TexasCHLforum.com

artx wrote:Chas - do you have any suggestions how we can help remove prohibited places this legislative session (other than getting behind any bills that are filed and writing our reps and senators)?

I've already written the bill, now we have to get the right sponsor. Calls and faxes to our elected officials will be critically important, when we approach committee hearings.

Chas.

KBCraig wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:Our marching orders are to go out and win and we can't do that by diluting the pro-gun votes for third-party candidates that have absolutely no chance of winning.

Is anyone else amused that this example involves three pro-gun candidates? Two A-rated TSRA major party candidates, and a libertarian who would presumably be A or A+ if the TSRA would rate LP candidates?

And yet the defense is that TSRA mustn't "dilute" pro-gun votes?

Would you have the NRA and TSRA rate Libertarian candidates only in races that have A rated Democrat and Republican candidates?

BTW, I pointed out in my post that both the Republican and Democrat in the District 105 race were A rated. I also discussed the importance of who is Speaker of the House. A portion of my post is set out below.

Do you disagree with the premise that having two A rated candidates and one B or lower rated candidate dilutes the pro-gun vote? I'm not talking about House District 105, I'm speaking in general.

Chas.

Of note is the fact that this race also saw a Libertarian candidate garner 1,059 votes. In this race, both the incumbent Republican and the Democrat challenger are TSRA "A" rated, so that's much better than having a lower rated Democrat. However, we need to remember that the Castle Doctrine was voted out of committee by only one vote, in spite of a huge number of co-sponsors in the House. (I can't recall the precise number, but it was about 130) Who held it up and forced the removal of the "looser pays" provisions? Democrats, that's who. So if the Democrats regain control of the House, they will select the Speaker of the House and there is no reason to believe our agenda will be as well received as in several past sessions.

Liberty wrote:If that were the case why wouldn't they rate Libertarians that are running against a single candidate.

Neither organization can add a third-party candidate to some races (ones with only an incumbent and a Libertarian candidate) but not others that have both a Democrat and Republican running.

Liberty wrote:I don't believe that they should be giving every Libertarian a blank endorsement. Simply to acknowledge them and rate them as they would any other candidate.

That's where the potential pro-gun vote dilution come in. If there is a Democrat or Republican with an A or A+ rating running against an opponent with a B or lower rating, the addition of any third party candidate with an A rating will dilute the pro-gun vote.

And if TSRA and NRA rate Libertarians, would you also have us rate any other third party candidates? How about independent candidates? If not, why not? Why should the Libertarian Party rate special treatment not afforded to all third party and independent candidates? If you say "yes, rate everyone in the race," then there's even greater potential for pro-gun vote dilution.

Liberty wrote:Just ignoring us will not make us go away. If the NRA/TSRA wants to grow its numbers perhaps they might consider not alienating thousands of their supporters and working with them instead.

Neither the TSRA nor NRA are trying to make the Libertarian Party go away. If the Party appeals to enough people then it will grow and become a viable political force and it will win some elections. If that ever happens, then I'm confident that the NRA and TSRA will rate their candidates.

If Libertarians are alienated from the NRA and TSRA, then they are not as committed to the Second Amendment as they claim. Why would any true Second Amendment supporter ask the NRA or TSRA to act in a manner that could jeopardize gun rights? Diluting pro-gun votes and having an anti-gunner elected just to be "fair" to the Libertarian candidate would be a disservice to our members, to the entire gun-owning public and to our mission. Asking us to do so is putting the welfare of the Libertarian Party ahead of the Second Amendment and gun owners.

The Libertarian Party isn't singled out for special treatment. As many TexasCHLforum members know, I've been politically active in Second Amendment issues for 30 years. I've been on the NRA Board of Directors since 2001, I've worked with TSRA's Legislative Committee/Legislative Director since 1987, and I've "officially" been Vice-Chairman of the TSRA Legislative Committee since 2003. If I were to run for office as a Libertarian, I would not be rated by either the NRA or TSRA. If I ran as a Republican against an A or A+ rated Democrat, I'd get an A rating, but both the NRA and TSRA would endorse my opponent. That's the way it should be.

Let me ask two questions? First, have any Libertarian candidates running for state office against a Democrat or Republican been elected? (This isn't a loaded question, I really don't know. I don't think so, but I'm not at all sure.) Secondly, does the Libertarian Party claim to be "conservative" as many members claim on gun boards?

Chas.

I understand Liberty's objection to the TSRA and NRA rating practices. However, the fundamental truth is that both organizations are charged with protecting the Second Amendment and gun owners, not helping political parties grow. Our marching orders are to go out and win and we can't do that by diluting the pro-gun votes for third-party candidates that have absolutely no chance of winning.

I have posted on the recount in Texas House District 105 where the incumbent pro-gun, A-rated Republican defeated her Democrat challenger by 25 votes, with the Libertarian getting 1,059 votes. This election is going to determine whether the Republicans or the Democrats control the Texas House. So the theory that one should "vote your principles" because it won't affect the election is simply not always true.

Chas.

Morgan wrote:I'm TOTALLY confused. The way I'm reading that, B4, B5, B6 and C all have to be properly posted 30.06, is that what I'm understanding? If that's the case, why are they even listed?

The notice pursuant to TPC §30.06 was added as a separate provision for tactical reasons. That was how to get it passed when repeal of those subsections was not politically possible. Remember, this was done in 1997 only two years after the CHL statute had passed and only about 1.5 yrs since CHLs were actually "hitting the streets." The blood-in-the-streets crowd was still predicting gloom and doom.

Chas.

In my view, in order to statutorily exclude armed CHLs from a location, it must be shown that in spite of the excellent track record enjoyed by CHLs, even the smallest chance of an accidental or intentional shooting would have a catastrophic result. I can't think of such a location, other than perhaps ammo manufacturing plants and storage facilities or some similar facility.

We have to remember that CHLs are the most law-abiding segment of Texas citizens, more so even than LEOs. It makes no sense to exclude a CHL from any location, while allowing LEO's, judges (all of them including municipal judges and JPs), district attorneys, assistant district attorneys, county criminal attorneys, county attorneys, probation officers, community supervision and corrections department officers (different from probation officers), railroad COPs, and a couple of others to enter.

The fallacy of this policy is even more evident when we consider that, of all of the people listed above, only LEOs and parole officers/community supervision officers can carry without a CHL! If the status of "CHL" makes it appropriate for these people to be exempt from TPC §46.03 as well as TPC §46.02, then there is no rational basis not to extend this exemption to all CHLs. (Please note, I'm using "exempt" in the generic; TPC §46.15 "Not Applicable" provisions are in fact defenses.)

That's my story judge, and I'm sticking to it.
Chas.