Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Tieing Consttutitonal carry and illegal immigration together in Texas

  1. #1
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524

    Tieing Consttutitonal carry and illegal immigration together in Texas

    The rest at:

    http://www.texasguntalk.com/forums/p...gislature.html

    Snip:
    Many states agree with the new law in Arizona because many states suffer the same problem.
    Texas House Member Debbie Riddle has plans to introduce a bill similar to SB1070 to reform Illegal Immigration in Texas. Although I support the SB1070 bill for Arizona, I CAN NOT SUPPORT A SIMILAR BILL FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS. Texas and Arizona are completely different. I believe Texas has a greater volume of Illegalís in the state. Texas can not deal with the outcome resulting from this bill being introduced , much less dealing with the outcome from it getting signed into law!
    Arizona has something Texas does not! Arizona has given its citizens Constitutional Gun Rights. Here in Texas, citizens are required to apply for a license to conceal carry a handgun for self defense. Even though Texans have done nothing wrong, the state law requires them to be licensed if a citizens chooses to carry a handgun for self defense. This is ridiculous !

  2. #2
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Ohhhhh, I like this approach. I might be able to quite a few people whom would not ordinarily be concerned with the OC/Constitutional Carry movements to shoot off letters to their representatives using it.

    Well, I shall try anyway!

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    I haven't been to TGT in a while, but that was a good post. Unfortunately the Texas Constitution says the Legislature "may regulate the wearing of arms" in order to prevent crime. I'm by no means a state constitutional scholar, but this may be the first "reasonable restriction" placed in a state constitution, if not the only example of a state constitution that does not either lay the right out as absolute, or ignores it altogether as the CA one does IIRC.

    So is forcing people to go through a background check, get training, and maintain proficiency and good character (or at least avoid a criminal record) unreasonable? Is it constitutional under federal law? It certainly seems to be under state law and we all know that the 5 most lucid SCOTUS Judges would likely agree. I personally prefer to be governed as locally as possible, but in this case it appears to the naked eye that the federal constitution is more "liberal" (you know what I mean, and what a "liberal" used to be), than the state constitution.

    So lets say we managed to change our state constitution, Texas laws reflect AZ, VT or AK, and there were not 4 lunatics in the SCOTUS so unrestricted gun rights became the law of the land.

    Suddenly the place becomes extremely inhospitable to all sorts nefarious critters, mujado or otherwise. How would that deter people who live in poverty most Americans cannot comprehend, who have no nefarious goals besides crossing a border to pick vegetables or clean toilets for intolerably low wages?

    Please don't confuse this with any sort of sympathy for illegals. I would rather have people in the US scrub toilets and pick produce for low wages, or starve to death. Instead we have a welfare system which sustains people who have no skills or motivation to achieve any, and would either starve to death or do the $hit work illegals tend to do. My experience has shown me that a lot of illegals are doing increasingly higher level jobs for decent wages. This could be because our own damn kids think they're above being electricians, nurses aids, or customer service reps.

    The immigrant issue is far more complex than gun rights. Gun rights are pretty plain, self defense was laid out in the Magna Carta 500+ years ago (I think). Now I can't see a more effective solution than shooting everyone who crosses the border illegally, like they do in other countries, but most people in our society would find that a bit extreme.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  4. #4
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    You missed the point entirely.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack House View Post
    You missed the point entirely.
    Could you explain it to me? I guess I just went off on a rant of my own since I have a hard time making a comparison between the fed's obligation to to defend our borders (which it fails to do) and it's encroachment on freedom.
    Last edited by PrayingForWar; 09-12-2010 at 03:48 AM.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  6. #6
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661

  7. #7
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    The point is that we need Constitutional Carry in Texas before they pass a SB1070 type law. That way when the violence starts as it did in AZ, we will be able to protect ourselves in a much more proficient manner.

  8. #8
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post

    Gun rights are pretty plain, self defense was laid out in the Magna Carta 500+ years ago (I think). Now I can't see a more effective solution than shooting everyone who crosses the border illegally, like they do in other countries, but most people in our society would find that a bit extreme.
    Actually older than that. About 1215 AD. That makes it nearly 800 years.
    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    The point is that we need Constitutional Carry in Texas before they pass a SB1070 type law. That way when the violence starts as it did in AZ, we will be able to protect ourselves in a much more proficient manner.
    I get what you're saying, and I want unrestricted carry, and SB1070 in TX. I just don't agree that UC is a a prerequisite to SB1070. Texans are armed to the teeth already. As the law stands you can keep a gun in your car legally, it won't be long before unlicensed carry follows. We've incrementally reversed decades of incremental restrictions. As long as we continue to advance our agenda and keep the fascist left on on their indefensible position we'll continue to do so. If we can get 1070 passed now, there's no real reason not to support it IMO.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  10. #10
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by PrayingForWar View Post
    I get what you're saying, and I want unrestricted carry, and SB1070 in TX. I just don't agree that UC is a a prerequisite to SB1070. Texans are armed to the teeth already. As the law stands you can keep a gun in your car legally, it won't be long before unlicensed carry follows. We've incrementally reversed decades of incremental restrictions. As long as we continue to advance our agenda and keep the fascist left on on their indefensible position we'll continue to do so. If we can get 1070 passed now, there's no real reason not to support it IMO.
    Trust me when I say that if we can get a SB1070 type law passed, I will support it. Even without UC.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member PrayingForWar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    The Real World.
    Posts
    1,705
    Quote Originally Posted by rodbender View Post
    Trust me when I say that if we can get a SB1070 type law passed, I will support it. Even without UC.
    10-4, I didn't mean to sound like I implied the contrary. I should have elaborated that the OP I read on TGT stated the poster rejected 1070 because of the lack of unrestricted carry. I found this position to be less than well thought out. Not that he was wrong, just that I see it differently.
    If you ladies leave my island, if you survive recruit training. You will become a minister of death, PRAYING FOR WAR...

  12. #12
    Regular Member TOF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Happy Jack, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    443
    Neither 1070 or Constitutional Carry have caused blood to run in the streets or fill the gutters of Arizona Roadways. If the La Raza and Re Conquista crowds push much harder it could happen but it hasn't yet. That is certainly a possibility however when a Country is invaded as ours has been.
    If you woke up breathing, congratulations! You get another chance.

Posting Permissions

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