• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Cruz and open carry

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I have a question for Texans. Cruz is being lauded as a great 2A supporter, but I have found no evidence of him supporting unlicensed carry. Could some OCT members help me out? Did he openly support unlicensed open carry in Texas?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I have a question for Texans. Cruz is being lauded as a great 2A supporter, but I have found no evidence of him supporting unlicensed carry. Could some OCT members help me out? Did he openly support unlicensed open carry in Texas?
Do you really think that is a fair question? After all he has a lot on his mind.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Was Cruz ever in a position to affect laws within the state of Texas?
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
At the least by statement of position - that alone could have accomplished a great deal.

That is what I am trying to find out. He worked on Heller, and we know that was concealed carry all the way, even though the courts were open to unlicensed open carry.

On political gun sites we are being told that Cruz is the Holy Grail, I am not buying it just yet. If anybody knows OCT from Texas does.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
On political gun sites we are being told that Cruz is the Holy Grail, I am not buying it just yet. If anybody knows OCT from Texas does.

First of all, great question WW... Personally I can't say I've ever heard that level of detail about Cruz's position on gun rights. I would have to do some digging to try and find out...

Let me see what I can find real quick...

... Ok I'm back. I didn't find any quotes of Cruz speaking on open or unlicensed carry specifically. The only thing I found of interest was on a site-that-shall-not-be-named and it was a link to a brief that Ted Cruz supposedly took a lead role in writing. It's a brief for the Heller case I believe. Apparently it has some questionable content, but I'll let someone else read it and decide.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/...7_290_RespondentAmCu31States.authcheckdam.pdf

Ted Cruz himself has said, basically, every GOP candidate is going to claim to be pro-2a, as they'd be stupid not to, but we all know some are more so than others... He then goes on to claim that he's "really" pro-2a but I'd like to see some cold, hard facts, and by that I mean more than one or two voting records... I want to see him on-the-record state his beliefs include that a person should be able to own and carry a handgun, normally without having to make it visible or concealed, without obtaining any form of permission or paying any form of tax first. Otherwise, he's not "really" pro-2a.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
And we all know that Heller was all about having guns in the home, not carry. So IMO he really has no record on the real meaning of the 2A. Judge Nap does, who it is rumored to be Trump's choice to replace Scalia. He is a true supporter of the 2A for it's original intention.

Considering Texas is his home state, and he says he supports the 2A he should have come out in support of unlicensed open carry. I can find nothing on the internet that supports this.
 
Last edited:

qednick

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
499
Location
Bandera, TX
And we all know that Heller was all about having guns in the home, not carry. So IMO he really has no record on the real meaning of the 2A. Judge Nap does, who it is rumored to be Trump's choice to replace Scalia. He is a true supporter of the 2A for it's original intention.

Considering Texas is his home state, and he says he supports the 2A he should have come out in support of unlicensed open carry. I can find nothing on the internet that supports this.

I love Judge Nap!!
 

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
What a politician says and what a politician does generally have no connection unless reelection or fundraising are in sight.

I'm trying to stay away for expressing my views on candidates this silly season. But I don't think Cruz or any of the current candidates can be trusted... Like the probation/parole hearing for H.I. McDonough in Raising Arizona: don't tell us what we want to hear...We just want to hear the truth


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Ted Cruz is a co-sponsor of S.498, the nationwide reciprocity act. I know some here think anything to do with permits is akin to being in bed with HCI. But I believe permits have been a valuable stepping stone. I believe congress should act under their 14th amendment power to protect our 2nd amendment RKBA nationwide. I believe that should be permit-free carry. But I will happily accept nationwide recognition of my permit as an incremental improvement.

Put another way, every anti-gun organization of which I'm aware, hates and opposes this bill and it sponsors and co-sponsors. Our opponents are not stupid. If they strongly oppose something, we ought to consider on whether it is really a bad bill, or merely not the bill we hope to see passed ultimately.

He is a sponsor of S.2006 that imposes penalties on IRS personnel who target individuals or groups based on political ideology. Not directly on target for RKBA, but an important safeguard for pro-RKBA organizations that have feared coming under attack after conservative organizations have been targeted by the present administration.

He is a co-sponsor of S.2298 which sets clear mens rea (state of mind) requirements for conviction of crimes. Again, not directly affecting RKBA, but an important safeguard of liberty and starts to establish a standard on which we should build. Imagine the number of crimes that would effectively disappear if we could require proof of willful intent to violate (some very obscure) law in most cases, rather than the blanket "ignorance is no excuse".

Is a co-sponsor of S-Rest 287 that condemns the murders on the Umpqua Community College campus in Oregon, without attacking RKBA or lawful ownership of firearms.

Is a sponsor of S.2416, Free Speech for All Act. This is not an RKBA bill. It requires that individual citizens enjoy all the political freedom of speech afforded to major media corporations, and that any speech regulations found unconstitutional when applied against media are also void against citizens. Pro-RKBA organizations including the NRA and GOA have feared that limits on political speech could limit their ability to communicate effectively with their membership, or to advertise to the general public regarding candidates' records. Even independent websites such as this forum have faced some risk of being subjected to political speech limits. Imagine if our host were legally obliged to prevent any discussion of candidates' records within 6 months of an election? Or if discussions could be deemed to be political endorsements or contributions subject to federal campaign finance limits.



I know the OP is about Cruz's specific positions, actions, or statements on OC and permit-free carry. It is a fair question.

But we should also be politically savvy enough to recognize that just as we discuss many tangential issues with great interest because of their relationship to our RKBA and other freedoms generally, so too there are many legislative and political fronts in the battle to protect, restore, and advance those rights. And in some cases, seemingly tangential efforts may be as or more important in the long run than efforts that are directly on point.

At this point, we don't get to pick a perfect candidate for POTUS. We are going to get to choose between Hillary (or maybe Bernie, but probably Hillary) on the Democrat side, and maybe Trump, Cruz, or Rubio on the GOP side. No other person has any appreciable chance of being the next president of the USA. We can argue about what odds any of these 5 have. And that would probably just depress us as we realize how high a risk we face of having either Hillary or Bernie as the next president. But the next president of the USA is going to be named Hillary, Bernie, Trump, Cruz, or Rubio. That person will almost surely appoint at least one key member to the SCOTUS, and perhaps as many as 3 or 4 members to that court.

Among the 5 names who have any chance of winning, who is the best (or least bad if it comes to that) on RKBA, and then on other questions of individual liberty, the economy, and national security? For those who haven't yet voted in a party primary/caucus, the question of which candidate is most supportable is very important since there is some chance, I think, to get a good nominee on the GOP side, rather than getting to November and facing the choice between two bad candidates.

Charles
 

nobama

New member
Joined
Mar 19, 2009
Messages
756
Location
, ,
Ted Cruz is a co-sponsor of S.498, the nationwide reciprocity act. I know some here think anything to do with permits is akin to being in bed with HCI. But I believe permits have been a valuable stepping stone. I believe congress should act under their 14th amendment power to protect our 2nd amendment RKBA nationwide. I believe that should be permit-free carry. But I will happily accept nationwide recognition of my permit as an incremental improvement.

Put another way, every anti-gun organization of which I'm aware, hates and opposes this bill and it sponsors and co-sponsors. Our opponents are not stupid. If they strongly oppose something, we ought to consider on whether it is really a bad bill, or merely not the bill we hope to see passed ultimately.

He is a sponsor of S.2006 that imposes penalties on IRS personnel who target individuals or groups based on political ideology. Not directly on target for RKBA, but an important safeguard for pro-RKBA organizations that have feared coming under attack after conservative organizations have been targeted by the present administration.

He is a co-sponsor of S.2298 which sets clear mens rea (state of mind) requirements for conviction of crimes. Again, not directly affecting RKBA, but an important safeguard of liberty and starts to establish a standard on which we should build. Imagine the number of crimes that would effectively disappear if we could require proof of willful intent to violate (some very obscure) law in most cases, rather than the blanket "ignorance is no excuse".

Is a co-sponsor of S-Rest 287 that condemns the murders on the Umpqua Community College campus in Oregon, without attacking RKBA or lawful ownership of firearms.

Is a sponsor of S.2416, Free Speech for All Act. This is not an RKBA bill. It requires that individual citizens enjoy all the political freedom of speech afforded to major media corporations, and that any speech regulations found unconstitutional when applied against media are also void against citizens. Pro-RKBA organizations including the NRA and GOA have feared that limits on political speech could limit their ability to communicate effectively with their membership, or to advertise to the general public regarding candidates' records. Even independent websites such as this forum have faced some risk of being subjected to political speech limits. Imagine if our host were legally obliged to prevent any discussion of candidates' records within 6 months of an election? Or if discussions could be deemed to be political endorsements or contributions subject to federal campaign finance limits.



I know the OP is about Cruz's specific positions, actions, or statements on OC and permit-free carry. It is a fair question.

But we should also be politically savvy enough to recognize that just as we discuss many tangential issues with great interest because of their relationship to our RKBA and other freedoms generally, so too there are many legislative and political fronts in the battle to protect, restore, and advance those rights. And in some cases, seemingly tangential efforts may be as or more important in the long run than efforts that are directly on point.

At this point, we don't get to pick a perfect candidate for POTUS. We are going to get to choose between Hillary (or maybe Bernie, but probably Hillary) on the Democrat side, and maybe Trump, Cruz, or Rubio on the GOP side. No other person has any appreciable chance of being the next president of the USA. We can argue about what odds any of these 5 have. And that would probably just depress us as we realize how high a risk we face of having either Hillary or Bernie as the next president. But the next president of the USA is going to be named Hillary, Bernie, Trump, Cruz, or Rubio. That person will almost surely appoint at least one key member to the SCOTUS, and perhaps as many as 3 or 4 members to that court.

Among the 5 names who have any chance of winning, who is the best (or least bad if it comes to that) on RKBA, and then on other questions of individual liberty, the economy, and national security? For those who haven't yet voted in a party primary/caucus, the question of which candidate is most supportable is very important since there is some chance, I think, to get a good nominee on the GOP side, rather than getting to November and facing the choice between two bad candidates.

Charles
Well said! I am on the Cruz band-wagon because I have seen videos of him cutting to shreds the likes of Dian Frankenstien and the likes. He is a Constitutionalist. When was the last time you ever heard Trump mention the Constitution? as far as I know, never. You have to do things incrementally to accomplish the real outcome. I know this stinks, but its a fact. That's how the left has gotten soooo much that they want. If they came out and said, " we will come door to door to confiscate any of your weapons" How far will that go? no, they are patient, and never let up. I believe Cruz when he says he is the best champion for the 2A. After all, he has pretty much done everything he has said he would do, which I cant say for anyone here in NC. How about Obama care? He stood against it, but our spineless elected officials turned jelly-spine and didn't lift a finger to stand with him. Cruz 2016.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Well said! I am on the Cruz band-wagon because I have seen videos of him cutting to shreds the likes of Dian Frankenstien and the likes. He is a Constitutionalist. .... Cruz 2016.

Among the 3 republicans who have any chance of getting the nomination, I believe Cruz is the best option. I believe he is far, far and away better than either Democrat.

I believe he is worthy of support not merely as the least of all available evils, but as the best candidate in the race, and as a truly good option. Not perfect because no candidate is. Maybe not even great for those of a libertarian bent or liberal bent. But I believe truly good for anyone who supports RKBA and the ideas of a constitutional government.

Charles
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
From what I have seen Cruz is no better than the NRA, and they got us into this mess.

With that said I am going to vote for whoever is running against Hillary, or Bernie. But I am done with the republican party, and the drones who support what they have done to us.

I am damned tired of compromise, and if I hold my nose I want somebody who is not currently part of rotting system. Burn the republican party down, and start over.
 

qednick

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
499
Location
Bandera, TX
They're really just both sides of the same coin (D or R). Whoever gets in will likely continue the decline of the country that has been going on for the last several decades. Sure, I would rather have Cruz than Hillary any day but I think too much focus is put on the POTUS--who doesn't have as much power as what a lot of people think they do. I mean, they're not a dictator. The real rot is in the house, senate, and everywhere else. Local, county and state candidates are important too--most people seem to neglect this. Sometimes it's better to work from the inside out instead of just focusing on the outer shell.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Good point. If Cruz (or any of them) is as Constitutional as they claim, they won't accomplish much at all, like a President shouldn't.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Good point. If Cruz (or any of them) is as Constitutional as they claim, they won't accomplish much at all, like a President shouldn't.

This is one of our biggest challenges. Those who ignore the constitution can do a lot more damage in a short time than someone who respects the constitution might be able to correct if he limits himself to traditional constitutional means.

What we need is those on our side who recognize that reversing the unconstitutional conduct of predecessors maybe doesn't have to be limited to the proper constitutional channels.

As a simple and safe example, a good president shouldn't feel compelled to push a bill through congress to undo unconstitutional Executive Orders of a predecessor. He should simply reverse those orders himself.

Liberals openly impose pro-abortion litmus tests on judicial nominees while conservatives too often allow candidates to get away with claiming they really shouldn't speak to anything that might come before the courts. I say it is perfectly acceptable to impose a litmus test of respecting the constitution including separation of powers on all nominees. Where the record isn't clear, some hard questions ought to be asked. While this might look very similar to what the left does with abortion, it is fundamentally different. Devotion to an extra-constitutional social policy is vastly different that proper regard for the black letter language of the constitution itself. So expecting judicial nominees to express complete support for the 1st and 2nd amendments along with the rest of the bill of rights including its limits on search and seizure, is not at all like expecting them to support a social policy on elective abortion, or affirmative action, neither of which are in the constitution itself.

In a different tact, is the president actually required to spend the money congress appropriates? Does the president have to send money to the Department of Education? Or can he order his appointed Chairman of that Department to cut staff by about 98% and just not spend the money? That would be tremendous action on the part of the president. Is it permissible?

Could a president order his DoJ to investigate local police and courts for violation of constitutional rights for enforcing laws repugnant to the 2nd amendment?

Charles
 
Top