthcare. They vote themselves a handy raise every year, even though their constituents pay for that raise, and the only thing the constituents get for that increased salary is bigger and heavier chains around their necks....

...So I'm not surprised at the arrogance of officialdom any longer. Cicero was absolutely correct.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Crossfire wrote:Do you not find it incredibly arrogant that he only wants Congress to have the right to carry? The rest of us cretins should just fend off criminals as best we can with our bare hands?

How amazingly self-centered! Who does he think put him in Congress? Did he vote himSELF into office??

Really.

That's why I ask, "do they think that they are royalty with greater rights than the peons?" It's not really surprising when you think about it..... They voted themselves a better retirement plan than their constituents get, even though they seem to forget that their constituents pay for it. They voted themselves a better healthcare plan than their constituents get, better by FAR than the plan they rammed down our throats a few months ago, even though their constituents pay for their healthcare. They vote themselves a handy raise every year, even though their constituents pay for that raise, and the only thing the constituents get for that increased salary is bigger and heavier chains around their necks....

...So I'm not surprised at the arrogance of officialdom any longer. Cicero was absolutely correct.

I have an idea.

We should add a section to the ballot for every vote where we can all vote on the pay adjustment for our employees who occupy elected office. I'm thinking of having a range from a 10% decrease to a 10% increase. The average of these determines their salary adjustment.

After all, I determine the salary adjustment for my other employees, why not do it for these guys and gals as well?

Why do I get the feeling that some of you are very angry?

I love the iNtaRwEb. Makes it so easy to reach out and communicate with our employees. Just sent this to Rep. Gohmert:

======================================

I read with interest your plans to introduce legislation allowing members of Congress to carry concealed handguns in the District.

I am a CHL holder in Texas, and while I commend your interest in chipping away at restrictions on the second amendment, I am greatly concerned about the manner in which you are pursing it.

Part of the zeitgeist which lead to such a dramatic change in the nation's politics over the past 24 months is the sense that our elected employees have decided that they are a different class of citizens from the rest of us. Our Congressmen give themselves generous raises, pensions, exempt themselves from Obamacare, etc. Last I checked, aren't we all created equal, and endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights? To pass a law which says only people elected to Congress are worthy of being permitted the ability to defend themselves - and that only they are responsible enough to exercise such a right - is not going to play well among the general population.

Why not acknowledge that what's good for the goose, is good for the gander? Instead of alienating the pro-2A citizens who are a solid part of the Republican base, why not try and get a bill passed which extends reciprocity between DC and all 50 states?

I would be happy to discuss this issue further if you're interested.

Robert Henriksen