Texas Governor poll

[Charles L. Cotton]

Here is Chris Bell's voting record on gun-related bills during his one term in Congress:

HR3193 (To overturn D.C.'s gun-ban ordnance) Bell voted NO; NRA position YEA

HR2691 Gallegly amendment to funding of Forest Servie or BLM dealing with bear hunting. Bell voted YEA; NRA position NO

HR1036 (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act a/k/a lawsuit preemption) Bell voted YEA; NRA position YEA But note Bell's votes on killer amendments below.

Meehan Amendment to HR1036 - Would allow any suit based in negligence. (All of the suits were brought in negligence.) Bell voted YEA; NRA position NO.


Sanchez Amendment to HR1036 to allow certain suits against certain transferors using the vague term "knowing or having reasonable cause to believe . . ." [This would be an entirely new statute that could be used against any company or individual, not just gun manufacturers.] Bell vote YEA; NRA position NO

Bell didn't bother to cast a vote on these important bills:

Edited to delete the bills. My information was incorrect - these bills were voted before Bell was elected.

In summary, Bell cast one pro-gun vote in his two years in Washington. He voted against gun owners six (6) times. His one good vote was on the lawsuit preemption bill, but he voted in favor of killer amendments, all of which failed.

I have more respect for Sen. Feinstein than I do Chris Bell. Both are anti-gun, but at least she's honest about it.

Chas.

[Mithras61]

Bell didn't bother to cast a vote on these important bills:

HR4635: Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act. NRA position YEA

Defazio Amendment to HR4635: NRA position YEA

HR2356: Campaign Finance Reform Act (Hailed by Sen. McCain on the Senate Floor as the "get the NRA bill!" Didn't work John) NRA position NO

Shays-Pickering Amendment to HR2356 that would have exempted political speech dealing with matters pertaining to the Second Amendment. NRA position YEA

HR2500: Fiscal 2002 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations - Would have prohibited the use of federal funds to destroy national instant criminal background check system records within 90 days as required by federal law. [i.e. would have made NICS records permanent!] NRA position NO.

These were all brought to the floor and passed or defeated before Bell took office. Perhaps he didn't cast his vote for or against because he was elected in November of 2002 and took office in 2003. These were all passed in 2001 or 2002.

HR2691 Gallegly amendment to funding of Forest Servie or BLM dealing with bear hunting. Bell voted YEA; NRA position NO

Actually, this amendment was to prevent BLM from using Federal funds for baiting bears onto Federal lands for hunting purposes. Maybe the bears should be hunted on their natural ranges...

Meehan Amendment to HR1036 - Would allow any suit based in negligence. (All of the suits were brought in negligence.) Bell voted YEA; NRA position NO.

Actually, it would allow suits brought specifically on the basis of the manufacturers or sellers of firearms negligently allowing the firearms to fall into the hands of criminals. That usually means that a seller or manufacturer must take reasonable measures to ensure that the firearms they sell or make are not sold to or stolen by criminals. The bill as it was written would have prevented lawsuits against sellers or manufacturers even when they were negligent in their storage or selling practices.

Sanchez Amendment to HR1036 to allow certain suits against certain transferors using the vague term "knowing or having reasonable cause to believe . . ." [This would be an entirely new statute that could be used against any company or individual, not just gun manufacturers.] Bell vote YEA; NRA position NO

The Sanchez amendment would have allowed lawsuits against gun dealers and manufacturers who sell or transfer guns or ammunition to drug addicts or individuals certified as "mentally defective." Perhaps the specific language of the amendment could have been modified to change "knowing or having reasonable cause to believe . . ." to language that was more appropriate, but I really don't feel that attempts to keep guns out of the hands of drug dealers & mental defectives is such a bad thing.

I will agree however that he voted to not revoke the gun ban in D.C., so I'll give you one of those votes. The others (voting against blanket immunity to gun manufacturers, against bear baiting and against druggies & mental defectives having guns).

But my count is quite different than yours, even giving you the votes as cast being "against gun owners." The count as you posted was actually only four (4) times "against," not six, and it doesn't really look to me like four against. More realistically from my viewpoint it was one for gun owners, one against gun owners, one against bear baiting using Federal funds, one against blanket immunity to lawsuits, and one for not allowing lawsuit immunity to people selling guns to those forbidden by Federal law from owning guns.

Using your logic, I guess the NRA is in favor of blanket immunity for gun sellers and manufacturers from lawsuits, using Federal funds to enhance personal enjoyment of bear hunting on Federal lands, and in favor of putting guns in the hands of drug dealers & mental defectives.

[EricS76]

Mithras61, i'm afraid you're probably wasteing your time here. I posted about being a Kinky Friedman Supporter, and I got "A vote for anyone but Perry is a vote for Bell." Sounds like it's directly from Perry's campaign headquarters. I will not limit my vote to only gun issues. People want to limit the scope of Perry's term thus far to gun issues because that is the only thing he's done anything about.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Bell didn't bother to cast a vote on these important bills:

HR4635: Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act. NRA position YEA

Defazio Amendment to HR4635: NRA position YEA

HR2356: Campaign Finance Reform Act (Hailed by Sen. McCain on the Senate Floor as the "get the NRA bill!" Didn't work John) NRA position NO

Shays-Pickering Amendment to HR2356 that would have exempted political speech dealing with matters pertaining to the Second Amendment. NRA position YEA

HR2500: Fiscal 2002 Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations - Would have prohibited the use of federal funds to destroy national instant criminal background check system records within 90 days as required by federal law. [i.e. would have made NICS records permanent!] NRA position NO.

These were all brought to the floor and passed or defeated before Bell took office. Perhaps he didn't cast his vote for or against because he was elected in November of 2002 and took office in 2003. These were all passed in 2001 or 2002.

These show up on a list of bills when I ran a search on Bell's voting record in Congress. I will check the dates and will correct this if it's wrong. Since you have given dates, I presume you are correct and these bills should not have appeared on the list of Bell votes.

HR2691 Gallegly amendment to funding of Forest Servie or BLM dealing with bear hunting. Bell voted YEA; NRA position NO

Actually, this amendment was to prevent BLM from using Federal funds for baiting bears onto Federal lands for hunting purposes. Maybe the bears should be hunted on their natural ranges...

This is very misleading. The amendment would "restrict the use of funds by the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management to administer any action related to the baiting of bears except to prevent or prohibit such activity."

This is an anti-hunting vote and trying to cast it in terms of not liking the baiting part is unconvencing. The Forest Service or the BLM should retain the flexibility to allow or prohibit the baiting of bears depending upon the bear population in a given area, the number of bears that need to be harvested as part of wildlife management. Restricting the use of federal funds in this manner is far too close to the prohibiting the use of federal funds to hold hearings on restoration of firearms rights.

Meehan Amendment to HR1036 - Would allow any suit based in negligence. (All of the suits were brought in negligence.) Bell voted YEA; NRA position NO.

Actually, it would allow suits brought specifically on the basis of the manufacturers or sellers of firearms negligently allowing the firearms to fall into the hands of criminals. That usually means that a seller or manufacturer must take reasonable measures to ensure that the firearms they sell or make are not sold to or stolen by criminals. The bill as it was written would have prevented lawsuits against sellers or manufacturers even when they were negligent in their storage or selling practices.

Every one of the politically motivated suits against gun manufactures were based on alleged negligence in the distribution system in some form or fashion. The Meehan Amendment would have exempted from the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act any lawsuit that had a negligence claim in the pleadings. It would have absolutely gutted the bill and everyone on Capital Hill knew it. The Meehan Amendment was not adopted, being defeated 144-280, with 140 Democrates voting for it and only 2 Republicans in favor.

Sanchez Amendment to HR1036 to allow certain suits against certain transferors using the vague term "knowing or having reasonable cause to believe . . ." [This would be an entirely new statute that could be used against any company or individual, not just gun manufacturers.] Bell vote YEA; NRA position NO

The Sanchez amendment would have allowed lawsuits against gun dealers and manufacturers who sell or transfer guns or ammunition to drug addicts or individuals certified as "mentally defective." Perhaps the specific language of the amendment could have been modified to change "knowing or having reasonable cause to believe . . ." to language that was more appropriate, but I really don't feel that attempts to keep guns out of the hands of drug dealers & mental defectives is such a bad thing.

First of all, the language was atrociously broad and there was no attempt to narrow it by it's author (Sanchez) or it's 132 Democrat supporters before Bell voted for it.

The Sanchez Amendment applies to any "transferor" not just manufacturers or dealers.

In addition to the overly-broad language I've already pointed out, I have a big problem with the grossly overbroad language such as "unlawful drug user" or "adjudicated mental incompetent." As broadly worded, it could mean anything from a meth addict to a wife using her husband's prescription antibiotic until she can get to the doctor. It doesn't say "convicted drug user."

How is anyone to know if a person has been "adjudicated mental[ly] incompetent? With the "having reasonable cause to believe" language, the sky is the limit for prosecution. BTW, who is the "transferor?" Is it just the person who handed the gun to the possible drug user, or does it include the dealer that sold him the gun and the manufacturer that sold it to the dealer? Before you argue that this is an absurd question, it must be realized that this is precisely the tortured logic used by the plaintiffs in the politically motivated suits.

You may not have a problem with more federal laws dealing with guns, but I do. Blatantly selling or transferring guns to drug users and mentally incompetent persons are already unlawful in most states and this is better left to the states. It is certainly preferable to draft prohibitive statutes that are much clearer.

I will agree however that he voted to not revoke the gun ban in D.C., so I'll give you one of those votes.

And this is probably the most telling of his votes when it comes to the right of self-defense. The D.C. gun ban doesn't have anything to do with bear hunting, or with keeping guns away from drug dealers and mentally incompetent people. It goes to the heart of the right of self-defense. What good is the right if people are denied the means of self-defense? Chris Bell voted to deny the citizens of D.C. the ability to defend themselves and we are supposed to believe that he supports the rights of Texans to carry guns for self-defense? That stretches credibility a bit thin.

But my count is quite different than yours, even giving you the votes as cast being "against gun owners." The count as you posted was actually only four (4) times "against," not six, and it doesn't really look to me like four against. More realistically from my viewpoint it was one for gun owners, one against gun owners, one against bear baiting using Federal funds, one against blanket immunity to lawsuits, and one for not allowing lawsuit immunity to people selling guns to those forbidden by Federal law from owning guns.

No offense, but this looks like it was written by a campaign worker for Chris Bell. Even accepting the rationale behind these statements, which I do not, it cannot be seriously argued that the votes we agree he cast were not anti-gun and anti-hunting votes.

Please remember how we got to this discussion. You posted that Bell wasn't anti-gun and pointed out that he voted for the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. But as we see now, that was hardly "the rest of the story" as Paul Harvey would say. Say what you will, but the Sanchez amendment was designed as a killer amendment that would have gutted the bill and Bell voted for it.

The characterization of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act as "blanket immunity to lawsuits" is precisely the language that the bill's opponents used and it is flat wrong. The bill still allows suits when federal laws are violated.

Using your logic, I guess the NRA is in favor of blanket immunity for gun sellers and manufacturers from lawsuits, using Federal funds to enhance personal enjoyment of bear hunting on Federal lands, and in favor of putting guns in the hands of drug dealers & mental defectives.

I am against frivolous lawsuits brought against gun manufacturers and dealers for the sole purpose of putting them out of business, as admitted by the representatives of the cities filing suit and the attorneys representing them.

I am in favor of letting the Forest Service and BLM use their expertise in spending their budgets as they deem necessary to manage wildlife.

Your statement that I and the NRA support ". . . putting guns in the hands of drug dealers & mental defectives . . ." doesn't deserve a response. It’s the all-to-familiar rhetoric I heard from the CHL opposition for years.

Chas.

[Mithras61]

Mithras61, i'm afraid you're probably wasteing your time here. I posted about being a Kinky Friedman Supporter, and I got "A vote for anyone but Perry is a vote for Bell." Sounds like it's directly from Perry's campaign headquarters. I will not limit my vote to only gun issues. People want to limit the scope of Perry's term thus far to gun issues because that is the only thing he's done anything about.

I understand and acknowledge that. I suppose they can make their decision based on whatever works for them. I'm asking for honesty in their position, though, and not for them to hold an opinion based on an opinion from someone else. The NRA isn't the only source of information on gun issues, and may not even be the most reliable (especially since in at least three of the instances cited they have a dog in the fight so to speak, with Wayne LaPierre being at or near the heart of the issue).

[Charles L. Cotton]

Mithras61, i'm afraid you're probably wasteing your time here. I posted about being a Kinky Friedman Supporter, and I got "A vote for anyone but Perry is a vote for Bell." Sounds like it's directly from Perry's campaign headquarters. I will not limit my vote to only gun issues. People want to limit the scope of Perry's term thus far to gun issues because that is the only thing he's done anything about.

Don't feel like you're wasting your time simply because your position is in the minority. My position against open carry is certainly in the minority! The discussion is a healthy one.

Let me point out one something. I think everyone agrees that 1) only Perry or Bell will win; and 2) Friedman votes most likely would be going to Perry if he (Friedman) were not in the race. Don't take offense at me pointing that out.

As for Mithras61's post, he posted the following:

I've noticed that quite a number of you dismiss Chris Bell as being a rabid anti-gunner. You might want to check out his voting record on that before you decide that he is, because his voting record is pretty good on gun ownership and gun owners' rights.

. . . (he voted for the bill to prevent lawsuits against firearms manufacturers for making "defective" products, among other things)..

Then he quoted from Bell's Campaign:

Chris Bell believes firmly in the privileges guaranteed by the Second Amendment and supports the right of every Texan to own and carry guns legally. However, he feels that it is equally important that existing laws are properly enforced.

But as I pointed out above, Bell voted for the killer Sanchez Amendment to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which would have gutted the bill, so his vote for the bill's final passage didn't reflect his true position, merely his recognition of political realities.

And his vote against lifting the D.C. gun ban speaks volumes about his campaign statement that he "supports the right of every Texan to own and carry guns legally." Talk is cheap, but thankfully we have his voting record to weigh against his rhetoric.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Mithras61, i'm afraid you're probably wasteing your time here. I posted about being a Kinky Friedman Supporter, and I got "A vote for anyone but Perry is a vote for Bell." Sounds like it's directly from Perry's campaign headquarters. I will not limit my vote to only gun issues. People want to limit the scope of Perry's term thus far to gun issues because that is the only thing he's done anything about.

I understand and acknowledge that. I suppose they can make their decision based on whatever works for them. I'm asking for honesty in their position, though, and not for them to hold an opinion based on an opinion from someone else. The NRA isn't the only source of information on gun issues, and may not even be the most reliable (especially since in at least three of the instances cited they have a dog in the fight so to speak, with Wayne LaPierre being at or near the heart of the issue).

Do you consider leaving out Bell's vote for the Sanchez Amendment and his vote to keep the D.C. gun ban being above-board, after first stating that Bell voted for the lawsuit preemption statute and that he supports the right of Texas to own and carry guns?

The last statement in your second previous post, and this post are getting too close to the line with regard to personal attacks. This post of mine does as well, so let's get back to talking about the issue. We can disagree without calling anyone's honesty or integrity into question.

Chas.

[KBCraig]

I think everyone agrees that 1) only Perry or Bell will win; and 2) Friedman votes most likely would be going to Perry if he (Friedman) were not in the race.

While 1 is probably true, 2 is far from certain.

Here are some things that Kinky wants, which are certainly not attractive to someone who would otherwise vote Republican:

- Drastically boost teacher pay. I've heard him say "double", and I've heard him say "at least $100,000".
- Same-day voter registration. Good in principle, so long as there are checks in place to prevent fraud and multiple voting. In practice, it can't be worse than our current "no questions asked" registration.
- Publicly financed campaigns. Yep, tax dollars going to all candidates.
- Supports gay marriage.
- Supports legalization of marijuana.
- Supports non-Indian, non-riverboat casino gambling.
- Wants to drastically increase medical welfare for poor children.
- Wants to use tax funds as incentive payments for alternative energy.

Now, some of those are good, some not-so-good, and some downright at odds with his stated goal to reduce taxes and spending. But when you look at Kinky's platform, he's not attractive to GOP voters. He's a populist, a chicken-in-every-pot sort of guy who also supports individual liberties.

Kevin

[jimlongley]

Seeing the wording of the Bell response, calling the Second Amendment a guarantee of a privilege, my first inclination would be to vote against him. On second consideration I see the word "guarantee" as a commitment. With both of those in mind I intend to contact the Bell Campaign to ask for claraification, that is, if he recognizes the Second Amendment as a guarantee of a right (it is, after all, the "Bill of Rights") or if he really does see it as a privilege.

[40FIVER]

EricS76 and Mithras61:
You guys seem to be very knowledgeable of Chris Bell. So surely, you must have some knowledge of his views on the issues that have been discussed here on this forum the last view weeks:

1. Civil litigation by a victim's family if the self defense act was ruled justifiable.
2. Illegal 30.06 signage
3. Local government end runs around the current law by setting up court clerk offices in otherwise legal to carry buildings.
4. The horrible fact that an employer can all but take away your right to defend yourself by making parking lots off limits to guns.

I could go on and on. These are very important issues. But you guys have not once explained to us what Bell's plans are in '07 when these very issues and others will be delt with.

Sure, he will defend the right to bear firearms as legally allowed. But how does he feel about correcting the obvious flaws in the current laws or making new laws that give us more 2A freedoms?

If he has given his views on these issues, you guys certainly haven't mentioned them.

I will concede that I haven't heard what Perry will do, either. But if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. From Perry's history on CC issues, it is faily obvious what he will do.

If a politician won't speak in plain English, but instead cloaks his beliefs behind misleading words, then he is hiding something.

And finally, I would have to say that a candidate's stance on 2A and our RIGHT (not privilege) to defend ourselves and families is the most important issue facing voters as they choose candidates this election. It is way more important than immigration. It is the bedrock and foundation of this country, along with the freedom to worship as I please and where I please.

The anti's don't have to defeat us. All they have to do is divide us. And it looks like they are doing that very thing. Divide us and they conquer us.

By the way, an anti is a person who does not believe that the RKBA is a God ordained right.

40FIVER

I apologize if my thoughts seem disjointed or hard to follow. I don't have the ability to speak or white eloquently. I have the right to do so, but I never had the privilege to learn how to.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I think everyone agrees that 1) only Perry or Bell will win; and 2) Friedman votes most likely would be going to Perry if he (Friedman) were not in the race.

While 1 is probably true, 2 is far from certain.

Here are some things that Kinky wants, which are certainly not attractive to someone who would otherwise vote Republican:

- Drastically boost teacher pay. I've heard him say "double", and I've heard him say "at least $100,000".
- Same-day voter registration. Good in principle, so long as there are checks in place to prevent fraud and multiple voting. In practice, it can't be worse than our current "no questions asked" registration.
- Publicly financed campaigns. Yep, tax dollars going to all candidates.
- Supports gay marriage.
- Supports legalization of marijuana.
- Supports non-Indian, non-riverboat casino gambling.
- Wants to drastically increase medical welfare for poor children.
- Wants to use tax funds as incentive payments for alternative energy.

Now, some of those are good, some not-so-good, and some downright at odds with his stated goal to reduce taxes and spending. But when you look at Kinky's platform, he's not attractive to GOP voters. He's a populist, a chicken-in-every-pot sort of guy who also supports individual liberties.

Kevin

But I've heard few people state why they would vote for Kinky, other than as a protest vote against Perry. Not one time have I heard anyone say I'm voting for Kinky because of his platform. I'm not saying such people don't exist, only that the sole reason I've seen is a protest vote to send the Republicans a message.

I think you're absolutely correct on your analysis of Friedman's lack of appeal to traditional GOP voters. My worry is that people don't think he can win so why worry about his platform?


Chas.

[KBCraig]

40FIVER, we still have all those issues with Perry as governor. It's not like they're going away just because he's re-elected, nor made instantly worse because Bell is elected.

Let me reiterate here that I'm not a Democrat supporter. I haven't voted for one in years. I'm only bringing these things up to point out that voting for an independent or third party candidate doesn't mean Texas is going to turn into Chicago on inauguration day.

I like Kinky stirring up the pot, even though I don't agree with him on most issues. I'm much more in line with James Werner:

http://www.werner4texas.com/

Kevin

[nitrogen]

EricS76 and Mithras61:

By the way, an anti is a person who does not believe that the RKBA is a God ordained right.

Why do you want to aleinate anyone who might be otherwise on your side who might be an Athiest or an Agnostic?

[EricS76]

EricS76 and Mithras61:
You guys seem to be very knowledgeable of Chris Bell. So surely, you must have some knowledge of his views on the issues that have been discussed here on this forum the last view weeks:

1. Civil litigation by a victim's family if the self defense act was ruled justifiable.
2. Illegal 30.06 signage
3. Local government end runs around the current law by setting up court clerk offices in otherwise legal to carry buildings.
4. The horrible fact that an employer can all but take away your right to defend yourself by making parking lots off limits to guns.

I could go on and on. These are very important issues. But you guys have not once explained to us what Bell's plans are in '07 when these very issues and others will be delt with.

Sure, he will defend the right to bear firearms as legally allowed. But how does he feel about correcting the obvious flaws in the current laws or making new laws that give us more 2A freedoms?

If he has given his views on these issues, you guys certainly haven't mentioned them.

I will concede that I haven't heard what Perry will do, either. But if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. From Perry's history on CC issues, it is faily obvious what he will do.

If a politician won't speak in plain English, but instead cloaks his beliefs behind misleading words, then he is hiding something.

And finally, I would have to say that a candidate's stance on 2A and our RIGHT (not privilege) to defend ourselves and families is the most important issue facing voters as they choose candidates this election. It is way more important than immigration. It is the bedrock and foundation of this country, along with the freedom to worship as I please and where I please.

The anti's don't have to defeat us. All they have to do is divide us. And it looks like they are doing that very thing. Divide us and they conquer us.

By the way, an anti is a person who does not believe that the RKBA is a God ordained right.

40FIVER

I apologize if my thoughts seem disjointed or hard to follow. I don't have the ability to speak or white eloquently. I have the right to do so, but I never had the privilege to learn how to.

I think you should read all the posts before you post. I know nothing of Chris Bell. Never said I did. I never said I was voting or even considering voting for him.

[EricS76]

Let me point out one something. I think everyone agrees that 1) only Perry or Bell will win; and 2) Friedman votes most likely would be going to Perry if he (Friedman) were not in the race. Don't take offense at me pointing that out.

Chas.

1. I don't agree with. It should be apparent why.

2. Kinky Friedman is not Ross Perot. It's hard to believe he'd be drawing a very high percent of Republican votes compared Democrat votes. The truth is he'll be drawing a majority of votes from people who are neither. It's a fact that many of Kinky's supporters are people who wouldn't have voted in this election at all. It's been well reported the many non-registered voters he has gotten registered.

You said "But I've heard few people state why they would vote for Kinky, other than as a protest vote against Perry." Obviously Perry wouldn't be getting their vote anyway. To be truthful in this situation, since you believe Kinky has no chance, he's doing Perry a favor by drawing a likely Chris Bell vote away.

So I don't buy this "A vote for Kinky is a vote for Bell". It may just as easily be "A vote for Kinky is a vote for Perry". But it looks alot like "A vote for Kinky is a vote for Kinky."

I too feel this discussion is a healthy one. I couldn't imagine how one like it would go on places like glock talk. It shows good character for most folks here.