Texas Governor Vetos Gun Bill

This is a discussion on Texas Governor Vetos Gun Bill within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; " Sorry, but when you violate our social norms, you lose the right to enjoy our society to its fullest. If you honestly believe it ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 42 of 42

Thread: Texas Governor Vetos Gun Bill

  1. #31
    Senior Member Array rachilders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Longview, TX
    Posts
    932
    "Sorry, but when you violate our social norms, you lose the right to enjoy our society to its fullest. If you honestly believe it is a good idea to give guns to felons I'm afraid you're part of the problem, not the answer."

    So you're saying a broker who became a felon when he sold 100 shares of $100 a share stock, one day early (insider trading, remember Martha Stewart), because he knew a company was about to declare bankruptcy should be treated the same as a drug dealer who kills an entire family so he can use their boat to run drugs? I suppose any felon IS still a felon and if you've seen one felon, you've seen them all.

    It's that sort of thinking that has our jails full, our taxes up and leaves normally law abiding citizens - who never committed a crime against or harmed anyone, but may have had a lapse of good judgment - with a criminal record and the loss of many of the basic rights our constitution "guarantees" all American citizens, IRREGARDLESS of their criminal record.

    I don't remember reading anywhere in the United States Constitution that ANYONE gives of their rights after they've gone to jail, unless I have overlooked it. If so, I wish someone who point it out to me.

    "... Americans... we want a safe home, to keep the money we make and shoot bad guys." -- Denny Crane

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member
    Array Echo_Four's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Land of the mostly free
    Posts
    2,826
    Yes, it is what I was thinking. You don't commit a felony by accident. You took an action that was in violation of our laws. Whether that action was a violent act or white collar crime does not matter. You willfully and knowingly broke the law. You deserve what you get.

    I am offended that you would say my line of thinking is what has our jails and prisons full. You are wrong. The reason our jails and prisons are full is because people choose to do stupid things that they deserve to be sent to prison for.

    Your comment that a person who never commited a crime can have a criminal record is prima fascia wrong. By definition, if a person has a criminal record they have broken the law and---- is a CRIMINAL!

    I'll point out the section that says that you can have your rights taken away from you as soon as you show me the section that says they can't be.

    In all honesty, at the time of the writing the Second Amendment was never intended to apply to the states. It wasn't until the 14th Amendment that any of the Bill of Rights were binding on states. We are presently waiting for the Supreme Court to decide to hear the DC gun ban case. Thier ruling on that case could change ground and apply the Second Amendment to the states. As of now it is up in the air and there is room for debate on our side and the other.
    "The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
    - Lt. Col. Oliver North

  4. #33
    Member Array bobernet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    134
    Maybe you've heard this before...

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
    un·al·ien·a·ble (n-ly-n-bl, -l--)

    ADJECTIVE:

    Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable
    What you said about applying to states is nonsense. The Bill of Rights describes the rights of *people* not abstract entities. The Constitution of the United States of America begins "We the people..." and applies to.... the people of the United States of America. Neither states nor the federal government have any authority to "revoke" rights. They are unalienable. If they are granted by the government, they are privileges.

    The Bill of Rights further makes it clear that just because something isn't explicitly stated, doesn't mean it is not a right.

    Amendment IX

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    Note, "rights...retained by the people" not retained by the state(s). States don't have "rights" just like companies, cars and houses don't have rights.

    Echo_Four said: "I'll point out the section that says that you can have your rights taken away from you as soon as you show me the section that says they can't be."
    OK, your turn.
    Last edited by bobernet; June 22nd, 2007 at 04:31 PM. Reason: clarification of retained rights

  5. #34
    Senior Member Array preachertim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    742
    Well I m ok with what the Gov Did. Wish we had some of that castle law in Arkansas.

  6. #35
    VIP Member
    Array Echo_Four's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Land of the mostly free
    Posts
    2,826
    Good call on the unalienable quote. Of course, it isn't from the Constitution, but from the Declaration of Independence- which does not have the force or effect of law.

    As for the Bill of Rights and states, it isn't actually possible to debate the issue. It limited what the federal government could do, nothing more and nothing less. States were free to pass laws that were in violation of the Bill of Rights until the 14th Amendment. They then began to apply those laws to the states. If you want to argue that point, feel free. I will not continue to argue that point because you are wrong. History is what it is, you cannot rewrite it.
    "The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
    - Lt. Col. Oliver North

  7. #36
    Member Array bobernet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by Echo_Four View Post
    Good call on the unalienable quote. Of course, it isn't from the Constitution, but from the Declaration of Independence- which does not have the force or effect of law.
    Absolutely true that the DOI is not law, but the job of the SCOTUS is to interpret Constitutional law in light of the intent of the framers. The quote from the DOI clearly shows what they mean when they talk about "rights."

    Other than foolish arguments like those made by "tax protestors," the reality is that the Bill of Rights is universal in the US. Trying to play semantic games about debatable ratifications from 100+ years ago will get you nowhere in the real world.

  8. #37
    Senior Member Array mocarryguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by PapaScout View Post
    Not to hijack the thread but...


    Prison does not fix the person - merely punishes the person. Clockwork Orange anyone?
    Nice one my friend, I like that...Not many have probably seen the movie to tie it in.
    I know, I know, you are smarter than me..just ask you..

  9. #38
    VIP Member
    Array Echo_Four's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Land of the mostly free
    Posts
    2,826
    Bobernet, people like you and I believe the Constitution is to be interpreted in light of what its original intent. However, it is far from truthful to say that is the job of the SCOTUS. Many people will argue that the Constitution is a living document and its meaning changes according to the progression of time.

    I do not feel that it is a waste of time to look at original intent since the Supreme Court has yet to rule that the Second Amendment applies to an individual's right to keep and bear arms and not the collective right of the state- nor have they ruled that the states cannot limit or abolish this right within their state based on a state's rights issue.

    Souter, Bryer, Stevens, and Ginsurg will make those arguments when the case appears before them. It is up in the air where Kennedy will turn, and even the right wing of the court is in jeopardy as Scalia may well rule that it is a state's rights issue. It should all be answered soon, both sides of the DC gun ban will ask the court to hear it, and it is a question the court knows needs to be answered.

    I expect Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Kennedy to form the majority that rules in our favor, but it is far from a slam dunk.
    "The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
    - Lt. Col. Oliver North

  10. #39
    Senior Member Array rachilders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Longview, TX
    Posts
    932
    Well gang, I've said my piece and it's now time to move on to other things. Have fun, play fair and try not to forget the original post and what this was all about. :

    I may not agree with the governor on a lot of things, but when it comes to the 2A, he usually does right by the good folks here in the Lone Star state!
    "... Americans... we want a safe home, to keep the money we make and shoot bad guys." -- Denny Crane

  11. #40
    M2
    M2 is offline
    Member Array M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    320
    I agree with ya, rachilders. Perry came out shortly after the Virginia Tech incident and stated Texas needed to reconsider its restrictions on where CHL holders can carry (schools, churches, etc). Most would have probably taken a more anti-gun approach after what happened at VT, Perry took the more logical route of allowing people who are entrusted to carry weapons to do so with less restrictions. The laws don't prevent criminals from taking weapons in those places, and as was learned at VT and at the Luby's shootings in Killeen back in 1991, some of have deathes may been prevented had people who have been allowed to legally carry would have been allowed to do so and intervened.

    Cheers! M2

  12. #41
    VIP Member
    Array Echo_Four's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Land of the mostly free
    Posts
    2,826
    Not being from Texas, I don't know what Perry has done that you all don't like. But, on this subject he seems to be on our side. There is no person that would make the right choice on any issue 100% of the time, because we will all never agree about everything. But, when you have someone on your side it is something to be happy about.
    "The only people I like besides my wife and children are Marines."
    - Lt. Col. Oliver North

  13. #42
    Senior Member Array tex45acp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    The Great State of Texas
    Posts
    698
    One thing that we are overlooking here is that in Texas, having the CHL is a right, and there are stipulatios to having that right bestowed on an individual. You don't meet those stipulations you are not given the right! Very cut & dried...oh and if you wander out of those stipulations and the right to carry condealed legally can, like any other right, be taken away. If you have lead a legally clean life you can have the right bestowed upon you if you meet ALL the other criteria.

    tex45acp
    The only thing needed for evil to exist is for good men to stand by and do nothing!!!

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Kansas Governor Signs Castle Doctrine Clean Up Bill
    By kccad in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 20th, 2010, 08:59 PM
  2. House asks governor to return guns in parks bill
    By Agape in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: June 16th, 2009, 09:03 AM
  3. TN Governor to Veto Restaurant Carry Bill:[merged]
    By knoxlaw in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: June 5th, 2009, 10:29 AM
  4. GUN VICTORY IN OHIO: CCW Improvement Bill On The Way To The Governor - (merged)
    By buckeye .45 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: December 8th, 2006, 08:26 PM
  5. Breaking News: Kansas Governor Vetoed CC Bill
    By Rock and Glock in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: March 22nd, 2006, 05:41 PM

Search tags for this page

ex cons gun rights in texas
,
ex convict bill of rights in america
,
ex convict in texas gun
,
ex-convicts can you carry a gun
,
gun bill vetoed in texas by governor
,

texas governor signs bill to carry concealed weapons in locked cars

,
tx hb 1503 veto 2007
,
what are the restrictions for ex convicts in texas
Click on a term to search for related topics.