HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.035

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[CWOOD]

Charles is absolutely correct on this.

I was one of the early posters after hearing of it and talking to his office to express my disapproval.

I believe that the Rep. Kleinschmitt is WRONG on this particular bill. He is not BAD, or UNPRINCIPLED, or ENEMY.

My spouse and my children have been wrong on more than one occasion. I still love them more than life. There is an unfortunate rumor going around the circles I frequent that even I have been wrong on at least one occasion, but I still seem to be generally well regarded in those same circles.

I suggest we take a page from our conflict resolution training and address the issue on an ADULT-ADULT basis and simply agree to disagree on this particular issue. Let us do what we must to respectfully express our difference of opinion with him on this matter and still maintain regard for someone who is doing and has done yeoman's work on our behalf on several occasions.

[Tamie]

I suggest we take a page from our conflict resolution training and address the issue on an ADULT-ADULT basis and simply agree to disagree on this particular issue.

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.

On the other hand, if the bill is left pending in committee, it sounds like he's listening to our concerns. Whether or not he changed his mind, we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

Looking at statistics, the truth is politicians are not in any greater danger than students who take night classes or waitresses who work closing shift at a bar.

[MeMelYup]

Maybe he is caught between a political rock and hard place. It's possibly a case of you scratch our backs and we will scratch yours.

[CWOOD]

I suggest we take a page from our conflict resolution training and address the issue on an ADULT-ADULT basis and simply agree to disagree on this particular issue.

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.

On the other hand, if the bill is left pending in committee, it sounds like he's listening to our concerns. Whether or not he changed his mind, we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

Looking at statistics, the truth is politicians are not in any greater danger than students who take night classes or waitresses who work closing shift at a bar.

Crumbs? CRUMBS? CRUMBS?

Sir, surely you jest. Passage of the parking lot bill would be of tremendous benefit to potentially hundreds of thousands of our fellow Texans, both CHLers and MPA citizens. I would not characterize that as "crumbs" since many have worked, and are working, so hard to achieve it and so many of us have waited and hoped a long time for it. If it were only "crumbs", why in heaven's name are we even bothering with it?

While I can certainly appreciate your oh so clever use of sarcasm, nowhere did I even hint that I wanted anyone to "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."

Obviously my ADULT-ADULT proposal was not your cup of tea. That is fine.

On a very practical level I AM suggesting that if we vote out ANY legislator who fails to agree with us on EVERY item, then all that would be left would be legislators who agree with us on almost nothing. Then we would not even have to worry about "crumbs" because there certainly would not be any.

Express your displeasure. Do so emphatically. One can do this and still be polite and still recognize and appreciate other work done on our behalf.

[CWOOD]

Maybe he is caught between a political rock and hard place. It's possibly a case of you scratch our backs and we will scratch yours.

I believe this to be the case. When I called his office to emphatically and politely express my displeasure, the very nice lady in the office commented that he had been asked by other officials to do this.

I do find it a bit ironic (or ironical, as we say in south Austin) that even though it was primarily an assault on a Federal elected official which seems to have inspired this bill, Federal elected officials were not even included among those who might be covered by the bill.

[Ameer]

Maybe he is caught between a political rock and hard place. It's possibly a case of you scratch our backs and we will scratch yours.

Good idea. If legislators vote for citizens to be exempt too, then the citizens can vote for those legislators in elections. If legislators vote against citizens to have the same exemptions as legislators, then the citizens can vote against those legislators in elections. Scratch for scratch. Votes for votes.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[baldeagle]

Have you ever considered the possibility of 1463 being leverage? Politics is a game of compromise. One I could never play, mind you, because I won't budge on my principles. But, in politics, if you can't budge on principles you won't get very much done. Look what standing on principle has done for Ron Paul. He has a small cadre of devoted followers and many, many more who may admire his courage but think he's a nutcase. Kleinschmidt may well have gained some votes by introducing 1463. But a bill like this could be politically radioactive, so Kleinschmidt could gain the votes he needed for the employee parking lot bill while never fully intending to push 1463 through to passage because he knows it will inflame some citizens who will make their anger known, pushing some politicians away from voting for passage.

Mind you, this is the purest of speculation, but it's certainly not uncommon in politics to see these sorts of accommodation done to get other legislation through.

As much as I find politics utterly disgusting and dishonorable, and a profession not to be admired, the reality is that, if you are to achieve your goals as a politician, you have to be willing to give up on some desires while standing firm on others. You have to be willing to bend with the political winds while standing firm during the hurricanes. You have to learn to read the public's mood so you know when to push really, really hard and when you have to tread ever so lightly and try to sneak into law the things you stand for. It's been a very hard lesson in life for me to learn that, and even now, as I near the latter years of my life I will only bear so much before I become incensed.

[speedsix]

...we always called it "picking your battles"...it's not the best we'd hope for...but helping someone else get what they want has always been a good way to get what we want...and politics is a deal-making business...there are some issues that are non-negotiable...and some that are...I don't mind helping this group get what they're after now, so that we can get what we're after later...as long as we DO get what we're after...

[MeMelYup]

Thinking about this. What is the difference about this and what was done for Judges and Prosicuting Attorneys last sesseion?

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

[baldeagle]

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.

I would think that, if campus carry passes this session, the other dominoes will fall pretty quickly. After all, what's more sacrosanct than a college campus?

[srothstein]

this session is entirely too short to do anything more than our flagship bills and range protection.

I don't agree with the way we are doing the parking lot bill, and there are some other bills I really would like to see get through (personal interest), but I have to agree that if we get range protection, campus carry, and the parking lot bills through (as written or with little modification), we will have had a very successful session, and more than any reasonable person could ask.

[Shoot Straight]

I don't agree with the way we are doing the parking lot bill, and there are some other bills I really would like to see get through (personal interest), but I have to agree that if we get range protection, campus carry, and the parking lot bills through (as written or with little modification), we will have had a very successful session

What's the chance campus carry and parking lots survive the bill assassins in the calendar committee?