Sb-2012 Registration: Fill & Download for Free

I actually looked into this question back int 2011 when Texas was about to pass it’s Voter ID law. Here’s what I found:There are plenty of allegations of voter fraud, but if you look for actual legal action or indictments for voter fraud the list is actually pretty small and minor. According to Ballotpedia voter fraud in Texas usually has to do more with mailing in another person's ballot, ordering one or two mail in ballots for someone else, votes by convicted felons (who may not have known that it was illegal for them to vote), and a few cases of people claiming to be illegal aliens to get out of jury duty (jurors are partly chosen from voter registration rolls). The only case of voter fraud that was really egregious and actually did lead to a conviction was the election Refugio County Commissioner, Raymond Villarreal, who misused Mail-in Ballots.Raymond Villarreal, a Refugio County commissioner, pleaded guilty in 2007 to a felony count of tampering with a governmental document and a misdemeanor count of wrongful possession of a ballot. District Judge W.W. Kilgore sentenced Villarreal to 90 days in county jail, 300 hours of community service and $2,500 in fines. If he violates terms of a five-year probation, he could get sent to state prison for two years. Villarreal also agreed to pay back $2,090 to the county, in conjunction with his use of county equipment and county employees to do work on private property, but charges were never filed.[20]Villarreal resigned and admitted his role in a voter fraud scheme involving mail-in ballots that helped him get elected in 2006, officials said. Villarreal got county residents to sign mail-in ballot applications, but had those applications sent to his supporters. After the ballots were filled out indicating a vote for Villarreal, he had the original applicants sign them. "It left a bad taste in my mouth that somebody would try to defraud the system — the same system that I worked to be elected," Refugio County Sheriff Earl Petropoulos said.[20]Claims that there are more Hispanic voters on the rolls than actual citizens and voting by dead people seem to be anecdotal at best and not borne out by reality.According to the US Census detailed tables on Hispanic Voter Registration (2008), the number of Hispanic citizens out numbers Hispanics registered to vote by 40% (see Table 2, Hispanics) and the number of Hispanics who are registered, but don't vote is 50%. When looking at our region (West South Central, Table 3, Hispanics) the percentage of Hispanics registered who didn't vote was even higher, 62%. (Unfortunately, these tables are outdated and no longer exist, but here are the latest tables Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2016)The Texas Secretary of State's Office ran an audit of Voter Registration Systems. The report found that there were registered voters who were possible felons or dead, but claimed they couldn't find evidence that these people had voted, because they didn't have enough time before the election. Now why they couldn't check these allegations out after the election is anybody's guess.The TEAM system included the following voter registration records for the May 12, 2007, special election that auditors identified as belonging to people who were potentially ineligible to vote:Records for 23,114 voters identified as possible felons using data provided by the Department of Criminal Justice. The data identified felons on community supervision as of April 30, 2007, and felons who were incarcerated or on parole as of May 31, 2007. The Secretary of State’s Office identified 1,124 (4.9 percent) of these possible felons prior to the election, but it was not able to complete its investigations to verify the registrants’ felon status and remove them from the TEAM system before the election.Records for 23,576 voters believed to be deceased because these records matched death records through November 30, 2006, obtained from the Bureau of Vital Statistics. The Secretary of State’s Office identified three of these records prior to the election, but it was not able to complete its investigations to verify that these voters were deceased and remove them from the TEAM system before the election. It should be noted that the number of potentially deceased voters auditors identified may be understated because the data obtained from the Bureau of Vital Statistics did not include death notices for the six months prior to the May 12, 2007, special election.The only part of the audit that addresses illegal alien voting is a survey of the 254 county voter registration offices in Texas. The survey askedDo you have procedures to identify ineligible voter applicants, such as felons, non-citizens, or voters who submitted duplicate registrations?Forty-six percent of the counties said they had no identity procedures and 11% didn't respond.The issue seems to be more one of record housekeeping than actual voter fraud. The possibility exists for election shenanigans, but the low level of indictments and convictions speaks otherwise.So what about the claims that Voter ID legislation will put such a high burden on the elderly and the poor that they won't be able to vote?Well, first, let's look at the two bills. SB 14 requires the following types of ID:Sec. 63.0101. DOCUMENTATION OF PROOF OF IDENTIFICATION. Provides that the following documentation is an acceptable form of photo identification under this chapter: a driver's license or personal identification card issued to the person by the Department of Public Safety (DPS) that has not expired; a United States military identification card that contains the person's photograph that has not expired; a United States citizenship certificate issued to the person that contains the person's photograph; or a United States passport issued to the person that has not expired.There is an exception to the ID requirement in section 63.001Provides that the requirements for identification prescribed by Subsection (b) do not apply to a voter who presents the voter's voter registration certificate on offering to vote and was 70 years of age or older on January 1, 2012, as indicated by the date of birth on the voter's voter registration certificate.So as the Senate Bill stands, it does not appear to be an impediment to the elderly.The bill also amends section 521.422, subsections (a) and (d) of the Transportation Code(a) Provides that the fee for a personal identification certificate, except as provided under Subsection (d), is $15 for a person under 60 years of age, $5 for a person 60 years of age or older, and $20 for a person subject to the registration requirements under Chapter 62 (Sex Offender Registration Program), Code of Criminal Procedure.(d) Prohibits DPS from collecting a fee for a personal identification certificate issued to a person who states that the person is obtaining the personal identification certificate for the purpose of satisfying Section 63.001(b), Election Code, and who is a registered voter in this state and presents a valid voter registration certificate, or who is eligible for registration under Section 13.001 (Eligibility For Registration), Election Code, and submits a registration application to DPS.So a registered voter can get a free ID, if they show DPS their voters registration card. Here we get into a murky area because that means the voter would have to go to the DPS office to get the ID. Some voter advocates are claiming that it is hard for poor people, or people who are home bound to get to the DPS office. They are able to vote with mail in ballots that are sent to their homes, but they have to travel to prove eligibility to vote.OK, so what about the House Bill. At the very beginning of HB 401 it statesSec. 12.007. TEXAS VOTER IDENTIFICATION CARD. (a) Eachvoter registrar shall issue Texas voter identification cards toregistered voters to be used only for the purpose of meeting theidentification requirements of Section 63.001(b). The voterregistrar must provide at least one place in the county to acceptapplications for and issue Texas voter identification cards. Thevoter registrar may not charge an application fee or a fee for theissuance of a Texas voter identification card.....(f) A Texas voter identification card remains valid if the person to whom it was issued resides at the same address and remains qualified to vote. A person who changes residence within the state must surrender the card to the voter registrar of the new county of residence and may apply for and receive a Texas voter identification card issued by the new county of residence if the person is otherwise eligible under this section. A person who moves residence outside the state or who ceases to be qualified to vote must surrender the person's Texas voter identification card to thevoter registrar who issued the card.Both bills provide for free Voter ID but each bill expects either DPS or the counties to come up with money to pay for ID cards for voting purposes (unfunded mandate). At least the HB allows the voter to keep the same card as long as they live in the same dwelling. But, I thought we didn't have any money? Also, there is that thorny transportation/mobility problem.But what proportion of the poor, elderly and shut-ins vote in the free-for-all world of No ID Required voting? Let's take a look at the Census figures.According Table 2 of the Voter and Election detailed tables 74% of citizens over the age of 75 are registered to vote and 66% actually voted. But if the language for the SB makes it through, these voters will not be effected. In Table 8, Reported Voting and Registration of Family Members, by Age and Family Income: November 2008 of the total citizens in the US making under $10,000 per year, 72% were registered to vote and 49% reported voting. (for the purposes of this post $10,000 per year per person is poverty level) When Hispanics are parsed out of the total population (Table 9) the percentage of registered voters below the poverty level drops to 50% and only 35% reported voting. Remember, these tables represent voting in 2008 when there was a lot of excitement about the election. (Unfortunately these tables are outdated and no longer exist, here are the new tables Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2016)The sad fact is, people in Texas just don't vote. Between 1988 and 2010 voter turnout rates in Bexar County dropped from 66% to 34%. During the Presidential election in 2008 voter turnout jumped up to 57%, but wouldn't you expect a better turnout for a highly contested, historical election?So who's right, those who want to protect Texas from the evils of Voter Fraud or the voter advocates who claim legislators are trying to prevent the poor and elderly from voting?Potential for Voter Fraud exists, but it hasn't really been a major problem and traveling to get Voter ID Cards for the poor and elderly could be a problem.Also, why only Voter ID in person, what are their plans for Absentee Balloting, where most voter fraud actually occurs?

It’s illegal, in most cases, for a local police or Sheriff’s department to enforce certain aspects of federal law. They can not require registration they can not prevent employment by making it conditional on status, and they can not arrest for removal, nor can they deport without federal participation.Largely at issue is the June 25th 2012 U.S. Supreme court ruling in Arizona v. United States over Arizona’s law Arizona SB 1070.Arizona piled a state penalty on top of the federal misdemeanor penalty for all aliens over the age of 14 who remain in the United States for longer than 30 days without registering with the U.S. government, and to have registration documents in their possession at all times.Arizona additionally made it a state misdemeanor to be missing these documents over perceived lack of enforcement by federal authorities.While the court upheld Arizona’s rights to “make reasonable attempts to determine immigration status”, and to “require officers to work collaboratively with the federal government”, they also struck down parts of the law on the basis that three other provisions, which regulated alien registration, illegal aliens seeking employment, and arrest of individuals based upon possible removability, were preempted by federal law.Technically speaking, it means the Court has reaffirmed that, much as he might want to, President Obama cannot prevent the states from taking action to enforce federal immigration laws just by saying that he doesn’t want them to do so.On the flip side, the federal government is permitted to continue to engage in “willful non-enforcement”: the state has the right to work with the federal government, but the federal government is allowed to be “done” when it answers the phone and answers the status question.From 2006 to 2010, in the border town of Nogales alone, 51 smuggling tunnels were discovered, used both for moving drugs, and human trafficking. That’s a lot of tunnels, for a town where there are four International Ports of Entry considering it’s only about 23 miles of border area out of the 370 miles of border between Mexico and Arizona. Some of them had functional electric railroads: Drug smuggling tunnels with rail systems discovered under US border with Mexico .It’s not that satisfactory a situation for anyone.

How and why do so many people believe "Gun Control" is the same thing as "taking away all guns”?…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….Because the gun-grabbers damn well know that it is and are shit at hiding it.For instance, every time a “debate” on gun control starts, Australian, Japanese, and British gun laws are always brought up.In those countries, gun laws are either very strict, or guns are banned entirely. It’s not exactly an Olympic-level leap of logic to assume that those gun-grabbers that use Japan, Australia and Britain to promote their story of gun control working really want to take away our guns.Also in recent months, there has been some talk about banning the sale of ammunition. Let’s take the lovely State of California as an example:https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0098%20(Firearms)_0.pdfSB-1235 Ammunition.These two proposals want to severely restrict the sales of ammunition.It’s pretty damn obvious that the gun-grabbers want to disarm responsible gun owners in any way possible.And then there are those who want to make everyone register their firearms. They are somewhat wiser, and wish to carry out an incremental gun ban, a series of seemingly innocent laws that, when carried out together, severely restrict the ability to own guns and ammunition. Passing them all at once would be political suicide, but it is much easier to pass a small fraction of the end plan at a time.One of the more insidious laws is requiring gun owners to register their firearms, especially specific types of firearms.The only purpose that requiring registration of guns serves is to make confiscation possible in the future. Please, tell me any other reason for requiring firearms to be registered, besides simply knowing who has a gun and who doesn’t.Others simply tell everyone, loud and proud, what they really want to do:A national gun registry, so law-enforcement officials can know when someone is compiling an arsenal. The government can track purchases of allergy medicines that can be used to make methamphetamine, and fertilizers that can be used to make bombs, like the one used in Oklahoma City in 1994, but not deadly assault weapons [LOOOOOOOOOOOL]. That’s absurd. [Its purpose is also to make the last item on the list possible].Tracking and limiting purchases of ammunition.Requiring that guns use smart-gun technology, which would dramatically reduce accidental deaths, particularly among children, who, according to a 2016 study, are dying accidental deaths at the hands of guns at the rate of one every other day.A national gun buyback program similar to the one Australia instituted after a mass shooting that killed 35 people. That incident was in 1996. There hasn’t been another one since[.]Dan Pfeiffer, former senior adviser to Barack Obama.Former Obama Senior Adviser Comes Out and Says the US Should Do Gun ConfiscationThe national “buyback” program is just a euphemism for confiscation, since that’s exactly what it was.Next up: The founder of what later became the Brady Campaign:“I’m convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest.Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time.So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time.My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — TOTALLY ILLEGAL.”-Nelson T. Shields, Chairman , Handgun Control Inc. (Now Brady Campaign), “A Reporter At Large: Handguns,” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58True to their word, the Campaign then lobbied for the “Assault Weapon” ban in 1993.And then we have some rather memorable quotes from the Democrats way earlier:1968 : “Promote the passage and enforcement of effective federal, state and local gun control legislation.”1972: “Effective legislation must include a ban on sale of hand guns known as Saturday night specials which are unsuitable for sporting purposes”1976: “Handguns simplify and intensify violent crime. Ways must be found to curtail the availability of these weapons. The Democratic Party must provide the leadership for a coordinated federal and state effort to strengthen the presently inadequate controls over the manufacture, assembly, distribution and possession of handguns and to ban Saturday night specials… The Democratic Party, however, affirms the right of sportsmen to possess guns for purely hunting and target-shooting purposes.”1980: “The Democratic Party affirms the right of sports-men to possess guns for purely hunting and target-shooting purposes. However, handguns simplify and intensify violent crime. Ways must be found to curtail the availability of these weapons. The Democratic Party supports enactment of federal legislation to strengthen the presently inadequate regulations over the manufacture, assembly, distribution, and possession of handguns and to ban"Saturday night specials."1984: “…We support tough restraints on the manufacture, transportation, and sale of snub-nosed handguns, which have no legitimate sporting use and are used in a high proportion of violent crimes.”1988: “…a ban on "cop killer" bullets that have no purpose other than the killing and maiming of law enforcement officers…”1992: “…We support a reasonable waiting period to permit background checks for purchases of handguns, as well as assault weapons controls to ban the possession, sale, importation and manufacture of the most deadly assault weapons. We do not support efforts to restrict weapons used for legitimate hunting and sporting purposes.”1996: “…We oppose efforts to restrict weapons used for legitimate sporting purposes, and we are proud that not one hunter or sportsman was forced to change guns because of the assault weapons ban. But we know that the military-style guns we banned have no place on America's streets…”2000: “A shocking level of gun violence on our streets and in our schools has shown America the need to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them - in ways that respect the rights of hunters, sportsmen, and legitimate gun owners. … That's why Democrats fought and passed the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban. … We need mandatory child safety locks, to protect our children. We should require a photo license I.D., a full background check, and a gun safety test to buy a new handgun in America…”2004: “We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.”2008: “…We can work together to enact and enforce commonsense laws and improvements – like closing the gun show loophole, improving our background check system, and reinstating the assault weapons ban”2012: “…We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements - like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole…”2016: “…we will expand and strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in our current laws; repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to revoke the dangerous legal immunity protections gun makers and sellers now enjoy; and keep weapons of war—such as assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAM's)—off our streets. We will fight back against attempts to make it harder for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to revoke federal licenses from law breaking gun dealers, and ensure guns do not fall into the hands of terrorists, intimate partner abusers, other violent criminals, and those with severe mental health issues. There is insufficient research on effective gun prevention policies, which is why the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must have the resources it needs to study gun violence as a public health issue.”List compiled by John Fogh based on information fromGun control: A Documentary and Reference Guide, by Robert J. Spitzer.John Fogh's answer to Are there actually any mainstream Democrats who want to ban all guns?I take absolutely no credit for the list of quotes above.Notice how many times the word “ban” is mentioned there. We keep getting told “ We only want to do X!”, and when they get X, they say “We only want Y!”, ad infinitum. And like that, our Second Amendment rights are only eroded more and more. The only end in sight to this madness is what Nelson Shields said: the anti-gunners will not stop until they see all guns banned.I can find more instances of the gun-grabbers admitting their true intentions, but I think that the above list will suffice.So excuse me for thinking that every time the words “gun control” are spoken, what they really mean is “taking away all guns”.