TexasCHLforum.com

nitrogen wrote:See, you're trying to argue this with logic. That's just not fair.
It's government. State government, at that. Logic does not always apply.

Maybe i'm still paranoid from living in California for so long.

Well, there have been a lot of Californians moving here in recent years. Maybe your paranoia isn't all that misplaced.

longtooth wrote:Yes to the need right now for a LAW that states it. It infuriates me also that the the laws (powers to regulate & confiscate) have trumped the constitution. If we continue to require LAWS that make it against the law to infringe on constitutional rights then the Constitution is relegated to 2nd place. If laws are required to shore up a sagging Constitution, then laws can surely tear it down. Of Coarse for a lot of antis the 2A at least has been much farther down the list than 2nd place for a long time.

You're absolutely right, and the more laws we pass that say that we will follow the constitution on this issue, the more precedent those who don't follow it have to say, "Well, Texas has this law requiring them to obey the Bill of Rights, but we don't have such a law, so we are immune."

txinvestigator wrote:Other than getting more clarification on definitions, I am not much of a supporter of more legislation; however, I am with you on this issue.

That said (the article was posted here but I can't find it) a high DPS official commented that Texans had a right to and were expected to protect themselves during emergencies.

He added that firearms would only be taken from people using them illegally.

Also, I don't think Texans are gonna be so dependent on the government to take care of ourselves as Urbanite New Orleanians are.

I've been through my share of devastating hurricanes in Louisiana, and nothing like this took place until a hurricane finally hit the cesspool. And those of us who grew up in other parts of Louisiana always knew that this sort of thing would happen if the big one ever hit the Big Easy.

The only things that surprised me were that they were evacuated all over the country and put up in nice hotels (which aren't so nice anymore), and that they were given debit cards to do with as they please. All on the working man's dime.

I see a lot of the new anti-confiscation laws as just more "feel good" laws to get more votes from primarily pro-gun constituents. You won't see such laws strongly supported by politicians in primarily anti-gun states.

I'm with txinvestigator in that I don't like more legislation being added to an already overstuffed legal code. However, it would seem to do no real harm to have such a prohibition against seizure and confiscations on the books.