Disbarr him for judicial tyranny. He knows that the law says it is legal; what he's doing is frightening people into not exercising their rights, anyway.
Posted on 02/05/2006 9:50:48 AM PST by SwinneySwitch
The new law states that a person is "presumed to be traveling" if he/she is ...
1. In a private motor vehicle.
2. Not engaged in criminal activity.
3. Not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm.
4. Not a member of a "criminal street gang."
5. Not carrying a handgun in plain view.
Here in Hosuton they are still prosecuting for this.
Additionally there has been an unwillingness to pursue violent criminals even before the increase in violent crime we got from the New Orleans evacuatees (who are still here, by the way).
The problem has gotten so bad that the city has partnered with the Guardian Angels vigilante group to establish a chapter here. Yet citizens still are prosecuted for defending themselves.
Rats run this city, can you tell?
Chuck Rosenthal is also the one who poorly defended the state's Same Sex Sodomy law.
I stopped voting for Chuck (R) years ago.
Get Down!
Now, let's get the same thing done regarding the Fed EPA and various state agencies regarding aftermarket auto parts.
By the way, the last time I drove through Texas, I had two guns in the car (a 10mm 1911 and a Mossberg 590) and I didn't get in trouble. I didn't get a roadside interview with a deputy, but no probs.
Checking the treetops for bacon ...
"The lawmakers wanted drivers to be able to have a stowed gun driving to the bank or the grocery store."
My suspicion is that this guy thinks he will undermine support for the law by encouraging this kind of interpretation. He says that he was closely involved in the drafting of the bill, but he does not say which side he was on.
On the other hand, if the ACLU were to change its stripes and endorse gun rights, that would be the kiss of death for the ACLU. It's liberal constituency would dump it like a sack of potatoes.
As far as I can see, Mr. Henson is not following by the national playbook. I don't think that Ms. Strossen will be voicing loud approval of his actions.
bookmark.
The ACLU gets on the right side of an issue every once in a great while to have something to refer to when accused of trying to destroy America. These are the same people who fought to have child pornography legalized.
Ping.
In the land of horse dung and gunsmoke, these kinds of advertisements go a long way during the aCLU's fundraising drives. I'll bet it's pretty difficult for the aCLU to get donations in Texas.
Disbarr him for judicial tyranny. He knows that the law says it is legal; what he's doing is frightening people into not exercising their rights, anyway.
Think that sounds good?
Any person who, acting as prosecutor for the state of Texas, seeks to prosecute someone who was carrying a firearm in the manner specified in [whatever section House Bill 823 ends up in] without being able to show probable cause for believing at least one of the conditions was not met, shall be subject to ten years' imprisonment, a fine of $100,000, or both.
Hope this law covers Ronnie Earle.
I still think that open carry [not waiving a gun around or pointing it in a threatening manner] should be the least objectionable form of carry to those who are for whatever reason are afraid of the lawful possession of and use of firearms.
Note: This is the Texas ACLU, not the national organization, whose position is that the second amendment protect the power of the states to maintain a militia. The Texas branch has other notions. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.