Tag Archives: Texas Legislature

Burger chain takes a stand against open carry

open carry

You’re hungry. You decide you want a burger smothered in some sort of gooey sauce.

Then you decide you want to go to Whataburger, a well-known Texas-based chain of burger joints. We’ve got ’em here in Amarillo.

But you’re carrying a pistol on your hip. Then you know that Whataburger has decided it won’t serve customers carrying their weapons openly. What do you do? You love those burgers. Hey, it’s simple. You take your gun out of your holster, store it in your car, go in and get your goopy burger.

Will that be the end of it? Hardly.

Any discussion at all involving guns is bound to get goofy.

Frankly, I’m all in favor of what Whataburger has decided to do.

No shirt? No shoes? Packing heat in the open? No service, man.

It’s a fascinating development in the open-carry era in Texas, which begins in January when the law takes effect.

The Texas Legislature approved the bill; Gov. Greg Abbott signed it immediately into law. The National Rifle Association and other gun-owner rights groups applauded lawmakers and the governor.

Open Carry Texas founder C.J. Grisham called Whataburger’s decision “premature and irresponsible.” He said the restaurant chain is pandering to fear.

Give me a break. This shouldn’t be a problem at all for those who are licensed to carry their guns in the open. If they want to do business with someone that doesn’t allow guns in their establishment, don’t carry the gun into the place.

While the nation has been arguing about the merits of flying the rebel flag, we need to understand that privately owned businesses are able to set certain rules for those seeking to enter their establishment. They must not refuse service to people because of their skin color or their religion.

Prohibiting the open carry of loaded weapons onto their property? That’s a reasonable restriction.

Kids who skip school aren’t criminals

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott did right by Texas children and their parents when he signed a bill that decriminalizes truancy.

House Bill 2398 means that kids caught skipping school won’t be tossed into jail. And, as Abbott said when he signed the bill into law, “Criminalizing unauthorized absences at school unnecessarily jeopardizes the futures of our students.”

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/19/texas-decriminalize-truancy-after-abbott-signs-bil/

Critics of the previous practice had said it punishes poor and minority children unfairly. Too many of them come from home backgrounds where education simply doesn’t take the priority that it should. So, the kids skip school to hang out with friends or, sadly, do things they shouldn’t be doing. If they commit a crime while they’re out cavorting when they should be in school, then by all means, arrest them and treat them accordingly. Skipping school by itself shouldn’t be a reason to put a kid into juvenile detention.

The emphasis now falls on school districts to take measures designed to keep kids in school. Since truancy now will be handled as a civil matter, it becomes critical for districts to work with the Texas Education Agency to deal with habitual truants and seek ways to eliminate their impulse to skip school.

As the Texas Tribune reports: “HB 2398 offers preventative measures districts can take to curb unexcused absences and suggests rehabilitative programs for habitual offenders.”

This is a good — and in my view a surprising — move that the governor has taken. He developed a reputation as a “tough on crime” state attorney general. His statement relating to his bill signing suggests he understands that the state can lean too heavily on children who, after all, are just children.

They don’t need to tossed into the slammer because of unexcused absences from school.

Ethics reform gets a little kick from Abbott

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott vowed that the 2015 Legislature would reform the state’s ethics policy.

Lawmakers tried to torpedo Abbott’s call. But the governor struck back with his veto pen on one element that he didn’t like coming out of the Legislature.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/20/abbott-vetoes-spousal-loophole-davis-says/

Abbott vetoed a bill that would have allowed married elected officials to hide their spouses’ financial holdings. The governor said the bill did the opposite of what he wanted and he vowed to take up the matter of ethics reform when the 2017 Legislature convenes.

He said, according to the Texas Tribune: “At the beginning of this legislative session, I called for meaningful ethics reform. This legislation does not accomplish that goal. Provisions in this bill would reduce Texans’ trust in their elected officials, and I will not be a part of weakening our ethics laws,” he wrote. “Serious ethics reform must be addressed next session — the right way. Texans deserve better.”

Good for you, Gov. Abbott.

For as long as I can remember — and I’ve lived in Texas for 31 years, nearly half my life — “ethics” and “government” been mutually exclusive terms.

Abbott didn’t whiff completely on his effort to get some ethics reform enacted. One victory came as a result of a Democratic lawmaker’s effort to end the pension double-dipping that existed in Texas. As the Tribune reported: “State Rep. Chris Turner, D-Grand Prairie, won passage of a bill that will close a loophole that allowed longtime elected officials to double-dip their salary and pension. Former Gov. Rick Perry had famously taken advantage of the provision toward the end of his 14-year reign.”

The state has much more ground to cover if it is going to restore a belief among many Texans that their elected officials’ behavior shouldn’t be questioned with such regularity.

But as Gov. Abbott has displayed, he retains veto power. In this instance, he used it wisely.

 

 

Is Austin a ‘thorn’ in the Republicans’ side?

An interesting back story is profiled by an Associated Press story about how Texas Republicans are trying — finally — to remove what some have called a “thorn” in the GOP side.

The city of Austin is just a pain in the Republicans’ rear end.

This liberal bastion — nicknamed by some as The People’s Republic of Austin — keeps electing progressive politicians, which of course is the city’s prerogative. Why not? The Texas capital city is thriving. Its population is booming with high-tech employees, educators and learned professionals moving there.

Someone is doing something right there. About the most serious gripe one hears about Austin is the traffic, worsened by the fact that it’s the largest city in the country with just a single interstate highway coursing through it.

Texas Republicans, though — who control every statewide office in Texas and comprise a super-majority in the Legislature — have had enough of those liberals who populate public offices in Austin and Travis County.

http://news.yahoo.com/texas-gop-tries-pluck-liberal-thorn-side-182836892.html

As the story notes, the “last straw” was the Travis County grand jury’s indictment of then-Gov. Rick Perry on two felony counts: abuse of power and coercion of a public official.

Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg’s office runs the Public Integrity Unit, which investigates allegations of wrong doing by state officials. Lehmberg, though, got herself into a jam in 2013 when she pleaded guilty to drunken driving. She should have quit, but didn’t. Perry then insisted that she quit. Still, she didn’t. Then he threatened to withhold money appropriated by the Legislature for the Public Integrity Unit if she didn’t step down. She stayed. Then he vetoed the money.

The grand jury said he shouldn’t have done it that way. Thus, the indictment.

The 2015 Legislature has taken action against Austin. The Public Integrity Unit has been moved out of the DA’s office and put under the authority of the Texas Rangers, an arm of the Department of Public Safety, whose head is appointed by, um, the governor, who now happens to be Republican Greg Abbott.

Oh, but hey. They’re going to take politics out of it, isn’t that right?

Sure thing.

Meanwhile, Austin and Travis County voters will get to continue electing politicians more to their liking.

Keep it up, folks.

 

Texas GOP wins, but some Republicans remain angry

Some Texas Republicans can’t seem to win enough.

The Legislature approved two key bills near and dear to gun owners: open carry and campus carry. Gov. Greg Abbott just signed them both into law, which now means that Texans licensed to carry concealed weapons can do so openly; they’ll also be able now to pack heat on college campuses.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/13/texas-gop-scuttles-legislative/

If you’re a gun owner rights advocate, you’d be happy. Correct?

I guess not entirely.

The state GOP was unable to approve a resolution that slapped around four Republican lawmakers for “standing in the way” of Texans’ gun ownership rights.

Good grief, folks. You won! You got what you wanted! But as the Texas Tribune reported, the notion of such a resolution made some GOP officials uneasy: “But the very prospect of it riled some party leaders, sparking heated debate about the committee’s role in the Capitol and seriously complicating party fundraising in at least one instance.”

The party lost a vendor who’d been a major fundraiser and who had been uneasy about the resolution rebuking some lawmakers.

However, some members of the State Republican Executive Committee wanted to single out House Speaker Joe Straus, Rep. Dennis Bonnen, Rep. Larry Phillips and Sen. Joan Huffman for their opposition to a “Constitutional Carry” amendment, which translates into allowing unlicensed Texans to carry firearms.

Some members of the Texas GOP need to settle down. Take a breath. You won the contest over these two key gun-related issues.

 

So much for Texas ethics reform

Gov. Greg Abbott wanted the Texas Legislature to improve the state’s ethical conduct rules.

The first-term governor didn’t get anything close to what he wanted. Indeed, the just-concluded legislative session drew some barbs from members of the Texas Ethics Commission. And when those guys ding you, well, you’ve been dinged.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/12/brief-june-12-2015/?mc_cid=d31223e1d7&mc_eid=c01508274f

It appears that the Legislature went the other way. According to former Ethics panel chairman Jim Clancy, some bills awaiting Abbott’s signature “scare me to death.”

One of them makes it easier for political spouses’ financial statements to be hidden. According to the Texas Tribune, the bill repeals an earlier reform aimed at requiring such disclosure.

Nicely done, legislators. Just kidding, of course.

The Texas ethical code is pretty loose as it is. Lawmakers can leave public office and move directly into lobbying positions, where they can persuade their former legislative pals to back bills in the best interests of the new lobbyists’ clients. Cooling-off period? Forget about it.

The governor can try again in 2017 when the next Legislature returns. He’ll have logged some time in office. Perhaps he can use that time to persuade his friends in the Legislature that he really means it.

Reform, improve and tighten the state’s ethical code, or else. What’s more, Gov. Abbott, make the “or else” mean something.

 

Let’s now await high court ruling on gay marriage

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott knows when the Legislature has finished its work and there’s no need for “overtime.”

Thus, he has nixed the idea of a special session to deal with same-sex marriage, which legislative conservatives wanted to do.

To what end? Beats me.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/08/abbott-no-special-session-same-sex-marriage/

Texas already has approved a constitutional amendment that says, by golly, marriage should involve a man and a woman. The amendment came on top of an existing statute that said the very same thing.

Now the state is awaiting — along with 49 other states — a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that well could render all of that action moot. The court is going to decide, more than likely, whether states’ bans on same-sex marriage violate the federal Constitution, the one to which all state governments must adhere.

Texas legislators considered a bill that dealt with religious freedom, a bill that resembled legislation approved in Indiana, but which attracteded a torrent of protest from gay-rights groups. The Indiana bill would have allowed businesses to deny serving same-sex couples on the basis of business owners’ religious convictions. Critics said the bill, in effect, permitted business owners to discriminate openly.

The Texas bill didn’t pass. Legislators, though, did approve a bill that, according to the Texas Tribune says this — and you’ll have to follow it closely to understand it: The bill protects those from being from forced to “solemnize any marriage or provide services, accommodations, facilities, goods or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation or celebration of any marriage if the action would cause the organization or individual to violate a sincerely held religious belief.” The bill awaits action from Gov. Abbott.

Hey, all of this could be tossed aside if the high court rules that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees every American “equal protection” under the law, regardless of who they love or intend to marry.

I’m pretty sure that covers Texas.

 

Turner bids teary farewell to Legislature

rep. turner

This is something you don’t see every day: politicians from both sides of the political paying heartfelt tribute to one of their own as he prepares to depart their ranks.

So it was when state Rep. Sylvester Turner bid farewell to the Texas House of Representatives. He’s leaving the House, where he served for 26 years, to run for mayor of Houston.

http://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/sylvester-turners-tearful-farewell

Is this a huge thing? Not really. It’s simply worth noting in light of the occasional acrimony that flares up in Austin and more often, it seems, in Washington, D.C.

Turner is a Democrat, but the praise he got from Republican colleagues seemed heartfelt and sincere.

They praised Turner’s rhetorical skills. This came from Rep. John Smithee, R-Amarillo: “He could turn the House with logic and good argument.”

I once heard the late Republican state Sen. Teel Bivins of Amarillo say the same thing about a one-time foe, former Sen. Carl Parker, D-Port Arthur, who used to deride his GOP colleagues as “silk-stocking Republicans.” He included Bivins among that category of Republican. Bivins didn’t take it personally and they men remained friends despite their political differences.

That’s the way it ought to be.

As Turner told his colleagues to their faces, with tears welling up in his eyes: “I love each and every one of you. Whether we have voted together or not is not important to me. Whether you are a D or an R is not important to me. The reality is we are Texans, but proud Texans.”

Well said.

 

Red-light cameras to stay in operation

Let’s put the effort to ban cities from deploying red-light cameras on ice for another two years.

And then let us hope the Texas Legislature fails again to impose its will on cities who are seeking ways to prevent motorists from running through stop lights and endangering other motorists and pedestrians.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/01/amid-investigation-activists-critical-red-light-ca/

The 2015 Legislature won’t enact a statewide ban on the cameras. It fell short of efforts to take that authority away from cities, where officials — including in Amarillo — have deployed the cameras.

I happen to be glad that Amarillo will be able to maintain the cameras.

What’s more, I am hopeful the next Legislature will decide in the state’s best interest to let cities control their own traffic destiny.

Of all the arguments I keep hearing in opposition to the cameras, the one that angers and amuses me the most is that the cameras “violate the rights” of motorists. What rights? Privacy? The right to “face an accuser”? The right of “due process”?

If we’re going to accept the rights violation argument, then let’s just tell cities to disband their police departments. Let’s take down speed limit signs. While we’re at it, let’s take security cameras out of stores that protect businesses against theft; those cameras, after all, violate our “rights,” too, by watching our every move while we’re shopping.

Amarillo should be hailed for its insistence that the red-light cameras are helping deter motorists from endangering others, not to mention themselves, when they run through stoplights. Other cities haven’t demonstrated that kind of backbone.

So, for now, thanks also belong to the Texas Legislature for leaving cities alone and letting them determine what’s best for the motor vehicle-driving public.

Texas is about to add to its reputation

Ask a non-Texan to characterize the Lone Star State and the folks who live here in a sentence or two and you’re likely to hear the word “guns” mentioned.

“Texans love their guns.” “Texans would just as soon shoot someone as argue with ’em.” “Don’t mess with Texas, or someone with a gun will get ya.”

That kind of stuff.

Well, the Texas Legislature is likely to enhance or embellish that reputation if it approves two bills — over the expressed opposition of chiefs of police and at least one highly senior university administrator.

Open carry and campus carry bills are likely to become law in Texas. Gov. Greg Abbott says he’ll sign them both.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/26/texas-house-takes-campus-carry-ahead-key-deadline/

Lock ‘n load, Texas.

Police chiefs oppose the open carry bill that will enable those with concealed carry permits to pack the heat openly, strapped to holsters on their hips.

University of Texas System Chancellor William McRaven opposes the campus carry bill, which would allow concealed carry licensees to bring weapons onto college campuses.

The top cops and the chancellor have the same fear of both bills: They have the potential of creating tragedy, either through accidental shooting or self-inflicted gunshots wounds.

Both pieces of legislation give me the heebie-jeebies. Yes, the concealed carry law enacted in 1995 did the same thing, but it’s generally turned out all right in terms of its impact on Texas society. There haven’t been the spasms of violence in intersections over fender-benders that some of us feared when concealed carry became the law in Texas.

With open carry and now, with campus carry, I continue to get the nervous jerks over knowing that we’re (a) going to allow guns to be carried in the open and (b) allowing guns into university classrooms.

Retired Admiral McRaven, a former Navy SEAL who later headed the U.S. Special Forces command, has an interesting take on the campus carry bill’s potential impact. According to the Texas Tribune: “’If you’re in a heated debate with somebody in the middle of a classroom, and you don’t know whether or not that individual is carrying, how does that inhibit the interaction between students and faculty?’ McRaven asked at a Texas Tribune event in February. McRaven and others have suggested gun-wielding students might intimidate classmates and professors to the point of curbing freedom of speech.”

Maybe all this concern is overblown. Then again, maybe it’s justified.

I fear the worst if the cause for justification presents itself.