TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:When we vote based on the myth of electability, we make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Any candidate is electable if enough people vote for him.

Amen to that. Just ask Tom McClintock (CA gubernatorial election 2003) & his exit poll approval ratings, which blew away the Governator by 7 percentage points (+25 to +18) in a losing effort. What that tells you is that more people would have preferred McClintock over Schwarzenegger, yet enough people believed all the claptrap about "only Arnold has a chance" to hand him the election anyway. Bleating sheep, all of 'em.

txmatt wrote:The full faith and credit clause does, in fact, apply to marriages in gereneral and as such there has been quite a controversy regarding whether this must be extended to non traditional marriages that are not recognized by most states. IMHO, and IANAL, the defense of marriage act signed by Bill in 96 is blatantly unconstitutional as it was an attempt at a legislative means to bypass part of the constitution.

That's what I was getting at too - passing legislation at the federal level saying "license A issued by states deserves full faith & credit" and another piece of federal legislation saying "license B issued by states does not deserve full faith & credit" - that can get very thorny very quickly.

txmatt wrote:While I still think the legislation I referenced was the source of the quote, it seems like he does want to ban CCW nationwide: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.gun.html

Yeah, I'm with ya, his quote may have been inspired by that legislation, but there's no question he's advocating new federal legislation to ban it.

JT

txmatt wrote:

thejtrain wrote: Two questions:
1) How the heck does Texas allowing CCW endanger the safety of people living in Illinois? Does he think people who get CHLs are too stupid to realize that they're only good in that state and whatever state, by law, recognizes it through reciprocity? Absolutely ridiculous.

JT

I think that quote was in reference to legislation (supported by if not sponsored by Ron Paul) that would require states to recognize CCW permits issued by other states, as I believe they should under the full faith and credit clause. I don't think it is ridiculous for a person to expect that, in principle, other states should, by our constitution, recognize a CCW permit issued by another state.

Interesting perspective - I wasn't aware of any active or proposed federal legislation in that regard. The part that I could see causing some trouble is in the process to decide, at the federal level, which permits/certificates/licenses issued by states get protected by the full faith & credit clause and which do not (e.g., if the full faith & credit clause applies to CCWs why wouldn't it apply to marriages? Equal protection and all that). Admittedly I have not thought through that whole thing all the way, but that's beside the point of this quote.

What's interesting is the differences between a pro-liberty legislator and an anti-liberty legislator.
Status Quo: CCW issued by State A is not recognized by State B, and license holders from State A MAY NOT carry legally in State B
Pro-liberty: State A's government trusts its citizens to carry, let's use that as a template to legalize carry (by license holders) everywhere.
Anti-liberty: State B's government doesn't trust its citizens to carry, let's use that as a template to actively outlaw carry everywhere.

JT

lrb111 wrote:GOA presents Obama's other face here. http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/obama.htm

The concealed carry of firearms is another important issue for gun owners, and yet Obama is not only opposed to citizens carrying guns, he supports using federal laws to override those states which currently allow the practice.

Finally found a transcript of the article (but it isn't the official Chicago Tribune archive), and here's the relevant part:

{Obama] backed federal legislation that would ban citizens from carrying weapons, except for law enforcement. He cited Texas as an example of a place where a law allowing people to carry weapons has "malfunctioned" because hundreds of people granted licenses had prior convictions.

"National legislation will prevent other states' flawed concealed-weapons laws from threatening the safety of Illinois residents," Obama said.

Two questions:
1) How the hell does Texas allowing CCW endanger the safety of people living in Illinois? Does he think people who get CHLs are too stupid to realize that they're only good in that state and whatever state, by law, recognizes it through reciprocity? Absolutely ridiculous.

2) I wonder if he's got hard data on the "hundreds" of people who were granted licenses who had prior convictions. Further, I wonder if he knows what those convictions were for (i.e., if they were convictions that, by law, didn't preclude a CHL, then they shouldn't matter, should they?)? Further, I wonder if he has any hard data about the conviction rates for CHL holders vs. the population at large? Like, I don't know, here or here. Methinks the answer to all of those are "nay, good sir."

JT

Venus Pax wrote:Ron Paul is probably the most pro-gun candidate still in the race. He is rarely mentioned by the media.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com

Yep - I and 69,932 other Texans voted for him. Too bad he ended up with less in his home state (5%) than in some other states (10% in Iowa, where he won a county outright). Fortunately, he also appears to have handily won the primary for his House seat (which, in a rare turn of events, was being strongly threatened by another Republican).

Frost wrote:While technically he is still "in the race" McCain has the nomination now, lets hope the revolution continues and does some good in the republican party.

That's why those of us who are fans (but realistic enough to have realized from the get-go that he wouldn't win the nomination) have been so pleased that he's stayed in the race to the end. Just him being in the mix and saying what he's got to say exerts some pull to the right on the overall debate over the issues. Much like the 2003 governor race in California (when Gray Davis got recalled & the Governator got elected) - state senator Tom McClintock held much more conservative/Republican stances on the issues than Schwarzenegger (also GOP) did, and though the self-fulfilling prophecy of "only Arnold has a chance to win" came true, the fact that McClintock stayed in to the end (rather than "concede" early) kept Arnold from hedging left in that most left-leaning of states.

JT