Texas

It seems one of our state senators wants to introduce a Castle Doctrine bill.  This is pretty old news, and it may well have already passed, but what I would like to know (and don't have time to research myself) is what the specific changes are.  Does anyone have the text of the proposed legislation handy?

Hat tip to Blogonomicon.

One of the big advantages of a decentralized system of personal transportation technology (like, say, personal automobiles and public roads) is that it reduces the dependency of individuals upon the State for their daily lives.  It's hard to screw up a road, although governments certainly put a lot of effort into it! 

Generally, city governments seem to spend all their time complaining about traffic while begging for money to build extensive public transportation systems that aren't used.  Austin, for example, keeps putting silly "light rail" public transportation systems on the ballot, then scolding the public when they say no -- and nevermind that the bus system is so inefficient that it would be cheaper to buy each passenger a humvee.  (No, I didn't do that math, and I don't have a link handy to the person who did -- sorry).

Now a local news channel is complaining that Katrina evacuees who depended on public transportation in New Orleans are now stuck walking around Austin, because our public transport system sucks.  Here's one story:

Every morning and every evening, rain or shine, hot or cold, Ivy Harris walks one mile from her apartment on Decker Lane in Northeast Austin to the nearest bus stop to get to her job downtown.

"I was going to quit, but I talked to my job and they cut my hours, unfortunately, to get me home before it gets dark. Because one night I walked home and it was dark I couldn't see my hand in front of me," Harris said.

Her plan is to save up for a car and insurance so she can work more hours and fulfill her other responsibilities to her children. Right now, she must rely on cabs to get to the grocery store at a cost of $25 each way.

Here's one case where "tough love" is encouraging the right decision.  Relying on the State to provide your personal transportation may leave you without such transportation and unable to fulfill your own responsibilities.  The appropriate response, rather than quitting your job, is to take steps to become responsible for yourself.  In fact, the article closes on this note:

Some subjects interviewed for this article have since found ways to purchase vehicles, at times at the expense a tighter budget for food and other basic bills.

Heavens, you don't say that they are making cost-benefit tradeoffs!

So what's the clear subtext of this article?  "Vote for public transport to help the Katrina victims."

And that's why I titled my post "Do it again, only HARDER."  Because this news story is doing nothing less than pushing everyone to fund the exact sort of system that produced individuals dependent upon the State for their personal transportation.  The people they interviewed seem perfectly capable of learning from their mistakes and adapting to their new situation, so why is it so difficult for journalists to do so?

You may have been following the controversy over Sony's decision to ship a CD with software on it that takes over the  computer it runs on, preventing the owner of the computer from removing the copy protection software, and also allegedly acting as spyware (sending information back to Sony).  There's a new development: the Texas Attorney General has decided to sue Sony for this decision.  The lawsuit surprised the hell out of me; since when does government stand up for the people to a corporation like Sony?  On the national level, government has been bought by the media industry.  It seems local governments may still have a role to play in curbing the abuse of customers.

Of course, this issue is mostly academic for me; the first thing I do with a new music CD is get a full-quality (lossless) digital copy onto my computer... running Linux.  Then I put the CD away and listen to the digital copy.  So far, I've only had to go back to the originals once, when I decided to use a lossloss compression format (flac) rather than a lossy format (mp3/ogg).  But the real point is, since I'm running Linux, I don't have anything to fear from Sony's rootkit or any other Windows-based copy protection.

Of course, I don't distribute the result, I just listen to it. 

UPDATE: Wondering how big a deal this is?  Researchers have discovered a way to guage the spread of Sony's rootkit through the internet (by analyzing DNS cache data, if you're curious).  They produced a graphic showing the spread.  It's a big deal, folks.

... but then, I'm not a minority.  Apparantly for those who are minorities and who have frequent contacts with the police, it's not such a nice place.  I can't say I'm surprised, since our local prosecutor is a Democrat apparantly more interested in proving that you really CAN indict a ham sandwich charging politicians with paperwork crimes than investigating police misconduct and obstruction of justice in a potential murder case.  The Austin-American Statesman has more.

Earlier this week, I received the following fairly interesting query by email:

I am in the U.S and if someone tried to break into my house and I do not know him or her and I assume their going to hurt me I have every right to kill them?  Not on purpose but at least stop them. im 15 if that has anything to do with it. I live in Texas also

I am, of course, not a lawyer, and I responded as such.  You need to ask a lawyer if you want to get a legal answer you can rely on.  But it's also possible to just read the law for yourself, and decide based on that.  That's why we have written laws.  And while I'm not going to give legal advice, when I saw Volokh's post on Texas laws concerning the use of deadly force on thieves or looters I thought it was worth mentioning.  It doesn't deal with the law on using deadly force to protect yourself or others, just on protecting property.

I should mention as well that what the law allows for is not always the wisest course of action.  You don't want to be pushing the legal envelope in court on a murder charge.  But as the saying goes, if it comes down to the decision to shoot or not to shoot, it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

As a freedom-loving American, I'm proud of my country.  In many ways we are the last, best hope for freedom in the world.  But  all is not well in the home of the brave... there are still those far, far too eager to surrender our freedom in return for... what?  power?  prestige?  dignity? 

Not even that.  There are those who would give away our freedom for nothing more than the chance to punish an insult.

This is not a hypothetical; yesterday, the Austin American Statesman published the story of Vyki Robbins and Arthur White.  Vyki is an employee of the Texas Department of Health and Human Services; Arthur White is a city councilman from Bartlett, TX.  It seems that Vyki and Arthur were at a local swimming pool, arguing, and Vyki called Arthur "an obscene name". 

Being a politician, Arthur almost undoubtedly deserved the appellation regardless of its literal truth or falsehood.  Nobody likes to be called names, but politicians are far more in need of their deflationary power than followers of any other profession.  Not surprisingly they hate being called names more than anyone else, too... but most of them are sufficiently restrained by the need to win elections to stop before deciding to file a complaint of disorderly conduct. 

The judge who accepted the complaint is appointed by the City Council, of which Arthur White is a member.  If you're thinking conflict of interest, so am I.  The State of Texas will be represented by the city attorney, whereas the defendent is defending herself, which can't help the situation.  But at least it will be a jury trial.  (If the jury has any sense, it will be the shortest jury trial in history). 

Arthur White, you are an embarassment to your city, your county, your State, and your country. 

Of course, far be it from me to present only one side of the story.  Here's his justification for being an utter git:

White said he thought he had no choice but to pursue the case in court.

"The only alternative that I have would be to lower myself to her standards or to assault her," White said. "I decided I couldn't let this go on. The attitude might be taken, 'Well, don't worry about Mr. White out there; call him all the names you want.' "

Mighty good self-control you have there, Mr. White.  As a politician and public figure, you volunteered for abuse from the people you represent.  Perhaps its time you learned to take the heat.  Personally, I'd prefer you got out of the kitchen.

Of course, there's more to the story than a politician acting like a spoiled brat running to mommy because his playmates don't like him.  Today, the paper is running an editorial linking public cursing to gun control:

Calling somebody a dirty name is like buying a gun. If you have three days to think it over, you're much less likely to shoot. If you have three days to decide whether to call somebody a muzzy-headed knucklehead, you're much less likely to shoot your mouth off.

Criminals don't buy guns, at least not from dealers who would obey a waiting period, twit.  They steal guns, or purchase them on the black market.   Criminals don't make other criminals obey waiting periods.  And honest citizens don't waltz into a gun dealer's store demanding to buy a gun so they can run off to shoot someone.

The fact is, the government has no more business regulating guns than it does regulating Vyki Robbins' unconventional manner of petitioning for redress of her grievances. 

I'm afraid both John Kelso and Arthur White have flunked the Constitutional test.

... while I was asleep at the switch.  Sorry, folks, as I've said earlier, life has been busy lately.  I'm blogging in big spurts when I can get enough intellectual energy and time together in the same place.  That's likely to continue for at least another 2 months.  (Incidently, for the same reason as Bill and Denise, except that I post about it less).

With the apologies out of the way, here's what recently passed, courtesy of Geeks with Guns:

• HB 225 by Representative Joe Driver (R-Garland) & Senator Bob Deuell (R-Greenville) Extends Term of Renewed Concealed Handgun Licenses (CHLs) from 4 to 5 Years
• HB 322 by Representative Suzanna Hupp (R-Lampasas) & Senator Craig Estes (R-Wichita Falls) Reduces Fees and Lowers the Minimum Age Requirement for a CHL from 21 to 18 for Active Military Personnel
• HB 685 by Representative Patrick Rose (D-Dripping Springs) & Senator Leticia Van de Putte (D-San Antonio) Eliminates the Range Instruction Portion of CHL Course for Military Personnel with Handgun Training (Signed by Governor Rick Perry already)
• HB 823 by Representative Terry Keel (R-Austin) & Senator Juan Hinojosa (D-McAllen) Legalizes the Carrying of Concealed Handguns in Private Vehicles Without a CHL
• HB 1038 by Representative Carl Isett (R-Lubbock) & Senator Kim Brimer (R-Fort Worth) Reduces CHL Renewal Fees for Senior Citizens
• HB 1066 by Representative Glenn Hegar (R-Katy) Allows Residents of All Other States to Apply for Texas CHLs and Streamlines Requirements for Other States To Qualify for CHL Reciprocity with Texas (passed as an amendment to HB 225 by Representative Joe Driver & Senator Bob Deuell)
• HB 1483 by Representative Stephen Frost (D-Atlanta) & Senator Kevin Eltife (R-Tyler) Expands Possible Methods of Payment for CHL Application Fees
• HB 1831 by Representative Robert Talton (R-Houston) & Senator Juan Hinojosa (D-McAllen) Exempts Certain Deferred Adjudications from Definitition of "Convicted" for CHL Eligibility
• Additionally, all anti-gun measures were defeated this session!

Good news, all of them.  I'm especially pleased by the passage of HB823, because the "traveling" exception in Texas law prior to that bill got tossed to the courts for a definition of "traveling", and resulted in a very restrictive definition.  You should be able to keep a firearm in your car, loaded and ready for use in self-defense, without a permit, regardless of whether or not you are "traveling".  Most people won't bother, but the people who need to, now can.  And it's one small step closer to "Vermont-Alaska carry" for Texans.

Of course, I'll need to read the law to figure out what exactly it does.

Legislators are debating a mental health bill which would institute statewide mental health screening... an issue which could have some dramatic "unintended consequences".  Here's how the Gun Owners of America put it:

 Janek's amendment calls for a mental health screening system that could potentially cover every child in the state! His language calls for "screening for co-occurring physical, mental, and substance-abuse disorders" -- with no guarantee that that won't be done over the objections of the parents. It is common knowledge that public schools routinely insist upon medicating (drugging) students to control behavior.

Federal law prohibits firearms ownership to those who are addicted to controlled substances (such as Ritalin) -- whether obtained legally or not. So the state could first determine a child has unacceptable mental behavior, then insist upon prescribed drugs as a solution... and later find that the "addicted" person is not able to own a gun.

Any way you look at it, this type of Orwellian control is simply unacceptable. And when looked at as a perfect avenue for the gun grabbers to expand the list of prohibited persons, it is a situation that should be of immediate concern to all Texas gun owners.

Remember, there are many people who think anyone who wants to own a gun is certifiably insane and paranoid. 

I'm a bit late on this one.  The legislative session ends Monday, but the bill could be passed any time before then.  I'll be calling my Texas legislators tomorrow.  Here's how:

ACTION: Please call your representative and senator right away and    ask them to insist that the Janek language (Senate Committee Amendment No. 1) be stricken from HB 2572. You can call them at       512-463-4630.                                                                

(You can find out who your state legislators are by using the GOA Legislative Action Center at www.gunowners.org/activism.htm and then typing in your zip code into the Elected Officials box. After that,   click on the highlighted state link to see who your state legislators are.)

Also, if you have time, please contact Governor Rick Perry and give   him the same message. Ask him to stop pushing for the Janek "mental health" language. You can contact him at 512-463-0001.

So if you're a Texan, go to it.

On a more general note, sorry for the light blogging lately.  Life is busy.

Hat tip to Kim du Toit on this one.  The bill was introduced by Senator Rodney Ellis, and Kim also has a link to his legislative record and contact information for the appropriate committee members.  Those of you who are Texans will probably want to tell your representatives how to vote, just in case they are tempted.

And as for Rodney Ellis?  I don't think he plans to run for his Senate seat again, because he would be stupid to introduce this bill in Texas, no less! if he does, but I'll remember his name just in case.

This coming Wednesday, March 16, the Texas Senate Intergovernmental Relations Committee will consider Senate Bill 734, a measure that protects hunting opportunities on private land from city annexation.  Currently, most Texas cities ban the discharge of firearms within city limits.  If you have private property that you hunt, or you have land leased out to sportsmen, and that land is annexed by a city -- hunting can no longer take place on your land in most cases.  SB 734 would protect your property rights and hunting for generations to come.

By way of the Texas State Rifle Association and Kim du Toit comes word of this legislation, designed to stop cities from annexing your land and prohibiting the use of that land for hunting.  Click through to Kim's place to get the phone numbers you need to call.

West side patrol officers are under new orders: Make two traffic stops a day or face a penalty that includes having days off changed or being reassigned to a different beat, shift or district. The policy, described in a memo obtained by the Star-Telegram as an active approach to decreasing serious crime in west Fort Worth, disturbs some officers to whom it sounds similar to an illegal quota.

"To me, this is a thinly veiled attempt at a quota, and I don't like it," said Lee Jackson, president of the Fort Worth Police Officers Association, which represents more than 1,200 members of the department. The state transportation code prohibits ticket quotas.

Well, if it walks like a quota and it quacks like a quota... odds are that a quota by any other name would still bring in the ticket revenue.

House Bill 225 (Driver) which extends the renewal period for a concealed handgun license from four to five years without an increase in renewal fee.

House Bill 322 (Hupp) which reduces all fees for a concealed handgun license for military members and veterans by 50 percent and lowers the age from 21 to 18 for members of the military or veterans to obtain a concealed handgun license.

House Bill 685 (Rose) which exempts military members and veterans from taking the range portion of the concealed handgun licensing process if they had been weapons certified in the military within the past five years prior to application for the license.

House Bill 1483 (Frost) which will expand methods by which applicants for a concealed handgun license may pay the fees to include personal check, cash, and credit card. Currently only cashiers checks and money orders are accepted.

House Bill 823 (Keel) which clarifies the current definition of ?traveling? as it relates to someone carrying a firearm. Current law is ambiguous and is interpreted differently by courts and law enforcement.

House Bill 1038 (Isett) which reduces the fee for renewal of a canceled handgun permit for senior citizen by 50 percent. The current renewal fee for a senior citizen is $70 for a four-year renewal period and this bill will reduce that fee to $35 for those 60 years of age or older.

It's good to see that he signed them, although I don't think anyone really expected trouble.  Hat tip to packing.org.

If my life has calmed down a bit by then, I might even be able to attend.

Just hours after Kelo v New London, the city of Freeport, TX made the news by filing papers to seize a number of waterfront businesses in order to install a private marina.  It didn't take long for the State legislature to file resolutions to put a Constitutional change on the November ballot.  Of course, it's not perfect:

Lets amend our Texas Constitution to add this language, "Private property shall not be taken through the use of the power of eminent domain if a primary purpose of the taking is for economic development."

Sounds good to me.  The current resolutions propose language that restricts country and local governments but does not restrict the state government.  

Even in Texas, the press is liberal.  How can you tell?  Just look at this story surrounding a recent tax vote in the Texas House.  Here's what happened:

1. The first vote failed by a narrow margin.
2. The Republican leadership ordered a roll-call.  The roll-call revealed that two Democratic members of the House who had been recorded as voting no were not actually present, resulting in a tie vote.
   
3. A Republican representative, who had a pairing agreement with an absent Democratic representative, decided to violate that agreement and vote in favor of the bill. 
   
4. A revote was held.  The bill passed, 74-73.

For those who don't know, a pairing agreement is when two legislators who plan to vote in opposite directions both agree not to vote instead.  Instead of actually bothering to vote, they can each take a day off.

Faced with this account, what story do you write?  You can write about how two Democratic members of the House voted without actually being present, one of them violating their pairing agreement with the fraudulent vote.  This practice is known as ghost voting, and in my opinion is legislative fraud.  Legislators must be present to vote.  It's their job. 

Or, you can write about how a Republican violated the pairing agreement, and scrupulously avoid even implying the obvious -- that the Democrat who was not present had already violated the agreement by voting fraudulently.  The Republican leadership claims that the agreement is non-binding regardless.  Obviously, it's not exactly honorable to violate the agreement -- for either side.  (My understanding of this practice is that it is usually used when both legislators plan to be absent, thus rendering violations impossible.)

But seriously, folks.

Which is more important -- a legislator who is present deciding to vote, or two legislators who are not present voting fraudulently, including the Democratic representative with the pairing agreement?

In a surprise move, Gov. Rick Perry expanded the agenda of the special legislative session Friday to include proposals to protect private property from being seized by a government agency for private development.

Perry set the stage for lawmakers to adopt changes to eminent domain laws, including a proposed amendment to the Texas Constitution, that would prohibit or greatly restrict state and local governments from condemning land solely for economic development purposes.

This is a reversal of a decision Perry (Texas governor) made less than 30 days ago.  He's feeling the heat from Kelo v New London.

As I've mentioned briefly in the past, I've been buying a house (and it's been keeping me busy enough to interfere with blogging time and energy).  But tonight, by some mystical synchronicity, they have become one and the same.   I found this warning while searching for information on buying water and sewer services:

Note:  Never turn on your water service after the city has disconnected it.  This is a felony in the State of Texas.

I've got to wonder why this can't be handled by a civil fine (theft of services) or a misdemeanor.  Maybe the justification is related to ensuring the integrity of the water supply (because you could certainly muck up the water system for a lot of people if you screw up, deliberately or accidentally).  But this is definitely something that I would not expect to be a felony in a sane society.

The Senate proposal is mixed news.  It's not bad, but it's not perfect, and it has a fairly long list of exceptions:

Under Senate Bill 62, the taking of private property through eminent domain lawsuits for economic development purposes or to be turned over to a private developer mostly would be prohibited.

Approved exceptions would include transportation projects such as railroads, highways, ports and airports; water supply projects; pipelines and utility projects; flood control projects; and community sports arenas, such as the new Dallas Cowboys stadium in Arlington.

Citing the exceptions as proof the measure would have wider impact than predicted, foes criticized it as a legislative wolf in sheep's clothing.

I don't think those exceptions should be necessary under the "public use" standard, but they may help avoid litigation.  I'm nervous about the exceptions for flood control projects, and the community sports arenas exception is obviously wrongheaded.  It's also implemented as legislation, rather than a Constitutional amendment, meaning that the legislature can ignore it with a simple majority vote any time they feel like adding an exception.

The Texas House is working to put an amendment on the ballot instead.  That may be a better approach.

The Democrats are arguing in favor of eminent domain, of course; it's hard to believe that they really are this deaf to public opinion:

Whitmire and others warned that the wording of the measure would prevent or impair such projects as San Antonio's new Toyota plant and a hotel-parking-conference center proposed at the University of Texas.

Yes, a new Toyota plant is a taking for economic development.  Toyota should buy the land.  A new hotel at the University of Texas is a taking for economic development, even if the university will own the land, and the university should buy the land (or preferably, get out of the hotel business!  Sheesh). 

And you'd expect a Texan prosecutor to know the law, and be committed to following the law.  However, we have some substantial counterexamples; the Travis County prosecutor (eg, Austin) is using an extortion scheme to fund his private vendetta against significant Republicans in the House, and now the Harris County prosecutor (eg, Houston) is vowing to arrest and prosecute Texans who carry their firearms lawfully concealed within their vehicles without a license. 

Texas law has long contained a somewhat confusing "travelling" defense to the charge of carrying a concealed handgun in your vehicle; the legislature has recently clarified the law to indicate that anyone (almost) carrying a firearm concealed in their vehicle for a lawful purpose is presumed to be "traveling".

Despite that clarification, citizens of Houston will still be arrested and prosecuted if they are caught carrying in their vehicle without a license, at least until the courts slap the city government around a bit. 

Personally, I'd classify this as a premeditated violation of civil rights under color of law.

As 11 Democratic state senators from Texas fled to New Mexico on Monday, their desire to stave off a Republican redistricting effort led them to forget some personal needs.

This is getting to be a fairly regular occurrance, and that's somewhat unfortunate.

Houston Mayor Lee Brown sent a letter to Gov. Rick Perry on Thursday, urging him to veto a bill that would strip the city of its ability to enforce a ban on legally concealed handguns from its facilities. City and county officials continued to grapple with the potential effects of the bill Thursday and were unable to say what, if any, changes in security it could spur. Both City Hall and the Harris County Administration Building have signs at all entrances warning that weapons are barred. The city installed metal detectors at City Hall in 1998. A spokeswoman for the Building Services Department said the signs and detectors have served as a deterrent, and security guards have not had to confiscate any weapons.

Under proposed legislation before the Texas Legislature, your facial characteristcs, body movements and fingerprints would be collected and entered into a huge database the next time you renew your driver's license. This database would be shared with other government agencies and could be used to monitor the activities of average Texans as they go about their daily lives. Not only is this system expensive and unreliable, it will also inevitably invade the privacy of thousands of innocent Texans. Click here for more information and to take action!

A state lawmaker says she is trying to fight crime with legislation to restrict public access to information on people licensed to carry concealed handguns, but opponents say the proposal would result in hiding the identities of those who are packing heat. Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, R-Lampasas, said she wants to change current law because it allows a would-be thief to request concealed handgun license information on each individual living in an area to find out who has a concealed handgun license. "Currently, if a bad guy is determining which home on a particular block he wants to rob, all he has to do is request the information and he knows which houses have guns that have a valuable resale," Hupp said.

A 14-year-old girl in critical condition after she was shot by federal drug agents conducting a surveillance operation on the westside. Officials said the incident happened on the 800 block of San Joaquin shortly after 11:30 p.m. Sunday. The plain-clothed Drug Enforcement Administration officers were trying to apprehend a suspect when the teen girl left a building with someone matching the description of the man they were looking for. Officials said the teen and the man got into a car and began to drive off.

The Houston police captain who ordered the arrests of 303 people at westside raids was fired Wednesday, ending a five-month investigation that tarnished the careers of 32 officers and cost the department $123,000. Acting Police Chief Tim Oettmeier announced Mark Aguirre's firing during his report to City Council on the August raids targeting drag racing. He said 31 other officers were disciplined. "The intentional bad acts of a certain few were exacerbated by an ignorance of the law, ineffective management, lackadaisical supervision and just plain sloppy police work," Oettmeier said.

Justice. It's rare, but savor the taste.