TexasCHLforum.com

Representative Kleinschmidt filed HB 1463 yesterday. This bill if passed would exempt statewide elected officials and members with a CHL from Penal Code §46.035 sections (b)(1) (51% premises), (b)(2) (sporting events), (b)(4) (hospitals), (b)(5) (amusement parks), (b)(6) (churches), and (c) (goverment meetings). It would also exempt them from the time they left office until the time they had to renew their CHL.

This bill makes me incredibly angry, and it seems like really bad timing to introduce a bill like this this legislative session. I don't like giving special favors to certain groups, and especially with the discontent with goverment that manifested itself in the November elections it would appear to me to be a bad move politically for elected officals to try to exempt themselves from the carry laws the rest of us must follow.

...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!!!

Great. So, once they get the privilege, they're a protected class of citizen and no longer have to worry about us "commoners", even if future laws start to deprive us.

I do NOT think so.

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.

Amen. This is even worse than HB 698.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/BillLook ... Bill=HB698" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Off with their heads!

I am not in his district, but I just emailed him and followed it up with a call to his office.

I ENCOURAGE ALL TO DO THE SAME. IT WILL HAVE AN EFFECT. BE POLITE AS THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY

The basics of my communications with his office and email is that this smacks of an extraordinarily elitest measure and that the lives of my daughters, aged 25 and 27, and me and the rest of my family are no less important or worthy of protection this is his life.

I said that should he include all CHL's in the legislation, I would march in the street and testify in committee in his support and encourage my representatives to do likewise. He would be a hero of all CHL's in the state.

On the other hand, should he persist in this elitist measure I would march in the street and testify in committee in strong opposition to him and encourage my representatives to do likewise.

The very courteous person at his office, Brandy, took my contact info and promised to relay my comments and get back with me within the week. I also asked her to thank Rep. Kleinschmidt of his impressive past efforts on behalf of CHL's, and that I wanted to make them aware of how this is being perceived before damage was done to his reputation.

Her comments were that he had been approached as a result of the Arizona shootings and that some elected officials felt unsafe in certain locations. I again mentioned that my young daughters occasionally feel uncomfortable when they are required to disarm. NOT FAIR---NO EXCUSE

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?

CWOOD wrote:Her comments were that he had been approached as a result of the Arizona shootings and that some elected officials felt unsafe in certain locations. I again mentioned that my young daughters occasionally feel uncomfortable when they are required to disarm. NOT FAIR---NO EXCUSE

I figured that was what was inspiring this but that is no excuse. There is a similar measure at the federal level, allowing representatives to carry in DC, but I expect more of our Texas representatives than I expect of the federal ones.

WildBill wrote:Maybe if all of the elected officials start carry guns they may not think it's such bad idea for the "little people".

I doubt it.
Not to say Texas is like Chicago or NYC, but in those areas, if you aren't one of the special people, you simply do not get a license or any privilege to go with it.

If they pass this, this is just one more (and yes, others have said it) way that they can say "I am better than the 'Citizens' that I am supposed to work for.
Completing Irritating!

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.

I just notified my Representitive of my distaste for this bill. I also let him know that I would fully support this bill if it was ammended to include all CHL's.

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.

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?

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?

I concur - I would MUCH rather encourage a re-write of the existing bill to apply to ALL CHL holders, rather than let the existing elitist attitudes become yet further ingrained, only to go hat in hand later and ask if we the great unwashed masses be allowed the same privileges that the superior classes have granted themselves.

RHenriksen wrote:rather than let the existing elitist attitudes become yet further ingrained,

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

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.