txinvestigator
TGT Addict
HB681: Employer Parking Lots Bill
- Thread starter Charles L. Cotton
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Wrong.
"Nolo contendere allows a defendant in a criminal action to accept the court’s punishment for a crime without having to admit guilt."
-http://www.nolocontendere.org/
If we put a ladder on your ivory tower we wouldn't need space shuttles.
Talk to Willie Nelson about how Tax Evasion is a civil contract issue. Nothing I've said is wrong. you keep *saying* that... but you have yet to come up with anything that proves it.
off topic but I know a guy on 2 year probation for a felony and took a manual D/A from the judge, in other words, he is not part of the official D/A system. In two years he goes back to judge and judge dismisses all charges and he can get a CHL since it was not a D/A but a dismissal with prejudice.
txinvestigator
TGT Addict
IF? Is this what we are arguing now; IFs? If my aunt had balls, if a bullfrog had wings........
Sorry, I got DUI & DWI mixed up & DWI is not class C, I stand corrected...........AGAIN, lol....
LOL - "ivory tower"?? congrats - you just made yourself irrelevant to this conversation. Just because I obey the law doesn't mean I'm in some ivory tower. Trying to contend that it's "normal" or "okay" to be a criminal doesn't make your argument look any better.
enjoy folks, I'm out for the day.
txinvestigator
TGT Addict
Failing to pay income tax will not make you ineligible for a CHL. Without being charged with a crime, a person who owes a debt to the AG or government entity in this state can be kept from obtaining a CHL. It is simply a manner for the state to collect money and has nothing to do with preventing crime.
WOW ... the basis of our Republic is the Constitution. It is what it is and it says what it says. If you don't like it you don't go about "reinterpreting" it. There is a process to change it called amending. We have done that many times. If the constitution said "the right of people to own other people should never be infringed" then we would still be required to amend it if we wanted it to say something else no matter how offensive it would be until that happened. We are supposed to be a country ruled by law not a country ruled by whatever the fickle mob thinks at this particular point in time.
I never said it's normal or okay to be a criminal.
You seem to be incapable of civilized, rational discussion, and would instead use, "What ifs," misattributed and innacurate paraphrasing, and confused understanding of the subject matter. You are quickly becoming tedious, and by "Tedious," I do not mean "Challenging."
Ignore.
I didn't realize he was a new guy till you said something.
Welcome, you should fit right in, lol....
As noted - if my aunt had balls, my uncle would be a queer....but she don't an' he ain't.
I don't need someone to "interpret" the plain written word - read the Federalist papers, in which the actual writers fleshed out the underpinnings and thoughts behind their writing, and you'll understand that "shall not be infringed" meant exactly what it says.
I don't need someone to "interpret" the plain written word - read the Federalist papers, in which the actual writers fleshed out the underpinnings and thoughts behind their writing, and you'll understand that "shall not be infringed" meant exactly what it says.
the "if" was posted to make a point. And yes, I'm fully aware that the process for reinterpreting and altering the constitution is called "amending". It's the same thing, though. It's filling in the gaps and adding new pieces that didn't exist previously.
You guys don't know me yet so you don't know my methods of communication... I tend towards hyperbole and analogy (like the "what if" scenario) to make a point. I can see how some of what I have said, when interpreted in its most literal sense, could misrepresent my intended message.
Let me put it this way, which hopefully cannot be misconstrued: Responsible citizens generally do not get denied a CHL. That responsibility includes obeying the law and fulfilling certain financial obligations that the State deems important. It includes being of sound mind and body, as defined by the State. While "no contest" does preclude an admission of guilt on *paper* it has the same effect in the opinions of many people. It carries punishment, and part of that punishment can include the inability to legally carry a firearm. Most of the time, that is only a temporary inability.
I do understand that people get screwed by the legal system. Those people are NOT a part of this discussion. It sucks - bad - but it is an issue with the legal system itself, not the enforcement of firearms laws. I have a very close personal friend who is, according to the state, a sex offender and a felon. This man never touched or harmed anyone. They based his conviction on what they believed his intentions were. No crime was actually committed, and the state doesn't deny that. Because they believed his intentions involved a "child" of 16 years (only 6 years his junior at the time), he cannot be near a school, shopping mall, day care, etc. He is not allowed to go to a MacDonalds that has a playground. He has to attend "counseling" sessions with people who actually *did* commit sexual crimes against children. His "intentions" had nothing to do with alcohol, but he is not allowed to drink or take any sort of drugs, at risk of violating his probation. He can never purchase a firearm (much less carry one legally) and for the duration of his probation, no person in his household can possess one and keep it at home. As a CHL holder, I risk violating his probation and exposing *myself* to a felony charge if I carry at his house and his probation officer believes he had access to that weapon. To top all of that off, he has a *really* hard time finding a job because that felony conviction shows up on a background check for at least another 2 years.
I am not as intimately familiar with getting screwed by the TX legal system as he is... but I'm about as close as a non-offender can get. That said, I recognize that he got a bum deal. I hate that he is in that situation, but the simple fact is that the CHL restrictions don't exist for him. They exist for the other 99% of felons. We can't change firearm licensing to help those who got screwed... we need to fix the screwing. THAT is a different issue. I am of the opinion that the current licensing restrictions are appropriate. I thought the school loans provision was a bit harsh... but that has been repealed. I think that if you owe money to the state or you don't fulfill your parental obligation of child support, you should not be afforded this privilege. That brings me to my last point.
I know that the terms "right" and "privilege" seem at odds with each other. The reality is that *all* rights are really privileges, because they are *never* inalienable. If you commit a bad enough crime, you can be denied the very right to live. Smaller crimes deny smaller rights. Punishment almost always contains some form of a denial or revocation of rights, and it doesn't have to be a criminal offense to warrant punishment.
You guys don't know me yet so you don't know my methods of communication... I tend towards hyperbole and analogy (like the "what if" scenario) to make a point. I can see how some of what I have said, when interpreted in its most literal sense, could misrepresent my intended message.
Let me put it this way, which hopefully cannot be misconstrued: Responsible citizens generally do not get denied a CHL. That responsibility includes obeying the law and fulfilling certain financial obligations that the State deems important. It includes being of sound mind and body, as defined by the State. While "no contest" does preclude an admission of guilt on *paper* it has the same effect in the opinions of many people. It carries punishment, and part of that punishment can include the inability to legally carry a firearm. Most of the time, that is only a temporary inability.
I do understand that people get screwed by the legal system. Those people are NOT a part of this discussion. It sucks - bad - but it is an issue with the legal system itself, not the enforcement of firearms laws. I have a very close personal friend who is, according to the state, a sex offender and a felon. This man never touched or harmed anyone. They based his conviction on what they believed his intentions were. No crime was actually committed, and the state doesn't deny that. Because they believed his intentions involved a "child" of 16 years (only 6 years his junior at the time), he cannot be near a school, shopping mall, day care, etc. He is not allowed to go to a MacDonalds that has a playground. He has to attend "counseling" sessions with people who actually *did* commit sexual crimes against children. His "intentions" had nothing to do with alcohol, but he is not allowed to drink or take any sort of drugs, at risk of violating his probation. He can never purchase a firearm (much less carry one legally) and for the duration of his probation, no person in his household can possess one and keep it at home. As a CHL holder, I risk violating his probation and exposing *myself* to a felony charge if I carry at his house and his probation officer believes he had access to that weapon. To top all of that off, he has a *really* hard time finding a job because that felony conviction shows up on a background check for at least another 2 years.
I am not as intimately familiar with getting screwed by the TX legal system as he is... but I'm about as close as a non-offender can get. That said, I recognize that he got a bum deal. I hate that he is in that situation, but the simple fact is that the CHL restrictions don't exist for him. They exist for the other 99% of felons. We can't change firearm licensing to help those who got screwed... we need to fix the screwing. THAT is a different issue. I am of the opinion that the current licensing restrictions are appropriate. I thought the school loans provision was a bit harsh... but that has been repealed. I think that if you owe money to the state or you don't fulfill your parental obligation of child support, you should not be afforded this privilege. That brings me to my last point.
I know that the terms "right" and "privilege" seem at odds with each other. The reality is that *all* rights are really privileges, because they are *never* inalienable. If you commit a bad enough crime, you can be denied the very right to live. Smaller crimes deny smaller rights. Punishment almost always contains some form of a denial or revocation of rights, and it doesn't have to be a criminal offense to warrant punishment.
I'm surprised nobody has posted on this yet. I just saw it today. I hadn't even realized the Senate had already passed this.
From the NRA-ILA.......
The Texas House is expected to debate and vote on NRA-backed employee/parking lot protection legislation this coming Monday, May 2.
House Bill 681, sponsored by state Representative Tim Kleinschmidt (R-Lexington), is set on Monday's House calendar. The sponsor plans to substitute Senate Bill 321, the companion measure sponsored by state Senator Glenn Hegar (R-Katy), since it is has already passed in the Senate and has moved over to the House. HB 681/SB 321 would prevent employers from enacting and enforcing policies to prohibit employees from storing firearms in their locked private motor vehicles while parked at work.
Texas gun owners should not have to worry about being fired for lawfully storing a firearm in their personal vehicle, should they choose to carry a handgun for self-defense during their daily commutes or transport firearms to and from their hunting leases or local shooting ranges.
Big business lobbyists may try to amend the bill on the House floor that would "carve out" particular industry sectors or require employees to notify their employers of their intent to lawfully transport and store firearms in their cars and trucks. Your state Representative needs to hear from you today in support of this bill - and against these types of gutting amendments!
Please e-mail and call your state Representative over the weekend or early Monday -- urge him or her to support HB 681/SB 321 and to oppose any industry carve-out or notice-requirement amendments. To find contact information for your state Representative, click here. If you need help identifying your state Representative, click here.
From the NRA-ILA.......
The Texas House is expected to debate and vote on NRA-backed employee/parking lot protection legislation this coming Monday, May 2.
House Bill 681, sponsored by state Representative Tim Kleinschmidt (R-Lexington), is set on Monday's House calendar. The sponsor plans to substitute Senate Bill 321, the companion measure sponsored by state Senator Glenn Hegar (R-Katy), since it is has already passed in the Senate and has moved over to the House. HB 681/SB 321 would prevent employers from enacting and enforcing policies to prohibit employees from storing firearms in their locked private motor vehicles while parked at work.
Texas gun owners should not have to worry about being fired for lawfully storing a firearm in their personal vehicle, should they choose to carry a handgun for self-defense during their daily commutes or transport firearms to and from their hunting leases or local shooting ranges.
Big business lobbyists may try to amend the bill on the House floor that would "carve out" particular industry sectors or require employees to notify their employers of their intent to lawfully transport and store firearms in their cars and trucks. Your state Representative needs to hear from you today in support of this bill - and against these types of gutting amendments!
Please e-mail and call your state Representative over the weekend or early Monday -- urge him or her to support HB 681/SB 321 and to oppose any industry carve-out or notice-requirement amendments. To find contact information for your state Representative, click here. If you need help identifying your state Representative, click here.
Members online
- BladeZealot
- davidindallas
- General Zod
- Cool 'Horn Luke
- Otto_Mation
- Fishkiller
- mdf9183
- S13
- 1911'S 4 Me
- NakPPI
- Texasgordo
- ggiovanni
- jlw
- texcross
- Polkwright
- TwentyFive
- Ausländer
- BRD@66
- Darkpriest667
- Nick!
- Chupacabra Hunter
- PoolBoy22
- chapel3929
- ZX9RCAM
- crystalphoto
- cycleguy2300
- toddnjoyce
- Joe9109
- LabRat
- Trooper Glen
- Huntersammo
- Doons
- Johnny Diamond
- Steamboat
- jaspaq13
- red442joe
- craigntx
- hangman
- taddius000
- kbaxter60
- cbp210
- RankAmateur
- JapieB
- T's C6
- Bob1911
- Gordo
- toby1
- jwhistler
- Txhighlander
- brashears9567
