TexasCHLforum.com

Beiruty wrote:

Ruark wrote:

When is it ever wrong to fight for the Constitution?

This is an elegant statement, but one does not generate change and progress with such global, lofty sloganeering, no matter how "right" it is. You have to deal with reality and the real world, and how it works, not how you think it should be or how you think it should work. This constant, endless whining and trumpeting about "my sekkunt 'mendment rytes" is a good example. Everybody's heard it a million times; they're tired of hearing it and will shut down the minute they do.

Simple question: We have a super majority in the 3 branches of Texas Government. What is the excuse not consider a Pro-gun bill such as 560?
Please looking forward for your thoughts.

It has nothing to do with being "considered." Somebody, somewhere, pulled its plug. It only takes one recalcitrant liberal hothead to kill a bill.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:This is for folks who think there is a better, more efficient and successful, way to get pro-gun legislation passed. How would you do it? Don't give me generalities like "don't compromise," or "demand that all Republicans . . .," tell me precisely what steps will be successful at passing everything we want to pass. BTW, also list your experience and track record at passing legislation in Texas, so we can evaluate your opinions in light of your credentials.

Chas.

I haven't had a material hand in passing legislation, but I've sat in offices at the Capitol and had good conversations and made suggestions that were discussed in legislative committees and organizations such as the Trial Lawyers, and then had good follow-up discussions afterwards.

I also have a wealth (about 35 years) of experience in state agency work, and have conducted seminars, workshops, and presentations to audiences of anywhere from 50 to over 3,000, in every case with sparkling evaluations.

I had (I say "had" because I'm retired) a reputation for being an effective negotiator who could walk into a high level commissioner's office and walk out a few minutes later with a smile, a handshake and a major policy change that everyone assumed was impossible.

From what I can tell, working with the legislature, just like working with any organization, has two operative components. First, knowledge of how the legislature works, i.e. all the committees, rules, processes, procedures, etc. We've talked about many of these here on the forum, and owe Charles a mountain of gratitude for his guidance. Participating in this forum the past couple of years has been like taking a class in Texas Government, and I feel like I'm still scratching the surface. Just last night I learned about "tags" in the Calendars Committee. Jot, jot, jot.

Second, though.... it's just you. You have to have your self-presentation down pat, and your t's crossed and i's dotted. You have to know how to articulate your way through a verbal mine field and communicate effectively - REALLY effectively - with someone who may be vastly more powerful than you, and to know how to instantly see their inner cores and how their minds work, and adjust your interactions accordingly, on the fly, where a single erroneously chosen word, a twitch of an eyebrow, can bring your efforts crashing down like the Hindenberg. This, folks, is what it's really all about.

When is it ever wrong to fight for the Constitution?

This is an elegant statement, but one does not generate change and progress with such global, lofty sloganeering, no matter how "right" it is. You have to deal with reality and the real world, and how it works, not how you think it should be or how you think it should work. This constant, endless whining and trumpeting about "my sekkunt 'mendment rytes" is a good example. Everybody's heard it a million times; they're tired of hearing it and will shut down the minute they do. If you really want to be an effect change agent, revise your articulation.

Flightmare wrote:https://empowertexans.com/features/calendars-confusion/

Found this doing some looking on the web. Helped to shed some light on the subject for those who are interested.

Very interesting article about the Calendars Committee. "....a composition of Democrats and liberal Republicans."

Interesting article re: Phil King:
http://priceofbusiness.com/phil-king-ki ... -in-texas/

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Any member can "tag" a bill meaning it won't be put to a vote. It's a control mechanism that should not exist.Calendars should have to meet publicly including standard video. It is designed to be a private black hole and it is. That said, it often works in our favor.

How dismaying.... that, based on his or her personal preferences, one, single, unknown person can, in effect, negate the entire legislative process.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

Ruark wrote:

locke_n_load wrote: We know exactly who killed HB1911 - Phil King and Todd Hunter. King held it up from being voted out of committee, and Hunter never scheduled it for a vote on the house floor.

So..... are we saying King and Hunter are anti-gun, and killed it deliberately for this reason? Just trying to cut down to the basics here.

Absolutely not!!! There's much more at play here, including the ability of any member of the Calendars Committee to "tag" a bill and effectively kill it by delaying it for a period of time. There are five F-rated Democrats on Calendars.

Attacking friends for problems beyond their control is not helpful.

Chas.

Of course. Just trying to get some kind of a perception. Is it a simple matter of the Calendars Committee voting on whether or not to send a bill to the floor? I'm just speaking naively here, but is it a scenario, for example, where they decide which bills go to the floor, King and Hunter voted "aye" and the 5 F-rated Democrats outvoted them.... something like that? I would like to have a better understanding of the process by which a bill actually moves - or doesn't move - from Calendars to the floor. Obviously somebody did - or didn't - do something.

locke_n_load wrote: We know exactly who killed HB1911 - Phil King and Todd Hunter. King held it up from being voted out of committee, and Hunter never scheduled it for a vote on the house floor.

So..... are we saying King and Hunter are anti-gun, and killed it deliberately for this reason? Just trying to cut down to the basics here.

Looks like it's fried. Even if it got to the House floor, it would still need to go to the Senate committee, then go to the Senate floor, etc. and that's WITHOUT any amendments at all. Not going to happen.

I suspect that everybody knew 375/1911 had zero chance of passing, so pretending to support it was a "safe" way to appear pro-2A.

What we should do is allow them X number of days for the session, but require them to stay until they have voted on ALL of the bills, no matter how long it takes. That would get some stuff done. All this racing against the clock is just plain stupid.

I personally don't think 1911 will pass. It's just too messy in more ways than I care to describe here.

doncb wrote: I've said it before, politicians are only interested in themselves and don't give a you know what about the people they represent. Lot of good it does to have a majority.

That's pretty much it. It's all about ego, campaign contributions, getting invited to the correct barbecues, and re-election.

Another thing about this whole fiasco is that it shows the relative powerlessness of the governor's office. Here we have perhaps the most pro-gun governor in Texas history, yet he has no influence whatsover on this whole process, except to sign a bill when the lege is done with it.

ScottDLS wrote:

Ruark wrote:I bet 5 years from now, you'll still see those TABC signs all over the place, store owners being to ignorant to remove them. As far as gunbuster signs negating 06/07 signs, not quite. If a place has a gunbuster, but no 06/07, you can carry under the authority of your LTC. If it has 06/07 signs but no gunbuster, you can toss your LTC into the glove box and carry under the authority of 1911.

I repeat, this is going to be one great big mess.

And if it has a gunbuster AND a 30.06/7 you can carry under the authority of 1911, or your badge, or your Level III PPO authorization and the 30.05 (gunbuster) won't apply because you HAVE a LTC (defense or exception to 30.05), but you're not carrying under its authority (30.06/7 doesn't apply). How about THAT?

Uh...... what?

I bet 5 years from now, you'll still see those TABC signs all over the place, store owners being to ignorant to remove them. As far as gunbuster signs negating 06/07 signs, not quite. If a place has a gunbuster, but no 06/07, you can carry under the authority of your LTC. If it has 06/07 signs but no gunbuster, you can toss your LTC into the glove box and carry under the authority of 1911.

I repeat, this is going to be one great big mess.

ScottDLS wrote:....Keeps 06 and 07 as the (only) way to prohibit licensed/unlicensed carry under GC 411 authority, it still makes 30.05 irrelevant to handgun carry, and still allows for MPA, LEO, and employee carry past 30.06/7.

So businesses would have to change all their signs AGAIN???? Re-engrave the glass, etc....?

I'm sure 99% of them would just post these signs, instead of signs prohibiting only unlicensed carry. What a mess.

RSX11 wrote:

Therefore the sign should also be printed in German French and Arabic with 1 inch minimum letters.

You're showing a shocking insensitivity to those who are differently-abled by not also requiring that the signs be printed in Braille as well.

A, uh... blind person carrying a gun? Let's not go down that road....... now, that being said, an audio warning might not be too farfetched. There are an awful lot of decent, law-abiding people out there who are illiterate.