TexasCHLforum.com

Ashlar wrote:Sen. Patrick, for all his virtues, fails to grasp a fundamental tenet of democracy and rule of law

Namely, that the legislative branch of government should on no account be permitted to exempt its members from the laws it imposes on the general citizenry. It is the basic deterrent against the creation of bad law that the lawmakers themselves will be affected by it if they adopt it.

The quote, "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS" springs to mind.

I agree with you, and quoting Animal Farm is perfect. That said, I'm not going to make a stink about this to my representative or senator, because once is a fact of law, I can use it to bludgeon them into giving my rights the same respect they give their own, and I can hold that over their heads as a campaign threat if I ever decide to support an opponent or run myself.

hirundo82 wrote:

speedsix wrote:...it's just one more way to say they're more important than we are...I understand that they're in danger...and should be armed...most of 'em, anyways...but no more so than we are living daily in the world they created for us...legally speaking...I prefer the Guvnah's policy...if we can go there...we can carry there...now THAT'S the way it oughta read!!!

I agree. They all have the right to defend themselves, but their right to do so is no greater that the right the rest of us have to do the same.

I'm sure I'm repeating what others have posted, but wouldn't it be far simpler, and more politically palatable, to simply extend those exemptions to ALL CHL holders?

I can understand how it would be easier for them to pass the proposed bill in an environment where democrats held a bigger share of the power pie in the capitol, but they don't have to deal with that with the current makeup of the Legislature. They could easily extend it to all CHL holders with the current balance of power. They only need to political will to do it.

On the other hand, if they do pass it as is, particularly with the exception extending beyond their terms of service to their CHL renewal dates, then how long will it be before someone mounts an "equal access before the law" challenge to it?