Another special session?

[srothstein]

That said, special sessions are called by the governor for specific purposes, and lambasting Perry because he does not include other legislation is pointless.

Those of us who pay attention to what goes on in the legislature know where the problem exists, and it is not with Governor Perry.

I most strongly disagree with you on Gov. Perry, which is a change of opinion for me. During the regular session, I felt the problem was ALL Strauss. I knew Perry would sign the bill if he got it, but Strauss was able to block anything in the house he wanted blocked. I was a little disappointed during the first special session. When it was first called, and contained no gun issues and no other controversial issues of that type, I said OK, this is smart. Call the session for the things that must get done (redistricting, transportation funding, and juvenile death penalty fixes) and get it over with. I wish he had added guns but could accept that it would wait. I did not blame Perry for this and even supported it despite Dewhurst saying we would see the gun issue then.

When abortion was added, I was a little disappointed but said it was okay. I can understand the real politics where he had to add an issue to appease the base and I can see his choosing abortion over guns. It was not my choice but I could understand it so I still did not say Perry was an enemy. And when the abortion issue died at the end, with as much controversy and fight as it did have, I said he was done playing politics and would not add something like it again. I did not think he would add anything controversial to a second special session since it would risk the things that need to be passed.

But when he started the call for the abortion issue and will not add any of the gun issues, I could hide my head in the sand no longer. I will lambast Perry for doing this. Adding abortion was a dumb thing to do (politically) as it will cause more trouble getting anything through. It will not add to his base and I see no valid political reason to add it. Adding guns this time would have appeased another group of the base that may not agree with the abortion issue. Not adding it twice in a row shows us exactly where we stand in his eyes. He likes guns but gun owners are so safe to him that he doesn't need to do anything to help them. He won't use his pulpit to move bills during the session to help, and he won't add things to his special session agenda.

Politically, Perry is not my friend any longer. He is not what I would consider an enemy of guns yet like I see Strauss, but he is no longer my friend. And, while I was not a Republican, I can say I never will be again. I extend my view of Perry to the whole party he represents, much as I would have if he had supported issues I feel strongly about.

[SewTexas]

He called this session specifically to tell the Anti- Women's Health crowd that trying to push around the Texas Legislature by screaming is not "democracy" as they claim and a vote on the issue will be allowed to take place. Personally, I would have cited Wendy Davis and Van de Putte and a few others in some way, if possible, for egging them on. I can respect, not like, but respect a filibuster, but screaming in the hall, no and being cheered on by the legs, absolutely not....and Perry couldn't allow them to get away with it.

[Pacifist]

Politically, Perry is not my friend any longer. He is not what I would consider an enemy of guns yet like I see Strauss, but he is no longer my friend. And, while I was not a Republican, I can say I never will be again. I extend my view of Perry to the whole party he represents, much as I would have if he had supported issues I feel strongly about.

You weren't a Republican and you never will be "again?" Is that yet one more vote that Rick Perry never had that he won't much miss?

Look, as disappointed as I am with the lack of passage (again) of truly, if not vitally, important 2A legislation, did it ever occur to you that Perry's concern may actually be with protecting the lives of unborn children, rather than raw politics? I didn't think so.

[Blindref757]

Politically, Perry is not my friend any longer. He is not what I would consider an enemy of guns yet like I see Strauss, but he is no longer my friend. And, while I was not a Republican, I can say I never will be again. I extend my view of Perry to the whole party he represents, much as I would have if he had supported issues I feel strongly about.

Welcome to the club...as a Texas public educator, he's been off my list for a long time. I don't vote for democrats...so I've been going the independent or libertarian route for years.

[srothstein]

Perhaps a more accurate wording would have been that I am not a Republican now and never would be again. I started as a Republican based on my parents influence (when I was a kid helping hang Goldwater posters) and as I grew older. The first real campaign I took interest in I ended up volunteering in the local office to help get Nixon re-elected.

I had left the party but it was not necessarily a permanent thing. I have voted for Republicans, even for Perry. So, no it was not a vote that Perry never had to begin with.

And no, I don't think Perry is so concerned about the abortion issue that he would put it above politics. It is possible that you do, but he is a politician and I know of no one that would call him stupid or incompetent at politics. Nothing a politician does is above or without political considerations. Obviously, my opinion on what would be smart politics does not agree with Perry's, but he had his chance and I will no longer consider him a friend of gun rights. As I said, he is not an enemy yet, but he clearly places gun rights lower on the ladder of importance than he does the abortion issue.

[Jason K]

Pro-CHL bills are a state issue....

Pro-life bills are a national GOP issue.....

.....you see where Perry's priorities lie.....

[jmra]

Pro-CHL bills are a state issue....

Pro-life bills are a national GOP issue.....

.....you see where Perry's priorities lie.....

Looks like it lies with saving the lives of innocent children

[apostate]

Looks like it lies with saving the lives of innocent children

Until those children set foot in a school or a sporting event, at which point he'll cheerfully throw them to the wolves.

[anygunanywhere]

What we want from our elected government all depends on our priorities.

I prefer life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapopiness for all.

Anygunanywhere

[Cedar Park Dad]

Pro-CHL bills are a state issue....

Pro-life bills are a national GOP issue.....

.....you see where Perry's priorities lie.....

Exactly. COnsidering his awe inspiring performance in the debates I'm surprised he thinks he has a chance.

[jmra]

Looks like it lies with saving the lives of innocent children

Until those children set foot in a school or a sporting event, at which point he'll cheerfully throw them to the wolves.

That has to be one of the most absorb statements I've seen on this forum. Would I like to see additional pro gun legislation? Yes. Do I turn on a Gov who has been pro gun because of this one issue? No.
Perhaps you would have preferred Mr. White.

[GEM-Texas]

From the NRA-ILA

In addition, according to the Austin American Statesman, public university officials -- many of whom have strongly opposed NRA-backed campus personal protection bills -- are urging him to add nearly $3 billion in construction bonds, otherwise known as "tuition revenue bonds" or TRBs, to the list of issue items the House and Senate will consider during this second special session. In fact, state Representative Dan Branch, a Republican from Dallas who is considering a run for statewide office, filed a TRB bill during the first special session.

Surely if the Governor were to expand the call of this session's agenda and add a higher education priority item like TRBs, then he would also add a priority Second Amendment issue like campus carry, right? And certainly, the Republican Senate and House leadership which has expended enormous amounts of political capital attempting to address other issues would put that same energy and focus into passing pro-gun legislation if it were added to the agenda, correct? These are questions that Second Amendment advocates -- including the more than 500,000 CHLs in Texas -- deserve an answer to going into 2014 when nearly all statewide officials and state lawmakers will be running for re-election or (as mentioned) higher office.

Need I say more!

I also heard briefly that the Senate was dropping the 2/3's rule to rush the abortion bill through. The 2/3's rule is what sunk some gun bills. Hmmmm!

Rick, oh - Rick - where are thou?

[JKTex]

I find it odd that there are still people that seem to be on deck to launch a recall campaign over gun rights bills. The Governor is the Governor of the entire state of Texas, not just the fraction of 1% of Texans that have CHL's that these bills would effect.

Sure, to us they're critical and in the grand scheme of things they important, but if 50% of the people that are impacted stood up and made noise, crickets would still be louder. In the grans scheme of things, if these issues aren't addressed, it's not going to change anything. I want a grocery list of things to get done, and think this seems like a good time to slip them through while all the colored hair costume wearing crazies are screaming in the Capitol these days, but I doubt it will. But I won't give up yet. But I'm certainly not soaking the torches in kerosene.

[nightmare]

I prefer life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapopiness for all.

Anygunanywhere

Me too, including college professors, voters, sports fans, etc. Any politician who demonstrates they don't understand "shall not be infringed" shall not get my vote.

[suthdj]

I find it odd that there are still people that seem to be on deck to launch a recall campaign over gun rights bills. The Governor is the Governor of the entire state of Texas, not just the fraction of 1% of Texans that have CHL's that these bills would effect.

Sure, to us they're critical and in the grand scheme of things they important, but if 50% of the people that are impacted stood up and made noise, crickets would still be louder. In the grans scheme of things, if these issues aren't addressed, it's not going to change anything. I want a grocery list of things to get done, and think this seems like a good time to slip them through while all the colored hair costume wearing crazies are screaming in the Capitol these days, but I doubt it will. But I won't give up yet. But I'm certainly not soaking the torches in kerosene.

But yet abortion is important? From the chart at the bottom of this link http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/texas.html it says in 2008 there were 16.5 abortion per 1000 women, so if my math is correct that is 1.6% percent of women have an abortion, compared to 3-18% of all texans having a CHL. I fail to see his priorities. Maybe if Perry just came out and stated his reasons for this it might be a little easier to take but still does not change anything.