PEOPLE, THIS IS A HUGE OPPORTUNITY If we fail to support this foot in the door opportunity, we do so at our own peril. There are a LOT of folks who could immediately benefit from this if it passes. Like the parking lot bill, it doesn't do everything for every one of us, but it does a lot for many of us without doing harm to any of us.
mgood wrote:blue wrote:goose.. gander..
Do we disregard if we are NOT on 3rd renewal yet? (Semi serious)
--FLUSH the abomination. PERIOD!
An all-or-nothing approach is not going to win us much.
By getting more and more CHLs into more and more places, allows us to demonstrate that we are not a threat to the public safety. That allows us to take more and more territory.
Eventually I'd like to see any adult who can legally own a firearm be able to legally carry those firearms, concealed or openly, with no need for a government issued license, just about anywhere a LEO may carry his firearms. But that ain't gonna happen this session. Baby steps will get us there.
As mgood said, the all or nothing approach will only get us a whole lot of 'nothing ' and a rare and tiny amount of 'all'. If we had taken that approach in 1995, we would still be behind California on this issue...as well as a lot of other states which have followed our lead on concealed carry.
terryg wrote:hirundo82 wrote:blue wrote:goose.. gander..
Do we disregard if we are NOT on 3rd renewal yet? (Semi serious)
--FLUSH the abomination. PERIOD!
We get this through for anyone on their third renewal or later this time, and I bet next time we can get it down to anyone on their first renewal. It's like the current campus carry bill not covering private schools or teaching hospitals--it's not perfect, but it's a good starting point for future sessions.
I agree. I didn't mean to sound so negative - I was just wondering why they picked 3 - thats a lot of years.
Again, in the 1995 bill, if we had not accepted the carry restrictions in churches, govt. meetings, hospitals, and all the other locations, IT WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ENACTED. Again, we would still be behind California.
I would be willing to bet money, something I hold pretty dear, that the "3rd Renewal" provision was market tested and found to be the minimum which would be accepted by the other members. The members of House and Senate can say to themselves and any objecting constituents, and there will be some, and to the media that they were 'responsible' in that they limited their actions to include CHL'ers who have, for AT LEAST A DECADE, demonstrated a high level of responsibility with a concealed handgun. Being able to say something like this gives them the political cover which some of them will need.
austinrealtor wrote:Folks, just THINK of the political ramifications of this for all those Senators who originally voted FOR the bill but now may want to vote AGAINST this amendment? Try explaining that one to your constituents. It's one thing to say you voted for SB905 but against SB354 or SB321 because while they're all gun-related they are separate bills. But how would someone like Hinojosa defend voting FOR SB905 but against this amendment? This is one of those game-changing amendments that is going to force some legislators to think very hard and could wake up the sleeping lemmings who are middle of the road on this issue - like the mainstream media.
Perhaps I'm being a bit naive, but anyone who voted for SB 905 and then votes against this amendment should be lambasted by more than just us "gun nuts".
COMMITTEEiiSUBSTITUTE
SENATE BILL 905 ON SECOND READING
Senator Patrick moved to suspend the regular order of business to take up for
consideration CSSBi905 at this time on its second reading:
CSSB 905, Relating to the application of certain concealed handgun license laws
to statewide elected officials, certain current and former members of the legislature,
and certain federal and state employees.
The motion prevailed by the following vote:iiYeasi25, Naysi6.
Yeas:iiCarona, Deuell, Duncan, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar,
Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Patrick, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti,
Van de Putte, Watson, West, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.Nays:iiBirdwell, Davis, Ellis, Ogden, Rodriguez, Wentworth.
The bill was read second time and was passed to engrossment by the following
vote:iiYeasi25, Naysi6.ii(Same as previous roll call)
COMMITTEEiiSUBSTITUTE
SENATE BILL 905 ON THIRD READING
Senator Patrick moved that Senate Rule 7.18 and the Constitutional Rule
requiring bills to be read on three several days be suspended and that CSSBi905 be
placed on its third reading and final passage.
The motion prevailed by the following vote:iiYeasi25, Naysi6.
Yeas:iiCarona, Deuell, Duncan, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar,
Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Patrick, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti,
VanideiPutte, Watson, West, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.
Nays:iiBirdwell, Davis, Ellis, Ogden, Rodriguez, Wentworth.
Monday, May 9, 2011 SENATE JOURNAL 2077
The bill was read third time and was passed by the following vote:iiYeasi25,
Naysi6.ii(Same as previous roll call)
I think the number of Senators voting FOR it will actually increase with the amendment. Senators Birdwell and Wentworth actually voted against it BECAUSE of their principled stand that it should apply to everyone, and not just the specified officials. I admire that. Third renewal is not 'everyone' but it certainly is much more inclusive that the original.
Full Disclosure, if the amendment survives, I will benefit, however, I have two CHL daughters who will not, yet. So I do have skin in this game on both sides.
Support it now, get the foot in the door and we can extend it further later. This can be a sea change event.
Scheduled for a public hearing in House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee on Tuesday, 5-17-2011.
That's the honorable and ethical thing to do.
