HB 1463--exempting elected officials from parts of 46.035

[speedsix]

...IF it passes...what will it accomplish at street level? the elected officials who would be carrying because of it in most locations would be the LEAST likely to either notice or respond to any threat...it's much more likely that an everyday Joe would see/be able to stop the threat to the politician than that he would act on his own behalf...unless at home or in a jogging/sports environment...I lived a lot of years in a state where there were no CHLs...and a lot of politicians and wealthy/influential carried with a little note from the Chief...it did no good to the citizenry and little to those priviliged few...and rightfully created resentment as we have seen here...there are better ways to say thank you to a hard-working politician who's giving us his best...without giving him "rights" that we, the people, don't have...Gov. Perry said it well at the end of the last legislature...he said anyone who qualifies for a CHL should be able to carry ANYWHERE...now there's common sense in action...we don't turn stupid upon entering our child's school...city hall, or anywhere else...except, as we all know, when we enter a Federal facility...then we're just a" subject"...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4763469.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[hirundo82]

Gov. Perry said it well at the end of the last legislature...he said anyone who qualifies for a CHL should be able to carry ANYWHERE...now there's common sense in action...we don't turn stupid upon entering our child's school...city hall, or anywhere else...except, as we all know, when we enter a Federal facility...then we're just a" subject"...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4763469.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Governor Perry saying that is why I voted for him in November, despite the fact that as a libertarian I disagree with him on many other isses.

[speedsix]

...he's right on some things...wrong on others...a true Texan...just glad he's right on OUR "thang"!!!

[tacticool]

Gov. Perry said it well at the end of the last legislature...he said anyone who qualifies for a CHL should be able to carry ANYWHERE...now there's common sense in action...

There is already too much discrimination in chapter 46. An off duty CPA with a CHL should be able to carry everywhere an off duty LEO can carry. More discrimination against voters is not the answer. It would be wrong to give special treatment to more people who are supposed to be public servants.

Unethical behavior is a deal-breaker for me and I feel HB 1463 and SB 905 are unethical. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience vote for anyone who votes for those bills, no matter what possible redeeming features they may have.

[e-bil]

Why the provisions to allow them to carry in a church? I thought that had already been removed from the list of places you could not carry as a CHL.

[Keith B]

Why the provisions to allow them to carry in a church? I thought that had already been removed from the list of places you could not carry as a CHL.

Look at the date on that article. It is from May 1, 2007, before the exemptions in 46.035 (i) were added to the bill that passed and went into effect on Sept. 1, 2007.

[hirundo82]

The old statutes on the legislature's website don't go back before 2004, but 46.035(i) is a lot older than 2007. IIRC it was added very soon after CHL came into effect, maybe 1997.

[seeker_two]

I may be changing my mind about this. Maybe if all of the elected officials start carry guns they may not think it's such bad idea for the "little people". That was some of the rational for LEOSA. Maybe not, but?

Every step we take away from traditional law enforcement in terms of allowing concealed carry in new locations, the better the chance of getting what Rick Perry wants -- all CHL's to be exempt as are law enforcement.

I understand the sentiment, but this could be helpful in moving the CHL "not applicable" provisions from merely applying to TPC §46.02 to TPC §§46.02, 46.03, 46.035. It would be a powerful argument for 2013 to attend a public hearing and say "why should you be exempt, but not the voters in your district?"

Again, I understand the sentiment and this is not a TSRA/NRA bill, nevertheless, it could be very useful in greatly reducing or eliminating areas off-limits to CHLs.

Chas.

I'm glad to hear that TSRA & NRA aren't associating themselves with this boondoggle....after hearing Mr. Kleinschmidt try to explain his bill on Jeff Ward's show on KLBJ 590AM, the only one who needs to suffer the bad press from this is Mr. Kleinschmidt.....

[boba]

I'm glad to hear that TSRA & NRA aren't associating themselves with this boondoggle....after hearing Mr. Kleinschmidt try to explain his bill on Jeff Ward's show on KLBJ 590AM, the only one who needs to suffer the bad press from this is Mr. Kleinschmidt.....

If things go well, the bill will fail and an elitist will be challenged by one of "We The People" in the primaries.

[Keith B]

The old statutes on the legislature's website don't go back before 2004, but 46.035(i) is a lot older than 2007. IIRC it was added very soon after CHL came into effect, maybe 1997.

Yeah, it was 1997, not 2007.

[Charles L. Cotton]

I'm glad to hear that TSRA & NRA aren't associating themselves with this boondoggle....after hearing Mr. Kleinschmidt try to explain his bill on Jeff Ward's show on KLBJ 590AM, the only one who needs to suffer the bad press from this is Mr. Kleinschmidt.....

If things go well, the bill will fail and an elitist will be challenged by one of "We The People" in the primaries.

Rep. Kleinschmidt is carrying HB681 (employer parking lots) and it working very hard to get it passed. Remember that when you call for his defeat.

Chas.

[seeker_two]

I'm glad to hear that TSRA & NRA aren't associating themselves with this boondoggle....after hearing Mr. Kleinschmidt try to explain his bill on Jeff Ward's show on KLBJ 590AM, the only one who needs to suffer the bad press from this is Mr. Kleinschmidt.....

If things go well, the bill will fail and an elitist will be challenged by one of "We The People" in the primaries.

Rep. Kleinschmidt is carrying HB681 (employer parking lots) and it working very hard to get it passed. Remember that when you call for his defeat.

Chas.

Oh, yes....we'll remember....it's filed under "Useful Idiots".....

[speedsix]

...that last post calls for a little baking soda...we are all on the same team...and the history of CHL inTexas has been give and take, bit by bit...and it's worked fine...we've accomplished a lot...unfortunately, we don't all get what we want when we want it...and , though I want to be exempt, too...I won't throw someone under the train because he gets it first...as long as he's working as hard for us as this fella is...the good thing about forums such as this is we gain information that we didn't have...and sometimes our opinions change...and sometimes they should...

[Teamless]

we are all on the same team...and the history of CHL inTexas has been give and take, bit by bit...and it's worked fine

and I appreciate the hard work of everyone involved to get the rights we should have, even if its not fully uninfringed upon by gov't.
But....

.I won't throw someone under the train because he gets it first...as long as he's working as hard for us as this fella is

.
I am curious though as to why the safety of current legislatures, judges or DA's is more important than my or my families safety?
When they go to a baseball game at Reliant, or a race at Sam Houston Race Park, or to a college building, are they in more risk than I am? What if they are targetted and I am sitting next to them?

[SlickTX]

I'm coming to this thread late, but I'd like to add my voice.

I don't think the author of this bill is either immoral or unethical, but I do believe he is unprincipled. One must have central principles to guide ones life and decision making.

A, if not THE, central principle adopted by our founders in the Declaration of Independence is "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Rep. Kleinschmidt's authorship of a bill such as the one being discussed shows that he either does not subscribe to certain principles or has strayed from them in a good-faith but mis-guided effort to fix a perceived problem. Why are we not all equal? Do we not all have the right to life (i.e., why is one life more important that another)? Do we all not have the right to liberty (i.e., why are some men more free than others)? Do we not all have the right to seek happiness (i.e., preserving my life and the lives of my family and enjoying the same liberties as all other men would make me happy)?

I will clarify the equality argument a bit more. The Declaration says we are born equal, and we all know that our paths through life vary from that point on. But in the right to carry argument, shouldn't those of us who have proven themselves as being law-abiding and trustworthy be worthy of the same trust that our legislators enjoy? I would be the first to agree that those who have proven themselves to less than trustworthy when it comes to emotional or physical reaction should not enjoy these same liberties to carry.