traitors in the legislature.

sources:
HB3619
SB905
HB2807
HB2613
HB1463

While our elected servants have failed in their duty to uphold the constitution of this state, or to clean up any of the over growth that has occurred through continued neglect of the law over previous decades. They seem to have ample time on their hands to not only make more of a mess, but to exempt themselves from the injustices they want to impose on their betters. Through HB1463, HB3619, and SB905 They seek to exempt themselves from Laws concerning the carry of arms, Creating their own little protected class above the rest of us. In HB2807 one congressman is attempting to disarm every one under 21 years of age, leaving countless men defenseless to the will of petty thugs. And finally HB2613 where another servant Proposes Doubling the already unconstitutional tax to bear arms, potentially leading to the deaths of thousands who would be unable to pay.
Not all of our servants are disloyal, but it seams all must be kept under close supervision in order to identify those that hold malice for us. The known names of the enemy follow.
Burnam
Flynn
Kleinschmidt
Miller, Sid
Patrick
Deuell
Hegar
Hinojosa
Seliger
Wentworth
Whitmire

EDIT: Fixed transposed numbers in link. HB1436 in sources links to HB1463.

Sb 905

Please tell me what i am missing in this one as i don't quite understand what is bad here.
Does this make them exempt from an offence if they are an elected official?

SB905 Adds "a statewide elected official" and "a member of the legislature" to 46.035(h-1) which is a list of persons exempted from 46.035(b)(1), (2), (4)-(6), and (c) quoted below.
"
(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's person:

(1) on the premises of a business that has a permit or license issued under Chapter 25, 28, 32, 69, or 74, Alcoholic Beverage Code, if the business derives 51 percent or more of its income from the sale or service of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption, as determined by the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission under Section 104.06, Alcoholic Beverage Code;

(2) on the premises where a high school, collegiate, or professional sporting event or interscholastic event is taking place, unless the license holder is a participant in the event and a handgun is used in the event;

(3) on the premises of a correctional facility;

(4) on the premises of a hospital licensed under Chapter 241, Health and Safety Code, or on the premises of a nursing home licensed under Chapter 242, Health and Safety Code, unless the license holder has written authorization of the hospital or nursing home administration, as appropriate;

(5) in an amusement park; or

(6) on the premises of a church, synagogue, or other established place of religious worship.

(c) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, at any meeting of a governmental entity.
"
I apologize if i came off a little too harsh in my first post.
been busy recently, needless to say when I got a chance to read these bills was rather angered that these legislatures, our tools, think it appropriate for themselves to enjoy grater liberty than the people of this state.

It allows some citizens (legislators) to carry in restricted areas. I does not restrict the rights of anyone. Some may call this elitist. I say it may not be a great bill, but it's still good as it expands the rights of some. It does absolutely no harm to the gun rights of the common citizen.

EDIT: At least somebody will get to carry in what could potentially be a government decapitation. Like I said it isn't a great bill, but it does expand rights for some while not increasing restrictions on anyone, so I support it. As a rule I support any bill that expands the gun rights for someone so long as it doesn't further restrict anyone else.

Pooley,

While I agree with your stance on the expansion of rights in the general case, I must disagree in this case.
My main point of contention is with how some of these law makers are singling themselves out for special treatment where not absolutely required for the performance of their duties.
This pass a law and then exempt yourself thing is nothing short of treason.
Who is to respect the law when those that write the law are themselves adverse to it?

on the premises of a church...

Click to expand...

In the Bible:
slaughter appears at least 56 times,
slay appears 118 times,
slew shows up 171 times,
smote is written more than 226 times.
This does not even count; destroy, smoteth, slayeth,

So we can't have something violent like a properly holstered concealed HG. I mean if a BG comes in and shoots someone, we want to quietly sit and pray for them...

Or is this a 'think of the children...' type problem?

Confused...

normuser said:

...This pass a law and then exempt yourself thing is nothing short of treason...

Click to expand...

This. Imagine if they were to try and raise the taxes, but then exempt theirselves from the raise.

pooley said:

It does absolutely no harm to the gun rights of the common citizen.

Click to expand...

While I would cheer the expansion of rights in general, even if for a very select few, in this case I object because it reduces the motivation of our legislators to make changes for the rest of us, since it will no longer affect them personally.

KBCraig said:

While I would cheer the expansion of rights in general, even if for a very select few, in this case I object because it reduces the motivation of our legislators to make changes for the rest of us, since it will no longer affect them personally.

Click to expand...

We'll just have to agree to disagree then.

I understand what you & normuser mean and I do agree to an extent. I'm just looking at it from a slightly different angle.

normuser said:

Pooley,

While I agree with your stance on the expansion of rights in the general case, I must disagree in this case.
My main point of contention is with how some of these law makers are singling themselves out for special treatment where not absolutely required for the performance of their duties.
This pass a law and then exempt yourself thing is nothing short of treason.
Who is to respect the law when those that write the law are themselves adverse to it?

Click to expand...

I agree with your stance on this as well.

Recently some people have been discussing a few bill. Bill's that they think have no benefit to the public. So here's the run down on what going on.

HB2613, Mr. Flynn
This is actually a pretty good bill. As explained to me by Flynn's staff, the text is wrong and has not been updated. They said the CHL fee isnt going to change but the license will become a lifetime license. " This isnt a bad idea". Now you will have to have a background check every five years as required by federal law for "licensed" carry.

HB1462, Kleinschmidt and SB905, Patric
This is only applicable to politicians. It doesnt benefit the citizens of Texas. As decrided by their offices, they feel it necessary for them to be able to carry anywhere due to Giffords shooting. " Gifford had the right to carry when and where that happened, but chose not to". I asked why shouldnt the rest of Texas be able to defend themselves and why these bill dont apply to everyone. They claimed Representatives are in the eye of the public. Well im pretty sure the general public is in the same public as they are.

MR Redenck,

As far as HB2613 goes, If the text is amended so as to make the license a lifetime license without raising the price I will support it, and no sooner. The price as it stands now is already prohibitive to myself and everyone I know.

I have already stated my position regarding SB905 and similar.

MR Redenck said:

Now you will have to have a background check every five years as required by federal law for "licensed" carry.

Click to expand...

There is no federal law requiring a background check for licensed carry. Several states don't perform any background check at all.

The background check affects using the CHL as a pass on making the NICS call when buying a firearm from a dealer. ATF regulations allow some states' licenses to exempt purchasers from NICS, if the license includes a full background check every 5 years.

Let 'em pass their special privilege law then take it to court over its content. The Texas constitution already expressly forbids it, and their "public service" is certainly not one in a law enforcement capacity.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm#1.3

AIC869 said:

Let 'em pass their special privilege law then take it to court over its content. The Texas constitution already expressly forbids it, and their "public service" is certainly not one in a law enforcement capacity.

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm#1.3

Click to expand...

I know all that, and thats what I told them when I called them the first time. I am impressed that a man from Virgina would know such a thing about Texas. " Do you need a Senators job"? :lol:

Here's the key to what your talking about, 3 and 3a.. . "Self-operative" is the key.


Sec. 3. EQUAL RIGHTS. All free men, when they form a social compact, have equal rights, and no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive separate public emoluments, or privileges, but in consideration of public services. Sec. 3a. EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. This amendment is self-operative.
(Added Nov. 7, 1972.)

MR Redenck said:

I know all that, and thats what I told them when I called them the first time. I am impressed that a man from Virgina would know such a thing about Texas. " Do you need a Senators job"? :lol:

Click to expand...

What can I say - I get around.

As for the job - I couldn't afford the pay cut even if the 140-day legislative period substituted day-for-day in place of my day job, although it would seem I do speak/read better black-and-white printed English than they do.