Texans! Stop SB905!


PDA






TexasBill
May 14, 2011, 05:53 PM
I posted this the other day and it disappeared. Not sure why, it seems to meet all the requirements for this topic. Anyway, here goes....

Senate Bill 905 was passed 25-6 in the Texas Senate and sent to the House. SB905 (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=82R&Bill=SB905) would allow state and federal legislators, statewide elected officials, federal and state judges, district and county attorneys and non-commissioned employees of the Department of Public Safety who possess Texas Concealed Handgun Licenses to carry their weapons in churches, bars and at sporting events, places off limits to citizens with CHLs.

I can't support SB905 even though Dan Patrick, the conservative Republican senator who represents my district and for whom I voted, was one of the authors.

The claim, voiced by Sen. Patrick, is that legislators, judges, statewide elected officials and others, like non-commissioned employees of the Department of Public Safety, are high-profile targets for assassins. For some reason, the Governor, city mayors, elected municipal and county officials and non-sworn employees of the state's municipal police and county sheriff departments are not - at least, they're not included.

Let's look at the true dimension of the threat: Since 1815, exactly 19 people who would qualify under SB905 have been assassinated in the United States. One was in Texas (John Woods, a federal judge, killed by a hitman for a Mexican drug lord in 1979). Ten of those happened in the period from 1871, when the Texas Legislature stripped the citizens of Texas of the right to legally carry a handgun at all, until 1995, when George W. Bush signed a limited restoration of those rights under strict state control. That's ten in the entire country; I'll bet a lot more than ten Texan citizens were murdered in that period who would have been alive had they or another citizen been able to legally carry a handgun. Come to think of it, we lost twice that many in one day at Luby's in 1991!

To put the numbers in another perspective, whooping cough, scarlet fever and malaria are very rare in the United States. Yet more Americans died of those diseases in 2007 alone than all federal and state legislators and judges assassinated in the last century.

Here's another kicker: Not one of these assassinations took place in a location that would be authorized by SB905. Most happened either in the victim's home or at the victim's place of work. The attack on Gabrielle Giffords, in which federal judge John Roll was killed, took place in a supermarket parking lot in the middle of the morning. Had it happened in Texas, not even a CHL would have been required for armed intervention; Texans can carry a concealed handgun in their personal vehicle without a permit.

Unless the House adds an amendment extending the same expansion of permitted carry to all CHL holders, SB905 needs to end its days in the House, without passage. This is sheer, naked elitism and self-serving on the part of our elected officials: the so-called justification does not hold water, even under the most cursory examination. Some of the Senators voting against SB905 said legislators should not be giving themselves privileges they wouldn't give all citizens and they are right.

SB905 is scheduled for public hearings on Tuesday, May 17. If you are in Austin, a visit to the State Capitol might be worthwhile. In the meantime, you should contact your Texas State Representative (Click here to find out who your Representative is (http://www.house.state.tx.us/resources/frequently-asked-questions/#who_rep)) and left them know you oppose SB905 as passed by the Senate. Tell them the language needs to be extended to cover all Texans with Concealed Handgun Licenses or the measure needs to be defeated.

If you enjoyed reading about "Texans! Stop SB905!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
birdshot8's
May 14, 2011, 06:07 PM
so you wish to limit a class of citizens the right to carry at certain places because you are not included? i would be happy for those guys, and look forward to the day, it was voted in for the rest of us.

TexasBill
May 14, 2011, 06:43 PM
Yup. Especially when that class of citizens willingly ran for and spent gobs of money to win the offices they occupy. The risks were there when they ran; they haven't changed.

It's worth noting that the Senator who is championing campus carry in Texas voted against not only SB905 but against the suspension of the rule that allowed it to be fast-tracked. He believes, as I do, that legislators should not vote themselves privileges they are not willing to extend to the citizens of the state.

Also noteworthy is the fact that several Senators who opposed legislation allowing campus carry and employee storage of firearms in an employer's parking lot voted in favor of themselves being allowed to carry in bars (it's already legal for a CHL holder to carry in a restaurant that serves alcoholic beverage as long as it gets less than half its revenue from non-liquor sales), churches and public events.

So, call me a radical if you will, but I am opposed to our legislators treating themselves better than they treat their constituents. And I don't want to feel like Oliver Twist, bowl in hand, begging Mr. Bumble for more food.

birdshot8's
May 14, 2011, 08:48 PM
i would not call you a radical but i do feel you have failed to reason this through.

GEM
May 14, 2011, 09:10 PM
No, the reasoning is correct. It is similar to Peter King trying to ban carry around Congresscreatures but being fairly antigun himself.

Expansion of right to an elite is really not an expansion of rights. Nor is it predictive of expansion to the regular folks.

TexasBill
May 14, 2011, 09:23 PM
On the contrary, I believe I have been very objective. I researched the subject to see if there was a significant threat that justified the legislation and there was none. If there was a credible threat, it is only the same one that is a threat to the citizens of Texas, too.

And if the fact that legislators who voted against an expansion of gun rights for those who hold concealed handgun licenses (campus carry and parking lot storage) but voted for an expansion for themselves doesn't set you off, I am honestly quite concerned for you. Perhaps we in Texas don't trust our politicians as much as the folks in Nebraska do. SB905 looks like we have a valid reason for that.

joeq
May 14, 2011, 09:32 PM
Birdshot8's is clearly missing the point. We as citizens can't let these people get elected and subsequently give themselves rights that we the law abiding citizens don't get. It's obvious that they see themselves as better than the average citizen and frankly it's ridiculous. I can't see why anyone except these lawmakers would support this. They won't be passing these rights on to you anytime soon.

Greybeard
May 14, 2011, 11:19 PM
Please see the thread regarding a pending "sea change" amendment anticipated next Tuesday. http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=110&t=45048

TexasBill
May 15, 2011, 03:16 AM
I already saw that one. Let's put it another way: If you've had your CHL for 14 years continuously, you can have the same privileges as a first-term Texas legislator. Oh boy!

If that's their idea of a "sea change," gimme some Dramamine!

Greybeard
May 15, 2011, 10:35 AM
Quote: "If you've had your CHL for 14 years continuously, you can have the same privileges as a first-term Texas legislator. Oh boy!"

Not that I like the bill either, but the pending amendment could be very significant for roughly 200,000 current license holders if it removes 6 of the 7 prohibited locations in the original 1995 46.035 amendement to 46.03. And a major stepping stone toward removal of other restrictions in 2013 and beyond.

Walking Dead
May 15, 2011, 10:43 AM
I live in Texas and I agree with it. It seems like that would eventually pave the way for the rest of us eventually.

orionengnr
May 15, 2011, 10:58 AM
Thank you.
Email sent to my Rep.

altitude_19
May 15, 2011, 11:19 AM
I live in Texas and I agree with it. It seems like that would eventually pave the way for the rest of us eventually.
NOT.
A.
CHANCE.
There is next-to-nothing in the way of priveleges afforded to police officers that have been afforded to me later down the road. If there are any at all, there's no argument to be made that they are a result of cops getting it first. Priveleges tend to stay just that...priveleges, for priveleged people.

Walking Dead
May 15, 2011, 11:55 AM
NOT.
A.
CHANCE.
There is next-to-nothing in the way of priveleges afforded to police officers that have been afforded to me later down the road. If there are any at all, there's no argument to be made that they are a result of cops getting it first. Priveleges tend to stay just that...priveleges, for priveleged people.
Sounds like my 8 year olds argument. " if I can't do it I don't want them to either"

WardenWolf
May 15, 2011, 12:54 PM
You don't want them to create "new nobility" by giving themselves rights that are restricted from the people. That's how oppressive governments start, by giving themselves rights and privileges not afforded to the people. Politicians are civilians, and they should not be granted greater legal rights than their constituents.

Walking Dead
May 15, 2011, 03:50 PM
You don't want them to create "new nobility" by giving themselves rights that are restricted from the people. That's how oppressive governments start, by giving themselves rights and privileges not afforded to the people. Politicians are civilians, and they should not be granted greater legal rights than their constituents.
I see where the argument is but I would rather there be at least one good guy with a gun around if there was a problem.

JCallaway82
May 15, 2011, 04:23 PM
You don't want them to create "new nobility" by giving themselves rights that are restricted from the people. That's how oppressive governments start, by giving themselves rights and privileges not afforded to the people. Politicians are civilians, and they should not be granted greater legal rights than their constituents.

Agreed

Double Naught Spy
May 15, 2011, 07:25 PM
Senate Bill 905 was passed 25-6 in the Texas Senate and sent to the House. SB905 would allow state and federal legislators, statewide elected officials, federal and state judges, district and county attorneys and non-commissioned employees of the Department of Public Safety who possess Texas Concealed Handgun Licenses to carry their weapons in churches, bars and at sporting events, places off limits to citizens with CHLs.

Churches are not off limits to CHL holders, haven't been for several years.

TexasBill
May 16, 2011, 12:59 AM
I live in Texas and I agree with it. It seems like that would eventually pave the way for the rest of us eventually.

Let me give you an idea of the Legislature's idea of "eventually."

1871: The Act of April 12 is passed, stripping Texans of the right to carry handguns.

1995: Governor George W. Bush signs legislation allowing Texans to apply for a concealed handgun license. For the first time in 124 years, Texas citizens have an affirmative defense to arrest for unlawful carrying of arms.

medalguy
May 16, 2011, 02:48 AM
Confucius say trip of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. Pass this now and we work towards changing the law next session to extend the law to more citizens. About 200,000 will qualify under the proposed amendment.

TexasBill
May 16, 2011, 03:53 AM
Confucius say trip of 1,000 miles begins with a single step. Pass this now and we work towards changing the law next session to extend the law to more citizens. About 200,000 will qualify under the proposed amendment.

Zi gong (a disciple of Confucius) asked: "Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?"

The Master replied: "How about 'shu' [reciprocity]: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?"

From the Analects of Confucius.

Dazen
May 16, 2011, 07:14 AM
Originally Posted by WardenWolf
You don't want them to create "new nobility" by giving themselves rights that are restricted from the people. That's how oppressive governments start, by giving themselves rights and privileges not afforded to the people. Politicians are civilians, and they should not be granted greater legal rights than their constituents.

This! If you dont understand this you are part of the problem that is giving these guy's more and more power as the years roll on. Thanks for making this post!!

Greybeard
May 16, 2011, 07:54 AM
FROM: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=110&t=45048 (page 8)

Paragrouper wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Folks, I am not saying to support SB905; nor am I saying you should tell your Representative to support SB905, if the Kleinschmidt amendment is attached. All I'm saying is ask your Rep. to support the Kleinschmidt amendment. There's a very big difference!

Chas.
-----------------

I think Charles' statement says it all. He did not ask us to support or oppose the bill, but to accomplish a very limited action. 'Why' is apparently not for public consumption at this time.

I'm in.
--------------------

Thank you!! I can't give any more hints than this folks. But as Pararouper noted, I've never said to support SB905 with or without the Kleinschmidt Amendment. In fact, I've said I don't like SB905 either! It's the Amendment that is important. (I've said too much already.)

Chas.
-----------------------------------
I know not the specific strategy, but knowing Chas' accomplishments on behalf of Texas gun owners, also DO trust his judgement on this.

JDBoardman
May 16, 2011, 06:58 PM
The classic line from Orwell's Animal Farm clearly applies in this situation: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others...". If the elected officials believe themselves to be a privileged class, whose rights, life and safety are more valuable than mine, and thus worthy of the protections afforded by concealed carry in locations where the rest of us plebians are not afforded these protections, then let them be honest and say "We are better than you, and we are entitled to more rights than you". then see how that plays in the next election cycle.

birdshot8's
May 16, 2011, 09:44 PM
i did not see anything in the bill to limit anyone from an eligible public office or getting a job as a support person with DPS.

paragrouper
May 17, 2011, 12:46 AM
FROM: http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=110&t=45048 (page 8)

Paragrouper wrote:
Charles L. Cotton wrote:
Folks, I am not saying to support SB905; nor am I saying you should tell your Representative to support SB905, if the Kleinschmidt amendment is attached. All I'm saying is ask your Rep. to support the Kleinschmidt amendment. There's a very big difference!

Chas.
-----------------

I think Charles' statement says it all. He did not ask us to support or oppose the bill, but to accomplish a very limited action. 'Why' is apparently not for public consumption at this time.

I'm in.
--------------------

Thank you!! I can't give any more hints than this folks. But as Pararouper noted, I've never said to support SB905 with or without the Kleinschmidt Amendment. In fact, I've said I don't like SB905 either! It's the Amendment that is important. (I've said too much already.)

Chas.
-----------------------------------
I know not the specific strategy, but knowing Chas' accomplishments on behalf of Texas gun owners, also DO trust his judgement on this.
The call to action is: "Please call your Representative and ask him/her to support any amendment to SB905 that is offered by Rep. Kleinschmidt and to oppose any amendments to the Kleinschmidt amendment that are not acceptable to the author (Kleinschmidt)."

Please note that this does not require you ask your rep to support SB 905, just amendments offered by Kleinschmidt.

House members (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/Members/Members.aspx?Chamber=H)

popper
May 17, 2011, 11:14 AM
These are the same people who passed the bill PROHIBITING the use of firearms on private property less than 50 acres in size!!!!!!! But the Gov can take a coyote (in fear of his dog's life - around Austin) without problem. Actually more PRIVATE citizens get ASSASSINATED each month than the elite in all of history.

TexasBill
May 17, 2011, 04:08 PM
In terms of state legislators (senators and representatives), the total is 4 since 1815 and one in the past 155 years. That was Tennessee state senator Tommy Burks who was shot by his opponent, Byron Looper, in 1998. Looper found a quirk in Tennessee state election laws that would leave him as the only candidate if Burks couldn't run. Burk's widow ran as a write-in candidate and won the election.

Bartholomew Roberts
May 17, 2011, 06:09 PM
Senate Bill 905 was passed 25-6 in the Texas Senate and sent to the House.

And yet the bill to allow Campus Carry was a 21-10 vote... apparently at least 4 Senators (Gallegos and Zaffrini being two of them) think that you shouldn't be allowed to carry a handgun on a college campus; but is ok if they do so.

Having said that, I think the Kleinschmidt amendment is a great idea and I agree we should support it regardless of our underlying feelings about SB905.

PavePusher
May 17, 2011, 09:45 PM
Well, except for the fact that this is about actual Civil Rights, and not who has the best Tonka truck... yeah, they're exactly the same.:rolleyes:

Sounds like my 8 year olds argument. " if I can't do it I don't want them to either"

farson135
May 17, 2011, 10:45 PM
And yet the bill to allow Campus Carry was a 21-10 vote... apparently at least 4 Senators (Gallegos and Zaffrini being two of them) think that you shouldn't be allowed to carry a handgun on a college campus; but is ok if they do so.

Actually it was 5. Senator Wentworth voted against the bill. Which means that his stock just went way up with me expecially after he gave his reason for not voting for it. Unfortunatly my Senator voted in favor of the bill. So, he has lost all the credability he gained for voting in favor of the campus carry bill.

JohnKSa
May 18, 2011, 12:56 AM
Legislators are supposed to be representatives from among the people they represent.

They are not supposed to be a special class of persons who operate under a different set of laws from the rest of the population. They are regular citizens just like the people they represent, and the entire idea of setting up a government this way is that the representatives will create laws that are in the best interests of the general population because they ARE members of that population.

It is anathema to a representative form of government for the representatives to vote themselves special rights and privileges that are not available to the general population. It should be criminal because it corrupts every ideal that a representative government is supposed to uphold and promote.

1SOW
May 18, 2011, 01:45 AM
JohnKSa:
It is anathema to a representative form of government for the representatives to vote themselves special rights and privileges that are not available to the general population. It should be criminal because it corrupts every ideal that a representative government is supposed to uphold and promote.

This statement I believe to be true; but 'fear' (based on facts or not) can, has and will provide justification in many of our elected officials minds.

I will ask my Congressman to support the bill ONLY IF it contains the amendment for 'proven' resonsible CHL holders to be included.

I KNOW this is a cop-out, but it will allow a number of citizens to be better able to defend themselves as well as others they may be able to help.

TexasBill
May 18, 2011, 08:25 AM
It takes 14 years for a CHL holder to be considered "responsible?" That means a citizen must be at least 35 years of age. Whereas an elected official covered under SB905 can be just 21 (26 in the case of a Senator). Of course, we all realize that election to the Texas Legislature magically confers wisdom, maturity and responsibility beyond their years on its members, as can be seen in the quality of their work.

You can look at it as the first step to a possible expansion of rights for all CHL holders. I see it as "If we let a few of them in, we can ignore the rest."

In addition, if there is one case for special treatment, there are many. How about sports figures, movie stars, TV personalities? Oil company executives? Or how about battered women or stalker victims who actually are at an elevated risk? The list goes on and on, but I haven't seen any legislation favoring any of these groups: maybe they should be included them in the amendment?

paragrouper
May 18, 2011, 10:39 PM
SB 905 was amended by the House Criminal Jurispridence Committee. The Criminal Jurisprudence Committee of the House committee amendment basically removed from the bill all of the provisions that would apply to elected officials and non-commissioned employees of DPS.

To watch what they did you can go the to video archive site of the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee and click on the meeting for yesterday, 5-16-11. You can do this here:

Video (http://www.house.state.tx.us/video-audi ... session=82)


Advance the timer to 9.45 minutes where they begin discussion of SB905. The feed times out at about one and a half minutes, but just keep track of where you are on the timeline, restart and advance to where you left off.

H/T: CWOOD (Texas CHL Forum)

TexasBill
May 24, 2011, 01:54 AM
Guess what? In the second committee meeting, they added the legislators and statewide officials back in and this is the bill that is going to be added to the local and uncontested calendar. In order to stop it, five or more members of the House have to oppose it or it has to be debated for at least ten minutes. If that doesn't happen, we have to depend on Rick Perry to veto it (watch out for low-flying pigs).

easmythcrna
May 24, 2011, 07:38 AM
I knew my senator (Watson) didn't represent me. Now I have another reason to vote against him and get everyone I can to vote against him. Where does your Senator stand?

Yeas: Carona, Deuell, Duncan, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar,
Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Patrick, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti, VanidePutte, Watson, West, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.

Nays: Birdwell, Davis, Ellis, Ogden, Rodriguez, Wentworth.

I heard Senator Birdwell on Tom Gresham's Guntalk this week and he is one of the few who stood up and said "This is WRONG!"

paragrouper
May 25, 2011, 01:13 AM
Guess what? In the second committee meeting, they added the legislators and statewide officials back in and this is the bill that is going to be added to the local and uncontested calendar. In order to stop it, five or more members of the House have to oppose it or it has to be debated for at least ten minutes. If that doesn't happen, we have to depend on Rick Perry to veto it (watch out for low-flying pigs).
When was the second committee meeting?

The only House Committe Report listed contains the amendment;

COMMITTEE AMENDMENT NO. 1
SECTION ____. Amend S.B. 905 (Engrossed) with the following:
(1)On page 1 line 18 insert "or" after ";".
(2)On page 1 line 20 strike ";"after "States attorney" and replace it with "."
(3)Strike Page 1 line 21 through page 2 line 11.
Aliseda

This amendment strikes elected officials and noncommissioned DPS employees.

Link (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/82R/billtext/pdf/SB00905H.pdf#navpanes=0)

If you enjoyed reading about "Texans! Stop SB905!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!