TexasCHLforum.com

chasfm11 wrote:I've placed a call to my representative, too, my story is going to be a little different.

I'd rather see this bill amended to include CHLs, regardless of what the bill was originally intended to do, than to see it defeated completely. A good way to prove that it isn't elitist in intent is to make sure that it doesn't just cover the Legislators.

ELB wrote:Talk about tone-deaf. This is a perfect way to alienate Texas 2A supporters. The comments above are correct -- this is the kind of nonsense I would expect to see in California or New York, not Texas.

Sorry, but this dog don't hunt. He is not filing the bill because threats can happen to people anywhere -- he is filing it because of all those people there, legislators are the only ones important enough to be able to protect themselves with a gun in certain venues. Eveyone else is just too immature or unimportant.

Look, Judges and prosectors got special exemptions for themselves too, and it hasn't done squat for citizens.

So since legislators are clearly so dangerous to have around, here is a better law: restrict legislators as to where they can go. No sporting events, no hospitals, no schools, no bars, nada -- in fact, just lock them up in the State Capitol until the end of their term. It's for the children.

Look, the Republicans got elected in droves last December because the Democrats got waaaaaaaayy too big for their britches and disregarded the people. The big fear and warning of Tea Partiers and everyone else is that the Republicans would do what they did the last time they got control --- forget who brought them to the dance and turn into a bunch of power-mad, self-centered elitests. We are watching the national and local legislators like hawks, and a stunt like this, a special carve out for legislators but not citizens, is EXACTLY the kind of "power corrupts," hey-I'm-special-privileges-for-me-but-not-the-little-people foolishness that will get them booted.

Kleinschmidt might usually be an OK guy, but this is a clueless move. If he doesn't realize that, then he is already corrupted. And if he think being a legislator is too dangerous -- there's plenty of people in his district that would be happy to take his place.

NO. NO. NO!

Now I am going to get on the phone to the Capitol.

WildBill wrote:

Teamless wrote:Even if the end game is 'eventually' it helps CHLs, when? how? and Why is it good for the goose but not the gander?

Baby steps.

Right2Carry wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote: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.

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?