TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I've already drafted the bill . . . for 2009 of course.

Chas.

you da man!!

Velocity wrote:

seamusTX wrote: The feds have the ability to stuff unrelated amendments into bills, and they can introduce a new bill almost any time.
- Jim

..unrelated to the subject at hand, but I've got to imagine that federal government would operate so much more smoothly and less "crappy" legislation (pork-barrel politics) would occur if this were eliminated and the feds were required to stick to one subject per bill, just as the states are.

You should read DownsizeDC.org's "Read the Bills Act":

http://www.downsizedc.org/read_the_laws.shtml

TV News station KSAT-12 here in San Antonio just aired Gov Perry's statements.

They have a vote and poll on there website and I cannot beleive that the split at this point is 53% yes and 45% no and 12% don't know. I am kind of ashamed that so many people of SA voted no.

Maybe the numbers will change, and I notice that this poll was advertised when most concervatives are out working hard and will never ever know about the vote.

The link is below.

Thanks

http://www.ksat.com/politics/13230553/detail.html

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I've already drafted the bill . . . for 2009 of course.

Chas.

Does it include the wording "Because the Govenor says so!"

You can go ahead and put me down as a Co-Sponsor... No really, you can...

NuBee wrote:TV News station KSAT-12 here in San Antonio just aired Gov Perry's statements.

They have a vote and poll on there website and I cannot beleive that the split at this point is 53% yes and 45% no and 12% don't know. I am kind of ashamed that so many people of SA voted no.

Maybe the numbers will change, and I notice that this poll was advertised when most concervatives are out working hard and will never ever know about the vote.

The link is below.

Thanks

http://www.ksat.com/politics/13230553/detail.html

Those "don't knowers" really mes up the curve don't they!

Plus...Either my math is not working, but 53+45+12 don't add up to 100...

Maybe the polls wrong??? I bet its 2% on the "don't knower's"

Yep, I was right...just 2%...

Didn't mean to be so persnikerty...

Thanks for the link to the poll there...

I went ahead and voted "no"...

Just kidding...

stevie_d_64 wrote:Yep, I was right...just 2%...

Didn't mean to be so persnikerty...

Thanks for the link to the poll there...

I went ahead and voted "no"...

Just kidding...

Thats ok. when I voted it said 54% yes 45% No and 2 % dont know. Thats 101% thats out of 966 votes

Velocity wrote:This news was front page material for the Houston Chronicle today :

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4763469.html

They even got the "banned places" list correct :

"Current law prohibits the carrying of firearms, even by handgun licensees, into bars, schools, most areas of college campuses and courthouses. Churches can ban them, and governmental bodies can prohibit licensees from carrying pistols into public meetings."

Pretty good article, overall, and it's good to see the issue getting attention!

Too Bad it is so late in this legislative season, We need to make sure this gets into session next year !!

NuBee wrote:TV News station KSAT-12 here in San Antonio just aired Gov Perry's statements.

They have a vote and poll on there website and I cannot beleive that the split at this point is 53% yes and 45% no and 12% don't know. I am kind of ashamed that so many people of SA voted no.

Maybe the numbers will change, and I notice that this poll was advertised when most concervatives are out working hard and will never ever know about the vote.

The link is below.

Thanks

http://www.ksat.com/politics/13230553/detail.html

It's that "Secured Airport Areas" part that probably did it. That's federally controlled property anyway, so it's not even relevant. Sounds like someone stuck that in there to get the poll to skew towards no.

Russell wrote:By 2009 it would have lost almost all of its steam.

We should try to get Perry to call a special session to deal with the problem

I don't think it will lose steam, if it does, it's not a very important issue. I think it IS an important issue, so if it doesn't get in special session this year then next time will be fine.

As I understand it, there is no "next year" correct? Legislative session is every two years?
Anything happen in between?

I'm fairly new to the 'political scene'.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I've already drafted the bill . . . for 2009 of course.

Chas.

Charles, Don't forget that it could be one of the topics for a special session.

O6nop wrote:As I understand it, there is no "next year" correct? Legislative session is every two years?
Anything happen in between?

Correct. The Texas legislature meets in odd-numbered years.

The Governor can call a special session, but it can address only specific issues that the Governor determines. In the time I have lived here, that has happened only for budget issues.

- Jim

CWOOD wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I've already drafted the bill . . . for 2009 of course.

Chas.

Charles, Don't forget that it could be one of the topics for a special session.

It could be, but the idea of gun bills in special sessions scares me. In regular sessions, they are just a few of thousands of bills, so they can't draw the attention that they would in a special session. Perhaps there is something that could be done to help lay the groundwork for 2009.

Chas.

Gov. Perry was very courageous in making his statement about removing all restrictions on CHL's and the anti's in Austin are trying to make this an issue. We all should call and/or send emails to the Governor and thank him for his very well-reasoned response to a horrible tragedy made possible by overly-restrictive gun laws and/or school-imposed restrictions on CHL's in Virginia. Letters to the editors of newspapers would also be in order.

Letters, calls and emails to your Senator and Representative asking them to support Governor Perry’s call for removing restriction CHL’s could also prove helpful.

We need to create a groundswell of support for this concept.

Chas.