TexasCHLforum.com

The text for Davis' HB595 is now posted. Take a look at this garbage!! DPS would drown under the weight of her proposed record-keeping requirements. I'd bet a dollar to a donut that this and HB594 were drafted by Sara Brady's goons.

BTW, if Section 220 is passed in the U.S. Congress, I would not be able to post this message. I am a member of the NRA, I donate more than a nominal amount of money to the NRA, I donate more than a nominal amount of time to the NRA, I am able to participate in the governance of the NRA by voting, I am 1 of a limited number of life members of the NRA, and I’m on the Board of Directors of the NRA. Any one of these factors would render me/you a member of a registrant (the NRA) and subject me/you to the provisions of Section 220. One of those requirements would be to make sure no one other than NRA members read my/our comments.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:The text for Davis' HB595 is now posted. Take a look at this garbage!! DPS would drown under the weight of her proposed record-keeping requirements. I'd bet a dollar to a donut that this and HB594 were drafted by Sara Brady's goons.

BTW, if Section 220 is passed in the U.S. Congress, I would not be able to post this message. I am a member of the NRA, I donate more than a nominal amount of money to the NRA, I donate more than a nominal amount of time to the NRA, I am able to participate in the governance of the NRA by voting, I am 1 of a limited number of life members of the NRA, and I’m on the Board of Directors of the NRA. Any one of these factors would render me/you a member of a registrant (the NRA) and subject me/you to the provisions of Section 220. One of those requirements would be to make sure no one other than NRA members read my/our comments.

Chas.

just wow. I am writing a letter TODAY.

"(2) provide to the department any other information requested by the department."

Define "any other information"...

I see this one section without any obvious context or need to be written in here, other than it being a "loophole" for intrusive, non-applicable investigation...

This is one of those bills that needs to find a circular filing container in a very public way...

I am also not impressed with the provisions in "section 220" at all...

That would essentially kill any public discussion or debate on anything you wish to be interested in talking about...I've heard about this thing recently, and am wondering if this is one of those issues that will find favorable passage in the current political climate in D.C. this session???

You could probably say bye bye to websites like this real quick...

This says a lot about the sponsor of this bill...But then again I am not surprised...

http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_ ... d=BS023575

Charles is correct. This bill would be almost impossible to administer. DPS will be required to submit a fiscal note estimating the agency's costs to administer this program. The costs would be astronomical for DPS and the bill provides for no fees to off-set any costs. That could happen! Imagine having to pay a fee of $50 - $100 to buy a gun. What about turn-around time? Its taking 2 months or longer to process a CHL- but again that could be her intent. I think the DPS fiscal note will help kill this bill. The legislature is tight with its money and will be very reluctant to divert funds from other pet agencies or projects to provide the funding necessary to create the Bureaucracy needed to administer this nightmare of a bill.

I can tell you that DPS will not want any part of administering this program. Each session, the legislature loads DPS down with new requirements and programs to administer and either does not provide any funding - mandating that DPS find the personnel in its currrent FTE employee cap (Full Time Equivalent) or provides some insufficent amount of funding that starts a program, but not enough to do the job in an efficent manner. They don't want any more mandated programs.

My letter to my state Representative:

Dear Representative Laudenberg,

I write to solict your support in voting against HB 595 authored by Representative Yvonne Davis of Dallas.

HB 595 seeks to limit the Second Amendment rights of Texas citizens by limiting the purchase of firearms to one (1) per 30 day period.

Individuals wishing to secure a firearm for personal protection or other legal use would be required to complete a form and submit it to the DPS to secure ''permission'' to buy. DPS would have to verify that the person had not purchased a firearm in the previous thirty (30) day period and sent the applicant a document permitting them to buy a firearm. Once a dealer sells a firearm, the sale and the purchasers name must be reported back to DPS.

What purpose does this bill serve other than to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens? It will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It will not prevent crime. What business it of the state or anyone else how many firearms a law abiding citizen buys or owns?

The logistics of administering this proposed bill would be nightmareish at best. Tax dollars should be spent on meaningful programs not something like this.

Jersey City, New Jersey recently passed an ordinance that was similar to the bill proposed by Rep. Davis. The stated purpose was to prevent crime. However, a New Jersey Superior Court judge has ruled the ordiance invalid, declaring it violated equal protection and was ''arbritary and capricious''.

I appreciate your service to the citizens of Rockwall and Rockwall County. I would appreciate your review of this restrictive bill and your vote against it.

Sincerely,

Dear S&W6946,
I find your letter to your State House Representative reflecting my own concerns on this proposed bill. Do I have your permission to use your exact wording in writing, and substituting my H Rep and St Sen.?

Looking forward to hearing back from you!

Thanks again
//John

Perfect S&W...

You hit all the points, and it was short and sweet...

I would also use this template as a letter "in approval" or "thank you" for their support for your views and their vote on the matter...

Man, thats a good letter!

Thanks for the good words guys. You are welcome to use it. I'd suggest making some changes to my wordings if you can so it wouldn't look too much like a "form" letter.

S&W6946 wrote:Thanks for the good words guys. You are welcome to use it. I'd suggest making some changes to my wordings if you can so it wouldn't look too much like a "form" letter.

Thanks again....actually we might want to reference another bill HB 594 & HB 595 that cover all the issues in your letter. One covers gun show sales and the other bill proposal covers the 30 day rule.

Again Thanks!!
//John

Skipper5 wrote:

S&W6946 wrote:Thanks for the good words guys. You are welcome to use it. I'd suggest making some changes to my wordings if you can so it wouldn't look too much like a "form" letter.

Thanks again....actually we might want to reference another bill HB 594 & HB 595 that cover all the issues in your letter. One covers gun show sales and the other bill proposal covers the 30 day rule.

Again Thanks!!
//John

Call me crazy, but I would keep the letters on these bills separate..."Laundry lists" tend to wind up in that "other" pile of letters...

And one other letter towards the end of the regular session expressing gratitude for their attention to "all" of your previous coorespondence sends a good vibe that is appreciated...

stevie_d_64 wrote:Call me crazy, but I would keep the letters on these bills separate..."Laundry lists" tend to wind up in that "other" pile of letters...

This is an excellent point. Not only should only one issue be addressed in each letter, but I never assume the entire letter will be read.

So at the top of whatever prose I have assembled, I usually put in bold type VOTE AGAINST HB XXX or PLEASE SUPPORT SB xxx.

That will usually ensure that the contact is tabulated correctly, whether anyone reads the entire correspondence or not.

Good point Mike...have done that previously in letters to US Senators in past. I just combine the points that I want to hit and recap at bottom

" NO on SB XXX "
" NO on SB XXY ", etc.

I think we be gettin' good at writing our elected officials here!!!

Never mind my deluded syntax...

This bill also pretty much does away with ftf transfers of handguns. It will be a real pain in the rear for an individual to sell a handgun legally in a private transfer.