Thursday, May 10, 2007

Guns and traveling bill's timing tight on final House calendar

The final day the Texas House can hear House bills is always a nerve-wracking day, and that's today. Most of the bills I care a lot about made it through the calendar (thanks in large part to Chairman Madden's deft maneuvering), and I'll discuss most of them, I hope, over the weekend.

But there's one nail biter left I'm hoping makes it through before midnight tonight: Rep. Isett's HB 1815 (discussed here) that would clarify the law about when law abiding people can carry a firearm in their personal vehicle. It's still about 40 bills down with four hours to go and quite a few postponed bills ahead of it. I'm going to stop listening to them and go eat dinner, but I sure hope they make it to that bill!

Excellent news (5/11): HB 1815 was heard last night and approved - it must be voted on once more in the House today, then we'll see how the legislation is received in the Senate.


Unknown said...

It's another case of enforcement being defined by the worst actors. If someone with a gun drives to the scene of a heinous crime, ergo, anyone in a car with a gun could possibly be the same actor and we should thank the police - or DA [dumbass?]- for intervening on our behalf. You [mis]represent the atypical as typical to justify the law.

They do it with drug policy all the time. Some jerk gets loaded on Meth created by a high school dropout and sold by a career criminal at ridiculous prices, and wanders off into the wilderness and freezes to death and suddenly it becomes all right to have Meth laws. At least this is the message that the latest ONDCP gives with its latest taxpayer funded public service message.

Anonymous said...

I'm really not sure what Barry said I don't know if he is for or against this bill or for or against meth laws.

But I, for one, think this is a very good post and much needed bill. Our secound ammendment right should be as important as all others.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Good to see that there is some conservatism at work here. Or is there an ultierior motive?

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Hey Celtic, long time no see.

What ulterior motive would that be? I've only been writing about this for two years!

Anonymous said...

Hey Grits hope all is well for you. I still poke my head in once in awhile but don't want to disrupt.

No offence intended. I'm just suspicious when a liberaly oriented site is supporting sensible gun laws. Just my nature.

I can almost see concern about potentialy criminal types getting stopped and arrested (you know the rotten teeth and blank beady eyes), than concern about the average persons right to defend themselves against the criminal types.

I still think this the best liberl site I've seen. :)

Still a good post. I'm surprised I haven't seen it before.

Anonymous said...

everyone acts like this is a new thing but its not ths just clarifies an existing law. it just defines what is "traveling" you have always been able to have a handgun in your vehicle or even on our person when traveling. this will only serve to clarify traveling because up till now it has been left up to the discresion or the local prosecuter which led to very inconsistant application of the law.