CALL TO ACTION: SB905

[Paragrouper]

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 think Charles' statement says it all. He did not ask us to support or oppose the bill, but to accomplish a very limited action. 'Why' is apparently not for public consumption at this time.

I'm in.

[G.A. Heath]

Rants? How about debating points? I have not engaged in insults or ad hominem attacks against you or any member of this forum. When presented with an opposing argument, I have presented verifiable sources to support my contentions. Passionate? Yes, indeedy: I believe what's happening is wrong and I advocate a proper way for those who agree with my position to oppose it.

The "all" I want isn't going to happen anytime soon. But the Act of April 12, 1871 wasn't a baby step: it was a giant leap to an absolute prohibition on the citizens of Texas carrying handguns outside of their homes or places of business or "traveling" (a term so poorly defined it took two sessions of the legislature over a hundred years later to set it straight). I believe we should strive to take more than "baby steps" to regain the rights we once enjoyed: at the very least, we should graduate to toddling.

Furthermore, I know the Legislature is the last step. We need to do a better job of marshaling public opinion. We need to set a long-term goal and devise strategies and tactics to achieve it. But long-term doesn't mean "sometime, never."

Bill

Your right we do need to do a better job on educating the public and getting public opinion on our side. And the way to do this is below.

To anyone reading this: if your not a member of the NRA, then join. If your not a Member of the TSRA, then join it too. If your not a member of the new Texas Firearms Coalition, then join it too (especially considering how low the membership fee is). Then join any other gun rights groups you want. Once you have all your memberships taken care of your next step will be to take your friends, family, coworkers, ect. shooting and get them to join these organizations. Also, try to get an NSSF first shots program, or something similar, going in your area. Finally read the paper, watch the TV news, and listen to the Radio. When something wrong is reported contact them and let them know how they are wrong. Try to educate the news outlets in your area, and a good place to start is to send them a link to, or hard copy of, http://gunfacts.info. Educate those around you and those who are reporting the news to the public as well as the people around you, then we will have a much easier time with the legislature.

[GrillKing]

I keep hearing that the ALL or Nothing approach will get us nothing. That we need baby steps to get us there. Fine, here is my proposal for baby steps. First remove the restrictions for Churches, for ALL CHL's. Next time they can remove the restrictions on profesional sporting events, for ALL CHL's. Then they can go for the 51%, again for ALL CHL's. Baby steps.

I will not support in any way a piece of legislation that exempts politicians from the laws we are expected to obey. I will also not support legislation that gives "special privileges" to some CHL's, but no others. Whatever is done should apply to ALL CHL's or to none.

I have great respect to what Charles has done for guns rights in Texas. This, however is a case where we will never see eye to eye.

How will you feel about it after his method has proven successful?

And it will prove unsuccessful. One step at a time got us where we are today and one step at a time will continue to get us where we want to be. I believe "all or nothing" will land us closer to nothing. I completely trust Charles, I appreciate his work on Texas RKBA, and will go with his suggestions on how we should proceed. I will do so even when some details cannot be made public at the time. His track record is PROVEN!

I think you misread my previous posts. I trust Charles too. I was the one urging others to trust him. SEE THIS POST FROM PAJAMAS MEDIA.

TAM, I edited my post to change "unsuccessful" to "SUCCESSFUL" which is what I meant. This is very clear if you read the rest of my post. You probably quit reading after my first sentance as with the mistake I made, it is blatantly untrue as originally erroneously posted. I was thinking at the time that I was typing that the all or nothing approach would be unsuccessful whereas you stated the incremental would be successful. I got my brain to paper wires crossed. You and I are on the same page!!! To be perfectly clear, my position is: Charles' approach, the incremental approach, is tried and true and has the absolute highest probablilty of success, and is the method we should utilize.

[GrillKing]

TAM, yes, I believe I mis-read your post the first time. Thanks for catching that and noting it in your post. I have done so in my original post as well.... We are in agreement!

[Charles L. Cotton]

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 think Charles' statement says it all. He did not ask us to support or oppose the bill, but to accomplish a very limited action. 'Why' is apparently not for public consumption at this time.

I'm in.

Thank you!! I can't give any more hints than this folks. But as Pararouper noted, I've never said to support SB905 with or without the Kleinschmidt Amendment. In fact, I've said I don't like SB905 either! It's the Amendment that is important. (I've said too much already.)

Chas.

[canvasbck]

Carles, I trust you here..........to a point. I will be contacting my rep in support of the amendment, but will be contacting everyone applicable in opposition to SB905 if it appears that it will be creating a special class of citizen. I actually hope that this amendment passes and then SB905 goes down in flames.

[Luggo1]

I hate to post this but I'm lost on the positioning of some bills...

Do I need to contact my rep regardless or is this to be directed only at certain members on a particular committee?

Thank you

[sherlock7]

Charles, You have my support! I have called My Rep. ( Vicky Truitt ) and requested her to support Rep. Kleinschmidt's admendment to SB905 and to oppose any admendment that is not acceptable to to Rep. Kleinschmidt.

[The Annoyed Man]

Charles, You have my support! I have called My Rep. ( Vicky Truitt ) and requested her to support Rep. Kleinschmidt's admendment to SB905 and to oppose any admendment that is not acceptable to to Rep. Kleinschmidt.

Truitt is my House Representative too. Isn't SB 905 a Senate bill?

[RHenriksen]

Truitt is my House Representative too. Isn't SB 905 a Senate bill?

Yes, but can't House representatives offer amendments to a Senate bill once it passes the Senate and comes to the House?

[JJVP]

But there are CHL holders who do go to bars, do go to sporting events and do want to carry in church. . .

Just a reminder.... they can carry in church now if they want to, unless the church is posted with a 30.06 sign. . . .

. . . Fine, here is my proposal for baby steps. First remove the restrictions for Churches, for ALL CHL's.

Church carry is ok.
Churches are no different from grocery stores. CHLs may carry there unless they're posted 30.06.

Yet the bill exempts churches (46.035 b(6). What this bill will do, as filed, is that legislators, etc, will be able ignore a 30.06 sign at a hospital, amusement park, church and government meetings. The rest of us, will be arrested.

(h-2) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsections
(b)(1), (2), and (4)-(6), and (c) that at the time of the commission
of the offense, the actor was a person who on September 1, 2011, was
serving as a member of the legislature and possessed a concealed
handgun license under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code,
if the person is no longer a member at the time of the offense and if
the license has not yet been subject to renewal since the person
ceased to be a member. This subsection expires on September 1,
2020.

[The Annoyed Man]

Truitt is my House Representative too. Isn't SB 905 a Senate bill?

Yes, but can't House representatives offer amendments to a Senate bill once it passes the Senate and comes to the House?

I must be behind the 8-ball. Is that what happened?

[clarionite]

Truitt is my House Representative too. Isn't SB 905 a Senate bill?

Yes, but can't House representatives offer amendments to a Senate bill once it passes the Senate and comes to the House?

I must be behind the 8-ball. Is that what happened?

It appears to be

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup ... Bill=SB905" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[JJVP]

Charles, You have my support! I have called My Rep. ( Vicky Truitt ) and requested her to support Rep. Kleinschmidt's admendment to SB905 and to oppose any admendment that is not acceptable to to Rep. Kleinschmidt.

Where is this Kleinschmidt amendment? Other than Charles original post, I have not seen any amendments to the bill. Is this a "proposed" amendment that might or might not be offered? And what if it is offered and voted down, then what?

Let's say it passes and will add the 3rd renewal CHL's to the list of "special" CHL's that can ignore the laws that the rest of us have to obey. How will a cop on the street know who is an exempt CHL and who is not? This will be a nightmare to enforce.

Let's look at a potential scenario. Three friends, all CHL's and all carrying, walk to the baseball park to see the Astros on a Friday night. CHL #1 is a member of the legislature and just got his CHL that morning, first time. CHL #2, is on his 4th renewal and CHL#3 got his CHL a couple of years ago, so no renewals. Police stop them after they enter the stadium and ask the if they are armed. They say yes. CHL #1 produces his CHL and Legislator ID. He gets escorted to his box seat. CHL #2 hands his CHL and informs the officer he is on his 4th renewal. The officer informs him, he can't take his word for it and since DPS is closed till Monday, he is now under arrest until they can verify his claim. He also arrests CHL#3. He then proceeded to escort both CHL#2 and CHL#3 to the back of a squad car in handcuffs and gives them a free ride to the downtown jail. Monday morning, after calling DPS and verifying CHL#2 information, CHL#2 is released with an apology from the PD. CHL#3 will remain in jail and will be prosecuted. Does that seem fair to anyone?

I can't get excited about an ill conceived amendment that has not been offered and has not passed. Or the fact that there is a supposed "secret" that will make it all right. I guess senators Birdwell, Davis, Ellis, Ogden, Rodriguez, and Wentworth are not in in the secret since they all opposed the bill. Call me skeptical, but I don't trust any politician to have MY best interest at hand. I will believe it when I see it and so far I have not seen anything.

[hirundo82]

But there are CHL holders who do go to bars, do go to sporting events and do want to carry in church. . .

Just a reminder.... they can carry in church now if they want to, unless the church is posted with a 30.06 sign. . . .

. . . Fine, here is my proposal for baby steps. First remove the restrictions for Churches, for ALL CHL's.

Church carry is ok.
Churches are no different from grocery stores. CHLs may carry there unless they're posted 30.06.

Yet the bill exempts churches (46.035 b(6). What this bill will do, as filed, is that legislators, etc, will be able ignore a 30.06 sign at a hospital, amusement park, church and government meetings. The rest of us, will be arrested.

I'm not sure that's true, with the possible exception of government meetings. The rest of the places listed (at least those not owned by government entities) can still be validly posted with 30.06 signs, and the proposed bill only provides a defense to prosecution to §46.035, not §30.06. I'd think they could still be prosecuted for trespass if they carried past a valid sign at one of the places in question, same as anywhere else.