Category Archives: State news

Open-carry in Texas? Let's talk about this one

Gun-packing in Texas took another step toward something that makes me quite uncomfortable with passage by the state Senate of a bill allowing licensed concealed-carry permit holders to pack heat in the open.

Man, this one give me the heeby-jeebies.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/03/16/texas-senate-considers-key-gun-bill/

Senate Bill 17 passed 20-11 in the Senate. Republicans supported it, Democrats opposed it.

It allows those who already have a concealed carry permit to strap a gun on their holster and display it in the open, kind of the way they did in the Old West days — which made the Old West a much safer place than it we have today, correct?

A four-hour debate ensued before the Senate voted for it. One of the more interesting comments came from the “dean” of the Senate, Democrat John Whitmire of Houston, who’s hardly a squishy liberal. He argued in vain for an amendment that would ban carrying openly in the State Capitol. Why? Well, he said the Criminal Justice Committee he chairs often gets unstable witnesses testifying before it and he fears someone might pull out a gun and start blazing away.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/senate-open-carry-debate-lacked-firepower

The Texas Tribune reported Whitmire’s comments this way: “Relating his experiences dealing with angry or mentally ill individuals before his committee, Whitmire said it would now be easy for such a person to grab handgun out of a holster to use it to attack bystanders.

“’It’s dead wrong … to say there’s not disturbed people in this building,’ said Whitmire, who chairs the Criminal Justice committee. ‘It’s not if it’s going to happen it’s when it’s going to happen, and you know it and I know it.’”

Sen. Craig Estes, R-Wichita Falls, called Whitmire’s scenario “far-fetched.”

Interesting. OK, assume it’s far-fetched. Does that somehow justify allowing just one individual to twist off in a rage that results in gunfire?

What am I missing here?

 

Motor voter law takes effect

Leave it to a state known to be among the first to try new ideas.

That would be Oregon, the state of my birth, which has just become the first state in America to automatically register citizens to vote using data taken from motor vehicle department registration.

Oregon Gov. Kate Brown signed the bill into law.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/16/oregon-voter-registration_n_6880598.html

It’s a fascinating concept. The state is dipping into DMV records to find citizens who aren’t registered to vote. It registers them, but those newly registered voters have 21 days to decide whether they want to remain registered to vote.

In Oregon, that voter registration rolls are expected to swell by 300,000 residents.

What would be the effect in Texas? Let’s see, Oregon’s population is just a shade less than 4 million; Texas’s is 26 million. Would the Texas voter registration rolls increase by, say, 1.8 million to 2 million citizens?

Let’s not get too giddy over this law, though.

Every Republican in the Oregon Legislature opposed the bill, citing concerns about “invasion of privacy.” Oregon’s political balance is fairly equally divided between Democrats and Republicans. If the GOP opposes this kind of voter registration reform nationally, it would seem to have zero chance in a state like Texas, where Republicans command super-majorities in both legislative chambers.

In an era where pols are trying to make voter registration more difficult, it is refreshing to see such a bold new initiative inaugurated in a place where innovation often is the norm.

“I challenge every other state in this nation to examine their policies and to find ways to ensure there are as few barriers as possible for citizens’ right to vote,” Brown said.

Don’t hold your breath, governor, about Texas examining its voter registration policies.

Still, I’m glad to see at least one state taking a proactive approach to working to put more, not fewer, of its residents on its voter registration rolls.

Texas moves closer to texting ban

Texas legislators have taken the state an important step closer to enacting a much-needed state law.

The House Transportation Committee has endorsed House Bill 80, which enacts a statewide ban on texting while driving.

May I hear a “yee-haw!”?

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/03/10/texting-while-driving-ban-voted-out-committee/

The bill’s author, former House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, expressed elation at the committee’s recommendation. “I truly believe this legislation will ultimately save lives,” Craddick said.

The committee approved the bill unanimously. How about that?

Texas is one of just six states that hasn’t enacted bans on this ridiculous behavior. Cities all across the state — including Amarillo — have enacted ordinances banning the activity. I get that it remains problematical for police to always enforce the ban. But the ordinance is needed and Amarillo was right to approve it.

Now it’s the state’s turn to get on board.

Local state representatives, such as Four Price, R-Amarillo, have endorsed the statewide ban, only to have it vetoed by the governor. Rick Perry vetoed legislation enacted by the 2011 Legislature, contending — foolishly, in my view — that it sought to “micromanage” motorists’ behavior behind the wheel.

Perry is no longer governor. Greg Abbott is in the office now and he’s not yet revealed whether he would sign he bill into law or veto it.

Good grief, Gov. Abbott, millions of Texans want you to sign the bill, make it law and then instruct the Department of Public Safety to crack down on the brain-dead chuckleheads who cannot grasp the obvious danger they put themselves and — more importantly — other motorists when they insist on sending text messages while driving their motor vehicle.

Now it’s up to the entire 181-member Texas Legislature to approve this bill and get it sent to Gov. Abbott’s desk.

And governor? Sign it into law.

 

 

Cotton becomes Senate's new media star

Move over, Ted Cruz. You’ve been supplanted as the U.S. Senate’s media star — by yet another new guy.

I never thought Cruz, a Texas Republican, could be pushed aside so quickly. But he has, by another Republican newcomer, Tom Cotton of Arkansas.

All Cotton has done is draft a letter that has infuriated the White House, created a stir in the international community and perhaps given a handful of fellow Republicans a case of the nervous jerks.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/cotton-storms-the-senate-115960.html?ml=po

The Letter, as I like to call it, was sent to Iranian mullahs, advising them to perhaps reject a nuclear disarmament deal being hammered by their government and the United States. Some have suggested the letter violated a long-standing U.S. law, the Logan Act, that bans unauthorized U.S. citizens from negotiating with foreign governments.

Hey, no problem, says Cotton. He’s just doing the people’s will, he said.

As Politico reported: “Though he clearly has media savvy — he runs a guerrilla-like Twitter account that constantly blasts Obama’s foreign policy — Cotton has little regard for the media relationships of his forebears. He declined — three times — to answer questions for this story when approached in the Senate hallways. Instead, Cotton chose a spate of cable TV interviews and an interview with The Wall Street Journal to push his message this week.”

There once was a time when Senate newcomers thought it was better to be seen and not heard. More senior senators used to frown on the new guys gobbling up so much media air time and print space with their rhetoric.

Former Sen. Phil Gramm, another Texas Republican, became known for his penchant for grabbing a microphone. Then came current Sen. Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, who immediately became known as a Senate loudmouth.

Cruz, I thought, set the standard for blowhards when he joined the Senate in 2013.

Now we have Sen. Cotton, elected in 2014. He’s been in office for all of three months, but look at him. He goes and writes this letter, gets 46 of his GOP colleagues to sign it, presents to the Islamic Republic of Iran and causes quite the stir.

These new guys all promised to shake things up in the formerly staid U.S. Senate.

Brother, they sure have.

Welcome back, Daylight Savings Time

Am I weird or what?

Daylight Savings Time never has been a big deal to me. Here we are, back on it once more. DST has returned a bit earlier than usual. It’s going to stick around a bit later than normal.

What’s the problem with it?

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/hate-daylight-saving-time-thank-two-presidents-texas

The essay attached here “blames” DST on two presidents from Texas, Democrat Lyndon Johnson and Republican George W. Bush.

LBJ pushed Congress to approve DST in 1966. It would take effect late in April and expire at the end of October every year. The idea was to provide more recreational time in the daylight for Texans wanting to enjoy the great outdoors.

It also was intended to conserve electricity, with buildings needing fewer light bulbs burning while the sun was out.

Along came George Dubya in 2005 to get Congress to extend DST from early March to early November. That means we get even more daylight.

Not all states recognize DST. Arizona is one of them. That state retained its independent streak and went against the feds’ decision to enact it for the rest of the country. That’s Arizona’s call. Go for it.

Ranchers long have objected to DST because their cattle and/or horses stay on the same feeding schedule whether its daylight time or standard time.

For me, the time change has become part of our way of life. We know to “spring forward” in the spring and “fall back” in the fall.

Big deal.

Let’s just live with it. Shall we?

 

Group stains secessionists' name

Texas secessionists have enough of a negative reputation that they don’t need another stain on their soiled reputation.

But by golly, here comes a group that takes the argument a nonsensical step farther.

The “Republic of Texas” says the state, which joined the Union in 1845 after being independent for nine years, never really became part of the United States of America. This group meets monthly in what it calls a joint session of congress. It manufactures its own money.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/secede-%e2%80%98republic%e2%80%99-claims-texas-never-joined-us/ar-AA9yzL9

These yahoos even claim some type of diplomatic immunity by presenting ID cards to police officers who stop them for committing infractions of various natures.

The Republic of Texas went too far, according to the FBI, in ordering a judge in Kerrville to appear in a “court hearing” involving his foreclosure order on a Republic member’s home. The FBI broke into a meeting the group was conducting, didn’t arrest anyone but made it known that the federal agency took a dim view of the stunts the group is trying to pull.

Interestingly, the disruption of the meeting apparently ginned up some support for this fringiest of fringe groups. Amazing, indeed.

Man, I don’t know how to process all of this. We live in crazy times, I suppose. Any group can do just about anything, short of advocating for the violent overthrow of the government — which always has been the case, given our First Amendment rights written into the U.S. Constitution.

However … why this group? And why in Texas, for crying out loud?

Our state has enough public relations issues with which to deal without having to answer for the shenanigans of these loons.

 

Panhandle activist to lead Texas GOP

There’s a certain justice in the selection of Tom Mechler to lead the Texas Republican Party.

Mechler is from Amarillo, the unofficial “capital” of the Texas Panhandle, which is the unofficial capital of the Texas conservative movement that is so tightly bound to the Republican Party.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/03/07/mechler-picked-new-texas-gop-chair/

I’ve known Mechler for a number of years. I like him. I admire his tenacity. I think he’ll do a good — maybe even a great — job as chairman of the Texas GOP.

Why the justice angle?

Mechler served on the Texas Criminal Justice Department of board. So he’s well-versed in punishing criminals for the misdeeds they commit.

But more to the point: The Panhandle has been known for decades as the place where conservatism was cool before it was cool anywhere else. The state’s political tides began turning first in the Panhandle. While the rest of Texas remained solidly Democratic, the Panhandle started turning Republican, sending up signals that the rest of the state began to understand.

There’ve been pockets of arch-conservatism here, starting with the John Birch Society, which for many years has preached a brand of isolationism that hasn’t really gone mainstream.

I don’t know how Mechler intends to lead the Texas Republican Party. Perhaps he’ll take this advice, should he ever read it. It would be that the party needs to return somewhat to the center, back toward the few remaining Texans who still call themselves Democrats.

There once was a tradition in Texas of the parties working together for the common good. The reality of late has been that Republicans — who’ve grown into a colossus — are trying to bulldoze an agenda into public policy that isn’t a good fit for all Texans.

Mechler seems on the surface to be of a quite conservative persuasion. Maybe that’s how he campaigned for the office he’s just obtained. Now that he has, might he drift more toward the center?

I’m hoping.

 

Oops, Perry has own email trail

Doggone it anyhow, former Gov. Rick Perry.

Why did you have to be so quick on the trigger in criticizing Hillary Rodham Clinton over this brewing email controversy, in which it is alleged that Clinton used a private email account to conduct federal government business.

It turns out the former Texas governor has done the same thing while working for our state.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/03/04/perry-faces-transparency-questions-after-clinton-r/

Perry piled on Clinton quickly, accusing her of lacking “transparency” in the way she conducted the public’s business while serving as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

Now, though, two legislators — both Democrats — say they believe Perry is just as non-transparent as Secretary Clinton. The questions come from state Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer of San Antonio and former state Rep. Naomi Gonzalez of El Paso.

As the Texas Tribune reported: “Martinez Fischer and Gonzalez both sat on the House Committee on Transparency in State Agency Operations as it looked into turmoil on the University of Texas System Board of Regents. At a meeting of the panel in 2013, Martinez Fischer brought up the emails in question, some of which were then obtained by The Texas Tribune. The emails, in which Perry is identified as only “RP,” show him corresponding with a number of UT regents as well as Jeff Sandefer, a prominent Republican donor and informal adviser to Perry.”

The Tribune also reported that Perry’s office has responded to the allegations: “’The Governor’s Office complied with state law regarding email correspondence,’ Perry spokeswoman Lucy Nashed said. ‘While serving as governor of Texas, Gov. Perry’s emails were requested and released through public information requests.'”

Isn’t that what Clinton’s team has said, that she complied with the “spirit and letter” of federal law?

Is this yet another hurdle the ex-Republican governor will have to clear — along with that felony indictment alleging abuse of power — if he intends to seek the presidency once more?

 

Ex-mayor sounds cautious tone in Texas Senate

Kevin Eltife is demonstrating that reason still exists inside the Texas Senate.

He’s a former Tyler mayor who’s served in the Legislature for a decade. While many of his colleagues — perhaps most of them — want to cut taxes, Eltife is sounding a note of caution and restraint.

Let’s take care of some business, Eltife asks. Sure. Why not?

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/03/03/analysis-tax-cutting-frenzy-and-call-restraint/

As the Texas Tribune’s Ross Ramsey notes: “This is a peculiar time in Texas: The state government has more money than its lawmakers are willing to spend. Political respect for a constitutional cap on growth of the state budget is high, as is the appetite for property tax cuts — especially among Republicans.”

Eltife is a Republican, but he remains part of what’s been called the “establishment wing” of his party. He has a few allies in the Senate. One of them is Kel Seliger, a fellow Republican, from Amarillo. The two men joined the Senate at the same time and have been trying to take a more moderate course in a body commanded by the more conservative wing of their party, starting with Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick.

“Everybody wants a tax cut,” Eltife said in an interview with the Texas Tribune. “I want one. I just think it’s more conservative to meet your obligations first.”

Those obligations include, say, public education, highway infrastructure and an assortment of other items that have gone begging back when money was tight and demand was high. Now it appears the reverse is true.

As Ramsey wrote of Eltife: “He wants the meat and potatoes before dessert. Most of his colleagues, however, have their eyes on the pies.”

 

Oh … the hypocrisy of it all

You hear it from time to time in the debate over whether people should be allowed to marry someone of the same gender.

“Why, allowing same-sex marriage is going to destroy the institution of traditional marriage,” the narrative goes.

That’s what makes this little item so patently hilarious, except I’m not laughing.

Texas state Rep. Tony Tinderholt has filed a complaint against a state judge who ruled that two women could get married legally in Texas. Tinderholt, a Republican from the Fort Worth area, disputes the judge’s legal standing.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/03/01/texas-republican-whines-about-states-first-gay-marriage-has-been-married-five-times/

But here’s where it gets weird. Tinderholt is currently married to his fifth wife. He’s been divorced four times. I haven’t a clue as to whether Tinderholt has argued against gay marriage because of the destruction it allegedly brings to traditional marriage, but rest assured that plenty of others on his side of the debate have argued it.

While I remain a bit uneasy about the term “marriage” to describe a same-sex union, I understand fully the constitutional argument that no citizen should be denied basic human rights, such as those spelled in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; they guarantee every citizen “equal protection” under state and federal law.

I shall stipulate, though, that no time ever have my wife of more than 43 years and I have felt “threatened” by laws that allow same-sex couples to be married legally. Our marriage is as strong as it’s ever been and I have supreme confidence that we’re going to remain wedded for the duration.

I also am quite certain that millions of other traditional couples feel the same way as we do.

So, to see someone such as Rep. Tinderholt — lugging around his personal history of marital failure — argue against someone else’s rights under the law simply makes his argument laughable on its face.