Replies

I didn't know that Chuck Rosenthal was that big a dildo on gun rights. You mean he was prosecuting CHL holders? Or just people who were carrying weapons in reliance on the law about travellers?

Active protest against Houston DA regarding gun possession (Posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 8:02:08 AM by WillMalven)

I just sent this letter to Houston DA Chuck Rosenthal.
"Sir,
Your stance on the enforcement of the Texas handgun travel law is unacceptable. The intent of the State Legislature and Governor in passing this law revision was and is very clear. Your declaration of intent to arrest and prosecute drivers without CCL’s found to be carrying firearms in their automobiles is just as clearly an effort to disregard the will of the people of Texas and Harris County as reflected in the State Legislature. In doing so you are in direct violation of your sworn duties. All data show that the restriction of gun possession leads to higher, not lower crime. The Bill of Rights guarantees each American Citizen the individual the right to keep and bear arms. Your decision in this case not only thwarts will of the Texas Legislature, but flies in the face of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Your disrespect for the will of the people is both shameful and arrogant. Your Liberal agenda will not succeed.
Enjoy your brief day in the sun, it will not last. You may rest assured that you will not be re-elected to office. We gun owners will actively campaign against your re-election.
Sincerely
Will Malven The Tin Ear
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/malven"

www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3330553

More than 237,000 Texans have concealed handgun licenses. But many other law-abiding adults don't have licenses because they are disqualified by exceptions that have nothing to do with public safety, said Alice Tripp, a lobbyist for the Texas State Rifle Association, an NRA affiliate.
Tripp said people who have defaulted on student loans, who owe the state sales tax or franchise tax payments or are behind in child support payments are ineligible to receive a license.

Rosenthal's response to my e-mail (verbatim) (16 posted on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 9:52:13 AM by WillMalven)

"Well, as it so happens I am in favor of gun ownership. I took an oath to defend and protect the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state, and I intend to do exactly that. There are a number of instances where the law permits the possession of handguns in cars we recognize those laws, but I believe that they should be sorted out in court, and not on the streets. Consider this scenario. Police officers stop a car for a traffic violation. While getting ID from the driver, he sees the butt of a handgun protruding from under the driver's seat. Office asks the driver where he is going. Driver answers that he is going to the liquor store 2 miles from his house. Driver meets the other requisites for "traveling". On the way back from the adult beverage store, driver sees someone who he thinks "disrespected" him some time back and shoots his acquaintance. Victim survives, finds out the police knew about the gun, the settled law is that he was not traveling; officer and his municipality are sued by the victim. Point is that not everyone is as judicious about gun ownership as you and your friends probably are. If the legislature had really meant to allow anyone who wanted to carry a handgun (note, the law does not apply to shoulder weapons) in their car, why do you suppose they did not repeal the laws with respect concealed carry permits? Presumptions are simply that. For instance all persons charged with crimes are presumed to be innocent, but that doesn't mean that they are in fact innocent. By the way, I'm up for re-election in '08."
That last seems a might arrogant to me...

I bring it up as a point to show that he may not have been completely honest when he gruffed that he didn't LIKE having to prosecute homosexuals but that he "had no choice" in the matter and then contributed to the fail defense of the Texas law against same sex sodomy.

I wouldn't call it a "loss" if the defense wanted to see the other team win in the end. I'd say it was a rigged game. And how "convenient" that it happened during Gay Pride Month. The timing of the Supreme Court decision is suspicious.