TexasCHLforum.com

mojo84 wrote:A Google search turned this up. Judge rule parking lot OK.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/11/us/guns-post-office/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Here's a link to a PDF discussing it. The 30 days is what could prove very costly.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... tiZxLu6osQ" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And I have little hope that a jail sentence would not apply to me if I were convicted, given the current atmosphere in the US DOJ.
Like NY and NJ, they seem to delight in "making examples" of anyone who crosses their political boundaries.

Jumping Frog wrote: This bill will never even come up for a vote. It is DOA. That is why I view it as all show and no substance.

Now, I agree with the point about the GOP needs to have more of a backbone on matters of principle. However, elections have consequences and this bill getting stuffed in a back room closet never to see the light of day is one of those consequences.

I agree with you. Senator Reid understands the ramifications of a vote on this bill as well as the rest of us and will never allow it. But this is exactly the kind of thing that I'm tired of the one sided approach on. "Just give us an up or down vote" is the cry when Liberal bills get similarly stalled. They are all over the admittedly sympathetic airwaves.

The steady flow of the American public to concealed carry and the opposite erosion of polled confidence in the Congress that Senator Paul seems not to be as much affected by suggests to me that, at some point, he may spearhead enough pressure pressure to get a vote. For me, it seems better than sitting with his tail between his legs and waiting for the next election to see if things get better. And it is a lot better than he and his colleagues getting into one of the other subjects which would surely help them to lose rather than gain in the next election.

I honestly don't think that the NSA lawsuit is going to accomplish anything either but I'm glad that he is doing that, too.

cb1000rider wrote: "Border Security"
Personally, I don't want a larger tax bill that is associated with even more marginal results. Especially since once you're 100 miles or so off the border, you're in the clear.. As long as there are jobs here there will be people who work around our border security. Start arresting the political interests (business owners/leaders) that hire illegals and I'll believe that someone is serious about it... Until we enforce the laws that are on the books, it's all just political pandering to please a demographic. Someone tell me why we should spend billions more to lock down the border when we openly hire illegals in every city in Texas? That makes zero sense.

Republicans need to watch out. As the legitimate Hispanic population grows in Texas, so will their political influence. It might be a good idea to play the long game here, because that demographic is coming, like it or not. The Democrats are taking advantage already.

I shouldn't have mentioned the border issue because we've drifted this thread further than I intended. The point that I was trying to make was that the compromise seems pretty one sided. In Texas, the 2nd Amendment has been compromised a lot more than it ever should have been and we are only slowly clawing are way back to what the Framers intended.

The OP is trying to recover something that was lost in some sort of a bizarre compromise and never should have been at the Federal level. I'm legal to have my CC all over a National park but I become a homicidal maniac as soon as I'm inside? We went to the North Rim of the Grand Canyon and sat a few feet from a Park Ranger for over an hour while he provided a lot of interesting information. Yet he needs protection from me if we both go inside the lodge building because I'm just going to freak out with my gun. While I'm legal to carry in all the surrounding stores, if I go to the Post Office, I'm going to start shooting the Federal employees - the same ones that come to my house - where I can legally open carry - to deliver my mail? I'm legal to carry in Yellowstone but not around Grapevine Lake? Those aren't compromises, they are simply attempts to place more and more restrictions on something that is guaranteed.

We may be in Legislative deadlock for the next century. What that means to me is that I never may be able to CC in the Post Office but there also won't be any more knee jerk Sandy Hook type infringements. That is my idea of compromise.

cb1000rider wrote:

scottmeador wrote:I'd much rather have the government shut down on new Legislation than to have it passing an assault weapons ban, amnesty, card check and the host of other things that are on the wish list.

I agree with you.
Would you shut it down over amnesty by itself? The same sort of amnesty that was granted, if I recall correctly, by the Republican Ronald Regan?
I agree with you - some things are "enough is enough" and what you're being asked to compromise is simply too much. I wouldn't ask that anyone compromise the group of things that you listed. Those aren't compromises that you can live with and I'm not suggesting that they get made.

I'm simply stating that picking a side and refusing to compromise at all does nothing more than create a stalemate that allow the titanic to strike the iceberg. Personally, I'm tired of the political game of chicken.

So am I. Compromise is a two way street. No one is going to get everything that they want - no one. So what, besides defeating the gun control bill has happened that would please a Conservative in the past 6 years? Yes - I'm taking it past the current Presidential administration.

Amnesty is a gift that will keep on giving. It did happen in the past. It was supposed to be part of a package that included border security - that didn't ever happen. It was like the tax increases under Regan that were supposed to come with spending cuts - that didn't ever happen. Compromise isn't spelled C..A..P...I..T..U..L...A..T...I...O...N.

cb1000rider wrote:

WildBill wrote: Pass or not, standing on principle and righteousness is it's own reward.

I agree completely, but with the Federal government when we have two sides that stand equally firm on opposite principles we get government shutdowns.

I'd much rather have the government shut down on new Legislation than to have it passing an assault weapons ban, amnesty, card check and the host of other things that are on the wish list.

Jumping Frog wrote:Never pass the Senate. Introducing the bill is all show, no substance.

Perhaps you are correct. But I've often faulted the GOP for not taking the battles to the Dems and for letting the Dems control the agenda. As much as there are anti-gun legislators, there are some others in Red States who could cost themselves an election by voting against this bill or a similar one covering the Corps of Engineers property.

So I ask you - would you rather have the Legislature fight of the "Immigration Reform" bill that the Senate has passed or Senator Paul's attempt to cancel the post office gun ban? Senator Feinstien is waiting in the wings to bring up her assault weapons ban bill after the very next tragedy - and I'm convinced that there will eventually be one. I want the GOP to be as tenacious about bills that will help the 2nd Amendment cause. Under the right circumstances, it could actually pass.