TexasCHLforum.com

Beiruty wrote:His CHL license and ability to Purchase Firearms is suspended at this time.
http://www.guns.com/2014/08/21/indicted ... ry-permit/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They are just quoting the law and saying 'he lost his right', not stating it has actually been suspended by DPS.

That's good.. If you're a coyote.

Heard this on radio today and it was specifically mentioned the Perry couldn't buy any ammo for his guns. My question is, "how is the ban on buying ammo enforcable?" Maybe a little tougher for Rick Perry since he is so well known, but in most cases the clerk selling ammo wouldn't have a clue if the person was under indictment.

treeman wrote:Heard this on radio today and it was specifically mentioned the Perry couldn't buy any ammo for his guns. My question is, "how is the ban on buying ammo enforcable?" Maybe a little tougher for Rick Perry since he is so well known, but in most cases the clerk selling ammo wouldn't have a clue if the person was under indictment.

That is the federal law

18 USC 922(n)
“It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.”

So, if they follow the news and know Perry is under indictment then it is illegal to sell or give him a gun or ammo.

treeman wrote:Heard this on radio today and it was specifically mentioned the Perry couldn't buy any ammo for his guns. My question is, "how is the ban on buying ammo enforcable?" Maybe a little tougher for Rick Perry since he is so well known, but in most cases the clerk selling ammo wouldn't have a clue if the person was under indictment.

One good reason to maintain an ample supply of both firearms and ammunition.

Note that a person under indictment for a crime where the penalty could exceed one year cannot purchase guns or ammunition. But if they already own guns and ammunition, it is not illegal for them to possess these items.

Ok, all this coyote talk begs the question.... How many think that Perry actually shot a coyote with a .380 LCP?

myntalfloss wrote:Ok, all this coyote talk begs the question.... How many think that Perry actually shot a coyote with a .380 LCP?

I don't have any reason to disbelieve he did. I don't recall the story though.

myntalfloss wrote:Ok, all this coyote talk begs the question.... How many think that Perry actually shot a coyote with a .380 LCP?

Do you have reason to believe he didn't?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04 ... tened-dog/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ryanj wrote:You know, I never considered this. Kinda sucks for him that he loses his right to carry while this nonsense is going on.

It would suck even more for someone without "free" bodyguards who had their CHL suspended after shooting a criminal (guilty until proven innocent) and is left vulnerable to attack by Felon X and other thugs.

victory wrote:

ryanj wrote:You know, I never considered this. Kinda sucks for him that he loses his right to carry while this nonsense is going on.

It would suck even more for someone without "free" bodyguards who had their CHL suspended after shooting a criminal (guilty until proven innocent) and is left vulnerable to attack by Felon X and other thugs.

It would only be suspended if they were charged with a crime. If it was a good shoot, then they would not be suspended.

mojo84 wrote:

myntalfloss wrote:Ok, all this coyote talk begs the question.... How many think that Perry actually shot a coyote with a .380 LCP?

Do you have reason to believe he didn't?

Well, as it is, we simply have Perry's word that this happened. We really have no proof for or against. But as it's said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And that which is asserted w/o evidence may be similarly dismissed." Given Perry's penchant for self-promotion, I think had this really happened, he'd have had pictures out the wazoo of him posing with the carcass and his defensless dog and would have probably had the pelt made into a coonskin-style hat to wear at rallys.

That said, here's the troubling parts to me.

It was a single, well-placed round from a LCP. (That in itself is almost an oxymoron.)
There were no witnesses. (Wouldn't his bodyguards have come forward, praising Dead-eye Rick for his skill?)
There was no coyote carcass brought forward.
He's a politician.
It's a self-serving statement.
He was in the midst of a gubernatorial race with Mark White, and this story plays into the rugged, macho Texas image that he likes to cultivate.
He parsed the story by saying that the 'coyote dropped' and 'it felt no pain', which leaves room for plausible deniability.
And, for the last 40 years, I've ascribed to the theory that you can tell when a politician is lying because his lips are moving. I haven't been disappointed yet.
As easy as this would have been to put to bed, the fact that it wasn't speaks volumes.

But, it could have happened. For some folks, that he said he did is proof enough.

myntalfloss wrote:<SNIP>
That said, here's the troubling parts to me.

It was a single, well-placed round from a LCP. (That in itself is almost an oxymoron.)

It did have an integrated laser IIRC.

myntalfloss wrote:There were no witnesses. (Wouldn't his bodyguards have come forward, praising Dead-eye Rick for his skill?)
There was no coyote carcass brought forward.

Again, IIRC, he was jogging. I don't know if the bodyguards attend him while jogging or not but we are not talking president/secret service relationship. So that leaves the possiibility at least that they weren't there (at least within eyeshot) to see it. If he was jogging, why would you retrieve and carry back a 50# varmint, especially if it might have been rabid.

myntalfloss wrote:
He's a politician.
It's a self-serving statement.
He was in the midst of a gubernatorial race with Mark White, and this story plays into the rugged, macho Texas image that he likes to cultivate.
He parsed the story by saying that the 'coyote dropped' and 'it felt no pain', which leaves room for plausible deniability.
And, for the last 40 years, I've ascribed to the theory that you can tell when a politician is lying because his lips are moving. I haven't been disappointed yet.
<SNIP>

No argument there.

myntalfloss wrote:But, it could have happened. For some folks, that he said he did is proof enough.

Not necessarily "proof enough" but it is plausible and by all accounts Perry is a very good shot. I don't know whether it happened or not but I don't find it an "extraordinary claim" requiring extraordinary evidence, convenient as it may have been.

myntalfloss wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

myntalfloss wrote:Ok, all this coyote talk begs the question.... How many think that Perry actually shot a coyote with a .380 LCP?

Do you have reason to believe he didn't?

Well, as it is, we simply have Perry's word that this happened. We really have no proof for or against. But as it's said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And that which is asserted w/o evidence may be similarly dismissed." Given Perry's penchant for self-promotion, I think had this really happened, he'd have had pictures out the wazoo of him posing with the carcass and his defensless dog and would have probably had the pelt made into a coonskin-style hat to wear at rallys.

That said, here's the troubling parts to me.

It was a single, well-placed round from a LCP. (That in itself is almost an oxymoron.)
There were no witnesses. (Wouldn't his bodyguards have come forward, praising Dead-eye Rick for his skill?)
There was no coyote carcass brought forward.
He's a politician.
It's a self-serving statement.
He was in the midst of a gubernatorial race with Mark White, and this story plays into the rugged, macho Texas image that he likes to cultivate.
He parsed the story by saying that the 'coyote dropped' and 'it felt no pain', which leaves room for plausible deniability.
And, for the last 40 years, I've ascribed to the theory that you can tell when a politician is lying because his lips are moving. I haven't been disappointed yet.
As easy as this would have been to put to bed, the fact that it wasn't speaks volumes.

But, it could have happened. For some folks, that he said he did is proof enough.

In other words, you have no reason or evidence other than you don't like or trust Perry.

It did have an integrated laser IIRC.

I have one on my LCR and it's invisible beyond 7 yards in the daylight.

Again, IIRC, he was jogging. I don't know if the bodyguards attend him while jogging or not but we are not talking president/secret service relationship. So that leaves the possiibility at least that they weren't there (at least within eyeshot) to see it. If he was jogging, why would you retrieve and carry back a 50# varmint, especially if it might have been rabid.

How much would a cellphone pix weigh? Have you ever seen a politician avoid a favorable photo op?

Not necessarily "proof enough" but it is plausible and by all accounts Perry is a very good shot. I don't know whether it happened or not but I don't find it an "extraordinary claim" requiring extraordinary evidence, convenient as it may have been.[/quote]

Well, Perry felt it was extraordinary enough to mention (repeatedly) and Ruger felt it warranted a special issue gun, so we can probably agree it wasn't mundane and just another day in the life of a politician.

Again, could've happened. I wasn't there. Just responding to the question why I don't believe it.