CALL TO ACTION: SB905

[hirundo82]

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?

It'll have to wait until it comes to the floor for the amendment to be offered, since SB905 is still in committee and Rep. Kleinschmidt isn't on the committee that's hearing it.

If the amendment is offered on the floor and voted down, then the representatives who voted against it yet voted for the bill get to go back to their constituents and explain why they believe they alone among CHLs should be allowed to carry in those places.

[JJVP]

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.

The bill says:
(h-2) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsections
(b)(1), (2), and (4)-(6), and (c)

Subsections 4 (hospital), 5 (amusement park) and 6 (churches) are already OK for CHL holders unless 30.06 posted. Why would they grant themselves an exemption for (4)-(6) if they are already exempted like everyone else? They only reason I can see is if they are also exempting themselves from 30.06 signs at those locations. But then again, IANAL, so who knows.

[tbrown]

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.

Do you really think CHL#2 would get an apology?

[Greybeard]

Question: "How will a cop on the street know who is an exempt CHL and who is not?"

If this does happen to happen, DPS already has a format for a type of license in place for certain "classes" of people. It was done after changes were made previously to exempt prosecutors and their breed. Heck, from the session two years ago, there is also supposed to be a special format license for CHL instructors, but last I heard, it was another "have not got around to it" ...

[JJVP]

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.

Do you really think CHL#2 would get an apology?

It was a hypothetical situation, so anything is possible.

[CleverNickname]

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.

How does an officer verify a CHL is valid, period, and not a counterfeit? He puts the info in his squad car's computer, which contacts DPS's system and shows whether it's valid or not, right? And said system is available 24x7, right? If this amendment passes then the law will go into effect on Sep 1, which should give DPS time to modify their system to display whether a particular CHL is at or over 3 renewals.

There's good reasons to not like this amendment, but I don't think this is one of them.

[blue]

OK--How 'bout the "elite" CHL's COST $500 EXTRA like a special license plate.

Regards,
Blue

[Paragrouper]

Having THREE different classes of CHL -- is a improvement -- HOW???????

Complicating the CHL system --- is a improvement --- HOW??????

Certain peoples safety is more important --- WHY????


Goose... Gander
Some Pigs Are more Equal....


-----FLUSH IT NOW.-----


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
One CHL with EQUAL training, benefits, responsibilities. (and soon ,hopefully, EQUAL costs.)PERIOD.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


(OR --How 'bout the "elite" CHL's COST $500 EXTRA like a special license plate.) ( )

Regards,
Blue

"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'm new here, but I'm inclined to believe that there is much more to this than what we know. A lot of other seniors on this forum say that I should trust Charles and everything I read suggests that is the right path. What about you? Should we trust the man? This is nearly the end of the session and there are alot of initiatives that are not finished. If Charles' plan is not the best, what is?

P.S. I am certainly not saying SB905 is a good bill either.

[JJVP]

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.

How does an officer verify a CHL is valid, period, and not a counterfeit? He puts the info in his squad car's computer, which contacts DPS's system and shows whether it's valid or not, right? And said system is available 24x7, right? If this amendment passes then the law will go into effect on Sep 1, which should give DPS time to modify their system to display whether a particular CHL is at or over 3 renewals.

There's good reasons to not like this amendment, but I don't think this is one of them.

OK, so CHL#2 does not spend the weekend in jail. He will still be put on the back of the patrol car in handcuffs until the officer checks the CHL. The fact still stands, 3 people, who took the same training, passed the same background check, applied and received the same piece of plastic will be treated very different for doing exactly the same thing. One will walk trough, another will be mildly inconvenienced and the third will go to jail and lose his right to that piece of plastic. Again I ask, is that fair? Is that what you want? I sure don't.

[clarionite]

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.

How does an officer verify a CHL is valid, period, and not a counterfeit? He puts the info in his squad car's computer, which contacts DPS's system and shows whether it's valid or not, right? And said system is available 24x7, right? If this amendment passes then the law will go into effect on Sep 1, which should give DPS time to modify their system to display whether a particular CHL is at or over 3 renewals.

There's good reasons to not like this amendment, but I don't think this is one of them.

OK, so CHL#2 does not spend the weekend in jail. He will still be put on the back of the patrol car in handcuffs until the officer checks the CHL. The fact still stands, 3 people, who took the same training, passed the same background check, applied and received the same piece of plastic will be treated very different for doing exactly the same thing. One will walk trough, another will be mildly inconvenienced and the third will go to jail and lose his right to that piece of plastic. Again I ask, is that fair? Is that what you want? I sure don't.

While I don't like the idea of different classes of CHL, I can't say that I agree with your logic here. The third, who looses his right to his license and takes a ride should have known the law and not attempted to enter the event. The second shouldn't be offended when his license is ran to make sure it's valid. I'm not offended when an officer runs my DL to make sure it's valid.

[KC5AV]

I'm new here, but I'm inclined to believe that there is much more to this than what we know. A lot of other seniors on this forum say that I should trust Charles and everything I read suggests that is the right path. What about you? Should we trust the man? This is nearly the end of the session and there are alot of initiatives that are not finished. If Charles' plan is not the best, what is?

P.S. I am certainly not saying SB905 is a good bill either.

If I had to compile a list of 10 people to trust regarding 2A issues, Charles Cotton would be #1 on my list.

[JJVP]

While I don't like the idea of different classes of CHL, I can't say that I agree with your logic here. The third, who looses his right to his license and takes a ride should have known the law and not attempted to enter the event. The second shouldn't be offended when his license is ran to make sure it's valid. I'm not offended when an officer runs my DL to make sure it's valid.

I agree with you, CHL#3 should have know the law. However, that was not the point of my fictitious scenario. I was just trying to point out how 3 CHL holders who took the same training, passed the same background check, applied and received the same CHL license would be receive very different treatments for doing exactly the same thing.

As far as not being offended for the officer running the CHL to confirm the validity of the 3rd renewal claim, it is very different than an officer checking on your DL. Very doubtful you will be handcuffed and put on the back of a police car while they check your DL. Very likely you will on the presented scenario. If you are not offended by that, more power to you.

My problem with this bill is that SB905 creates an elitist group (legislators) that will receive special privileges not afforded to the rest of us. A proposed amendment, which I personally have not seen and might never be offered, further creates another group of CHL's with special privileges. We are supposed to support this amendment, which I don't agree with, based on information that something else is in the works that will make things wonderful for all of us. I don't like this back room secret negotiations that might or might not come to pass, whatever they are. Just because they agree on some back room deal to do this "unknown fantastic thing that will be wonderful for all" does not mean that they will not renege at the last minute and we will be stuck with SB905 as originally written. How soon we forget how 2 senators that supported campus carry changed their minds and opposed it. What should have been a catwalk for campus carry has turned into a nightmare and at the end of the day there are no guarantees that it will be passed. Like I said in a previous post, I don't trust ANY politician. At the end of the day, they ALL have their best interests at hand, not ours.

While I have the greatest respect and trust for Charles, I cannot in good conscience support an unseen amendment to a bad bill and an unseen who knows what "secret" that will make things right.

This will be my last post on this issue.

[clarionite]

I agree with you, CHL#3 should have know the law. However, that was not the point of my fictitious scenario. I was just trying to point out how 3 CHL holders who took the same training, passed the same background check, applied and received the same CHL license would be receive very different treatments for doing exactly the same thing.

I can't really argue with you on this point. As I stated, I'm not fond of the idea myself.

As far as not being offended for the officer running the CHL to confirm the validity of the 3rd renewal claim, it is very different than an officer checking on your DL. Very doubtful you will be handcuffed and put on the back of a police car while they check your DL. Very likely you will on the presented scenario. If you are not offended by that, more power to you.

I have a hard time seeing why an officer would cuff a CHL holder before knowing he broke a law. I do see an officer asking if (if there were no visible indicator on the license), and then verifying that, you were indeed allowed to carry in that venue. Maybe I'm just a jolly fat man, or maybe I've worked around Law Enforcement too long, but I have faith in most LEOs to do the right thing and to handle themselves appropriately and so far most of them haven't let me down. I have seen a few bad apples as both LEO and correctional officers, but as a general rule they're few and far between.

My problem with this bill is that SB905 creates an elitist group (legislators) that will receive special privileges not afforded to the rest of us. A proposed amendment, which I personally have not seen and might never be offered, further creates another group of CHL's with special privileges. We are supposed to support this amendment, which I don't agree with, based on information that something else is in the works that will make things wonderful for all of us. I don't like this back room secret negotiations that might or might not come to pass, whatever they are. Just because they agree on some back room deal to do this "unknown fantastic thing that will be wonderful for all" does not mean that they will not renege at the last minute and we will be stuck with SB905 as originally written. How soon we forget how 2 senators that supported campus carry changed their minds and opposed it. What should have been a catwalk for campus carry has turned into a nightmare and at the end of the day there are no guarantees that it will be passed. Like I said in a previous post, I don't trust ANY politician. At the end of the day, they ALL have their best interests at hand, not ours.

While I have the greatest respect and trust for Charles, I cannot in good conscience support an unseen amendment to a bad bill and an unseen who knows what "secret" that will make things right.

This will be my last post on this issue.

Some legislators already believe they're an elite group who should have special privileges. And believe it or not, there are a lot of laws that don't apply to certain groups. Our Federal Representatives and Senators are a great example of this.

[blue]

-----JJVP-----



Well Said!


Regards all,
Blue

[mgood]

What if they attach an amendment to allow all CHLs on their third renewal to enjoy the same elitist perks and that gets accepted . . . then someone immediately offers another amendment to allow these same advantages to all CHLs? What if something like that is brewing and that's what he can't talk about?
Even if that proves to be just fantasy, I still think that if we let them have this now, we can get everyone included in it two years or four years down the road. Legislators will never hear the end of us asking them why they, many of whom just got their CHL, some of whom may have just gotten their first handgun, are more qualified or have a greater need for this than the average citizen with a CHL who must disarm at multiple places while going about his daily business. We'll hound them mercilously. Every time they want to talk about anything, we're going to ask them why they can carry in bars and we can not. We'll bludgeon them with it until they'll agree just to shut us up.

I'm new here, but I'm inclined to believe that there is much more to this than what we know. A lot of other seniors on this forum say that I should trust Charles and everything I read suggests that is the right path. What about you? Should we trust the man? This is nearly the end of the session and there are alot of initiatives that are not finished. If Charles' plan is not the best, what is?

P.S. I am certainly not saying SB905 is a good bill either.

If I had to compile a list of 10 people to trust regarding 2A issues, Charles Cotton would be #1 on my list.

It's not blind faith. It's trust in someone who has proven to be a supporter of 2nd Amendment issues and to be a canny political operator.

And it's not about supporting SB 905. It's seeing the inevitable (you saw how many votes it got) bill that we don't like and trying to at least get something we do like in trade. That's politics.