You are absolutely right and that's precisely how we have operated for decades. This call is different for a couple of reasons. First, if the Democrats take more seats in the House in the 2010 elections, and this is what everyone expects, we will have a Democrat as Speaker of the House and he will appoint Democrats as chairmen of the committees. This is not good in spite of the fact that some of gun owners best friends are Democrats. As a general rule, our Democrat friends don't want to hurt us, but they also don't take the lead in carrying controversial or high profile bills. If you look back to the days of Democrat Speakers such as Pete Laney, we didn't pass much legislation, but we were able to kill any bad bills.NcongruNt wrote:IMO, that would be a mistake. While gun bills are important, there is still only a very small portion of the population that is actively involved in seeing progression on firearms issues. Special sessions bring incredible focus on any specific issue, and unless it's something that directly effects everyone (such as budget/spending issues), you're likely to garner a net effect of bad press and misinformation from the media, making for a more difficult situation.
Understand that for our legislators, they have a large number of issues and topics in which they have to work. When we gather support from some of them, they are often spending political capital because much of their support may oppose our legislation. Doing so during a legislative session isn't so risky, because they have other bills and work getting done that benefits those that may oppose our legislation, making for a net positive, even if those people don't like our legislation that gets passed. In a special session, you're going to be forcing a legislator to take a stand on a single issue which may cause a significant problem with his or her constituency, with nothing else to offset the perceived negative. That's dangerous because that may cause the ouster (come election time) of a legislator who has worked for us. To avoid that, a special session may cause loss of support on gun legislation, where you would then label said legislator as not on our side.
Politics is a long-term game, much like football, where progress is a result of aggregate actions. This is something that organizations like OCDO do not grasp. They want to run a Hail Mary every time, when in reality the game is won with a series of incremental movements forward. Sometimes there are setbacks, such as the death of the bills this session, but we still need to push forward and utilize those who work for us in an effective way. Honestly, I don't think a special session is the way to go about it. It may get our legislation passed (and that's a big maybe), but at the potential loss of those who have worked for us.
Secondly, industry had already resigned itself to the fact that the parking lot bill was going to pass and they were satisfied with the amendments. Even the chemical counsel knew passage was inevitable because of constant pressure by NRA and TSRA and their members. They were shocked by the last minute sellout by a particular person on Calendars Committee. When your enemy has accepted his defeat and your victory, you'd better finish them off quickly or they will be emboldened next time around. The attitude in 2011 will be "if we could stop the onslaught in 2009, we can stop it this time."
This is the first time I/we have ever supported putting one of our bills in a special session call and it probably will be the last. But alas, it's nothing but an academic exercise at this point.
Chas.
, but if any of you would like to see the legislature take up the employer parking lot bill that died solely because time ran out, then this might be a very good time to call the Governor's Office and politely request that Gov. Perry add employer parking lots to the "call."