CALL TO ACTION: SB905

[74novaman]

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.

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.

Just felt like quoting this again because it is so true. Those of us on the website who carry daily and understand what the Founders meant by the 2nd amendment sometimes have a hard time realizing other people, even though they are wrong, don't share our views. Is it wrong that we have to take a class, pay a tax, and be regulated by the state? Absolutely. Does more than 5 or 10% of the population agree? I doubt it.

I'm one of the young guys on here (24), but it is important to note that even I am OLDER than the CHL program in Texas. It has taken a lot of hard work by a lot of people to get to where we are. We've chipped away at the infringements we have placed upon us. And guess what? EVERY TIME that we take just a little bit more away, the ninnies scream and moan about mass murders, blood in the streets, etc etc....and EVERY SINGLE TIME we prove them wrong. This means that as long as we keep working hard, eventually we can get to Constitutional Carry. I would love to be able to tell my grandkids "Can you imagine when I was young that I had to pay the state to ensure my right to carry?" and have them be amazed by the very idea.

I am NOT one of those who would benefit directly from this. Heck, my first renewal isn't until 2013. BUT, I will support this amendment as a "foot in the door" to continue to reduce restrictions on our natural rights by the state. I think we are ALL going to benefit from this indirectly, and in a few years have even less restrictions on us ALL...because we've proven the ninnies wrong AGAIN!

If you constantly go for nothing but it ALL, you wind up with a lot of NOTHING.

Just my .02 on the matter.

[sugar land dave]

This bill seems rather imperious to me. It's whole notion seems just "wrong-headed" as my father would have said. I could compare the current situation to an Emperor's court throwing a party for themselves while their people suffer. When faced with the public outcry for the Legion to remind the Palace that they exist to serve the people, the Elite invite a few Centurions to the party and suggest that in a few years they'll let the rest of the Centurions attend a similar party.

I know that's the way Texas politics work. I know that sometimes they are in effect telling me I must kiss a pig. I shouldn't have to like it just because they put some lipstick on it.

I love this country. I work in support of it each day, as do most on this board. Some times I just ponder if those at the top occasionally become as wonderful yet uncaring as Marie Antoinette.

Let me also say that I personally never had any interest in this bill. From the start I assumed those in Austin would take care of themselves. To them I would say, "Just do what you normally do, and..... forget the lipstick."

I am not a lawyer or politician, just one of the people who believe that the country is the people, not the ground they stand on. May God bless the American people, those in Texas, and especially Charles and the Moderators for allowing me the freedom and the place to comment.

[mgood]

What is the difference between someone who has had their license since say, ohhhhh, 1996...And someone who just got their plastic yesterday???

Easier to pass.
They can say, "Here are folks who have passed a 10-15 year probationary period without shooting up the shopping mall. We are now going to allow them to carry in bars."
That's a much easier sale than, "Here is a 21 year old about to enter a bar for the first time. We're going to allow him to do so while packing a concealed handgun."
And it does get a foot in the door. Assuming these CHLs on their third renewal don't go shoot up the bars, in the near future we should be able to persuade them to reduce or eliminate the "probationary period."

We've chipped away at the infringements we have placed upon us. And guess what? EVERY TIME that we take just a little bit more away, the ninnies scream and moan about mass murders, blood in the streets, etc etc....and EVERY SINGLE TIME we prove them wrong. This means that as long as we keep working hard, eventually we can get to Constitutional Carry. I would love to be able to tell my grandkids "Can you imagine when I was young that I had to pay the state to ensure my right to carry?" and have them be amazed by the very idea.

Exactly! The anti-gun movement has chipped away at our rights, little by little, for many years. They never had the power to ban guns (though many of them would have if they could have). But they could take away our rights a little at a time.
Now, we're taking back our rights. We do not have the power to take them back all at once, but we're taking them back a little at a time.

[TexasBill]

Amendment or no, I can't support SB905. In fact, I am ashamed that Dan Patrick, the conservative Republican senator who represents my district, was one of the authors of this totally unnecessary bill.

The claim, voiced by Sen. Patrick, is that legislators, judges, statewide elected officials and others, like non-commissioned employees of the Department of Public Safety are high-profile targets for assassins. For some reason, the Governor, city mayors, elected municipal and county officials and non-sworn employees of the state's police and county sheriff departments are not. Let's look at the facts: since 1815, exactly 19 people who would qualify under SB905 have been assassinated in the United States. One was in Texas (John Woods, a federal judge, killed by a hitman for a Mexican drug lord in 1979). Ten of those killings occurred in the last 100 years. Likewise, ten happened in the period from 1871, when the Texas Legislature stripped the citizens of Texas of the right to legally carry a handgun at all, until 1995, when George W. Bush signed a limited restoration of those rights under strict state control. That's ten in the entire country; I'll bet a lot more than ten Texan citizens were murdered in that period who would have been alive had they or another citizen been able to legally carry a handgun. Heck, we lost more than ten at Luby's in 1991!

To put the numbers in another perspective, whooping cough, scarlet fever and malaria are rare in the United States. Yet more Americans died of those diseases in 2007 alone than all federal and state legislators and judges assassinated in the last century.

Here's another kicker: Not one of these assassinations took place in a location that would be authorized by SB905. Most happened either in the victim's home or at the victim's place of work. The attack on Gabrielle Giffords, in which federal judge John Roll was killed) took place in a supermarket parking lot in the middle of the morning. Under Texas law, not even a CHL would have been required for armed intervention: Texans can carry a concealed handgun in their personal vehicle without a permit.

You can talk about "baby steps" all you want; babies fall down, too, and SB905 is a prime example of this. Unless a potential amendment extends the same expansion of permitted carry to all CHL holders, SB905 needs to end its days in the House, without passage. This is sheer, naked elitism and self-serving on the part of our elected officials; the so-called justification does not hold water, even under the most cursory examination.

SB905 is scheduled for public hearings on May 17. If you are in Austin, a visit to the State Capitol might be worthwhile. In the meantime, you should contact your Texas State Representative (http://www.house.state.tx.us/resources/ ... s/#who_rep) and left them know you oppose SB905 as passed by the Senate. Tell them the language needs to be extended to cover all Texans with Concealed Handgun Licenses or the measure needs to be defeated.

[TLE2]

I'll be dead by then.

[JJVP]

Amendment or no, I can't support SB905. In fact, I am ashamed that Dan Patrick, the conservative Republican senator who represents my district, was one of the authors of this totally unnecessary bill.

The claim, voiced by Sen. Patrick, is that legislators, judges, statewide elected officials and others, like non-commissioned employees of the Department of Public Safety are high-profile targets for assassins. For some reason, the Governor, city mayors, elected municipal and county officials and non-sworn employees of the state's police and county sheriff departments are not. Let's look at the facts: since 1815, exactly 19 people who would qualify under SB905 have been assassinated in the United States. One was in Texas (John Woods, a federal judge, killed by a hitman for a Mexican drug lord in 1979). Ten of those killings occurred in the last 100 years. Likewise, ten happened in the period from 1871, when the Texas Legislature stripped the citizens of Texas of the right to legally carry a handgun at all, until 1995, when George W. Bush signed a limited restoration of those rights under strict state control. That's ten in the entire country; I'll bet a lot more than ten Texan citizens were murdered in that period who would have been alive had they or another citizen been able to legally carry a handgun. Heck, we lost more than ten at Luby's in 1991!

To put the numbers in another perspective, whooping cough, scarlet fever and malaria are rare in the United States. Yet more Americans died of those diseases in 2007 alone than all federal and state legislators and judges assassinated in the last century.

Here's another kicker: Not one of these assassinations took place in a location that would be authorized by SB905. Most happened either in the victim's home or at the victim's place of work. The attack on Gabrielle Giffords, in which federal judge John Roll was killed) took place in a supermarket parking lot in the middle of the morning. Under Texas law, not even a CHL would have been required for armed intervention: Texans can carry a concealed handgun in their personal vehicle without a permit.

You can talk about "baby steps" all you want; babies fall down, too, and SB905 is a prime example of this. Unless a potential amendment extends the same expansion of permitted carry to all CHL holders, SB905 needs to end its days in the House, without passage. This is sheer, naked elitism and self-serving on the part of our elected officials; the so-called justification does not hold water, even under the most cursory examination.

SB905 is scheduled for public hearings on May 17. If you are in Austin, a visit to the State Capitol might be worthwhile. In the meantime, you should contact your Texas State Representative (http://www.house.state.tx.us/resources/ ... s/#who_rep) and left them know you oppose SB905 as passed by the Senate. Tell them the language needs to be extended to cover all Texans with Concealed Handgun Licenses or the measure needs to be defeated.

Well said.

[OCD]

Well said. I think we should vote for/against legislators based on what they do for/against us. If they do something for my neighbor, then my neighbor should vote for them. However, that doesn't earn them my vote.

I think the baby step comment is valid. If baby steps are the best I can get with a Republican majority (60-70%) in the Texas legislature, then I think I should vote to get back to the Rep-Dem mix that got us the big step of the CHL law in 1995.

[artx]

Do you consider campus carry and employee parking lots baby steps? The bills that didn't pass for 3 straight sessions (parking lots) or one session ( campus carry), even with the full force of NRA/TSRA and grassroots support?

Who are the folks that are able to make these huge gains that are worth supporting at the expense of any smaller forward progress? Where is the coalition of legislators? Someone has to put these groups of reps/senators together and get them to agree on the legislation/companion bills to be filed, champion bills, make sure they are assigned to friendly committees, get placed on the right calender, be voted on without gutting amendments, be reconciled if necessary between the house/senate, and finally meet the approval of the governor.

Remember anything with SB905 is a bonus, making lemonade out of the original lemon bill.

[Right2Carry]

I contacted my State Senator Wendy Davis and let her know that I wanted SB 905 amended to include all CHL holders.
I appreciate all the hard work Charles and others have done for CHL holders in the Great State of Texas.

[OCD]

Do you consider campus carry and employee parking lots baby steps?

Yes they are baby steps, especially the watered down versions that seem most likely to pass.

I don't want a car salesman to sell me a lemon. If he does, I won't do business with him again. If he tells me I should "make lemonade" you can bet I'll tell all my friends.

[TexasBill]

Do you consider campus carry and employee parking lots baby steps? The bills that didn't pass for 3 straight sessions (parking lots) or one session ( campus carry), even with the full force of NRA/TSRA and grassroots support?

Who are the folks that are able to make these huge gains that are worth supporting at the expense of any smaller forward progress? Where is the coalition of legislators? Someone has to put these groups of reps/senators together and get them to agree on the legislation/companion bills to be filed, champion bills, make sure they are assigned to friendly committees, get placed on the right calender, be voted on without gutting amendments, be reconciled if necessary between the house/senate, and finally meet the approval of the governor.

Remember anything with SB905 is a bonus, making lemonade out of the original lemon bill.

I don't consider campus carry a baby step and Senator Wentworth, who got the amendment tacked on, keeping campus carry alive, doesn't either. However, that didn't stop him from being one of the six Senators who voted against SB905. He also voted against the suspension of the rules that allowed it to be fast-tracked through.

I am all for advancement but advancement should be for everyone, not just a privileged few whose actual statistical risk is less than negligible. This is just like the moron in the U.S. House of Representatives who wanted to pass a law making it illegal to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of any government official (The dog catcher? The government employee to whom you are married or related?)

If Texas wants to be in the forefront, it better get a move on. We claim pride in our western heritage yet Texas is one of just two states (and Oklahoma may leave it as the only state) that doesn't permit unlicensed open carry in some form. Even California allows it in some circumstances. We have one of the most onerous licensing processes in the U.S.: it's actually quicker to be cleared to be a police officer in Texas than it is to get a CHL.

The parking lot issue should have been a slam-dunk long ago. Campus carry should not have to be passed through parliamentary procedures -- it should have sailed through standing proud. Calling them baby steps doesn't make the Legislature's progress on either one cute.

In 1871, the Texas Legislature passed the most restrictive handgun law in the United States -- even in New York, you could get a permit to legally carry. It was a Jim Crow law, designed to keep guns out of the hands of newly-freed slaves, but it remained on the books until CHL legislation became law in 1995. After 124 years of denial, is there some particular reason we should continue to put up with the foot-dragging in Austin? And is there any reason we should put up with legislation that confers extra privileges on a few, who voluntarily sought and spent gobs of money winning, the offices they hold? They knew the risks when they ran; they haven't changed. If they can't share those privileges with those who put them in office, they don't deserve them.

[CWOOD]

I HAVE BEEN CONVINCED!!!!
DAMN THE TORPEDOES, REVERSE COURSE!!

NO MORE PARTIAL MEASURES...ALL OR NOTHING!!

I now suggest that we contact our legislators and urge them to STOP SB905 with or without amendments. If everyone cannot carry almost everywhere, let NO ONE carry anywhere. ALL OR NOTHING!

Let's also urge the legislators to STOP the Employer Parking Lot bill too. It is unacceptable that those in the oil refining/chemical plant industry should be denied the right to have their weapons in their vehicles. If it is not good for all of us, then by gosh, none of us should participate. ALL OR NOTHING!

Campus Carry, heck NO!. I think we should not accept that only some of us would be able to carry our weapons on campus. If the folks at the private institutions or those with teaching hospitals cannot carry then it would be patently unfair for others to be permitted to do so until all of us can do it. ALL OR NOTHING!

In fact, I think it would only show the conviction of our beliefs for us to actively lobby the legislature to right some of the injustices of the past. We must persuade them to renounce and repeal the laws which permitted us to carry (without 30.06) in churches, amusement parks, hospitals, and meetings of governmental bodies. Additionally, we should have them include the government building provision in the repeal. It can only be right and good that with the force of our ideas we make them see that until we can carry everywhere, we cannot, in good conscience carry anywhere regarding these locations. ALL OR NOTHING!

I have become so convinced of the correctness of our principals on this matter that we cannot fail to have them really force their hand. I propose that we free ourselves from ALL hypocrisy. It is fundamentally unconstitutional that we should have our right of self defense regulated and taxed by the State. Why should we have to even take the training class. It infringes on our rights of self actualization and we cannot permit this sad state of affairs to exist. These facts are all the more egregious considering the fact that we cannot all carry all the time and everywhere. There can be no room for compromise.

We must DEMAND that the legislature immediately, in this session, strike from the books ALL vestiges of the entire existing CHL law. We should then require them to replace it with "Constitutional Carry". We must all be allowed to carry everywhere, in any manner, at any time what ever we want and until they see fit to recognize the true and just nature of that position WE SHALL ACCEPT NOTHING SHORT OF THAT PRINCIPLED POSITION. WE ARE ALL CITIZENS WITH THE COURAGE AND STEADFASTNESS OF OUR POSITION. ALL OR NOTHING!!

I have decided that I am going to cut up my CHL tonight. And I am mailing it to my Representative and Senator...half each. I know that many of you are with me on this and I would be happy to repost the names and addresses of all our representatives.

COME ON ALL CHL'ERS LET'S GET THIS BANDWAGON ROLLING When they see nearly 500,000 cut up CHL's come back in the mail they will know that they have fouled up and will surely be convinced by our actions. Saddle up!

Jeez, don't ya just hate an convert?

[Ameer]

I HAVE BEEN CONVINCED!!!!
darn THE TORPEDOES, REVERSE COURSE!!

NO MORE PARTIAL MEASURES...ALL OR NOTHING!!

I now suggest that we contact our legislators and urge them to STOP SB905 with or without amendments. If everyone cannot carry almost everywhere, let NO ONE carry anywhere. ALL OR NOTHING!

Where is the "ALL" in your rhetoric? I think it's better to push for all instead of nothing.

If they don't do the right thing, REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER and turn lemon legislators into lemonade.

[TexasGal]

I contacted my State Senator Wendy Davis and let her know that I wanted SB 905 amended to include all CHL holders.
I appreciate all the hard work Charles and others have done for CHL holders in the Great State of Texas.

Wendy Davis is my state senator also and as far as I can tell, she is anti to a fault. I didn't vote for her and sure won't the next time either.

The vast majority of us have been enjoying the right to carry because of a few warriors who have fought in the front lines for many years. I respect Charles immensely for his tireless leadership (and success) on our behalf. He is familiar with the inner workings of the current session and if he says something is a good idea to support, then I have no reason not to trust his judgement. Having attended one of his seminars, I had a chance to gain some first hand impressions of him and again saw no reason not to trust his advice.

All the sentiments on this legislation are right in part. We plainly do have the constitutional right. It is wrong for legislators to make laws for themselves while leaving CHL's out. But I also agree that any foot in the door is more than we had.

No so long ago, I was woefully ignorant of the entire world of CHL and armed self defense. I understand the fear and ignorance that drives the other side so please don't flame me for what i am about to say. We get so used to guns we simply start dismissing the feelings of people who are not. Angrily pushing in an offensive manner does not win them over. It makes us sound like rednecks who are too volatile and just feeds their fear. Like it or NOT, we live in the world as it is today. As others have said, look at the growth of acceptance of concealed carry all over Texas and the US. We ARE changing public opinion and the laws, but that did not happen as an "all or nothing" approach and never will.

The non-gun public hears bad things associated with guns on the news every day. What is there to balance that? We have a great track record of safety and obeying the law, but the general public is mostly clueless about it. I for one, would love to see short spots on TV and billboards that simply educate the public on the requirements for a CHL and the statistic for criminal behavior of licensees vs the other people they share their day with. Without that education all they have is fear and ignorance. The media does not help with that. Small steps may be frustrating, but they HAVE been working. I would not benefit from this legislation, but I would cheer for those it does and I strongly believe the law would be amended before long. Lets make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

[steve817]

I contacted my State Senator Wendy Davis and let her know that I wanted SB 905 amended to include all CHL holders.
I appreciate all the hard work Charles and others have done for CHL holders in the Great State of Texas.

Good luck getting Wendy Davis on board.