Page 7 of 7

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2011 7:35 pm
by Shoot Straight
Let's suppose there was a bill that said
SECTION 1. Section 46.035(h-1), Penal Code, is amended to read as follows:
(h-1) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsections (b)(1), (2), and (4)-(6), and (c) that at the time of the commission of the offense, the actor was not:
(1) a statewide elected official; or
(2) a member of the legislature.

SECTION 2. Section 46.035, Penal Code, is amended by adding Subsection (h-2) to read as follows:
(h-2) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsections (b)(1), (2), and (4)-(6), and (c)
that at the time of the commission of the offense, the actor was a person who, on September 1, 2011,
was not serving as a member of the legislature.


Do you think the legislature would support that? Why or why not?

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 3:28 pm
by magillapd
Well, this bill has passed the Texas Senate
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/05/09 ... texas.html

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 3:36 pm
by tacticool
Maybe we can get the "not" added like above. :lol:

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 9:15 pm
by KD5NRH
tacticool wrote:Maybe we can get the "not" added like above. :lol:
How about one of those "creative definitions" like the Feds use so often; define "statewide elected official" as any person who has never been voted out of a statewide office.

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Posted: Mon May 09, 2011 11:21 pm
by Ashlar
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.

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Posted: Tue May 10, 2011 9:40 am
by The Annoyed Man
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.

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Posted: Tue May 10, 2011 9:55 am
by sjfcontrol
My email footer has for some time, read:
28th Amendment, Proposed:
"Congress shall make no law that applies to citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to citizens of the United States."


Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Posted: Tue May 10, 2011 9:59 am
by chasfm11
The Annoyed Man wrote:
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.
:iagree:

...but the fact is that we have a lot of situations at the State and the Federal level where the Elites have granted themselves results that will never be available to we common folk. I can only hope that there is some leverage from the existence of this legislation that can help us obtain the same results. I hope it isn't another flying pig scenario.

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Posted: Tue May 10, 2011 1:07 pm
by Ashlar
The Annoyed Man wrote: 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.
In theory, I agree, but look at Illinois- aldermen (and other elected city officials) are considered 'peace officers' and can therefore carry. That hasn't really helped the cause of concealed carry in IL-- matter of fact it probably hurt due to the couple of them who've waved guns at folks.

Granted, that's IL politics, and is not representative of TX politicians, but still. I can only *hope* it will help us.

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Posted: Tue May 10, 2011 4:34 pm
by Originalist
Doesn't this violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution?

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Posted: Tue May 10, 2011 5:35 pm
by mgood
The Annoyed Man wrote: . . . 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. . . .
THIS :iagree:

We're shortening the list of places we can not carry. When I first got my CHL back in the nineties, there was a long list of such places that included churches and amusement parks and hospitals. Now it looks like a big one, colleges and universities, is about to come off the list.

From the other end, we're shortening the list of people who can not carry in places on that list. A while back it was decided that it's ok for judges to carry in those places. I haven't heard of a lot of judges getting into drunken gunfights because they were allowed to carry in bars. Now we're going to let state legislators carry there.

We're moving towards the goal of allowing all CHLees to carry pretty much anywhere a LEO can carry.

We've made it so that everyone (who can legally possess a handgun) can carry in an automobile, with or without a license. More progress.
Maybe we'll get to the point that we don't have to have the state's permission, in the form of a license, to exercise our 2A rights.

So while it makes me a little hot under the collar for our employees to set themselves up with a right to self defense which the rest of us do not enjoy, I think in the long run it can be seen as another step toward freedom.

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 8:08 am
by XinTX
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.

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 8:25 am
by Charles L. Cotton
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.

Re: HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.03

Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 9:24 am
by Liberty
XinTX wrote: 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.
Off topic Iknow but I can't let this go without correction. Being organized has nothing to do with it. We can 't carry at a proffessionall sporting event , nor a school spocered event. Little League games is OK.
I am not real sure but even if they are at a school, they aren't a school activity. But in a a city park it is certainly OK

Just because they play better than this years Astros, doesn't mean they are proffessional.