The "Utah Problem" is back in uglier clothing

[srothstein]

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.

[wharvey]

If we can't trust native Texans to carry on a nonTX license, we sure can't trust Yankees to carry on a nonTX license!

OK now I'm with you.

So in other words do away with reciprocity? You do realize there are people in other states that will say you can't trust those crazy gun carrying Texans to carry in their state. Many people look at Texans like some here look at Yankee's. (I do hope the quoted posts were done in jest. I like to joke about Yankees as much as the next person but this could get serious real quick.)

[speedsix]

...government has about as much business regulating the carrying of firearms as they do regulating birthday cakes...they should, at all levels, keep their noses out...and punish those who do wrong with their gun so severely that nobody wants to even THINK of misusing a gun...if they'd punish the criminals and leave the rest of us alone...we wouldn't be here...

[bayouhazard]

It looks like some people need a remedial logic class.

Consider the statement: if it's Christmas then it will be a new year in one week.

The validity of that statement is not affected by today being in October. It says if A then B. It doesn't say A or B is true (or false) right now. Only that if A is true then B is also true.

You could argue against the statement by saying Chinese new year is many weeks after Christmas but the fact that we're in October says A is not true, but doesn't invalidate the statement.

[boba]

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.

Texas Democrats.

I'm joking but not entirely. A Texas Republican majority (big majority) refused to pass campus carry this year. Compare that to the Texas Democratic majority that passed the CHL law here.

I'm sure the GOP apologists have an excuse. That and $2.00 will buy a cup of black coffee at Starbucks.

[Keith B]

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.

Texas Democrats.

I'm joking but not entirely. A Texas Republican majority (big majority) refused to pass campus carry this year. Compare that to the Texas Democratic majority that passed the CHL law here.

I'm sure the GOP apologists have an excuse. That and $2.00 will buy a cup of black coffee at Starbucks.

And I'm darn glad they let it die and didn't take it up. It was one of the worst bills that could have passed this year. I am not against open carry, but the way it was written would have been very detrimental to concealed carry, and would not have been a pro-gun bill at all for Texans.

I think if a well written open carry bill were to be introduced, then the pro-gun legislators, along with the state and federal pro-2A organizations, will get behind it. However, until that happens, I appreciate those in the legislature that have enough foresight to keep bad bills from coming to the top and becoming a problem.

[boba]

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.

Texas Democrats.

I'm joking but not entirely. A Texas Republican majority (big majority) refused to pass campus carry this year. Compare that to the Texas Democratic majority that passed the CHL law here.

I'm sure the GOP apologists have an excuse. That and $2.00 will buy a cup of black coffee at Starbucks.

And I'm darn glad they let it die and didn't take it up. It was one of the worst bills that could have passed this year. I am not against open carry, but the way it was written would have been very detrimental to concealed carry, and would not have been a pro-gun bill at all for Texans.

I think if a well written open carry bill were to be introduced, then the pro-gun legislators, along with the state and federal pro-2A organizations, will get behind it. However, until that happens, I appreciate those in the legislature that have enough foresight to keep bad bills from coming to the top and becoming a problem.

Nice try but I said CAMPUS CARRY. So did Ameer for that matter. I'm not sure where the OC red herring comes from but that seems to be the go-to distraction when somebody criticizes GOP politicians for not supporting other RKBA issues.

[Charles L. Cotton]

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.

Texas Democrats.

I'm joking but not entirely. A Texas Republican majority (big majority) refused to pass campus carry this year. Compare that to the Texas Democratic majority that passed the CHL law here.

I'm sure the GOP apologists have an excuse. That and $2.00 will buy a cup of black coffee at Starbucks.

While concealed carry was huge, it was those same Democrats that demanded the "safe guards" that we spend years repealing or amending. The high fees that many decry now were required by Democrats. Campus carry that you mention was killed in the Senate by two Democrats.

The Motorist Protection Act, Employer Parking Lots, Range Protection and numerous changes to CHL processing and eligibility, as well as removing the penalties for failure to disclose your CHL were passed during the Republican's control of Austin and signed by a Republican Governor. Do you recall a Democrat Governor signing a pro-gun bill? I don't.

We have individual Democrats who are friends of gun owners; the Party is not. Republicans tend to be far more pro-gun and actually work for our legislation. "Republican apologists?" You sound like a strategist for the DNC.

Chas.

[speedsix]

...strategist for the DNC...in Texas we call that a connivin' polecat!!!

[boba]

...strategist for the DNC...in Texas we call that a connivin' polecat!!!

Joe Straus?

[Keith B]

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.

Texas Democrats.

I'm joking but not entirely. A Texas Republican majority (big majority) refused to pass campus carry this year. Compare that to the Texas Democratic majority that passed the CHL law here.

I'm sure the GOP apologists have an excuse. That and $2.00 will buy a cup of black coffee at Starbucks.

And I'm darn glad they let it die and didn't take it up. It was one of the worst bills that could have passed this year. I am not against open carry, but the way it was written would have been very detrimental to concealed carry, and would not have been a pro-gun bill at all for Texans.

I think if a well written open carry bill were to be introduced, then the pro-gun legislators, along with the state and federal pro-2A organizations, will get behind it. However, until that happens, I appreciate those in the legislature that have enough foresight to keep bad bills from coming to the top and becoming a problem.

Nice try but I said CAMPUS CARRY. So did Ameer for that matter. I'm not sure where the OC red herring comes from but that seems to be the go-to distraction when somebody criticizes GOP politicians for not supporting other RKBA issues.

Oops. In the words of Emily Litella from Saturday Night Live, 'Never mind.'

However, the Campus Carry anti's did have a TON of people and college faculty that were very verbal in lobbying against it, and as they say, the squeaky wheel....

[boba]

However, the Campus Carry anti's did have a TON of people and college faculty that were very verbal in lobbying against it, and as they say, the squeaky wheel....

Well, if they were listening to squeaks from registered voters in their district, they should have no trouble getting reelected. On the other hand, if they were listening to outsiders to the detriment of their constituents, then they deserve to lose the elections.

[03Lightningrocks]

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.

I did not realize Perry was in the pocket of cell phone companies. Knowing his stance on that just cost him my vote. Texting while driving is about the most ignorant thing a person can do.

[sjfcontrol]

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.

I did not realize Perry was in the pocket of cell phone companies. Knowing his stance on that just cost him my vote. Texting while driving is about the most ignorant thing a person can do.

I presume you're being facetious about Perry being in the pocket of cell phone companies. The bottom line is that it shouldn't be necessary to make every possible activity that is dumb or dangerous, illegal. We already have laws regarding negligence behind the wheel. Those laws should be sufficient.

[Keith B]

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.

I did not realize Perry was in the pocket of cell phone companies. Knowing his stance on that just cost him my vote. Texting while driving is about the most ignorant thing a person can do.

I can tell you the cell phone companies were not against this, at least the big ones. I know AT&T has a big campaign agaisnt texting and driving.