Texans! Stop SB905!

[paragrouper]

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

 

[popper]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[farson135]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Update

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


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]

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]

Senate Votes on SB 905

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]

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