TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote:Negligence behind the wheel laws do nothing about the FACT that most accidents are caused by ignorant, inconsiderate fools, texting or talking on cell phones while driving. I suppose we should get rid of drinking while driving laws too. Maybe speed limit rules are completely wrong. We should be allowed to drive as fast as we want, as long as we are not being reckless.

Driving is not a right! It is a privilege. It should be regulated by the state to insure we have safe highways.

Well, you almost have it right, as I see it. If you had stopped after the word fools, I agree. Most accidents are caused by ignorant, inconsiderate fools. Phones, either talking or texting, are not nearly as big a concern as the idiot driving.

Someone else has already pointed out that the law would not be needed. Reckless driving is already against the law and there is no need for more laws banning stupidity. This was Perry's opinion when he vetoed the law. It was not to favor cell phone companies, but against more government intervention trying to prevent stupidity. Since I was interested in the bill, I watched more of the debate on this point than I wanted to. Zaffirini is the one who introduced the amendment, which was enough in itself to get me against it. The arguments in favor were that it was a dangerous activity. The arguments against were the bill was poorly written and was not needed.

As for some of the other laws, I could support removing the penalty from them. Who does it harm if you are driving at a high rate of speed, but are in control of the car? There are many people who have argued that it should not be against the law unless there is a real harm to a real person. I could see changing most of the traffic laws to do away with the penalty unless there is an accident. Then the law becomes a sliding scale with the grade of offense depending on the damage and injury. It determines who is at fault in the accident and is not a ticketable offense if there is no accident.

And I also believe you are wrong on one other point. Driving is a right, guaranteed by the 9th Amendment. we all agree that we have a right to travel, so the means to travel must also be a right. The logic of allowing firearms based on a right to self-defense would apply to driving and the right to travel. In addition, there were a few very old court cases that said so. The principle of equal access dates back to the earliest days of autos. People were allowed to use the streets in a horse-drawn wagon without a license. So, when a license was required for a car on the same street, lawsuits were filed. The basic result was court rulings that a state could not require a license for some people for streets that were accessible by all. Either all or none is the concept.

I don't know if any of these rulings are still available or upheld, but at least back when cars would scare the horse traffic that was the majority on the road, driving was considered a right.

Ameer,

What do you call them when they support some bills such as the CHL law to begin with. They may not be pro-gun, but they are certainly not anti-gun either.

That puts them right where the vast majority of the public is, somewhere in the middle. But with legislators, there are always other factors to consider also. Some may be very pro-gun but have to vote against a bill for some other reason. For example, Perry vetoed a gun bill I really wanted to see passed this last session (pertained to retired officers). I cannot call him anti-gin for this. He explicitly stated the veto was because of an unrelated amendment that would have changed traffic laws (banned texting while driving). I am certain that his long term stance is close to mine on guns, but politics raised its ugly head.

By understanding some of the other factors involved, we (gun rights activists) can maintain a cordial working relationship with the legislators. That make us much more likely to get more of what we wanted passed than if we antagonize them over some votes. Long term, this is the only way to get to where we (well, I) want to be - a repeal of chapter 46 totally.

Charles,

I think you are correct on the way to handle this. We need to lower the price of a CHL overall though I don't see that happening soon. We can make the class easier to get (even an on-line class with a real range test) or shorter. The on-line class could be more than the classroom class (say 4 hours in classroom and 8 hours on-line) and I would still say it is an improvement.

And we can realistically say that we could accept the resident license for Texas residents IF we get some significant other improvement in its place. My opinion on the political realities of this (and yours would be much better than mine) is that this might be a battle we cannot win right now. If that is true, use it to get some other concessions we do want that we might not get otherwise.

As Kenny Rogers (and Bobby Bare for the older country crowd) sang: You have to know when to hold them, know when to fold them, know when to walk away, and know when to run.