TexasCHLforum.com

sceneshopninja wrote:Maybe Ron Paul will break off and run as an independent.

Others have posted that RP has stated he will not run as a third party candidate.

txmatt wrote:

thejtrain wrote: Two questions:
1) How the heck does Texas allowing CCW endanger the safety of people living in Illinois? Does he think people who get CHLs are too stupid to realize that they're only good in that state and whatever state, by law, recognizes it through reciprocity? Absolutely ridiculous.

JT

I think that quote was in reference to legislation (supported by if not sponsored by Ron Paul) that would require states to recognize CCW permits issued by other states, as I believe they should under the full faith and credit clause. I don't think it is ridiculous for a person to expect that, in principle, other states should, by our constitution, recognize a CCW permit issued by another state.

Interesting perspective - I wasn't aware of any active or proposed federal legislation in that regard. The part that I could see causing some trouble is in the process to decide, at the federal level, which permits/certificates/licenses issued by states get protected by the full faith & credit clause and which do not (e.g., if the full faith & credit clause applies to CCWs why wouldn't it apply to marriages? Equal protection and all that). Admittedly I have not thought through that whole thing all the way, but that's beside the point of this quote.

What's interesting is the differences between a pro-liberty legislator and an anti-liberty legislator.
Status Quo: CCW issued by State A is not recognized by State B, and license holders from State A MAY NOT carry legally in State B
Pro-liberty: State A's government trusts its citizens to carry, let's use that as a template to legalize carry (by license holders) everywhere.
Anti-liberty: State B's government doesn't trust its citizens to carry, let's use that as a template to actively outlaw carry everywhere.

JT

There are no pro gun candidates. McCain is less antigun than Hillary who is less antigun than Obama. While I really dislike McCain if Obama is his opponent I will vote for McCain. If Hillary is the opponent, I don't know what I will do.

I was going to vote for Hillary in the primary, but in the end couldn't bring myself to vote for any of the candidates, Democratic or Republican.

thejtrain wrote: Interesting perspective - I wasn't aware of any active or proposed federal legislation in that regard. The part that I could see causing some trouble is in the process to decide, at the federal level, which permits/certificates/licenses issued by states get protected by the full faith & credit clause and which do not (e.g., if the full faith & credit clause applies to CCWs why wouldn't it apply to marriages? Equal protection and all that). Admittedly I have not thought through that whole thing all the way, but that's beside the point of this quote.

What's interesting is the differences between a pro-liberty legislator and an anti-liberty legislator.
Status Quo: CCW issued by State A is not recognized by State B, and license holders from State A MAY NOT carry legally in State B
Pro-liberty: State A's government trusts its citizens to carry, let's use that as a template to legalize carry (by license holders) everywhere.
Anti-liberty: State B's government doesn't trust its citizens to carry, let's use that as a template to actively outlaw carry everywhere.

JT

The full faith and credit clause does, in fact, apply to marriages in gereneral and as such there has been quite a controversy regarding whether this must be extended to non traditional marriages that are not recognized by most states. IMHO, and IANAL, the defense of marriage act signed by Bill in 96 is blatantly unconstitutional as it was an attempt at a legislative means to bypass part of the constitution. I have my own ideas how to fix this dilemma, but they are far beyond the scope of this thread.

While I still think the legislation I referenced was the source of the quote, it seems like he does want to ban CCW nationwide: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.gun.html

Barring a viable third part candidate (yeah, right) this is not going to be a good election for the 2A.

txmatt wrote:The full faith and credit clause does, in fact, apply to marriages in gereneral and as such there has been quite a controversy regarding whether this must be extended to non traditional marriages that are not recognized by most states. IMHO, and IANAL, the defense of marriage act signed by Bill in 96 is blatantly unconstitutional as it was an attempt at a legislative means to bypass part of the constitution.

That's what I was getting at too - passing legislation at the federal level saying "license A issued by states deserves full faith & credit" and another piece of federal legislation saying "license B issued by states does not deserve full faith & credit" - that can get very thorny very quickly.

txmatt wrote:While I still think the legislation I referenced was the source of the quote, it seems like he does want to ban CCW nationwide: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.gun.html

Yeah, I'm with ya, his quote may have been inspired by that legislation, but there's no question he's advocating new federal legislation to ban it.

JT

by LarryH on Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:30 pm

sceneshopninja wrote:
Maybe Ron Paul will break off and run as an independent.

Others have posted that RP has stated he will not run as a third party candidate.

Why would you want a 3rd party candidate that would harm McCain's chances and improve the Dems?

Better you should wish for Nader or some other liberal to run 3rd party which could pull votes from the Dems.

I refused to vote for McCain in the primary, but does anyone think that he would not be preferable to Obama/Hillary?

txmatt wrote:The full faith and credit clause does, in fact, apply to marriages in gereneral and as such there has been quite a controversy regarding whether this must be extended to non traditional marriages that are not recognized by most states.

If Hawaii and Mass and Cali and New York don't have to give full faith and credit to a Texas concealed handgun license, then Texas doesn't have to give full faith and credit to their same-sex or polygamy marriage license.

Frost wrote:McCain has the nomination now

Did I just pull a Rip van Winkle and wake up on September 5th? Why didn't someone wake me in time for the convention?

John McCain does not have the nomination. He doesn't even have enough bound delegates to guarantee the nomination in September. (I know, it's a shocker that the major news media have been telling untruths, wot?) No Republican delegates have been pledged yet in Texas, and won't be until the state convention, June 12-14.

Romney endorsed McCain, but he has no control over how his delegates vote. Same for Huckabee's delegates. Every state has their own rules about how delegates vote, but their votes --if they're willing to suffer the penalties for violating the rules-- will be counted as they cast them.

I agree that it is unlikely anyone other than McCain will be the nominee, but there are several possibilities that could sink him before the convention. Death, serious health issues, major scandal... Six months can be a lifetime in politics.

Mike1951 wrote:Why would you want a 3rd party candidate that would harm McCain's chances and improve the Dems?

Because I am not a fan or supporter of McCain or the Republican party

Better you should wish for Nader or some other liberal to run 3rd party which could pull votes from the Dems.

I refused to vote for McCain in the primary, but does anyone think that he would not be preferable to Obama/Hillary?

Me. I think none of the three are acceptable. I only pick the better candidate when there is more than one that is a good choice for me. I will always vote for the candidate that I think is best qualified for the job (meaning he supports my positions) and I will never vote for a candidate that I do not think is qualified (meaning he does not support positions I strongly care about).

As for this November, I am still waiting to see who else runs or if I need to make a write-in vote but I will not vote for McCain, Obama, or Clinton. I will actively do my best to stop Clinton as she is the worst IMO, but that is regardless of whether there is anyone I support or not. If there is no one I can support, I will write in or abstain from that race.

Steve,

Pardon me for disagreeing. But I have always considered a vote for an unelectable candidate based on whatever principles inspired it to be a wasted vote.

I dislike McCain intensely, but I would vote for him to avoid electing Hillary or Obama.

Just remember, we got Clinton the first time because enough voters went for Perot in protest.

My scheme of maneuver is to vote conscience in the primary and vote realpolitik in the general election.

Mike1951 wrote:Steve,

Pardon me for disagreeing. But I have always considered a vote for an unelectable candidate based on whatever principles inspired it to be a wasted vote.

I dislike McCain intensely, but I would vote for him to avoid electing Hillary or Obama.

Just remember, we got Clinton the first time because enough voters went for Perot in protest.

Perot didnt get our votes as a protest, he got them because he was the best candidate. If everyone stopped thinking that a vote outside of the R and D was wasted then the best candidates would suddenly find themselves getting elected, even if they didnt have an R or D behind their name.

Mike1951 wrote:I have always considered a vote for an unelectable candidate based on whatever principles inspired it to be a wasted vote.

I

Since when is a vote for a "unelectable" candidate a "wasted vote"? The only time you waste your vote is when you refuse to cast it. Your vote is your voice. Choose wisely what you want to say.

I'm not convinced that Ross Perot was so unelectable. I think too many people listened to their televisions during that election; the talk about "wasting" one's vote on Perot got rather heavy, and he stil got 20% of the vote! I suspect that number would have been higher if people would have voted the issues rather than listen to the media babble about "wasting" a vote.


Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the three socialist candidates we have before us. Obama is a secular televanglist, Hillary Clinton (although I respect her life accomplishments) wants to create an unproven healthcare system and open the borders to anyone & everyone, and John McCain, a former POW, is willing to stay in Iraq for another "hundred years." I doubt McCain's mental stability.

I may not agree with Ron Paul on everything, but I think it's wise to favor a vote for no action, rather than a vote for something that further taxes, burdens, and/or infringes on the rights of the citizen.

JMHO.

Barack Obama is all about what this country wasn't, and unfortunately, all about what it will be.

I think that by election time, it should be obvious to all but the most ardent supporters whether a candidate stands a chance of winning the election.

If anyone voted for Perot while realizing that he would get no more than 20%, then yes, that is a wasted vote.

This 20% who voted for Perot are 100% responsible for electing Bill and Hillary.

If this 20% couldn't bring themselves to vote for Bush, then they should have stayed home.