TexasCHLforum.com

XinTX wrote:Count me as one STRONGLY opposed to this bill. For those who say this will forward the goal of gaining the same access for all CHL'ers, I disagree. Once the 'ruling class' has theirs, what is the incentive to extend that to the rest of us 'little people'? As was mentioned about IL, the polly-tic-ians see no need for people to carry because they're nice and safe.

Remember 'Ma' Richards? She vetoed a CHL bill years ago. After doing so, she was pretty soundly defeated. And one thing a lot of folks pointed to (myself included) was that she was fully protected by an armed DPS detail, while the rest of us 'little people' had to fend for ourselves. But she stated she saw no 'need' for it. Of course she didn't. She was covered. Rest of us, not so much.

And for myself, I'm not overly worried about being in a place like Reliant. However, getting from my car in to Reliant (or whatever venue) is another matter. Also, this past weekend I went to a Little League game. One field was NOT in a nice neighborhood. Gang banger all around the place. Not all 'organized sporting events' are at places like Reliant or JerryWorld.

Neither SB905 nor its companion HB1463 passed.

Chas.

MeMelYup wrote:Thinking about this. What is the difference about this and what was done for Judges and Prosecuting Attorneys last session?

Exactly. As Baldeagle said, it can be used as leverage. We haven't supported it, but if it passes, we'll certainly use it to try to amend the Penal Code to have all CHL's exempt from both TPC §§46.02 and 46.03. Some will correctly argue that we haven't attempted it yet, but please note the timing. Prosecuting attorneys were added last session and this session is entirely too short to do anything more than our flagship bills and range protection. I say too short because redistricting and budget are time hogs that will push everything back far enough not to get a floor vote before the session is over.

Chas.

Tamie wrote:I agree, as long as we can be adult and not oppose people who mobilize votes against any legislators who think public officials should get the big slice of the pie (HB 1463) while the voters and taxpayers settle for crumbs in the parking lot.

I don't know what you mean by "oppose people who mobilize votes" but you can bet I'll be opposing you if you try to get Rep. Kleinschmidt defeated! He's doing far more for gun owner than are you.

Chas.

I don't like HB1463 either, primarily because of the unintended message it sends to other CHL's. However, all this means is that I disagree with Rep. Kleinschmidt on this one issue; it doesn't make him an enemy and it certainly doesn't overshadow the work he's doing for hundreds of thousands of CHL's with the parking lot bill.

If you knew Rep. Kleinschmidt personally, you'd know he's far from an elitist. He and many others in Austin truly believe they are bigger targets for nut jobs wanting their 15 minutes of fame and they are probably right. If someone shoots me it's barely going to make the evening news on a slow news day. However, shoot the Governor, a Texas Senator or Representative, and you'll be all over the news for days. To me this is justification to allow all CHL's to carry everywhere LEO's can carry, not carve out elected officials, but this is merely a difference of opinion, not the basis for turning on a proven ally. I've been crazy about my wife since we were 12 years old, but we don't agree on every issue and these disagreements don't make her my enemy. On most issues, and all major issues, we agree. So it is with Rep. Kleinschmidt.

As I said, I don't like the bill either, but when someone has proven they are a friend by their hard work, let's be a little slower to label them as being an elitist or any other pejorative moniker. That's a mighty quick way to wind up with no friends -- and rightfully so. We have to realize that among friends there is room for relatively minor differences of opinions.

Chas.

boba wrote:

seeker_two wrote:I'm glad to hear that TSRA & NRA aren't associating themselves with this boondoggle....after hearing Mr. Kleinschmidt try to explain his bill on Jeff Ward's show on KLBJ 590AM, the only one who needs to suffer the bad press from this is Mr. Kleinschmidt.....

If things go well, the bill will fail and an elitist will be challenged by one of "We The People" in the primaries.

Rep. Kleinschmidt is carrying HB681 (employer parking lots) and it working very hard to get it passed. Remember that when you call for his defeat.

Chas.

tacticool wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

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.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I could not in good conscience vote for a politician I believed was taking bribes, even if they were pro-gun and fiscally conservative. It's amoral and ethical issue, and unethical behavior is a deal-breaker for me, all talk of nose-cutting notwithstanding.

Now you've gone too far. Feel as you will about the bill, but nothing in this bill has anything to do with "taking bribes." Stop now.

Chas.

hirundo82 wrote:

hirundo82 wrote:There was a similar bill to HB 1463 filed in the Senate today, SB 905.

The Senate version of the bill also exempts "a noncommissioned employee of the Department of Public Safety, designated by the director of the department" from PC §46.035(b)(1), (2), (4)-(6), and (c).

I hope this isn't a step toward exempting all state employees from the CHL restrictions--I could see the DPS director exempting all DPS employees, then next session the legislature comes back and exempts all state employees.

OK, so thinking about it more I doubt that is what would happen. I'll bet there is a class of noncommissioned DPS employees whose job puts them at a higher danger (although I don't know who that would be; first thought would be Child PRotective Services but they aren't DPS), and DPS wants them to be able to protect themselves.

Even if I can think of a rationale, I still don't like the trend of carving out special exemptions for elected officials and government employees.

You are correct and it's part of an article I'm going to write on the carving out of a portion of the CHL population. Hopefully, it'll get some traction in Austin, but I don't think for a moment we'll be able to get all CHLs exempt from TPC §§46.02 and 46.03, although that's been my quest since the 2001 session.

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?

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.

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.

Right2Carry wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Right2Carry wrote:

Charles L. Cotton 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. Maybe not, but?

Every step we take away from traditional law enforcement in terms of allowing concealed carry in new locations, the better the chance of getting what Rick Perry wants -- all CHL's to be exempt as are law enforcement.

I understand the sentiment, but this could be helpful in moving the CHL "not applicable" provisions from merely applying to TPC §46.02 to TPC §§46.02, 46.03, 46.035. It would be a powerful argument for 2013 to attend a public hearing and say "why should you be exempt, but not the voters in your district?"

Again, I understand the sentiment and this is not a TSRA/NRA bill, nevertheless, it could be very useful in greatly reducing or eliminating areas off-limits to CHLs.

Representative Kleinschmidt is a good friend and he's working his tail off as the "author" of the employer parking lot bill. That bill now has 76 sponsors and co-sponsors do in large part to his work. Let's not paint him as the enemy because we don't like this one bill.

Chas.

Charles I do understand your points, but to me this is just more elitist behaviour from those who have been elected to be the voice of the people. This is a self serving bill for those that put themselves above the people they pretend to represent. IMHO if it's good enough for elected officials that hold a CHL, then it should be good enough for everyone that holds a CHL. Our elected officials haven't attended any additional training or background checks than any other CHL so why should they be treated any differently than anyone else who holds a CHL?

I agree with everything you said and I don't support the bill. It's not our bill, we aren't helping it, we will never support it, and I'll be happy if it doesn't pass. I'm just saying that if it passes, we'll use it to our advantage. It's very much a situation of when you are given lemons, make lemonade.

Rep. Kleinschmidt is a very good friend to gun owners. As author of HB681, the employer parking lot bill, he's working his tail off and the Bill now has 76 sponsors and co-sponsors, due in large part to his work. It is a mistake to paint him as the enemy simply because one doesn't like HB1463. If you are going to contact his office, I suggest that you ask him to amend the bill (and the caption) so that it applies to all CHL's. This is what Gov. Perry wants.

Chas.

Sorry if I painted him as the enemy, that certainly wasn't my intention at all. I am glad to hear that he is hard at work on HB 681 which we really need to get passed this time around. I don't plan to contact Rep. Kleinschmidt at this time, instead I contacted my Rep. to voice my concerns about HB 1463. I did state my concerns about the bill and that I would have no problem with the bill if it was amended to include all CHL holders.

The "enemy" comment was a general comment, not directed at you. Sorry if it appeared that way.

Chas.

Right2Carry wrote:

Charles L. Cotton 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. Maybe not, but?

Every step we take away from traditional law enforcement in terms of allowing concealed carry in new locations, the better the chance of getting what Rick Perry wants -- all CHL's to be exempt as are law enforcement.

I understand the sentiment, but this could be helpful in moving the CHL "not applicable" provisions from merely applying to TPC §46.02 to TPC §§46.02, 46.03, 46.035. It would be a powerful argument for 2013 to attend a public hearing and say "why should you be exempt, but not the voters in your district?"

Again, I understand the sentiment and this is not a TSRA/NRA bill, nevertheless, it could be very useful in greatly reducing or eliminating areas off-limits to CHLs.

Representative Kleinschmidt is a good friend and he's working his tail off as the "author" of the employer parking lot bill. That bill now has 76 sponsors and co-sponsors do in large part to his work. Let's not paint him as the enemy because we don't like this one bill.

Chas.

Charles I do understand your points, but to me this is just more elitist behaviour from those who have been elected to be the voice of the people. This is a self serving bill for those that put themselves above the people they pretend to represent. IMHO if it's good enough for elected officials that hold a CHL, then it should be good enough for everyone that holds a CHL. Our elected officials haven't attended any additional training or background checks than any other CHL so why should they be treated any differently than anyone else who holds a CHL?

I agree with everything you said and I don't support the bill. It's not our bill, we aren't helping it, we will never support it, and I'll be happy if it doesn't pass. I'm just saying that if it passes, we'll use it to our advantage. It's very much a situation of when you are given lemons, make lemonade.

Rep. Kleinschmidt is a very good friend to gun owners. As author of HB681, the employer parking lot bill, he's working his tail off and the Bill now has 76 sponsors and co-sponsors, due in large part to his work. It is a mistake to paint him as the enemy simply because one doesn't like HB1463. If you are going to contact his office, I suggest that you ask him to amend the bill (and the caption) so that it applies to all CHL's. This is what Gov. Perry wants.

Chas.

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. Maybe not, but?

Every step we take away from traditional law enforcement in terms of allowing concealed carry in new locations, the better the chance of getting what Rick Perry wants -- all CHL's to be exempt as are law enforcement.

I understand the sentiment, but this could be helpful in moving the CHL "not applicable" provisions from merely applying to TPC §46.02 to TPC §§46.02, 46.03, 46.035. It would be a powerful argument for 2013 to attend a public hearing and say "why should you be exempt, but not the voters in your district?"

Again, I understand the sentiment and this is not a TSRA/NRA bill, nevertheless, it could be very useful in greatly reducing or eliminating areas off-limits to CHLs.

Chas.