Friday, March 14, 2008

It's a Start

After work this afternoon I hurried home, showered, changed and headed out to attend two Republican Senatorial District 10 Committee meetings.

First was the Nomination Committee meeting. I applied to be a delegate from our district to the State Convention. I feel that my interview went well and that I have a good shot at being elected as a delegate, and a very good shot of being at least an alternate.

Next up was the Resolutions Committee meeting. As I previously posted, I was there to submit two resolutions to the committee. The first resolution is in support of the right to concealed carry by licensed individuals on college campuses, and the second concerns an individuals right to keep their firearm locked in a vehicle on their employers' parking lot.

It is a bit ironic that I was attending this meeting to offer up resolutions that would remove a couple restrictions to where a CHL holder could have a firearm, and I was doing it in a prohibited place. I was prohibited from being legally armed during these committee meetings. The meetings took place at Park Springs Bible Church, and this church is posted in accordance with Section 30.06 of the Texas Penal Code. I pointed out his irony at the beginning of my 5 minute presentation and one of the committee members asked about doing away with 30.06. Now that is a good sign.

I believe that my presentation went well. I was nervous but it went well. The questions from the committee were easily answered, and there was at least one CHL holder on the committee. I will find out the outcome on the 29th, at the District Convention.

I am optimistic that we will be submitting at least one of these resolutions to the State Convention.

10 comments:

USCitizen said...

The Citizens of Texas will be proud of you as their delegate.

Good luck.

You have my full support.

Fits said...

Sorry this took so long but the email was down, the pc glitchy, and haloscan locking me out:

Senate Bill 1130 by Senator Durrell Peaden (R-Crestview) [identical to the original HB-503 by Representative Greg Evers (R-Milton)] will protect your right to have a legal firearm in your car or truck for self-defense and other lawful purposes.

SB-1130 has been scheduled for a hearing before the Senate Criminal Justice Committee next Tuesday, March 18th at 2:15 pm.

JR said...

The bills Fits mentioned are Florida bills. Getting a parking lot bill passed in FL will make it much easier for us to do the same during our next legislative session.

sweettness said...

Wow!! I wish you lots of luck JR..:) supportiveness hehe

Fits said...

Damn fine piece of work on your part, JR. Thanks from all of us.

JT said...

Great stuff, JR - best of luck!

one of the committee members asked about doing away with 30.06. Now that is a good sign.

In general I'd agree with you completely - whenever Austin sees fit to send me my CHL I'd like to be able to carry everywhere I go. But the whole dilemma between the rights of private property owners and the rights of gun owners is very, very thorny (and I certainly don't mean to start a huge conversation in a comment thread). I've gone back and forth myself several times (does the 2nd Amendment's "right to bear" override the 1st Amendment's "right to freely associate" or vice versa?) and I still don't think I've got my position figured out. But (to come back around to the comment) for the moment, until that issue is settled by legislation or the courts, I think 30.06 might serve a quite useful purpose. It gives property owners a very visible and unambiguous way to let everyone know what their wishes as property owners are. It functions much the same way as a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" sign does, or a "we don't serve people wearing purple" sign would. I suppose now that I'm saying that, I guess from one point of view the issue has been settled by legislation, with property owners having the legal power to bar those carrying if they're willing to put up the sign. See? Right there, I'm flip-flopping again (just like I did three or four times in a single day back when RobertaX & FreedomSight Jed had a little back-and-forth). Anyway, just some ramblings. Carry on.

JR said...

Here are a couple of signs that businesses could put up:

"No Christians Allowed"

or

"No Blacks Allowed"

How about

"Dumping Toxic Waste Into the River Allowed Here"

How well would those signs go over?

There is a major difference between private property and property used to conduct business with the public. At home I can dispose of fluorescent light bulbs in my garbage, at work I have to treat them as Haz Mat. When inviting people into my home I can discriminate based on race, religion and sexual preferences. When hiring employees, I can not.

Legislation that prevents me from having the means to adequately defend myself in a public place, violates my civil rights.

JR said...

Oh, I forgot one major differance between private and business property.

The State needs a warrant to search my home. In many instances, a warrant is not necessary for the State to perform inspections of businesses.

JR said...

See Fits, you've done a good job of schooling me.

JT said...

Good points re: the difference between government regulation of private & business property. I hadn't really thought much about those differences.

When inviting people into my home I can discriminate based on race, religion and sexual preferences. When hiring employees, I can not.

This is where my libertarian-ness really shows through, 'cause I'm not convinced that the .gov should be able to dictate your hiring practices. If I pick a less-qualified white guy over a more-qualified black guy, well, that's my loss and (to my mind) none of the .gov's business. I'm kinda thinking the whole "inviting the public in to do business" reverberates more for me than a privately-owned business hiring employees

But I guess I'm still stuck on one sign that I can recall seeing in the past: We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone. Is that still allowed? Can a manager @ Burger King say to four guys that look like gang members, "Sorry guys, we're not going to serve you"? If he is allowed to say that, can he take the next step and bar those four from the premises (or evict them if they're already there)? 'Cause if he can do that, then shouldn't he be able to do the same to people wearing purple, people carrying Bibles, etc.? (Keep in mind through all this that we're absolutely on the same side, I'm just trying to explore out loud a bit)

I guess that's what I was getting at with the 1st's "freedom of association" vs. the 2nd's "freedom of self-defense" thing. (there are tons of people more capable than I am of reasoning what a given law actually means but if you haven't noticed, what really interests me is discussion around what the law should be, from a principle standpoint)