HB 1893 (and SB 1164) has been introduced to the Texas Legislature. So like any good citizen, I took the time to write my elected officials. My State Representative is Valinda Bolton. She has a “C” grade from the NRA. One thing I appreciate about Rep. Bolton is every time I write her I do receive a prompt reply (well-run office/staffers). In the past the reply letters (always snail mailed, tho I sent her email) were rather boilerplate in nature and were generally of a “thank you for writing and sharing your comments on whatever matter with me, when/if it comes up I’ll study all sides of the matter and make the best decision possible, thank you drive thru.”. I’ll admit, I don’t expect a personalized letter, but it’s very difficult to tell from boilerplate letters exactly where she stands on an issue so I can know how she’s likely inclined to vote on the matter. So this last time when I wrote to her regarding HB 1893 I actually made comment on that to her. To my pleasant surprise, her latest response to me was not a boilerplate at all. It answered my specific questions, used specific talking points from my email to her, and given the attribution at the bottom of the letter it does appear she actually composed the letter. So she’s got my respect for doing that.
Allow me to reprint the full text of her letter.
Dear Mr. Daub
I am sorry if you felt the previous responses to your letters were boilerplate. In fact, while we do use a basic template for all our constituent correspondence, the body of each reply is specifically tailored to each individual.
In reference to your request for my stance on guns, I do support the right of Americans to own a gun. I believe guns are useful tools in the hands of responsible, well-trained individuals licensed to carry them. However, in an environment like a college campus, I feel that guns would be more of a liability than a tool. Thus, I cannot support allowing the carrying of concealed handguns on college campuses. While the shootings at the University of Texas and Virginia Tech were tragic, they are still rare occurrences best handled by law enforcement professionals, trained in both the use of firearms and crisis management. As for the more ordinary dangers you describe of female students walking across campus late at night, most campuses offer escort services where a public safety officer will accompany a student to her car or destination.
I hope this answers your questions about my stance on gun-related issues. I do appreciate you writing to me and sharing your thoughts and opinions.
Sincerely,
Valinda Bolton
Texas State Representative
VB/mh
I don’t have a copy of my email to her, but in it I did mention the UT shootings and how the situation was aided by students going back to their dorm rooms, fetching their deer rifles, and shooting back. I also mentioned how we don’t need to just consider unique incidents like mass shootings by a crazy person, but consider daily mundane issues such as a girl walking across campus late at night — mugging, robbery, sexual assault, rape, etc. as these are things well worth protecting against as well. So to Rep. Bolton’s credit, she did work to address my specific message to her, and again I do appreciate that.
So, let’s start to look at Rep. Bolton’s response.
I do support the right of Americans to own a gun.
That’s a good start, and explains why her NRA grade isn’t an “F”.
I believe guns are useful tools in the hands of responsible, well-trained individuals licensed to carry them.
A few things here:
- So guns are only useful if you are responsible AND well-trained AND licensed to carry them.
- Can a college student not be responsible AND well-trained AND licensed to carry a concealed handgun? It sounds like she believes that cannot be the case. Let’s not forget, all college students are not 18-21 years old, and I say that because the “responsible” portion is certainly arugable there. 🙂 What about folks that opt to go back to school later in life? That 40-year-old single mother that opts to attend night classes to better her lot in life so she can get a better job to better provide for her children.
- Given the requirements in the Republic of Texas to obtain a Concealed Handgun License, you’re going to have to be a responsible, well-trained individual in order to obtain that license to carry a concealed handgun. So Rep. Bolton, according to the laws of our State, a person licensed to carry a concealed handgun is responsible and is well-trained. So… why can’t they carry their concealed handgun on campus?
Continuing:
However, in an environment like a college campus, I feel that guns would be more of a liability than a tool.
Why? And note she used the word “feel.” I understand this, “feel” vs. “think” because I carefully choose the use of those words myself. The implication is using her emotions to make this decision, not her reason, not her logic, not facts, not reality. Just how she feels.
While the shootings at the University of Texas and Virginia Tech were tragic, they are still rare occurrences best handled by law enforcement professionals, trained in both the use of firearms and crisis management.
Yeah, and look how well they handled them. Again back when Charles Whitman went crazy, students obtained their deer rifles from their dorm rooms and shot back; this helped to reduce the damage Whitman could inflict from that point on — armed citizens fighting back made a difference. And is the implication there that private citizens cannot have this training? That private citizens are incapable of doing such things? Oh yeah… gotta let someone else handle it; can’t fight my own fights, gotta let mommy or big brother protect me and fight my fights. Remember, when seconds count, police are only minutes away. Police tactics have changed in the past 10-ish years regarding such “active shooter” situations, with current tactics understanding that the sooner the attacker/shooter/criminal is engaged the better. Old tactics were that the first officer on the scene needed to wait for backup then work to engage the situation, reasoning being that it would be suicide for a single officer to arrive and immediately engage. Now tactics are for the first officer on the scene to engage immediately, because doing otherwise only increases the body count of innocents. So, to minimize damage the first person on the scene needs to engage immediately. If there’s not a police officer right there right then, then who are the first people on the scene, and use a little logical extrapolation as to who can respond first.
As for the more ordinary dangers you describe of female students walking across campus late at night, most campuses offer escort services where a public safety officer will accompany a student to her car or destination.
“Most.” So ok, what about those that don’t have such a luxury? What are they supposed to do? As well, must now there be enough public safety officers available for all the women on campus? What happens after a football game when you have a large flow of people, a need for general crowd control, but then a need by some to want to be accompanied to their car? How can such services feasibly be offered? What are those women supposed to do? Furthermore, is under the watchful eye of a public safety officer the only way a woman is supposed to move about? Ms. Bolton, I’m sure you yourself prefer to walk about in your daily life without having to have someone there watching over you all the time. Or if you do prefer that someone else tail and watch over you and be responsible for your personal safety, you must realize that not all of us are like that. I know a lot of liberated women that prefer to take care of themselves. Why would you deny your sisters that ability?
So Rep. Bolton, while I understand how you feel, I respectfully think you need to revisit your feelings on the matter… perhaps even setting your feelings aside and applying some thought to the matter.
I think that for most women, the possibility of an escort is not reassuring.
1. We don’t know the escort either. It is usually a man. It could be someone with a radio and a fake outfit. But we don’t know the person. Why should we trust them?
2. Why should we wait ten minutes for an escort to arrive to walk us the sixty yards to our cars?
3. If I can take my gun, I don’t need to wait for someone else to help me. I can help myself.
4. Most women walk unescorted on campus, even at night, unless there has been a serial rapist whose actions have been reported. (Not all rapes are reported.)
Oh girlfriend, you are applying logic here. Stop it now.
Pingback: All those things take time. « Stuff From Hsoi
Pingback: You want facts? Here’s facts. « Stuff From Hsoi
Pingback: Current tactics? Engage. « Stuff From Hsoi
In their view, they want to control the situation. That’s the real reason the old rules of engagement stipulated that the responding officer wait for backup. It’s only been since the high body counts of recent shootings that those rules have changed.
Politicians naturally hate a free people. Some of that reasoning is understandable, after all if you have authority people tend to blame you when things go wrong. But that comes with the territory. If you don’t want the blame, just or unjust, don’t accept the position.
Your representative seems to think that college age kids are not responsible enough to handle firearms. Why then, do we have 19-21 year old kids in the police and military? If kids of that age are not responsible enough to use firearms why are they given the responsibility to make decisions in a firefight or other crisis situation.
Because it’s not about the responsible use of tools, it’s about control. That’s why the gun control lobby wants so badly to end private ownership of guns and why so many politicians support their views. Control and Power.
It is interesting how we view age and responsibility. At 18 you can die for your country. You can vote for the people that will send you to die for your country. You are considered an adult in all legal aspects, from entering into contracts to how you’ll be treated if you violate the law. But you can’t have a beer until you’re 21. While controlled by state laws, across all states by age 21 one can purchase a handgun and/or can apply for a concealed handgun license. So, for all intents and purposes, we deem people 21 years of age and older to have the sense and abilities to handle a handgun. So why this magical wall around particular places, be it college campuses or other schools or polling places or anywhere else we want to deem a “gun free zone”? Does behavior somehow change when you cross this magical boundary? Do the law-abiding suddenly go crazy? Does the criminal suddenly obey the law? If someone is allowed to legally carry a concealed handgun, having gone through all the paperwork, background checks, and other vetting processes that demonstrate this is a law-abiding person… why can’t the carry everywhere? I’m wanting to hear some reasoned logical arguments, not emotional appeals, but all I hear against the notion are emotional appeals.
The reason for that is simple. I used to work for the state, so I have an insight to how people who work in government think. To them it’s all about everyone being treated the same regardless of ability. That’s why so many political plans fall through. They don’t take into account that people have differing abilities and different levels of maturity. Some people will never be responsible enough to carry concealed weapons, while in some cases a nine year old might be mature enough to be safe with a firearm. Lord knows I knew how to be safe with one when I was that young. Could be why I’ve never accidentally shot anybody.
As for the 18 vs 21 thing, custom in the West has long held that people didn’t reach their majority until 21. What happened was that kids were being sent at 18 into war zones and it was felt that they should have the right to vote because it was their lives on the line. Not that I have anything against that particular argument, but it has served to confused the issue as to when someone reaches their majority.
As for gun free zones, it’s just a way for liberals to infringe on your rights and get you used to the fact that guns are not allowed in some places. Like gentling a horse for a bit and bridle, you slowly get it used to the bit and then one day you have it broken to a saddle. Same thing with taking away people’s rights. You start slow, then get more oppressive.
Pingback: My State Representative’s action on HB 410 « Stuff From Hsoi
Pingback: UrbanGrounds | The Race for Texas HD-47: Incumbent Valinda Bolton (D)
I have a lunch meeting with Rep Bolton tomorrow on this specific subject as well as recommendation of lifting restrictions on CHL holders for public schools and 51% establishments.
Being a 10 year LE vet and 3 year school resource officer, I have experience and knowledge that she cannot challenge on any personal level.
Feelings will not be tolerated as a viable position.
I will post how that meeting goes.
I’d love to hear how this goes.
Good luck.