jmra wrote: the strong lobbying arm of security firms who were afraid they were going to lose some of the easiest money they make.
I'm opposed to loopholes for special interest groups. If it's a bad law, repeal it for everyone.
it's a law FOR a special interest group!
in that case, the argument is even stronger to repeal the law instead of making exceptions.
That's not possible or even desirable. When a law that is generally applicable to all persons works a hardship and/or increases a danger to an identifiable segment of the population, then it should be amended. The reality is that no society, not even the Utopian Libertarian dream world, would have every single law apply to every single person.
booze97 wrote:1. Replace Joe Straus with a pro-gun conservative as Speaker of the House. Everything else has a 1000x better chance of happening after that.
A nice dream but is there even a chance of Straus getting the D or F grade he really deserves from gun groups?
booze97 wrote:1. Replace Joe Straus with a pro-gun conservative as Speaker of the House. Everything else has a 1000x better chance of happening after that.
A nice dream but is there even a chance of Straus getting the D or F grade he really deserves from gun groups?
What part did Straus play in our passing 10 pro-gun bills last session? I'm not a fan, but for reasons I won't disclose, he did help us get several good bills out. He doesn't deserve a D or F by any means. NRA/TSRA ratings aren't a popularity contest, they are based upon what someone does if they are in office and their answers to questionnaires if they are a candidate who hasn't held office.
booze97 wrote:1. Replace Joe Straus with a pro-gun conservative as Speaker of the House. Everything else has a 1000x better chance of happening after that.
A nice dream but is there even a chance of Straus getting the D or F grade he really deserves from gun groups?
that wouldn't make any difference....he's from north San Antonio, he's had an opponent the last two primaries, he has the money his opponent doesn't, he has the name recognition his opponent doesn't, that's where the problems lie.
when the reps in the House decide to get some guts and stop electing him as Speaker, that's when he'll retire, until then we're all stuck with him.
~Tracy
Gun control is what you talk about when you don't want to talk about the truth ~ Colion Noir
booze97 wrote:1. Replace Joe Straus with a pro-gun conservative as Speaker of the House. Everything else has a 1000x better chance of happening after that.
A nice dream but is there even a chance of Straus getting the D or F grade he really deserves from gun groups?
that wouldn't make any difference....he's from north San Antonio, he's had an opponent the last two primaries, he has the money his opponent doesn't, he has the name recognition his opponent doesn't, that's where the problems lie.
when the reps in the House decide to get some guts and stop electing him as Speaker, that's when he'll retire, until then we're all stuck with him.
He has both democrat and republican supporters that have lots of money and influence. He's played the political game quite well. It's all about power and self enrichment. He doesn't have to go on record against pro gun issues. He appoints democratic committee chairmen to do that for him. That way he can play both sides of the fence. Wily politician he is.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
Charles L. Cotton wrote:What part did Straus play in our passing 10 pro-gun bills last session?
About the same as Wendy Davis based on verifiable intel.
Dump your intel operative, he doesn't know squat. Plus, such things are by their very nature incapable of being "verifiable." None of the 10 bills we passed would have gotten to the floor without Straus. Again I'm not a fan and I'd love to see him gone, but I'm not going to claim he didn't help pro-gun bills when he certainly did. It's tempting to claim otherwise when he didn't help a bill you particularly wanted. I'm in that boat too; I wanted HB3218 and HB2535 more than any other bills last session and he didn't lift a finger to help.
There is an interesting thing to look at in the voting. First, it is obvious that not everyone who voted is selecting four items. At the time I write this, there are 510 votes, which is not divisible by 4. But, dividing it by 4 will give you a rough idea of how many people have voted (127.5 but that is impossible, so round up at the minimum). But since item #2 has 136 votes for it, we can safely assume that at least 136 people have voted. With the minimum of 128 people, I am going to guess that option #2 has been selected by almost everyone who voted. It means it is not only the most popular, but an almost unanimous choice.
We may not know if it is their first, second, third, or fourth choice, but almost everyone agrees we need to do it.
Using the 136 people voting, it looks like more than a majority of the voters agree that we need to get a viable penalty for improper postings of 30.06 and that nearly half agree with repealing or modifying the disorderly conduct charge.
I am somewhat surprised by the agreement on what is most important and by the splits among other things. Not displeased, but surprised. I did not agree with some of the choices obviously and I am surprised at how low one of my votes was in the poll (changing the definition of a conviction). I think all of the choices are good choices though.
BTW, thanks, Charles for taking the time to poll us. One of the common complaints about many organizations' political activities is that they do not necessarily represent what the members really want. There is no way anyone say that about TSRA and make it stick with me.
srothstein wrote:. . .
BTW, thanks, Charles for taking the time to poll us. One of the common complaints about many organizations' political activities is that they do not necessarily represent what the members really want. There is no way anyone say that about TSRA and make it stick with me.
srothstein wrote:There is an interesting thing to look at in the voting. First, it is obvious that not everyone who voted is selecting four items. At the time I write this, there are 510 votes, which is not divisible by 4. But, dividing it by 4 will give you a rough idea of how many people have voted (127.5 but that is impossible, so round up at the minimum). But since item #2 has 136 votes for it, we can safely assume that at least 136 people have voted. With the minimum of 128 people, I am going to guess that option #2 has been selected by almost everyone who voted. It means it is not only the most popular, but an almost unanimous choice.
We may not know if it is their first, second, third, or fourth choice, but almost everyone agrees we need to do it.
Using the 136 people voting, it looks like more than a majority of the voters agree that we need to get a viable penalty for improper postings of 30.06 and that nearly half agree with repealing or modifying the disorderly conduct charge.
I am somewhat surprised by the agreement on what is most important and by the splits among other things. Not displeased, but surprised. I did not agree with some of the choices obviously and I am surprised at how low one of my votes was in the poll (changing the definition of a conviction). I think all of the choices are good choices though.
BTW, thanks, Charles for taking the time to poll us. One of the common complaints about many organizations' political activities is that they do not necessarily represent what the members really want. There is no way anyone say that about TSRA and make it stick with me.
Right on, Bro!
My three (3) wishes were nos. 1, 2 and 5. Although we summer in OC states, we neither OC; however, if the barrel of my 1911 peeks out from under my shirt, no one notices or cares. Items 2 and 5 are obvious choices.
My "other" is repealing the whole 46.035 because those rules only apply to CHL with handguns. They don't apply to unlicensed people, they don't apply to AR/AK, they don't apply to riot shotguns. So they're just Brady Bunch prejudice.
iAmSam wrote:My "other" is repealing the whole 46.035 because those rules only apply to CHL with handguns. They don't apply to unlicensed people, they don't apply to AR/AK, they don't apply to riot shotguns. So they're just Brady Bunch prejudice.
That's what Option 2 (repeal of off-limits areas) does, except for concealment and carrying while intoxicated.
That's a very interesting observation Steve. Obviously some folks are voting for fewer than 4 issues, possiblly to add greater weight to their choices. (It could be as high as 37 as of the current numbers.) I wonder which category is most likely to benefit from "bullet voting?" Just kidding.
Chas.
srothstein wrote:There is an interesting thing to look at in the voting. First, it is obvious that not everyone who voted is selecting four items. At the time I write this, there are 510 votes, which is not divisible by 4. But, dividing it by 4 will give you a rough idea of how many people have voted (127.5 but that is impossible, so round up at the minimum). But since item #2 has 136 votes for it, we can safely assume that at least 136 people have voted. With the minimum of 128 people, I am going to guess that option #2 has been selected by almost everyone who voted. It means it is not only the most popular, but an almost unanimous choice.
We may not know if it is their first, second, third, or fourth choice, but almost everyone agrees we need to do it.
Using the 136 people voting, it looks like more than a majority of the voters agree that we need to get a viable penalty for improper postings of 30.06 and that nearly half agree with repealing or modifying the disorderly conduct charge.
I am somewhat surprised by the agreement on what is most important and by the splits among other things. Not displeased, but surprised. I did not agree with some of the choices obviously and I am surprised at how low one of my votes was in the poll (changing the definition of a conviction). I think all of the choices are good choices though.
BTW, thanks, Charles for taking the time to poll us. One of the common complaints about many organizations' political activities is that they do not necessarily represent what the members really want. There is no way anyone say that about TSRA and make it stick with me.
My "Other" 2015 item is requiring CLEOs to sign BATFE paperwork in a timely fashion, at least for CHL holders.
Explanation:
Suppressors, Short Barreled Rifles, and Full Auto firearms are legal in Texas. To purchase as an individual the BATFE requires a signature from the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) in your county. In Harris county (and others) regular folks like me can't get the signature. So, we set up a NFA Revocable Trust. Trusts don't require sign off's from the CLEO, or annual paperwork to the government. Last fall the BATFE began the process to require the sign off for each person listed in the trust. The process is stalled for now but I expect them to try again later. Other States have passed legislation to require the CLEOs to sign off. I'd like to see Texas require the sign offs, as well.
I don't have the money to buy a Full Auto firearm or a place to shoot one. But, keeping the noise down, just seems polite.
See you at the range
NRA Life, TSRA Life, USPSA Life, Mensa (not worth $50 per year so it's expired)
Tom (Retired May 2019) Neal
Charles L. Cotton wrote:That's a very interesting observation Steve. Obviously some folks are voting for fewer than 4 issues, possiblly to add greater weight to their choices. (It could be as high as 37 as of the current numbers.) I wonder which category is most likely to benefit from "bullet voting?" Just kidding.
Chas.
srothstein wrote:There is an interesting thing to look at in the voting. First, it is obvious that not everyone who voted is selecting four items. At the time I write this, there are 510 votes, which is not divisible by 4. But, dividing it by 4 will give you a rough idea of how many people have voted (127.5 but that is impossible, so round up at the minimum). But since item #2 has 136 votes for it, we can safely assume that at least 136 people have voted. With the minimum of 128 people, I am going to guess that option #2 has been selected by almost everyone who voted. It means it is not only the most popular, but an almost unanimous choice.
We may not know if it is their first, second, third, or fourth choice, but almost everyone agrees we need to do it.
Using the 136 people voting, it looks like more than a majority of the voters agree that we need to get a viable penalty for improper postings of 30.06 and that nearly half agree with repealing or modifying the disorderly conduct charge.
I am somewhat surprised by the agreement on what is most important and by the splits among other things. Not displeased, but surprised. I did not agree with some of the choices obviously and I am surprised at how low one of my votes was in the poll (changing the definition of a conviction). I think all of the choices are good choices though.
BTW, thanks, Charles for taking the time to poll us. One of the common complaints about many organizations' political activities is that they do not necessarily represent what the members really want. There is no way anyone say that about TSRA and make it stick with me.
I only voted for three because I don't have a particularly strong feeling about the other choices. If you made me choose I'd add #9 to my vote.
Just kidding.
