E-mail attack slows gun bill's momentum

2 views
Skip to first unread message

R2D2

unread,
Mar 28, 2001, 11:01:40 AM3/28/01
to
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****

http://www.dallasnews.com/texas_southwest/323189_gallery_28tex..html

Capitol Gallery: E-mail attack slows gun bill's momentum
03/28/2001

By Christy Hoppe / The Dallas Morning News

AUSTIN - The e-mail was discharged without authorization, wounding a bill
that is the first gun-control measure in forever with a chance of passage in
the Legislature.

The measure, which would prohibit those accused or convicted of domestic
violence from having a gun, still struggles on, now weighted by controversy
and consternation.

The powerful Texas State Rifle Association, state kin to the NRA, promised
to not fight the bill by Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, but a rebel faction
managed a surprise attack.

The measure states that those under a protective order or convicted of
family violence cannot possess firearms. The bill tracks a federal law.

State association executive director Randy Gibson credits Mr. West with
meeting with the group and altering his bill to allay their concerns. As a
result, they promised to remain neutral.

"We don't want someone convicted of family violence with a gun," Mr. Gibson
said.

He said his organization promotes safety and responsibility, and Mr. West's
bill keeps with those goals.

But not every gun-rights advocate is so assured. They worry that anyone
caught in a contentious divorce might be slapped with a protective order and
their guns confiscated.

Mr. Gibson said this bill takes such concerns into account, specifying that
the protective orders that rescind gun rights must be prompted by an attempt
to do harm.

With that understanding, Mr. West's bill passed the Senate and whizzed
through House committee.

Then came the unauthorized March 20 e-mail, sent to tens of thousands of gun
owners, sparking many to call their representatives in protest.

House sponsor Rep. Toby Goodman, R-Arlington, said, "The e-mail trashed it.
Now someone's tagged the bill," meaning it is being delayed at a member's
request.

Mr. Goodman said he is confident the bill will pass, eventually.

"I don't know why they would object to something already prohibited under
federal law. And if you have a protective order against you, you shouldn't
have a handgun," he said.

Mr. Gibson said the state group sent out two follow-up e-mails, explaining
the bill and saying the group has taken a neutral stance.

Of course, every organization has its true believers, and some will probably
continue opposing the bill, he said.

"You're going to have those on the extreme edge who think no one should be
limited in having a firearm," Mr. Gibson said.

Mr. West remains philosophical.

"I tried to work with them real hard," he said. "We'll just see what
happens."

The '60s

Anyone who has passed any time in Austin since the 1960s needs to sit down.
Norman "Doug" Brown is 60.

The Senate honored Mr. Brown, the founder of Oat Willies, on Tuesday.

Oat Willies is a reputable smoke store. But let's just say college kids
through the years have been known to buy a lot of pipes and cigarette papers
there.

Sen. Teel Bivins, R-Amarillo, noted that Oat Willies also is known for "the
most famous Texas bumper sticker" ever minted.

In their prime, those stickers were as ubiquitous as Volkswagen vans and are
still seen today.

And more than one senator has been known to quote the sticker in describing
their legislative efforts: "Onward Through The Fog."

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Max Tindell

unread,
Mar 28, 2001, 12:35:15 PM3/28/01
to
R2D2 wrote:

> http://www.dallasnews.com/texas_southwest/323189_gallery_28tex..html

> Capitol Gallery: E-mail attack slows gun bill's momentum
> 03/28/2001

> By Christy Hoppe / The Dallas Morning News

> The powerful Texas State Rifle Association, state kin to the NRA, promised


> to not fight the bill by Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas, but a rebel faction
> managed a surprise attack.

> State association executive director Randy Gibson credits Mr. West with


> meeting with the group and altering his bill to allay their concerns. As a
> result, they promised to remain neutral.

> Mr. Gibson said the state group sent out two follow-up e-mails, explaining


> the bill and saying the group has taken a neutral stance.

> Of course, every organization has its true believers, and some will probably
> continue opposing the bill, he said.

> "You're going to have those on the extreme edge who think no one should be
> limited in having a firearm," Mr. Gibson said.

I'VE GOT A BIT OF A PROBLEM WITH MR. GIBSON CATEGORIZING ANY OF THOSE
OPPOSING THE BILL AS BEING ON THE "EXTREME EDGE!!"

Tulay

unread,
Mar 28, 2001, 4:51:55 PM3/28/01
to

R2D2 wrote:

Don't know when the bumper stickers came out, but "Onward Through The Fog"
was the motto of a branch of the Army that I served with in the '60s! Makes a
person wonder....Hummmm!

Kevin Craig

unread,
Mar 29, 2001, 1:24:55 AM3/29/01
to
(Message re-arranged because of top-posting)

In article
<B73856FF81F8E62F.74EAAD87...@lp.airnews.net>,
Gary <texa...@hotmail.com> wrote:


> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 11:35:15 -0600, Max Tindell <ma...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>
> >
> >I'VE GOT A BIT OF A PROBLEM WITH MR. GIBSON CATEGORIZING ANY OF THOSE
> >OPPOSING THE BILL AS BEING ON THE "EXTREME EDGE!!"
>

> I think the quote was probably taken out of context. While I'm sure he
> probably
> said it, it was probably not said in the order inwhich the interview
> specifies.

That applies to most news reports about any subject you care to mention.


> Additionally, given the currently climate of gun laws in the USA, anybody who
> thinks guns can be possessed by everyone, including criminals would be
> considered on the "extreme edge".

Ah, but there's the problem: This applies not only to criminals, but
*anyone* subject to a restraining order, for any reason! In many
family courts, all parties are subject to restraining order for
contested divorces, or any time there is an allegation of abuse.

I had a smoothly amicable divorce, but the court issued a boilerplate
order, part of the standard language in every case, that the "parties
will not harrass nor threaten" each other, nor take the children out of
the jurisdiction of the court. Is that a restraining order? I don't
know, but I wouldn't want to risk trading my status as a correctional
officer, for that of an inmate.

Kevin

Jim Nicholson

unread,
Mar 29, 2001, 7:07:00 AM3/29/01
to
Kevin Craig wrote:
>

> Ah, but there's the problem: This applies not only to criminals, but
> *anyone* subject to a restraining order, for any reason!

Not so, Kevin. The five year restriction only occurs after a
misdemeanor CONVICTION for family VIOLENCE.
Actually, the worse part of this legislation is the police
exemption. We already lose our eligibility for a CHL for five years
after a misdemeanor. Of course, it would be nice if the conviction
was raised to the traditional gun-right-losing felony level, but
serious opponents will claim semantics. Albert Ross has put forth
some pretty good ideas on this, but they bounce off politicians like
water off a duck's back.
--
Jim Nicholson - http://www.pcisys.net/~jamesd
School shootings proliferate as liberals smother the values of the
Founding Fathers that birthed this nation and whittle away the
constitutional freedoms. Is there a correlation? I think so.

Kevin Craig

unread,
Mar 29, 2001, 1:37:26 PM3/29/01
to
In article <3AC32564...@akamail.com>, Jim Nicholson
<jam...@akamail.com> wrote:

> Kevin Craig wrote:
> >
>
> > Ah, but there's the problem: This applies not only to criminals, but
> > *anyone* subject to a restraining order, for any reason!
>
> Not so, Kevin. The five year restriction only occurs after a
> misdemeanor CONVICTION for family VIOLENCE.
> Actually, the worse part of this legislation is the police
> exemption. We already lose our eligibility for a CHL for five years
> after a misdemeanor. Of course, it would be nice if the conviction
> was raised to the traditional gun-right-losing felony level, but
> serious opponents will claim semantics. Albert Ross has put forth
> some pretty good ideas on this, but they bounce off politicians like
> water off a duck's back.

Okay, I stand corrected about the restraining order.

But, the bill as you state it is *still* bad law, and should be
opposed. Loss of civil rights for a misdemeanor? No way!
Exempt police officers? Absolutely no way!

Kevin

Jim Nicholson

unread,
Mar 29, 2001, 5:10:02 PM3/29/01
to

Agreed on the police aspect. But, convicted violence against a
member of the family is another matter. Think of the violence aspect
more than the misdemeanor aspect. Now if family violence should be
elevated to a misdemeanor, then that's another fight. That is an
argument that I have pushed in certain circles, but to no avail.
Albert Ross has promoted a sliding scale for family violence with
the same result. Maybe one day . . .

Rick Bowen

unread,
Mar 29, 2001, 10:32:36 PM3/29/01
to
On Thu, 29 Mar 2001 16:10:02 -0600, Jim Nicholson
<jam...@akamail.com> wrote:

Why doesn't he promote the only sliding scale, (for all crimes),
that makes sense?

Out - ALL rights restored. Can't restore them?
IN - period.

IOW, they do ALL their time. Day for day. No parole. Upon
release, all rights restored. Can't restore 'em? Don't let them
out. Period.

Make family violence jail time, or don't worry about it.


Rick Bowen
TSRA Life Member
NRA Member
"Molon Labe"
Member of PETA
(People Eating Tasty Animals)
B.A.S.T.A.R.D.
(Bad American Standing
Tall Among Radically
Dependant Sheeple)

JOHN GARAND

unread,
Mar 30, 2001, 11:59:15 AM3/30/01
to
ON Wed, 28 Mar 2001 20:47:56 -0600, Gary <texa...@hotmail.com> WROTE:

>I think the quote was probably taken out of context. While I'm sure he probably
>said it, it was probably not said in the order inwhich the interview specifies.
>

>Additionally, given the currently climate of gun laws in the USA, anybody who
>thinks guns can be possessed by everyone, including criminals would be
>considered on the "extreme edge".

The statement, standing alone and without reference to any order or
content of other statements in the article, is still an insult to many
of the people who pay his salary. I think I am probably safe in
assuming he doesn't provide his lobbying services "por nada".
Generally speaking, the "true believers" are the ones who are most
likely to contribute above and beyond dues. As dues are not supposed
to be used to support political activity for a non-profit, his NRA
(and possibly TSRA) money comes from sources such as NRA ILA
contributions. Thus the "true believers" are those most likely to be
paying his salary.

Why is it that "our side" always seems to screw our friends and
supporters in attempts to placate/suck up to the media and leftists -
who (it may generally be said) will rarely be neutral, much less
friendly.

Regarding convicted felons possessing firearms after completion of the
sentence, it seems you are someone who was not a cognizant adult
prior to 1968. Did I just fail to note the huge reduction in criminal
activity engendered by the federal lifetime ban on the possession of
firearms by previously convicted felons enacted in that year? It is
odd, but I seem to think the incidence of criminal activity actually
increased in the US after the enactment of GCA 68 which included this
ban. Jim made a statement about the "traditional" (presumably
federal) ban on felons possessing firearms. Guess I'm just old
fashioned, but I find it difficult to call something a tradition when
it has only existed since enactment in 1968.

Is the statement modifier "...given the current climate of gun laws in
the USA..." a nice way of indicating that the statement actually means
those who support the Constitution over the current politically
correct view of the world are on the "extreme edge"? Put me on "the
edge".

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages