Actions To Take Now To Protect Our Elections

 

Here are 3 actions that everyone can take now to protect the integrity of our elections.

1.  Be a poll watcher or election judge

Contact your county's party and volunteer to be a poll watcher or an election judge.  In Texas both positions require training, and you must be appointed to the position.  Your local party can get you started.  If you don't know how to find your county Republican party, you can sign up through the state party website at https://texasgop.org/electionworkers/.

2.  Stay informed by connecting with credible sources of information

Besides the political parties, there are organizations that can help you stay informed on election integrity issues and ways to make an impact.  True The Vote is a reputable organization dedicated to the cause.  Their website is https://www.truethevote.org/.  The Heritage Foundation has also been active on the issue, and their website is https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity.

3.  Engage your legislators on election laws 

State legislatures write the laws governing elections in the state.  You can find out how your state rates on election integrity initiatives.  Heritage has developed a scorecard for states which can be viewed here:  https://www.heritage.org/electionscorecard/.  Let your representatives know that you care about making it easy to vote but hard to cheat.  

Also, tell your U.S. Congressional Representative and Senators that you oppose Democrat efforts to take over elections at the federal level in order to implement their practices that leave elections vulnerable to fraud and corruption.

Ballot Harvesting Rarely Allowed

Ballot Harvesting is Rarely Legal Contrary to Left-Leaning Fact Checkers

The recently released movie "2000 Mules" lays out evidence of illegal ballot trafficking in the November 2020 election.  Ballot trafficking, much like drug trafficking, is the illegal purchase and movement of mail-in ballots.  Under the COVID crisis, counties across the U. S. expanded mail-in voting and implemented special drop boxes to deposit the ballots.  In many cases the effort was funded by "Zuck Bucks", which were grants from Marc Zuckerberg's foundations totally over $400 million given primarily to highly populated, Democrat counties.  Normally mail-in ballots are allowed only for elderly and disabled voters, and the ballots must be returned either by the voter personally, the U.S. Postal Service, or a certified carrier.  Many Americans were concerned about the massive expansion of mail-in ballots due to the loose security of them, the significant increase as a percentage of votes, and the mass mailings to voter lists which contained many ineligible voters.  These actions were taken contrary to state election laws under COVID emergency claims.  There was clearly reason for concern.

 Yet, even with geo-tracking and video evidence from True The Vote, fact checkers continue to staunchly claim that there was no widespread fraud.  One claim of the fact checkers' defense is that clear evidence of hundreds of individuals each dropping multiple ballots at dozens of different ballot drop boxes can be explained as legal ballot collection.  The law, however, in the states in question and in most states, is very restrictive about who may deliver ballots and under what conditions.  It is not plausible that hundreds of individuals dropping several ballots at dozens of drop boxes could occur within the legal restrictions.

The states most in question are Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania.  Those states had Biden victories in a margin that could have been produced by illegally cast ballots given the apparent evidence found by True The Vote.  In Arizona a mail-in ballot may only be returned by a family member, a caregiver, or someone in the household.  In Georgia disabled people may have a family or household member deliver their ballot.  In Pennsylvania a disabled or ill voter may designate a person in writing and filed with the court to deliver their ballot.  In all three states the people allowed to deliver a ballot is strictly limited.  It is impossible to believe that these ballot "mules" were legal carriers given that they went to at least twenty boxes and can be seen on video with many ballots per box.   Further investigation requires unmasking the identity of the cell phone owners to confirm the apparent illegal operation, but it defies reason to believe that these carriers were legitimate.

More information on state laws about ballot harvesting can be viewed here: 

Ballot harvesting (ballot collection) laws by state - Ballotpedia

Election Integrity Bills Alert for Week of March 22

 

MARCH 25, THIS WEEK’S ELECTION INTEGRITY BILLS:

House Bill HB 6 and Senate Bill SB 7 are the major Republican Election Integrity Bills.

We need activist support for both HB 6 in the House and SB 7 in the Senate by testimony in-person if possible, written testimony, emails, and phone calls!

How to help:  Quick Tips for Activists on Impacting Bills in the Texas Legislature

Who to contact:  Texas 87th Legislature: Election Integrity Committee members and contact information

House Elections Committee Hearing:  Thursday, March 25, at 8 AM in room E2.028

HB 6 is the main Republican Election Integrity bill, although there are many other good and bad bills related to elections.  Highlights of HB 6:

• Requires tracking ballot numbers for auditing and security
• Strengthens poll watchers, improving transparency and integrity
• Improves security of electronic voting media (memory sticks and disks)
• Requires election law training for county workers so they administer the election legally
• Increases information collected on voter assistance to reduce coercion and fraud
• Increases penalties for improper voter assistance
• Increases penalties for fraudulent voters, such as those voting in two states
• Increases penalties for illegal ballot harvesting
• Adds penalties for election officials who illegally distribute mail-in ballot applications
• Adds penalties for election officials who illegally alter election procedures
• Directs the state’s attorney and courts to prioritize election matters for timely hearings

We need activists to express support FOR HB 6!  

Senate State Affairs Committee Hearing:  9:00 AM, Friday, March 26, 2021 at the Capitol Extension Auditorium, E1.004

SB 7 This is the main Republican Election Integrity bill in the Senate. We need activists to express support FOR SB 7!  

Democrats delayed the hearing that was scheduled for Monday, March 22, but it has been re-scheduled for Friday.

Some points to make in support of SB 7 are

1. Encourages in-person voting, which is more secure
2. Prohibits public officials from distributing un-requested vote-by-mail applications
3. Increases poll watcher access (improved transparency) 
4. Caps private funding of election officials and government agencies 

 

 

Texas 87th Legislature: Election Integrity Committee members and contact information

 

Texas Legislature Online is your source to find out how to contact members, who is on committees, when and where the committees are meeting, and bill information and status tracking including automatic alerts.  The link to the site is here:  Texas Legislature Online

In the Texas House most election bills will be heard by the Elections Committee.  The members are (name, phone, room number):

• Rep Briscoe Cain (512) 463-0733 R E2.706
• Rep Jessica Gonzalez(512) 463-0408 E2.820
• Rep John H Bucy III (512) 463-0696 E2.208
• Rep Travis Clardy (512) 463-0592 E2.818
• Rep Art Fierro (512) 463-0596 E2.412
• Rep Jacey Jetton (512) 463-0710 E2.716
• Rep Mike Schofield (512) 463-0528 E2.410
• Rep Valoree Swanson (512) 463-0572 E2.710

Legislative Directors for Elections Committee members:

• Justin W. Williamson, Chief of Staff for Rep. Briscoe Cain (Dist. 128):  justin.williamson@house.texas.gov
• Christine DiCosimo, District Director for Rep. Briscoe Cain (Dist. 128):  christine.dicosimo@house.texas.gov
• Andrew Herrell, Legislative Director for Rep. Mayes Middleton (Dist. 23):  andrew.herrell@house.texas.gov
• David Hinds, Legislative Director for Rep. Valoree Swanson (Dist. 150):  david.hinds@house.texas.gov   
• Cody Davis, Legislative Director for Rep. Jacey Jetton (Dist. 26):  cody.davis@house.texas.gov
• Dylan Castro. Legislative Director for Rep. Travis Clardy (Dist. 11):  dylan.castro@house.texas.gov
• Emily Knaub, Legislative Director for Rep. Mike Schofield (Dist. 132):  emily.knaub@house.texas.gov
• Annie Callegari, District Director for Rep. Kike Schofield (Dist. 132):  annie.callegari@house.texas.gov

In the Texas Senate most election bills will be heard by the State Affairs Committee.  The members are (name, email, phone, room number):

• Sen. Bryan Hughes bryan.hughes@senate.texas.gov 512-463-0101 3E.8
• Sen. Brian Birdwell brian.birdwell@senate.texas.gov 512-463-0122 E1.804
• Sen. Donna Campbell donna.campbell@senate.texas.gov 512-463-0125 3E.8
• Sen. Bob Hall bob.hall@senate.texas.gov 512-463-0102 E1.610
• Sen. Eddie Lucio, Jr. eddie.lucio@senate.texas.gov 512-463-0127 3S.5
• Sen. Jane Nelson jane.nelson@senate.texas.gov 512-463-0112 1E.5
• Sen. Beverly Powell beverly.powell@senate.texas.gov 512-463-0110 E1.708
• Sen. Charles Schwertner charles.schwertner@senate.texas.gov 512-463-0105 3E.10
• Sen. Judith Zaffirini judith.zaffirini@senate.texas.gov 512-463-0121 1E.14

Quick Tips for Activists on Impacting Bills in the Texas Legislature

Activists who wish to impact bills, either supporting or opposing, must be alert and ready to act.  Here are the basics to make your voice heard in the Texas Legislature.

Bills are being discussed in committees in the Texas House and Senate right now.   The phases of a bill’s life are

•     Getting a hearing in committee
•     Getting voted on in committee
•     Getting scheduled for a vote on the floor
•     Getting a floor vote

While bills are in committee, we can help good bills by

• Contacting committee members by phone and email to support the bill and asking for a hearing and a vote.
• Contacting your own representative and ask them to support the bill by signing on as a co-author.
• Testify in-person or in writing when the bill is being discussed by the committee.

When giving support (or opposition), politely give a few points about the bill and add personal experiences or impacts to your testimony.  Oral testimony is only 2 minutes, and written testimony is also limited so keep it concise and on point.

Texas Legislature Online is your source to find out how to contact members, who is on committees, when and where the committees are meeting, read the bills and track their status including automatic alerts.  The link to the site is here:  Texas Legislature Online

Indivisible, left-wing activists, promote corrosive views and radical plans for US

Indivisible:  Their corrosive beliefs, radical plans, and what conservatives must do to counter them

The pink hats and calls to "Resist!" arose in a stunned response by Clinton supporters following the election of President Trump.  Those reactions along with the mostly peaceful marches and videos of crying, screaming young people were memorable.  Less obvious was the formation of the new activist group called Indivisible.  

According to authors Leah Greenburg and Ezra Levin in their book We are Indivisible, A Blueprint for Democracy After Trump, the nationwide network of organizations began in response to the 2016 election of President Trump when Republicans also took control of the U.S. House and Senate.  Here in northern Travis County, the Indivisible group became active in local and state politics by providing activist support for Democrats and antagonizing conservatives.  The network takes credit for blocking the Republicans' attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) as well as driving many elected officials into retirement.  They also tout success in effectively pushing Democrat elected officials further left by pressuring Senate Leader Chuck Schumer, Senator Diane Feinstein, and other key Democrats.  They describe the Republican Party as being "taken over by white supremacists, Christians fundamentalists, and corporatists." Like CNN or MSNBC on auto play, they repeat false narratives against Trump including Russian collusion and others as if they were facts. "In fact, his bigoted appeals drew on deep currents of racism, sexism, and xenophobia that powered his rise."  The Indivisible network is in every state and every congressional district, and they plan to dismantle what they perceive as an antiquated, broken system.  For conservatives to effectively oppose them, we must understand their assertions, their tactics, and their plans.  The following analysis is based on the book.

Who They Are

In their words

The book's authors, Greenberg and Levin, were two DC Democrat staffers who created an action list following the 2016 election to fight President Trump and the Republicans in Congress.  They took some lessons from the Tea Party movement in how activists were able to use townhall events and grassroots networks to stall and almost defeat Obamacare.  (Although they adopted some Tea Party tactics, they condemn the group as racists in typical leftist rhetoric instead of seeing the group as similar in its opposition to unresponsive government.)  Their action list was titled "Indivisible:  A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda."  They used Twitter to share the Google document, and it rapidly spread through retweets by Democrats with national following.

Greenberg and Levin soon connected with former Obama organizer, Julia Fox, to build a national team behind Indivisible.  The Obama team from the beginning were famous for community organizing (e.g. Organizing for America).  Julia Fox "assembled a field team of volunteers assigned to cover each state and respond to the groups reaching out to us.  We created a team of policy wonks who feverishly analyzed the latest news from Congress and turned their findings into activist-ready strategic updates."  According to the authors, they also connected with the Soros-founded Open Society Foundation (OSF) and began receiving grants from it.  (In typical response they claim that it is anti-Semitic to note that the Soros Foundation and OSF spends billions to fund left-wing groups worldwide.)

The book's first section begins with a scathing analysis of the state of our "democracy" describing it as "buckling" and "rigged."  The system is buckling, they say, due to polarization and outdated institutions that have led to dysfunction and gridlock.  They assert that the system is rigged by "an unholy alliance between wealthy plutocrats, practitioners of white identify politics, and religious ideologues...and they're systematically rigging the rules to keep themselves in power." (At the time of this writing the Democrats control the U.S. House, Senate, and Presidency which seems contrary to their rigged premise.)

An essay titled "The Perils of Presidentialism" by Juan Jose Linz of Yale provides the basis for the claim of the U.S.'s "unstable model" of the Presidential and Legislative government that either reforms into a parliamentary system or devolves into violent conflict.  The book summarizes the leftist narrative that the parties were not ideological at first, but civil rights led to the party switch that created today's ideologically polarized parties.  (Republicans refer to the party switch narrative as the Democrat's "Big Lie.")  The millennial authors show us what the left's control of academia, media, and entertainment has produced. They bemoan what they see as lack of progress by the government in their lifetime.  Clearly underlying is a demand for more government action "to actually respond to the will of the people."  

Brief Commentary

The introduction and first section of the book are filled with assertions that sound familiar if you watch CNN or MS-NBC or if you listen to left-wing politicos and Marxists professors.  It would take a book to challenge all the narratives stated in the book as fact.  It is interesting to note the lack of definition of the principles and functional characteristics of the government they wish to achieve nor how their proposed solutions lead to it.  The authors repeatedly describe their desired government merely as "democratic" and "responsive", sounding like a "mobocracy", where two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner.  They refer readers to their website (www.savedemocracy.org) which provides no more explanation of their philosophy of government and economics besides "democracy."  

Repeated reference to democracy and the people's will implies that they believe a majority of voters agree with their assertions and solutions which is not actually the case, especially when left undefined.  Much of the rhetoric is focused on defeating the caricatured Republicans of their minds.  Hiding behind their narratives allows them to excuse themselves from debate, discussion, or even exploration of other's views.

Their Tactics

Get Attention and Keep the Pressure On

Typical grassroots efforts focus on petitions, phone calls, letter and emails.  Indivisible takes it to the next level by showing up in person and making a scene to increase the personal effect on the elected officials.  They pressure Republicans and reluctant Democrats.  They publicly celebrate officials that support them.  They engage media and prepare a media packet ahead of time to make it easy for the busy journalists to regurgitate their case.  They get creative with their demonstrations with clever slogans and stunts.  They heavily rely on personal stories to make their case for or against legislation based on emotion.  

Coordinate with Interest Groups

Indivisible instructs its members to coordinate with interest groups and let the leaders of the group guide the dialog and actions.  Indivisible members are instructed not to add their own ideas or thoughts on a subject.  They are to follow the interest group's leaders whether it is immigrant rights, Black Lives Matter, or LGBTQ+.  

Make specific, strategic demands for action

As the saying goes, talk is cheap.  The activists are instructed to get specific commitments to act from elected politicians.  The asks must be specific and measurable, and they must move towards the goal.

Primary but Support Democrats

They plan to recruit and run candidates in every congressional district.  They also require candidates to agree to support the Democrat party winner in the primary to avoid losing support for Democrats.  They are not going to sit it out if their candidate does not win the primary because they condemn Republicans as the unacceptable enemy.

Their Plans for 2021 and Beyond

The authors acknowledge that constitutional amendments are very difficult, so they limit their plans to changes that can be done legislatively.  The book details the following six legislative priorities.

1.  Break the gridlock by eliminating the filibuster in the Senate.

2.  Democratize the Senate by making DC a state as well as Puerto Rico and other territories if they wish

3.  Democratize the House by implementing proportional representation (instead of winner-take-all) and ranked-choice voting.

4.  Democratize the courts by packing the Supreme Court with progressives.

5.  Democratize voting by allowing non-citizen immigrants to vote, allowing 16 and 17 year-olds to vote, and allowing felons to vote.

6.  Democratize the media by regulating platforms to prevent "misinformation" and break up media conglomerates particularly Fox News and Sinclair Broadcasting.

They make it clear that they support democracy but not necessarily the Democrat party.  They want "nonpartisan and small-d" democracy built on "independent, progressive political power".

The first five items are clearly aimed at rigging the system, as they would say, to give Democrats an unbeatable majority by using their current, slimmest majority to pass the radical changes.   Item 6 is censorship to control the narrative in order to shut down debate and dissension, more of what Big Tech is already doing to those who speak contrary to the progressive narrative.  

What Conservatives and Republicans Must Do

Challenge the Narratives

At the root of Indivisible are unchallenged narratives.  Conservatives must challenge and correct the American narrative as described in the 1776 Commission report (The President’s Advisory 1776 Commission (hillsdale.edu)) to accurately teach U.S. history, the good and the bad, and the underlying principles of its government to counter the 1619 Project.  Advocacy against censorship, totalitarian government, and socialism are crucial; however, the effort to shut down dissent in media, schools, businesses, and Big Tech is already clear.  Reclaiming scientific dialog and debate, instead of allowing political interests to bias science and research, is equally critical to disrupt their narrative.  The Republican Party needs to effectively debunk the Democrats' Big Lie and to assert its accurate history.

Organize, Educate, and Engage

Conservatives must organize and work as an educated and committed force. The authors don't like Heritage, so it must be effective. Heritage Sentinels and similar organizations promote conservative policies and have a political arm to educate, activate, and track results.  Texas Public Policy Foundation is an effective organization that focuses on Texas.  

Conservatives must match the left's efforts by staying engaged on all major legislation to influence elected officials and public opinion.  The media and Big Tech are not favorable to conservatives so conservatives must utilize alternative media and platforms to carry the messages.  It would be easy to give up or be complacent, but the opposition is doing neither and have been playing the long game, gradually winning strategic positions in both public and private sectors.

Conservatives must recruit solid candidates to run, but stick with the Republican Party in the General Elections just as the opposition does.  Conservatives must get involved at every level starting with local city councils and school boards.  That is what the left has been doing.  Conservatives must do the same.  Third parties are spoilers.  Sitting out an election may result in the worse of two evils or a bad situation instead of a half bad one.

Be the party of the American Dream

Republicans have a brand problem, and Indivisible has some valid criticisms of the status quo.  Both parties have problems because too many average citizens feel unrepresented.  The Tea Party and the MAGA movements on the right and groups like Indivisible on the left share the complaint that the system is not working for everyone due to the power and money concentrated in the "establishment" (a.k.a. "The Swamp").  President Trump showed that traditional American values (faith, family, and freedom) and the desire to live the American Dream of economic opportunity and upward mobility still resonate among every demographic.  Republicans have the opportunity to be the party of the middle class and the aspirational American Dream in stark contrast to the left's totalitarian, socialist agenda.   Republicans must clearly state their policies and then keep their promises.

URGENT: Polling place workers needed in Travis County for the November 5 election!

URGENT:  Polling place workers needed in Travis County for the November 5 election!

Requirements:
You must be a registered voter in Travis County to be a judge or alternate judge.
Election clerks must be registered to vote in Travis County or be a high school student age 16 or older with permission (form: https://www.sos.texas.gov/elections/forms/seciform.pdf ).
For this election there will be at each location a judge, alternate judge, and two clerks.

Pay:
For this election judges and alternates are paid $12 per hour.
For this election clerks are paid $10 per hour.

Training:
A 3 hour in-person training class is required.  Many options are available.  Travis County will call you to schedule your training.  Classes are near the Travis County Office at 5501 Airport Blvd.

Hours:
The day is roughly 6 AM until 8 PM.  Judges and alternates must work the full day.  Clerks may work the full day or split the shift with someone (6AM-1PM and 1-8PM).
Also the judge must return the ballots and voting media to the county after the polls close.
The judge must also go to the polling site before election day for setup to be scheduled with the county.

Apply:
Sign up to be a Travis County Republican Party polling place worker here:
https://sites.google.com/site/travisgop/election-judges-2019

Openings:
A list of Republican openings can be viewed here (not real time but frequently updated):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qc7ZjP7z3Tv-YQZB5qzgR8LKmKTI5AVVW_mPo7hhapM/edit?usp=sharing

Additional Democrat openings are also available, but the list is not available publicly at this time.

Texas Senate Committee on Mass Violence Prevention and Community Safety meeting September 26, 2019

The following are rough notes taken at the hearing.  The notes focus mainly on the testimony given to the committee by the panels about the current situation and possible changes.

Panel 1 DPS

Texas is good at responding to shootings. Focus on prevention now.

Problem:  Lone actors. Soft targets.

Pre attack indicators existed.

Reaching public on avoiding attack is needed.

Governor's Executive Orders
1. Threat to life
Intake questions being reviewed when people call in a concern.  What questions to ask.

2. Reporting guidelines for suspicious activities. TX is using federal guidelines. Reasonably indicative. Observable behavior.

3. Training of call center and law enforcement needed.

Questions to panel —

1. Will get stakeholder input and train across state.

2. Reports — DHS guidelines used. Not reasonable suspicion but observable. Training on indicators.

Suspicious activity. Capture pieces of info.

Data must be connected from multiple sources.

Mental health experts will be involved in developing intake questions.

Copycat pattern is a problem. Notoriety of shooters contributes.  Copycats concerned with priors and body counts.

Rapidly communicate locally when problem identified.

Monitoring analysts at fusion centers have been added. Law enforcement and behavior experts at fusion centers.

Fusion centers: 1 state hub. Total 8. Regional 7. Local operation. Network and integrate with feds.

Need more people reporting in and law enforcement must follow up.

Smart phones can’t access even after the crime.  Problem for law enforcement.

Lack enforcement and compliance of gun dealers and manufacturers — ignorance of law by some.
What can law enforcement do with multiple suspicious reports if not violating laws?
Investigate to determine if threats have been made. If yes, can do something more.

Red flags

There are civil tools to commit for mental health.

Red flag students on mental health. What is the due process?

Law enforcement will follow up threat to life lead.

Scenarios for TROs with gun restraint and do street cops see the flag when they do a stop?

Employers with upset employees should report.

Mental health crisis call - cops can seize weapons at the scene.

Local cops are main ones to investigate but get help from DPS and FBI.

5. Order to work with schools to train personnel.

6. Fusion teams with cross discipline and work with local enforcement. 16 agents assigned now. Hiring psychological. Big need for psychologists.

7. Resources for fusion centers. Monitor pro-actively.

Need funding. Moved resources to fusion centers for now to focus.

Request for $58 million. 24 added agents to 6 regions. 54 analysts. Psychologists - Big need in TX.  Other expenses.

3500 calls a day nationally. Used to estimate.



Tools needed — social media threat to life reports. Work with companies.  Need specifics of threat - who and where.
Doctrine change on how to react to reports.

Software solutions to online radicalization.  Identifying with software.

Fugitive rules — must be interstate flight for NICS following federal law review.  If in state with warrant, it is not seen.  Want arrest warrant info to be seen.
NICS delay — 3 day rule to respond. Warrant alone is not enough.



Special events are a problem -- Guns, vehicles, bombs.



Federal has conspiracy and attempt laws.  State does not.



Protesters with masks, sticks, long guns. etc. aren’t  allowed on Capitol complex but allowed in other venues.

Panel 2 Tarrant County District Attorney's office, US Attorney's office



Who can possess firearms?

Mainly federal laws.

Texas has time periods if dispossessed, eg. 5 years after probation.

Felony —

Deferred adjudication - not seen as conviction.

Felons 5 years after, can have at home in TX. Federal law though has no limit.

Family violence Class C misdemeanor- no prohibition. (No injury) Protective orders — different time periods. Not lifetime usually.



On bond for felony -  no firearm.



Class C assault domestic - federal prohibition but not TX.

Would not pass federal background check. Can’t buy but can be in possession in TX.



3500 emergency detentions per year for mental health. 75% police do it.



Possession. If given order not to possess what happens? Not consistent. Judge driven.

No state action.



No prohibition on LTC for gang members. Gang members are flagged by law enforcement (can be for wearing colors or self-admitting or other reason).



Is there a penalty if possess when should not? Some cases have penalty but some have small misdemeanor.



Gang member - legal standard to tag?



Penalties for lying in background check. No follow up now. Maybe tampering with government record could be used.



Do we (TX) need to mirror some federal laws as state laws in order to enforce and have penalties?



Incompetent for trial. DPS is supposed to report to NICS.



Family court domestic violence. Judges order to surrender guns. Law if caught but no follow up.  May need law about retrieving weapons when judge orders.



US bond prohibition. Judge orders turn over of guns to someone as condition of release. Services sent to homes to verify that weapons turned over to person stated.



Some counties have done surrender programs. Funded by state. Travis, Bexar and others. No authority under law for judges to demand it.



Federal penalty to lie and buy on background check. 700,000 per year federally. Feds prosecute them when caught in another context. Usually straw purchases to traffic.



Lie and try not as much. Not pursued.



Federal prosecute drug user in possession of firearm.  Can prosecute. State law possible.



US Attorney representative will send quick reference of differences between federal and state.  She indicated that federal law is complex so real analysis is long.



Current problem investigating tax stamp on firearm. Need info from feds but can’t get it. Mirror law in TX as possible solution.



If can’t possess, need law when go to sell gun.



Red flag laws. Concerns. Legality.

People don’t report observations, just after the fact. Need to encourage people.

Law enforcement should go talk to person, check social media (public), etc.

Even if can’t charge, law enforcement can go talk. Stopped student when parents called. Intervened. No arrest but can either clear it up, get parent involved, find out more.



Example of problem:  Threats to do vague violence when held in mental facility if released. Why not flagged as mentally unfit? What grounds to hold the person?



Suggestion from fed. Embed an assistant district attorney with federal attorney to work on case to see who can prosecute better. Can be hard to get info from state attorneys. Have AG responsible perhaps.



Red flag due process in other states and TX proposal. Certain people can petition judge that person is danger. Individual has right to present side with lawyer. Notice, hearing, response -- elements of due process. Can’t just be risk. Needs specific actions as evidence — examples. Can do ex parte ruling a few days before a full hearing. Burden is "clear and convincing", same as terminating child care rights.

Involuntary in-patient mental health disqualifies for gun possession.



TX has been keeping current in mental health records. 304,000 records currently in NICS from TX.



Odessa shooter had mental health record and was disqualified.  Got gun another way - investigation ongoing.



Protective orders

Timeframe to report 1 business day.

3 days law enforcement update.



Inconsistent state law. List given by David Slayton. Noted judges don’t have authority on turning over guns.



Protective order registry - single place to register for state and put out to law enforcement. Just passed.



Class C family violence. New law requires person accused to come in person and get notice of no firearm possession.



Domestic violence bond bill passed but vetoed due to nuclear waste amendment.

Increased law enforcement ability to know who is out on bonds. Try again.



New reporting system put in especially for small counties so info gets to state and fed.



Non standard forms is confusing in state. Can be fixed without law through court.



NICS. Data not put in by military in Sutherland Springs case.  Need timely and accurate data.



Fund position, now grant funded, to help local offices put data in correctly.


Panel 3 on Behavioral Health 


Violence less than 5% related to the offender having a mental health condition. Nationwide statistic.

No history, no diagnosis of mental health of violent offenders in studies, only 5% of time.



Emotionally disturbed but not mental disability. Mentally ill generally not able to carry out a plan like this.



Data on impact of bad messages in music, internet, video games?
New studies being done on healthier socialization skills for children. Limiting screen time for example.



Most incidents had warning signs. Mental health call centers used in TX. Neighbors call often to report issues.

Crisis intervention teams with law enforcement and mental health expert follow up. Need more funding.

Early intervention is important. Talk and connect with people. Not SWAT.

Republican Party of TX Executive Committee sends strong reminder to GOP officials of its stance on gunownership rights

At the quarterly meeting last weekend, the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Texas passed a unanimous resolution to remind Republican officials of the party's strong support of gun ownership for the protection of person and the State.  The resolution enumerated the planks from the 2018 Republican Platform that were passed at the state party's last convention in regard to the defense of those rights.  The Executive Committee members are elected at the state party's convention, and there is one man and one woman who represent each of the state's Senate Districts.  The committee performs the business of the party between conventions.

Now we will see if the officials have the courage of their convictions to uphold the platform of the Republican Party of Texas.

Resolution calls to action:

"THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Party of Texas calls upon our elected leaders to protect and defend the inalienable right of Texans to keep and bear arms for the defense of themselves and of the State by supporting policies consistent with the aforementioned planks of the 2018 Republican Party of Texas Platform; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Republican Party of Texas calls upon our elected officials to protect community safety without infringing upon the ability of law-abiding Texans to freely exercise their Constitutional rights and defend themselves, their families, or their property; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that this resolution be distributed to all Republican members of the Texas House of Representatives and Senate, the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, all Republican members representing the State of Texas in the United States House of Representatives and Senate."

FULL TEXT OF RESOLUTION:

WHEREAS, an individual’s ability to keep and bear arms is fundamental to preserving and protecting our God-given rights and the sustainability of our free republic; and

WHEREAS, the Platform of the Republican Party of Texas affirms:

The Right to Self-Defense: We affirm that lawful gun ownership and carry by the people protects us from those who wish to do harm and guards against tyranny by our own government. We call upon our elected officials to resist the narrative that the solution to every problem is less freedom and more regulation, and instead pursue policies that respect freedom while also increasing safety. (#69)

Constitutional Carry: We support constitutional carry legislation through any legislative means so law-abiding citizens may carry any legally owned guns openly or concealed, while maintaining the option of a permit for reciprocity purposes only. (#70)

Intrastate Protection Act: We support an Intrastate Protection Act to clarify that guns made and sold in Texas are not subject to the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, and legislation denying state funding to any state or local agencies that enforce federal weapons laws not also affirmed by the laws of the State of Texas.
(#71)

Gun-Free Zones: We oppose governmental prohibitions on citizens who have a constitutional right to own and carry firearms and knives from doing so. We oppose state-mandated location restrictions, the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, and the National Firearms Act. (#72)

Red Flag: We oppose monitoring programs, including the Red Flag (that would deprive someone of their right to keep and bear arms without being convicted of a crime or found mentally incompetent by a medical psychiatric professional) or iWatch proposals, and any program that causes gun owners to be investigated by law enforcement or appear before a judge when there is no reasonable cause of a crime committed. We oppose increased background checks, as they are highly prone to “false positives” and hinder law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves, rather than reduce crime. (#73)

Firearms Storage: We oppose mandates on personal firearms storage, maintaining that it is the responsibility of an individual to safely store his or her firearms and choose responsibly when and how to make them available to minors. (#74)

Weapons Restrictions: We support all legislation and policies that reduce restrictions on legal gun owners to purchase, own, or carry any type of gun, ammunition, accessory, knife, or other weapons, and oppose all that hinder the same. (#75)

Amend Texas Constitution: We call for the Texas Legislature to propose to the people of Texas a constitutional amendment to strike the following words from Article I Section 23 of the Texas Constitution: “but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.” (#76)

Responsible Gun Owners: We call upon gun owners of Texas to regulate themselves through exercising safe handling procedures, voluntarily receiving training and helping others to train others, and safely carrying firearms as a deterrent to crime. (#77)

Gun Owner Age: We believe law-abiding citizens 18 years and older have the right to purchase, possess, and carry firearms, including hand guns. (#78)

National Reciprocity: We support national reciprocity and call upon Congress to pass it (#79); now

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Party of Texas calls upon our elected leaders to protect and defend the inalienable right of Texans to keep and bear arms for the defense of themselves and of the State by supporting policies consistent with the aforementioned planks of the 2018 Republican Party of Texas Platform; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Republican Party of Texas calls upon our elected officials to protect community safety without infringing upon the ability of law-abiding Texans to freely exercise their Constitutional rights and defend themselves, their families, or their property; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that this resolution be distributed to all Republican members of the Texas House of Representatives and Senate, the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, all Republican members representing the State of Texas in the United States House of Representatives and Senate.

(LINK: https://www.texasgop.org/resolution-urging-support-of-the-republican-party-of-texas-platform-planks-related-to-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms/ )

Focus on AR-15 is a ruse for broader bans

Democrat candidate Robert Francis O'Rourke last week at the debate in Houston declared, "Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15!"  Only last year then Senate candidate O'Rourke assured Texans that if you had an AR-15, you can keep it.  Speaking to the broader Democrat base, O'Rourke has shifted left and now calls for full confiscation of AR-15s.  We must understand that confiscating AR-15's will not be the end.  It will only be the beginning.

Statistics show that over 60% of gun-related murder is by handgun.  “Assault rifles” account for 4% so those are not the type of firearm used in 96% of the cases.  AR-15s are a very popular semi-automatic rifle with 10-30 million owned in the U.S., and in an informal poll, gun shop owners say that about 20% of sales of rifles are AR-15s.  The rifles are popular among men and women for many features including light weight, customizations, cheaper ammunition, and less kick-back than other semi-automatic rifles or traditional shotguns.  Viral videos of women using traditional shotguns versus AR-15s demonstrate why many choose it. (Example video:  https://youtu.be/DUY3V9JFJLg)   Also, the name "AR" does not mean "assault rifle", but rather is the name of the manufacturer Armalite Rifle.

Semi-automatic guns are a very common type for both handguns and rifles.  Semi-automatic means that the next bullet is loaded into the chamber after one is fired, but the shooter needs to pull the trigger again to shoot.  Fully automatic guns (i.e., one trigger pull and multiple bullets fired) are already extremely restricted in the U.S.  

‘Assault rifle’ bans create a list based on the ‘look’ or ‘style’ of the gun instead of the operation or functional features.  Once some semi-automatic guns are put on a ban list due to their ‘style’, it is easy to see how the list will be expanded by function to most modern firearms.  ‘Assault rifle’ is a term that has little meaning, but people, who do not understand the features of guns, can easily agree with a dangerous sounding term and descriptions of ripping flesh and gaping wounds.  Of course hunting rifles with larger caliber will create an even more fearsome wound, and even a basic shotgun scatters pellets broadly and will also create a large wound. Besides, handguns are the most common weapon in murders and were the weapons used for the 1991 Texas Luby's Massacre.  The gun controllers will come after them ALL for one reason or another because in the end all are capable of killing people.  Here is a video demonstrating and making similar points:  https://youtu.be/in4XzTZaYp0.

We cannot give up the AR-15 hoping that the gun control advocates will be satisfied.  The American left, like the European left, want to disarm citizens for greater control.  Vladmir Lenin said, "One man with a gun can control one hundred without one."  They may let you keep your revolver and shotgun similar to Mexico where the type of firearms and number per household are extremely restricted and registering them is intentionally cumbersome.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Mexico) Stricter gun laws have not made Mexico or Chicago safer.  Several states in Mexico have been identified by the State Department as 'no-go' zones (https://www.businessinsider.com/mexico-states-no-go-zones-for-americans-us-state-department-2018-1). 

In the U.S. guns are used in self defense hundreds of thousands to millions of times per year.  Non-suicide gun deaths were reported at under 20,000 in 2018 which, although tragic, is a very small number relative to the over 330,000,000 people in the U.S. where there are over 350,000,000 guns owned by citizens. 

While self-defense and hunting are often cited as the reason for owning firearms, the true intent of the Second Amendment is to protect and defend the people from government tyranny.  Picture citizens left to throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails as tanks roll against them in China and in Venezuela to name recent examples.  To be effective citizens must be able to own semi-automatic rifles capable of deterring federal forces.  Deputy Barney Fife with a revolver and one bullet in his pocket may be the model of the left, but our rights to bear firearms must not become restricted to the point of ineffectiveness.  We must stand strong for the right of law-abiding citizens to own semi-automatic firearms without bans, burdensome fees, or cumbersome regulations.  

ACTION ALERT on Gun Control - 3 Bad Bills, Call DC

Congress is back in session and Speaker Pelosi has three gun control bills queued up.  These bills are NOT GOOD for gun owners and our liberties.  The following guidance comes from Heritage Action for America (https://heritageaction.com/), the political action organization associated with the  national, conservative policy group Heritage Foundation.

"Second Amendment. This week, Democrats will begin “marking up” three gun-control bills in the House Judiciary Committee. Heritage Action is opposed to all three bills as they unnecessarily restrict Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

• HR 1186 - Restricts Americans’ ownership of magazines of certain capacities, with exemptions for law enforcement and government agencies.
• HR 2078 - Individuals who have been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime would be prohibited from owning firearms. Currently, the law prohibits individuals who have committed felonies from owning firearms—this is the appropriate and correct standard.
• HR 1236 - This bill falls under the category of “red-flag laws” and allows law-enforcement to confiscate individuals’ firearms when other individuals report them as a danger or threat. There is some broader nuance on the general idea of red-flag laws, but there is no nuance on this bill. It’s a far-left bill that does not provide adequate due-process protections."

All conservatives, liberty-minded Americans, and gun owners must contact your Congressman, your Senators, and the White House to tell them that you oppose these three bills.

White House contact: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Senator Cornyn contact:  https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/contact

Senator Cruz contact:  https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=email_senator

U. S. Congress contact:  https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

There are solutions to gun violence that do not abridge your constitutionally guaranteed rights to due process and gun ownership.  For liberty-minded solutions see yesterday's blog entry: https://travis-outrider.blogspot.com/2019/09/do-something-we-can-address-gun.html. 

Do Something! We can address gun violence AND uphold the rights of lawful gun owners.

After every high-profile shooting the calls to "Do Something!" begin immediately.  Most of the proposals have little to do with effective solutions to gun-related deaths, and too many create barriers for law-abiding gun owners.  Here are some proposals that address gun-related violence while upholding the rights of law-abiding citizens to own firearms.  Elected officials who claim to support gun ownership rights should be pushing these kinds of solutions instead of back-pedaling on Second Amendment rights.

1.       Since the majority of deaths by firearm are suicide (60%), increase funding for mental health services and suicide prevention campaigns especially in vulnerable communities such as veterans.

2.       Enforce the laws.  This includes holding government agencies accountable to update the NICS databased used for background checks in a timely manner and add more reporting criteria associated with criminal activity.

3.       Enforce the laws.  The majority of gun-related deaths besides suicide stems from organized crime.  Empower and fund law enforcement to root out sources of organized crime and increase security at ports of entry and the borders where drugs, firearms, and human trafficking are occurring.

4.       Enforce the laws.  End the soft-on-crime policies for violent juveniles like the ones implemented at Parkland’s school district that allowed a repeatedly violent, troubled student to avoid a criminal record even though ‘everyone knew’ he had severe problems.

5.       Continue funding for security in vulnerable public areas such as schools, arenas, and transportation hubs for physical barriers, technology, and armed, trained personnel.  

6.       Allow law-abiding citizens to own and carry weapons as a first line of defense against criminals including the recognition of state-issued carry licenses across state lines.  Statistics show guns are used in self defense hundreds of thousands up to millions of times each year.

7.       Ensure that law enforcement can act on explicit threats while maintaining current legal standards of due process with a presumption of innocence. Circumventing due process or using safety panels outside the legal system are an abridgement of liberty.

8.       Expand the definition of sellers that are required to do background checks based on number of transactions per year and location of sales (eg. gun shows) without criminalizing private person-to-person transfers and without creating gun registries, fees, licenses, or other barriers to gun ownership by law-abiding citizens.

Cedar Park City Council - Incumbents started 2019 with large reserves, challengers faced steep fundraising climb

Cedar Park City Council - Incumbents started 2019 with large reserves, challengers faced steep fundraising climb

The Community Impact posted an article today that called the fundraising efforts of all candidates "competitive" but only considered campaign reports for April 2019 without mention of the beginning campaign funds for the incumbents.  The analysis in the article did not include finance reports from January 2019 thereby omitting more than half of the campaign contributions for incumbent council members.

The Community Impact article also failed to use a consistent standard for reporting on the campaign contributions in its commentary.  The following analysis provides a consistent report on the incumbents of direct PAC contributions and contributions of $1,000 or more from a single donor.

According to campaign finance reports, Cedar Park incumbent council members started 2019 with significant campaign funds.  The incumbents reported the following maintained funds as of the end of January 2019 (approx.):  Jefts $20,000, Duffy $12,000, Thomas $31,000.  The challengers faced a steep fundraising hill to climb in only a few months to be competitive in a city with the population (over 80,000) and geographical size of Cedar Park.  

Noteworthy is that all three incumbents reported the majority of donations in dollar amounts from outside Cedar Park. Travis Outrider previously reported on the incumbents receiving the majority of their money from outside Cedar Park while the challengers received the majority of funding from contributors in the city.  (Reference:  https://travis-outrider.blogspot.com/2019/04/duffy-and-jefts-hold-big-money-lead.html)

In terms of individual contributions Duffy and Jefts drew roughly 60% in Cedar Park transactions and 40% outside the city.  Thomas reported an unusually large amount of unidentified cash, and most of his contributions were from PACs.  Thomas underperformed the other incumbents by significant amounts although he personally donated $650 each to Duffy and Jefts while neither Duffy nor Jefts donated to his campaign.

Duffy reports the following donors of $1000 or more and PACs:

• Husch-Blackwell of Austin $1500, 
• Hillco PAC and associates of Austin $1000, 
• Ellis of Austin $1000, 
• Maria Martin of Cedar Park $1000, 
• Freese and Nichols PAC of Ft. Worth $500, 
• Halff PAC of Richardson $500, 
• Homebuilders PAC of Austin $250,
• CPPFA PAC $1000.

Jefts reports the following donors of $1000 or more and PACs:

• Maria Martin of Cedar Park $1500, 
• Milestone Builders of Austin $2000, 
• Pohl of Austin $1000, 
• Hillco PAC of Austin $1000, 
• Homebuilders PAC of Austin $250, 
• CPPFA PAC $1000, 
• Meade (Husch-Blackwell) of Austin $1500, 
• Halff PAC of Richardson $250, 
• Freese and Nichols PAC of Ft. Worth $250.

Thomas reports the following donors of $1000 or more and PACs:  

• $2,060 in unidentified cash   
• Citizens for Sensible Growth PAC of Cedar Park $1000, 
• Milestone Builders of Austin $2000, 
• TREPAC of Austin $500, 
• NBA Home PAC of Austin $500.

Cedar Park campaign finance reports are available at  https://www.cedarparktexas.gov/departments/city-secretary/candidate-officeholder-campaign-finance-reports.

Duffy and Jefts hold big money lead, mostly out-of-town donations

Cedar Park City Council – Incumbents Duffy and Jefts hold big money lead, mostly out-of-town donations

 (4/30 Updates:  Correction of place numbers and inclusion of Duffy's final April report which was not available at the time of the original post.)

Place	Candidate	Total contributions	Out of town contributions+
3	Christopher	$ 10,848.64	$ 1,828.30
3	Duffy	$ 20,246.80	$ 10,915.00
5	Jefts	$ 27,231.80	$ 14,475.16
5	Robinson	$ 11,523.64	$ 1,350.00
1	Thomas	$ 7,260.00	$ 6,010.00
1	Kelly	$ 8309.34	$ 2,735.00

 

+Out of town contributions include unidentified cash

With all finance reports through April 26 now posted, Ann Duffy’s contributions of almost $20,000 are far ahead of challenger Hulyne Christopher, who reported over $10,000.  Duffy’s out-of-town contributions were about $11,000 while Christopher received just $1,800 from donors outside Cedar Park including about $1,200 from Andy Pitts of Leander.  Duffy reported donations from several PACs.  Duffy’s donors include area Democrat elected officials John Bucy and Gloria Dholakia as well as fellow city officials Corbin Van Arsdale and Stephen Thomas.  Christopher’s donors include former Republican office holders Tony Dale, John Lux, and Lyle Grimes.

With all 2019 reports filed, incumbent Heather Jefts reported the most contributions so far with over $27,000.  Of those contributions Jefts has reported over $14,000 in out-of-town money plus donations from several PACs. Jefts's donors include area Democrat officials Rep. John Bucy, Rep. Celia Israel, Rep. Vikki Goodwin, Brigid Shea and Gloria Dholakia as well as fellow city officials Corbin Van Arsdale and Stephen Thomas.  Challenger Rodney Robinson reports contributions around $11,000 with about $10,000 coming from Cedar Park.  His donors include area Republicans Tony Dale, John Lux, and Lyle Grimes.  He received $1,203.30 from Andy Pitts of Leander as one of his out of town donors.

Of the incumbents Stephen Thomas trails significantly behind Duffy and Jefts with only $7,260 reported in contributions for 2019.  Thomas, a Republican, lost supporters due to his donations of $650 each to Democrats Duffy and Jefts.  The large majority of Thomas’s contributions came from out of town sources and also from PACs. Challenger Tim Kelly reports just over $8,000 total contributions received.  Of that Kelly has about $2,700 out of town money with no PACs reported and no donations from Andy Pitts.  Kelly’s donors include former Republican office holders Tony Dale, John Lux, and Don Zimmerman.

Citizens for Cedar Park PAC reported expenditures for Christopher, Kelly, and Robinson of close to $15,000.  The PAC contributors are listed in the finance reports.  The One Cedar Park PAC did not file for April.

Cedar Park election finance reports are found at the city website -- https://www.cedarparktexas.gov/departments/city-secretary/candidate-officeholder-campaign-finance-reports.  Note that Duffy’s final April report was not posted at the time of the initial posting of this article, but was posted at the end of the day April 29.