Hate to ask and don't want to be pushy,
but could y'all please really try to
Make Your Donation
Posted on 04/06/2019 10:25:51 AM PDT by McQ444
Texas's Republican House Speaker on Friday moved to drop the state's "constitutional carry" legislation after a gun rights activist showed up at his home to push for the bill. Dennis Bonnen said the bill was "dead" after Chris McNutt, the executive director of Texas Gun Rights, appeared at his home to advocate for the controversial legislation that would allow Texans to carry firearms without a license, The Dallas Morning News reported. McNutt, according to the outlet, drove 50 miles south of Houston last Wednesday before turning up at Bonnen's house to question why the legislation wasn't moving forward faster. The paper reported that McNutt had posted rants on Facebook about the lack of movement on the bill prior to driving to Bonnen's house.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
The short answer is that politicians don’t trust you with a gun.
The Donut Eaters union hates the concept.
Any excuse would have work.
There is a time and place for lobbying. And there are places and circumstances where it is bluntly not appropriate. We are not Demorats that go around hounding people at their homes, in restaurants or while going about their personal lives.
Mr. McNutt (a most unfortunate name) screwed up and I support the Speaker’s decision. Crossing lines should have consequences. Come back next year Mr. McNutt and if you know how to behave properly we can talk about this.
Sounds like a SET UP. How much did the RINO ‘Speaker’ pay the guy to show up at his house?
If not, that would mean that Texas politics is cleaner than it has been, EVER.
Sounds like they both are over the top. Maybe McNutt shouldn’t have showed up at his house but this doesn’t justify the childish response by Killing the bill.
'Nuff said.
I don't know why, but my residence seems to be a magnet for the dumb ass politicians that think knocking on a door and wanting to shake my hand is a sure thing for my vote.
They could not be more wrong.
I put that Walt Maddox idiot (candidate for Gov in Alabama) in the road, loudly and very disrespectfully, as he approached my residence after very plainly seeing a plethora of conservative-bent yard signs and other "no trespassing and no soliciting" notices.
His reason...?: He thought he could convince me to change over to his way of things.
So why shouldn't I visit his house and tell him how I feel, should he be elected?
Rhetorical, of course, since he very much lost the race, but these damned politicians need a wake up once in a while.
And THIS butt-head, who would trash a piece of legislation out of petty peevishness, needs to be shown the door of the house...legislative house, that is.
I bet the real answer is; “It depends.”
I am sure many can play the “what if” game and find a scenario where use of deadly force against a trespasser is authorized.
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
And. . .
Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer’s presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor’s differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
Yes, the GOP is controlled by the Democrat agenda.
Sounds to me like Speaker Bonnen is rather childish and is having a temper tantrum. Seems like this is just an excuse for something he doesn’t want to do.
Interesting.
Why in the hell not the laws that these people pass affect the voters so why not be able to get in their damn face about not passing a damn law bullshit
This story smells loke a lie.
Very disappointing.. I was hoping we could actually get someone decent after Straus finally left, but of course not....
I doubt you'd say that if you lived here as long as I have.
Outside of the deepest blue enclaves in our big cities, Texas isn't anything like a Democrat paradise.
Our new Speaker of The House was handpicked by his predecessor, Joe Straus, another abject RINO.
There’s your answer. He was never going to push the bill through.
Thanks McQ444.
Translation, “Texas lawmaker who was dragging his feet on constitutional carry, because he really didn’t want it, gets the excuse to drop it handed to him by a citizen who acted stupidly”
My statement still holds true. Texas policy, from their older open carry laws to the situation along the border doesn’t reflect a Texan philosophy that so many argue on FR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.