CALL TO ACTION: SB905

[74novaman]

Mike[/quote]
I don't who is John Woods?
[/quote]

John Woods is a survivor of the Virginia Tech incident. He is now a student at that school in austin, and leading the charge against campus carry for the brady campaign.

I wasn't trying to actually accuse you of anything, just pointing out that anything you or I can read, they can too.

[MasterOfNone]

What are the chances that this amendment could help establish the third renewal as a "proving point" for CHLs? It has already been determined that a CHLer at third renewal doesn't require training every five years. If this amendment passes as is, it would establish that a CHLer at third renewal is responsible enough to carry in these places. Do we run the risk of setting a precedent for future legislation to use the third renewal as a cut-off, similar to the way age 21 has become almost a de facto measure of maturity instead of 18?

[M2K]

...Why should I accept your hidden reason at face value?

Mike

Welcome to the board, Mike. Technically you are right, in that a hidden reason has no face value, as it is unseen, not declared. Now, if Charles were the face value, I believe in his sincerity. However there are those yet unseen, undeclared within the amendment push. What are their motives and what price is to be paid? That is what I seem to hear you saying, and I cannot say that you are entirely wrong.

I know everyday people are tired of the Texas politics, but that didn't stop me from voting today. We should participate as best we can when we can. Don't let divisions on either side distract you from thinking your own thoughts. Letting passion overcome reason is not a good thing. Now passion with reason......

I hope you will continue to voice your opinions now that you have joined. I believe you will enjoy it even more than before.

Thank you for the kind welcome after the previous comments..

I am on the fence about supporting, sitting it out, or opposing the bill.

I did some research on John Woods in the last few minutes and if he is who I think he is the previous poster was trying to insult me or at least as they say “get my goat”.

Just for the record; I am very conservative and have served my country in various capacities for nearly 40 years.

Mike

[74novaman]

Mike, please see my post above yours. I said John Woods to make the point that this is an internet board that anyone can read or register for. My point being, anything Charles tells you or I, he might as well be telling to Woods as well, because anyone can read it. Wasn't trying to insult a new member in any way.

[TexasBill]

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!

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?

Well, people who use "an" before a consonant do give me the heebie-jeebies....

You want to chop up your CHL? It's okay by me; all I asked is for people to contact their state representatives and either stop or modify a piece of self-serving legislation.

As for "All or nothing," the reality is that with only a short time remaining in the session, we've gotten nothing. Did we get campus carry? Nope: It had to be piggybacked onto SB5 to retain any chance at all. How about keeping your gun locked in your car at work without getting fired? Not yet and not assured. The truth is that, so far, we've gotten nothing but the Senate falling all over itself to pass some special privileges for itself. But apparently we're supposed to be so thrilled that we might get a bone if the rocket scientists and Nobel laureates in Austin judge us worthy that we'll applaud them taking extraordinary measures to deal with statistically nonexistent threats to themselves. That may seem just dandy to you, but it doesn't sit well with me.

Just to make my position clear, I am for getting it all: Constitutional Carry, open or concealed: no permit required. The Second Amendment doesn't limit who may not infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it just says they shall not be infringed. The Texas Legislature approved our state constitution after it passed the Act of April 12, 1871 and incorporated the language allowing the legislature to regulate the carrying of weapons because it already had. For an interesting analysis of the history of legislative gun control in Texas, read Stephen Halbrook's The Right to Bear Arms in Texas: The Intent of the Framers of the Bills of Rights http://www.guncite.com/journals/haltex.html.

[TexasBill]

Address a couple of additional points:

Please understand I don't post things I haven't checked. The Austin Police Department says it can take 4-6 weeks to clear an applicant but the usual time is much less than that; sometimes as little as a week. The Department of Public Safety gets up to nine months, 39 weeks, to make a final decision on a CHL.

I don't know every in and out of the Texas Legislature, but I am very well acquainted with the process. I have had friends and acquaintances in the Legislature (still have one there now) and covered the sessions when I worked in the news department of an Austin radio station.

My Mother's side of the family has been in Texas since before it was a state. At least one of my ancestors fought at the Battle of San Jacinto. My Dad's side of the family settled here before the Civil War. I've been here for all but 14 of my nearly 62 years. Not bragging, just letting you know we've been here a while so I don't have any qualms about discussing the Texas Legislature.

Does the extension of privileges under SB905 make me personally jealous? Nope. I don't go to bars, the only sporting events I attend are my son's football games, played on public school property, and I feel a bit funny about wearing a gun in church. I can lock my gun in my car at my place of employment, but that's a bit silly because I can wear my gun at my place of employment. Campus carry wouldn't apply to me because my daughter attends a private university. My daughter was considering getting her CHL but, since she wouldn't be able to have a gun on campus, even in her car, she decided against it for now. But there are CHL holders who do go to bars, do go to sporting events and do want to carry in church and they are exposed to exactly the same threats as a Texas Senator (except for political opponents -- a couple of legislators were killed by their opponents). Why shouldn't the citizens of the state enjoy the same right of self-defense our Senate wants to appropriate for itself?

There's talk of some hidden surprise that will make us all happy or something like that. Sorry, I'm a skeptic. What I see is Senators who shot down campus carry voting to give themselves special consideration and that just doesn't give me any warm, fuzzy feelings that something good will come out of it. And the "third-time renewal" thing is patently ridiculous. No, it's worse: it's pandering.

Yes, as far as SB905 goes, I am for "all or nothing." Every holder of a CHL should be treated the same, legislator or not.

I've said my piece. I've written my Representative. You folks should do what you think is right. 'Nuff said.

[Bullwhip]

Besides, what elitist politician is going to go into a bar, armed, for any reason??? I don't know too many that would feel the need to do so, to socialize, drink, cut loose, whatever you want to call it, and be a little loose on the control of his/her weapon...I believe the consumption of alcohol and the carrying of firearms is something the Texas CHL community as a whole frowns upon, and that alone gives almost enough pause to keep that from being too much of a problem...

I don't go to bars (no bars in my county or the neighboring counties, I don't drink in public anyway bars or not) but I've heard of plenty of people who go to bars and don't drink. Some aren't even customers, theyr'e Employees, delivery people, band members, designated drivers.

Why should anyone lose their gun rights because of the business license, when they're not even drinking?

[stevie_d_64]

Besides, what elitist politician is going to go into a bar, armed, for any reason??? I don't know too many that would feel the need to do so, to socialize, drink, cut loose, whatever you want to call it, and be a little loose on the control of his/her weapon...I believe the consumption of alcohol and the carrying of firearms is something the Texas CHL community as a whole frowns upon, and that alone gives almost enough pause to keep that from being too much of a problem...

I don't go to bars (no bars in my county or the neighboring counties, I don't drink in public anyway bars or not) but I've heard of plenty of people who go to bars and don't drink. Some aren't even customers, theyr'e Employees, delivery people, band members, designated drivers.

Why should anyone lose their gun rights because of the business license, when they're not even drinking?

Good point, and one that I am glad you brought up...I didn't feel like I needed to bring up this particular facet when I posted my comment...Gracias!!!

[mgood]

. . . I've heard of plenty of people who go to bars and don't drink. Some aren't even customers, theyr'e Employees, delivery people, band members, designated drivers.

Why should anyone lose their gun rights because of the business license, when they're not even drinking?

I used to work as a sound man. I've spent many a 12-hour day in bars without drinking, setting up, running sound for, then loading out a local band. Then we'd hit Denny's at 4:00 am because we hadn't had a chance to eat since about 4:00 the previous afternoon.

[stevie_d_64]

I agree with CWOODS, that an ALL or Nothing amendment would serve our purposes on both sides of the issue...

#1 It would give ALL CHL's the fair shake that was initially extended to those voting on their own little "perk"...

#2 It will very quickly identify those who were initially for it (ironically the gun-control minority in favor of this elitist perk for them), and who will reverse their opinion and vote this particular thing down now that someone else heard the people and offers the ALL INCLUSIVE amendment...I bet we'll see a lot of crawfishing by most on this if we can get this on the original bill...I bet anyone a Buffalo Nickle that Senator Wentworth would be all for an amendment like this...

Then we'll know the "real" political intent, the one I was not (and still not) going to bet on, at that point...The mere introduction and potential rejection of an amendment like that will speak volumes...

The reason I am not in support of the "baby steps" methodology, which I know has worked in the past for us, in this case, is because in my opinion there is absolutely NO reason to extend this "down' to the rest of us anytime soon...I don't believe the general CHL community, 3 renewals or initial licensees should have to wait for something like this, when it is apparent that the politicians believe they are in greater need more than us mear serfs...

Just my opinion...

[stevie_d_64]

A few more things...

I also see how divisive this issue has already become...

For all the reasons for some to accept the methodology of a "baby step" measure to get us closer to some unspecified, unclarified goal...

Some of us see the conservative principle of NOT creating special classes of citizenry...

Obtaining a Texas CHL is a considerable accomplishment and commitment for citizens of this state, their is no mention of any special considerations due to tenure or experience levels...The only thing I can see is the extention of breaks on the fees associated with a personal military, judicial, or other feduciary condition...Ohhh, your fees are reduced when you renew, but that still does not support the argument because of your experience or knowledge in self-defense or the law...All of those feduciary breaks came as "baby steps", and those did not effect the methodology of carrying in this state, we were all still under the provisions and restrictions of the law in where we can go, and not go...

All I am saying is that we are ALL in this together, and that this particular community is an ALL or Nothing group...We should advance as a community, and not accept one sub-group within to be given more considerations than another...

I believe the bill should proceed, and if we can get an amendment to cover ALL CHL's, then I believe that is where we need to go...If it succeeds, everyone succeeds...Politicians and CHL'ers...If it does not, then we have lost nothing...Some may argue with that, and I am ready to debate it...

Over the many years this law has been in place, it seems increasingly hard to get these "pro-good-tweeks" that impact the methodology of carrying in this state...We are heading towards a goal (I hope) of unrestricted and lawful carrying of a firearm for self-defensive purposes...But this path is filled with political landmines so cleverly laid out there, that all parties, regardless of where you fall on this "step" need to be very careful, I most certainly, and not at the expense or sacrifice of those new to the CHL community...

"Politics is the Art of Pursuasion..." Ben Franklin (long time ago)

I counsel that we all need to be together on something like this to paint a pretty picture at the end off the day...

Just my opinion...

[Charles L. Cotton]

Our newly joined members who have focused on this thread and bill need to look at my earlier post. I'm not saying SB905 is a good bill; I'm asking people to support the Kleinschmidt amendment to SB905. As many have said, there is a reason for this but I can't say at this time.

Chas.

I've read your earlier posts and most everything on this board for the last few years. It is one of the better boards on the internet consisting of a very intelligent membership. I’m usually not a “joiner” but I joined this board because I just couldn't stand the implied arrogance and elitism of this bill and the Kleinschmidt amendment.

Why should I accept your hidden reason at face value?

Mike

No reason at all. Don't support the amendment.

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I am on the fence about supporting, sitting it out, or opposing the bill.

Folks, I am not saying to support SB905; nor am I saying you should tell your Representative to support SB905, if the Kleinschmidt amendment is attached. All I'm saying is ask your Rep. to support the Kleinschmidt amendment. There's a very big difference!



Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Yes, as far as SB905 goes, I am for "all or nothing." Every holder of a CHL should be treated the same, legislator or not.

Your "I want it all now" attitude isn't limited to SB905, as is easily seen in your ranting posts.

Chas.

[Right2Carry]

I am on the fence about supporting, sitting it out, or opposing the bill.

Folks, I am not saying to support SB905; nor am I saying you should tell your Representative to support SB905, if the Kleinschmidt amendment is attached. All I'm saying is ask your Rep. to support the Kleinschmidt amendment. There's a very big difference!



Chas.

I contacted my Rep Bill Zelder and asked him to support the amendment Kleinschmidt attaches to SB 905. Doing it leaves a bad taste in my mouth but if it eventually gets us to where we need to be, it will be worth it.