Commentary on Peer Blog

      I really like this post and the topic being discussed.  I completely agree that making punishment more severe is not necessary.  The example of what punishment an intoxicated person who assaulted an officer would receive under the new bill was a punishment of possible life in prison.  For obvious reasons this seems overboard to me.  Who do you usually want to avoid when intoxicated? Police.  Who is usually an asshole to you when you do have to face them intoxicated?  Police.  Who is a drunk person most likely not going to be nice to?  Police.
       I am not making excuses for these people but I am saying this is common nature and this law could be very harsh on people who really just had too much to drink and opened their big mouth or thought they could get away with pushing an officers hand off them.  Drunk people are rarely tame and tend to be rowdy which officers know.  Any officer would be in a position to taunt a drunk person knowing how severe their consequences will be, which sometimes I think is all that really matters to cops.  It would just be very unfortunate for someone to get a PI that turns into life in prison.  Lets focus on the real criminals that need to be detained first.
     The 3 experiences I have had with cops have been awful so I am definitely biased.  But police officers often try to make it hard to get along with them because of what blatant assholes they tend to be (not all of them obviously).  Cops are people just like us; they can be unfair, they make mistakes and they don't live in a world of black and white rules.
       Assaulting a cop can be even the most minor of touches.  Does it make sense to send someone to jail for touching another human??  What about all of the incidents of cops KILLING innocent or unarmed people.  Forced resignation, maybe an investigation and a court date but I can guarantee none of them received life in prison.  With this being said it just doesn't make sense to put cops on a hierarchy where they can't be touched unless you want life in prison.  We are all humans including the boys in blue; lets not forget.

My Opinion on HB 1911 and its Future Status

     House Bill 1911 was approved by a house committee last week and will now head to the full Texas legislature.  In a recent blog post I discussed my disapproval for HB 375 that would allow permit-less carry and extend it to 18 year olds; even on college campuses.  Bill 1911 is very similar and would have allowed 18 year olds to carry arms without a license but doesn't interfere with the campus carry law passed back in 2015.
   That was the main gist of the original bill that I would have opposed, but the modified bill that was approved by The House Homeland Security and Public Safety Committee has different terms.  Although the goal of permit-less carry remains in the bill, the age is raised to 21 and added regulations and restrictions are included.  I feel that this is a good common ground between the opposing sides on this matter, especially regarding the age restriction.  My main disapproval for these bills came from the concerning fact that they would allow 18 year olds to carry guns.  I see this as a huge mistake- 18 years old is just too young to be allowed the responsibility of carrying a firearm in public.
     Without modification to bill 375 it is not likely it will go much farther, but Jonathan Strickland, creator of the bill, refuses to "water it down".  Hopefully the bill won't proceed further and bill 1911 can take its place as the common ground.

Source: https://www.texastribune.org/2017/04/18/house-committee-approves-modified-permitless-carry-legislation/

Peer Commentary

     My classmates blog was very clearly written and thoroughly explained the topic.  I strongly agree that allowing guns to be carried on college campuses poses a large threat.  College students are always under stress and are usually not in a proper state of mind to have the responsibility of holding a gun.  Guns should absolutely not be allowed to be carried by students on college campuses.  

     The point the author of the blog made about how easy it is to obtain a gun or a gun license in Texas.  I wrote a blog on that topic recently and the author very accurately described the gun licensing situation in Texas.  There is very little needed to get a gun or a carrying license already so easing up on current laws is not the right direction we should be headed for.  

The Lack of Logic Behind HB 375- Commentary

Gun-rights activists are supporting the passing of House Bill 375 during this Texas Legislature session.  This bill, better known as the “Constitutional Carry Act”, would allow Texans to carry handguns without having to obtain a handgun license.  This law is already in effect in 11 different states and it appears that Texas is at risk of being the 12th state to adopt the concerning new law.

Regarding the differentiating reasons behind Republican support of HB 375- well, there are many but few have logical meaning backing it.  Gun-rights activists do not think they should have to pay a fee (for the gun licensing) to the Government because to them it is paying a fee to exercise their constitutional rights.  Well, this fee is $140 the first time and $70 to renew, and Texas provides discounts if eligible.  If one doesn't have the money to pay the proper fee, then the individual probably shouldn't be interested in paying hundreds or thousands of dollars for a gun.  Most gun carriers claim they bear arms for protection, or solely for the fact that the right to bear arms is in the United States constitution.  With the protection factor in consideration, I would think that loosening (and basically throwing away) current gun laws will result in an influx of new gun owners and carriers.  This sounds like more hypothetical danger that the original gun owners are currently trying to protect themselves from.  

The argument from activists of Bill 375 being their “constitutional right” thanks to their beloved 2nd amendment really baffles me.  If this amendment was formed in modern day I would assume tragedies like school shootings, accidental gun deaths and mass shootings would be taken into consideration, along with the countless instances impulsiveness, mental illness, and human error have contributed to gun deaths.  If the second amendment is going to be taken as literally as they wish, I have a hard time seeing how requiring a license to carry is “infringing” on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”.  Guns are extremely dangerous and can take a life in the blink of an eye.  I think at the least both sides should be able to agree on some small, painless (but required) measures that come along with the large responsibility of carrying a handgun… but that is apparently asking too much.

These are the main issues I have with the arguments from supporters of Bill 375, but I'd like to clarify what exactly these people are arguing for.  Part of the criteria for a handgun license is you must be over the age of 21, so without it this could mean handgun carriers as young as 18.  That alone is a scary thought that becomes much more terrifying when you consider what that would mean for “campus carrying”.  The stressful and alcohol-infused environment of a college campus seems like no place to be expanding any gun carrying laws.  School shootings and young adult suicides would undoubtedly increase if students 18 and above were permitted open carry on campus.  I understand a gun owner's argument to protection, but I would like to feel safe on my college campus and not in a constant state of fear from the unqualified teenage handgun carriers that I would be surrounded by.  In a place like a college campus- where there are currently few things to protect yourself from- why would we turn it into somewhere people fear; somewhere people feel the need for new protection?

Commentary- This Blog Post Caught My Attention

     While scrolling through blogs to find one of interest, a post about Michael Burgess caught my eye.  My dad did campaign work for Burgess for many years, especially during his first campaign when running for state representative.  I even had the chance to meet with him this winter break in his office in Dallas, and got to discuss politics, school, and what it means to be a politician (and how to be one).  Before I met with him my dad briefed me on his political stances, which he knew greatly differed from mine.

     I chose this article over Burgess (there were multiple of him on this woman's blog) because of the irony I got out of it, but only for personal reasons.  He apparently called a long awaited town hall meeting but the announcement of the meeting came along with remarks like "do not allow this to be overrun by the left" and "this is our home ground, don't surrender".  This was funny to me, since during our conversation he encouraged getting involved at any level and admitted the the reason he even got into politics was to promote the change he wanted to see.  I found their announcement of the meeting aggressive and hypocritical, but only on a personal level because of my experiences with him.  In order for there to be a meeting to debate issues, there has to be different sides.  They are saying something about their own Republican supporters too, like "hey, you lazy voters, get these libs out of here and take back this town meeting!".  

     I had always heard interesting things about Burgess, and after meeting him I see politics in a totally different light.  From a man who went from owning his own OBGYN clinic to representing District 26 as our Congressman basically overnight, he showed me that under all of the slander, aggression, and corruption in politics, a normal, mistake making human being lies under it all.  From him sitting in his conference room telling me to always get involved, to him discouraging liberals at their town hall meeting; its all situational, and politically shouldn't be taken personally.  That concludes my discussion of Congressman Burgess; I'm still hoping for some help from him in getting an internship at the Capitol next year so shhh don't tell I'm talking about him! 

PS here is a picture of me and the Congressman over winter break 2017

Editorial Discussing Texas' Dysfunctional CPS- Worth the Read

The Dallas Morning News' editorial “Texas’ Supposed Safety Net Bounces Underage Girls Into Pimps’ Clutches” discusses the faults of Child Protective Services and the reasons the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services needs to make changes in the system.  The targeted audience seems to be child-welfare advocates or anyone who is willing to get involved with the matter at hand.  A list of ways to contact local lawmakers about the issues with the current CPS system is provided at the end of the editorial, showing the author not only wants to inform the public but immediately get them involved.  The author uses a couple CPS cases that are very disheartening and will probably result in some readers actually getting in contact with lawmakers; that's how upsetting some of these examples are.  These examples provide insight to how poorly CPS is functioning in Texas.  Not only is it not providing protection for children (especially young women), but according to the author and some research done by the University of Texas, CPS should be at blame for a number of sex-trafficking victims.  The unnamed author is calling for a system that better cares for and protects children who rely on social services.  The emotional appeal throughout the editorial will directly impact parents due to the severity of these sex-trafficking cases.  The author claims many young women end up in the hands of pimps as a result of the lacking CPS resources.  Since the author isn't provided, and does not include and background information, it's difficult to tell how credible the author really is.  Through facts and examples you can tell this is a very involved person who wrote this article, and someone who is truly concerned with the well being of these children.  I agree with the urgentness of this matter and am now also concerned with the changes that need to be made with these government services.  Children who have no one, or live in an abusive environment have already endured enough and should never have to turn to pimps to sustain themselves after the government failed to provide them with the necessary resources. Hopefully this current Legislation session takes concern for (and tries to improve) these failing social services in Texas.

Stay Informed Locally and Nationally

An important part to being knowledgeable about politics is to understand how certain policies and orders will directly affect your state and county.  Keeping up with Trumps executive orders and what all they encompass is confusing enough as it is- but we still need to be aware of how they are effecting us at home.  This article, titled “The State of Texas: Abbott Implements Hiring Freeze, Promises Sanctuary City Ban in Speech” already gives away much of how this is impacting us just in the title alone.  This specific article is one of the more recent published from “The Daily Post” found on The Texas Monthly politics page.  I found the points discussed in the article easy to relate to, especially with the proposed Sanctuary City Ban- which would affect Austin and Travis County directly.  Continue reading the article to become up to speed with Governor Abbotts response to some of Trumps executive orders.