GOA Sounds the Alarm on Abbott’s Texas Safety Commission

1. “The Governor’s “Texas Safety Commission” is meeting at the Capitol at 10:30 on this same Thursday to discuss ways to keep guns away from people the government determines shouldn’t have guns.”

   There in lies the the problem,as the government of Texas the governor and legislature are prohibited from infringement thru the 10 th,& 14 th. amendments. However many if not all of the remaining 49 states are also guilty of the same as would be petty tyrants abound in this nation.

2. What could possibly go wrong with a Committee of Public Safety?

   • Yeah… nothing bad I am sure:

     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_crime

     “The Nazis permitted different crimes including property crimes and crimes against classes of people. The Nazis took away all of the Jews’ possessions and incomes in order to make it harder for the Jewish people to live elsewhere before the onset of the Holocaust. The victims of the Holocaust were described by the Nazis as “criminals who endangered public safety”

     • Comité De Salut Public

       • If they don’t come up with solutions, heads will roll.

   • The Soviets always liked to form committees in response to emergencies. The committees always fucked things up even more. The recent documentary about Chernobyl is a perfect example of why both communism and governing via committee are terrible ideas.

     • That’s a drama, not a documentary. It was also historically inaccurate in quite a few ways.

   • “Committee of Public Safety”

     Wonder how many will understand the reference?

     • Yeah, yeah, I get it.

       • I see what you did there!

       • “When clearing Robespierre’s neck, Charles-Henri Sanson tore off the bandage that was holding his shattered jaw in place (from being shot the night before and having his teeth removed by the doctor), causing Robespierre to produce an agonised scream until the fall of the blade silenced him.”

         – Simon Schama’s (historian) “Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution.”

3. 7 different gun websites today have gotten all their stories in a row, easily within an hour of each other , am I missing something here? Guess I’ll wait till the Yankee Marshal YouTube video. It’s inevitable

4. This West Virginian isn’t that plugged into day to day Texas politics, but has many ties to Texas. This move by Governor Abbott surprises me as I thought that he would be more understanding of the gun rights community. What have I missed or did he just turn?

   • He said the legislature should “consider” gun control after that church shooting. He’s a traitor.

     • That church shooting was two years ago and nothing has come of it, except expansion of firearms freedoms going into effect this Sept. 1st.

       “Traitor.” Good grief. Gun rights absolutists/purists/alarmists/fantasists/fanatics toss around that word with all the judiciousness of a crazed, riotous mob.

       Did it ever occur to you that the governor is just paying lip service to the overwrought, over heated, hyperventilating, pearl-clutching community out there? Once their emotion subsides and the next shiny object captures their attention, they’ll have forgotten all about this. Meanwhile, a study group with no authority can while away the time chit chatting their way into demonstrating their impotency. He did the same thing after Sante Fe.

5. ANYONE IN TEXAS:

   Open carry march this Thursday on the capital. Stop fucken around.

   Sincerely,
   Freedom

   • “…preferably more than one person. Strength in numbers, y’all…”

     FIFY

   • Texas is a large state.

     • The more the merrier. I hope people from outside of Texas show up to.

       • That’s true

6. And in related news, looks like LaPierre is upset that Trump has backed off his earlier “push” for enhanced universal background checks. Am I understanding correctly that WLP has wanted UBCs? I don’t recall reading anything on his opinion of this until now. All the static has been about his other topics.

   https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-nra-universal-background-checks-off-table-white-house-pushback

   • And why would you say Wayne LP “wants” universal background checks” other than to spread rumors and LIES? Are you a Bloomberg plant? Are you a ruski? Why don’t you go write about car shows or something?

     • Let’s play: Spot the idiot who keeps funding the NRA.

   • LaTrine has been officially in favor of UBCs for decades, Here’s him saying so… two DECADES ago. The amount of stuff the people ignore is astounding.
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-oqfPojhec

     • Knute, I haven’t kept my ear to the ground to follow Wayne’s movements through the years. I’ve done my own thing, shooting, restoring, training, collecting, teaching. Haven’t followed Wayne’s shenanigans much because my time was better spent elsewhere.

       Hearing people spout off in comment sections is one thing, but I don’t take any of it as gospel unless there are links to back them up. Now you’ve just provided a link to prove your point, which I appreciate. I asked a genuine question above, and was only looking for a genuine answer.

       Don’t know why so many people here get so terse so easily. It’s only a comment forum, guys.

       • Well you just try sitting in you’re mom’s basement all day. In your underwear. With nothing better to do than post snarky ascii messages to TTAG.

       • The reply was officially under your post, but the people ignoring facts part was referring to those like Steven Lynch and fiftycalTX. Those who would rather sling feces around to see what sticks, rather than know what they’re talking about. Nothing wrong with that, I guess. The world needs village idiots too, otherwise who would we make fun of? 🙂
         Sorry for the confusion. As an engineering type, I’m better with machines than I am with people and language. You probably noticed that with the hornet’s nest that I accidentally knocked over at TTAG a few weeks back.
         But at least I’m trying…

         • Well LaPierre won a huge one against Trump and a huge one for the NRA yesterday

7. The governor has already endorsed some unconstitutional stuff. Example, if one is pulled over on suspicion of driving under the influence, refusing a breath test is an automatic conviction, no trial required. Due process on that went out the window.

   And this commission now gets to decide what is an “extremist”… well… what about if a lefty gets in office and suddenly anyone who isn’t a leftist is now an extremist? And “deranged individual” could be something as simple as a guy who calls his estranged wife to try to fix things and avoid a divorce. Etc.

   • It is not an automatic conviction. It is an automatic arrest.

     • You might want to speak to a Texas lawyer about that. Automatic conviction for refusing a breath or blood test as of about two years ago.

       • We don’t need to talk to a Texas lawyer about some internet poster who doesn’t know anything about the law or what the word “conviction” means.

       • That is some bad information. I helped with the bill analysis of the law for the governor’s office when it came up, and you can look it up yourself.
         The way it actually works is that if you refuse the roadside breathalyzer you will be arrested and forced to take a test, usually blood, at the department.
         Regardless of the results of that test, you do not waive your rights and get some kind of automatic conviction. That does not exist.

       • I’m betting your team always lost back in elementary school when you played “Telephone.” There is no automatic conviction for refusing blood or breath samples. In fact, the entire no refusal practice is only on certain weekends and well publicized in advance. If it were unconstitutional, that wouldn’t matter much, I know; but it is constitutionally sound, so it’s worth mentioning.

         “No Refusal Weekend” refers short periods, typically a holiday weekend or the weekend of a special event, such as the Super Bowl, where law enforcement advertises the ability to conduct routine traffic stops, detaining motorists for suspected DWI. During the stop, law enforcement requests a blood or breath sample, and, if the motorist refuses to comply, law enforcement immediately contacts a judge or magistrate who is designated “on call” during the No Refusal time frame.

         If the law enforcement officer conveys to the judge that (1) there was reasonable suspicion to detain the motorist for a traffic or criminal offense, and, (2) there is probable cause to believe the motorist is driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, then the judge quickly issues a search warrant for the sample. Tex. Transp. Code §§ 724.011(a), 724.012(b), 724. At that point, law enforcement may call for a phlebotomist to take the sample on site, or may transport a motorist to a facility to obtain the sample. If all goes according to plan, “no refusal” speeds up the process by which law enforcement obtain samples used for DWI/DUI arrests. Further, the sample becomes evidence for trial.

         So you have probable cause, a judge-issued search warrant, and a subsequent trial, if the defendant doesn’t otherwise resolve the case. Sounds like due process all over the place and automatic convictions nowhere to be found. Scoreboard, Texas!

         • The “unconstitutionality” lies in unreasonable search of a specific person (everyone required to do the breath test), without specific probable cause prior to the refusal, or result of the test. These roadblocks are justified because of something someone MIGHT do, or has done; guilty until proven innocent. The counter position is that no one has a constitutional right to operate a motor vehicle, that travel upon public roadways is a state-granted privilege, and the exercise of a privilege is never a constitutionally protected activity.

           How these roadblocks differ from stop and frisk escapes me.

       • At least the LibTARDs in the People’s Republic of M Assachusetts stood up for THEIR rights against “Secret State Police Roadblock stops!” They tried that in my township once. The “$taties” showed up in my boarder town with CT. a few years ago. Set up a “Mobile Crime Lab/One Stop-Shop and Arrest program” to go after Citizens of Suspected of Drunk Driving 🚗 or harrassment for other minor issues like “bad inspection stickers” (which in the PRM are treated like Felony stops!) Didn’t last long, Citizens started showing with video 📷, etc…Started recorded all the STASI Police/THEIR mobile Fascism command vehicle, the architects involved/ and the “Unconstitutional connection of collusion with the Judicial branch for “fast-food, drive-through style search warrants!” It did NOT end well for the “Authoritarians” running the show…They were packed up by the citizenry and good ridden! And the local police chief took a lot of heat for this going on the main drag…At least the Peasents of the PRM stood up for a little bit of freedom. Unlike Texas….

   • Personally, that particular law makes sense to me.

     The breathalyzer test is not a violation of any right IMO. Allowing people to refuse it endangers everyone on the road, including the suspect. Taking them to the station for another test and releasing them if they’re not drunk seems fine.

     • “SEEMS fine”? It might seem that way on the surface, but have YOU ever been the butt of a government ‘error’ and had to try to get it corrected? I think not, or you’d know how horribly difficult/impossible that is.
       https://www.alloutdoor.com/2019/08/20/florida-man-loses-cc-license-guns-mistaken-identity/
       Like always, “The devil is in the details”. You know, those statutes they need to pass in order to figure out what they say?

       • You can’t equate red flag laws with sobriety tests. One is taking a 3 minute sobriety test and the other is losing your Constitutional right to defend your life and property from harm — for an indefinite length of time.

         I oppose red flag laws. They can easily be abused. They have been abused. I support the sobriety test law, but if it’s been abused feel free to send me links.

       • So… have you ever been the butt of a government ‘error’ and had to try to get it corrected? I’d place a rather large wager that the truthful answer to that question is; “no”.

       • You’d be right. I respect laws and LEOs. The government hasn’t oppressed me and I haven’t given them an excuse.

         Your wager still doesn’t change anything. Address the issue next time.

       • OmnivorousBeorn – you’re right, you can’t rape/oppress the willing:-)

       • Well.. .they do “opress” all of us… just in a taxing kind of way that makes people feel warm and cozy like it’s acceptable.

       • @VIc Nighthorse

         I have a problem with government oppression. I also have a problem with people calling everything oppression — or fascism or bigotry or racism — for little to no reason.

         I’m more than happy to be wrong. Just make a logical argument or show some instances of it being abused.

         I’ll be waiting. 🤙

     • I have problems with the law itself. Especially since it is often used during what are referred to as “no refusal weekends.”
       These are areas where law enforcement blocks off a road and administers a test to either random drivers or every driver that passes by.
       This seems like an obvious violation of constitutional rights to me. However, the courts have said that as long as it is targeted, and in specific areas and times that have been shown to have high DWI rates, it is permissible. They have been proven to pull a lot of drunks off the road. I hate the practice, but it is difficult to argue with the results. Because of the high DWI mortality rate in some parts of Texas, and because of the positive results, there is little appetite for changing the law.

       • Thank you. Good points all.

       • “Because of the high DWI mortality rate in some parts of Texas, and because of the positive results, there is little appetite for changing the law.”

         I’m sure you are concerned about the potential for massive government overreach based on reasoning such as above. “Ends justify the means”, and all that.

       • Ended very abruptly in my M Assachusetts township when Lib TARD citizens stood up for THEIR rights. Some even showing up with video cameras, and Long zoom DSLRs 📷…The ” Authoritarians” were quickly called out for their little scam…Especially, for collusion with the Judicial branch regarding “fast food, drive-through style search warrants issued via Telepresents from an on call Judge” !? All partys involved, and it’s Architects for never seen or heard from since! The citizens of the PRM actually stood up for themselves for once…AGAINST Authoritarianism…

       • If they did that in Flathead Valley, MT, there would be 40% less people on the roads.

   • Automatic loss of your “drivers license” and impounding of car. When people surrendered their right to travel, turning it into a permission slip to travel, and accepted property taxes, they became nothing but slaves.

     The state doesn’t have to lock you away, they just steal your car, forbid you from traveling on your own, freeze your bank accounts, forbid you from doing any number of ordinarily lawful things.

     We are nothing but a number and a piece of plastic, my value to the state being the nothing more than the sum of taxes the average person may generate. I have so many numbers, licenses, and permits now for what should be lawful activities that I essentially don’t exist anymore, I’m just a stack of paper.

     • You have the right to travel, just not to drive a car. Get your horse mr. sovereign.

       • Well, he’s not wrong…

     • What you described sir…Is the same operations that go on in the Chinese PRC…THEY scam their peasents the same way with surprise “whatever ” traffic roadblocks….Take THEIR motor vehicles for non-compliance….

8. How does ever get cooperation if they never include the both sides in the conversation? Forcing something one another GETS PUSHBACK!! He should heed this advice.

9. So the Governors newly formed Texas Safety Commission is tasked with investigating an immediate action plan to include providing community healing, combating the rise of extremist groups and hateful ideologies, keeping the guns out of the hands of deranged individuals, and combating domestic terrorism including cyber security threats and includes anti-gun activists but nobody from gun rights groups? Sounds like it’s time for a lawsuit. How can you not include the group most affected by any new laws and policies, and claim to be legitimate government?

Comments are closed.