What impact could 2008 elections have on TX CHls?

[maximus2161]

Note: This is NOT a political bashing thread of any type.

I am curious (Mods please forgive me if this is in the wrong area) but with the 2008 elections coming up, is there any concern that Texas or any other state, could lose the right to carry? You know how rumors fly but my concern is those who could be elected to office who are against the right to carry. I know a lot of things can happen after a new administration is here I was just curious if there was a real threat to CHL holders. Thanks!


PS: Happy New Year!

[nitrogen]

I don't see any major obstacle to our right to carry, even if someone way left of center like Kucinich gets elected.

The most I see happening is another AWB, which means standard sized mags go away, as well as some of our favorite rifles. The fact that we havn't seen ANY candidate with a chance of winning make any major policy speech against any major 2A policies I think is encouraging.

Joe Biden is probably our worst nightmare as far as a candidate with a major record against 2a rights; his claim for authoring teh AWB nonwithstanding (he didn't.)

Obama's positions on 2a are frightening, but in his short time in public service, I am not aware of any major anti-gun votes. In fact, I believe he voted for a federal ban on confiscation.

Edwards pays some good lip service to the second amendment, despite his youtube appearance calling the ownership of a handgun "A privilege." From what I know, he abstained from most gun-related bills as a senator. He's publically acknowloged the necessity of the 2nd amendment; and he's probably our best hope for a democrat with a chance; he at least seems to see both sides.

Now Clinton? She voted against the federal confiscation law. She's voted for quite a bit of anti-gun bills, including a polymer framed handgun ban, a gunshow ban, a federal regestration bill, etc. She's got the worst gun record of any of the candidates with a chance.
check out her record here:
http://www.sportsmenforclinton.org/inde ... &Itemid=26
It's bad.

[Liberty]

while the presidential races seem to get all the attention it is Congress we have watch most closely. While I agree the right for CHlers to carry isn't immediatly threatened, at least here in Texas. Some issues which are likely to come up again is the assault weapon ban, restrictions on large capacity guns (magazines). Congress has made grumblings about more enforcible school restrictions.

[frankie_the_yankee]

I don't see CHL being in danger as it is primarily a state issue.

If any of the Democrats (except Richardson who has, IMO, no chance) gets in, the Supreme Court is in danger of swinging against the Constitution and in favor of Breyer's philosophy of, "the Constitution means what I think it needs to mean in this day and age, taking international law into full consideration". That would at least prevent any further gains from coming out of the Heller case. In the longer term, it would be a disaster for us and the rest of the country as well.

We could also figure on the next FCC commissioner being a "Fairness Doctrine" proponent, thus tipping the balance there to 2-1 in favor. Look for the NRA and talk radio in general to be muzzled.

Any gun ban that reaches the Oval Office could be expected to be signed.

The only real question is if the Senate Republicans and/or the small group of pro-gun Democrats in the House could block any bad bills that are introduced.

That's why I'm urging people to vote for the major party opponent of the Demcorat, no matter who it is.

[shootthesheet]

We have no right to carry. We have a privilege granted by the state.

That said, if the Dems control 3 branches federally we will see intrusion if not total warfare on not only CCW but all self defense laws in general. It will be done quietly but will happen. They may even use some "National Carry" bill passed so they can come along later and put more and more restrictions on places to carry and such. They can already influence anyone that takes federal funds and may squeeze the states to not allow carry anywhere near schools or such. I am not bashing the few so called "conservative" dems who support CHL. I just know those in charge of the national Democrat party are not going to allow anything that resembles a Second Amendment right to stand without a fight.

The anti-gun groups have been saving up their money and gaining support for the last few years. I believe they have been working directly with their friends like Mrs. Clinton to insure those that would vote Republican to protect their rights aren't stirred up and affect the election. Nothing in D.C. has changed except the tactics of those that are out to take all our rights and destroy any privileges we have gained. This will be clearly shown if the Democrat party controls the federal government. That is especially true if they control the House and Senate. Even if the Republicans manage to take the Executive it seems it will be with someone more liberal than even G.W. Bush is. So, the Congress will pass massive restrictions and the President will allow them, if it is McCain, Rudy, Romney, Clinton, Obama or any other Democrat that is delectable.

In my eyes we have very little chance of preserving our current state of success. Unless we, as a nation, throw the Liberals out of power we will see massive attempts and successes at banning guns and impeding our ability to effectively protect ourselves. Give them eight years with the Congress and Presidency and I can predict gun and ammo registration as well as bans on imports of popular gun makers.

And as a side, no the Republicans didn't do much nationally to help our actual 2A rights. However, they didn't constantly attack us like the Democrats have been doing for 70+ years either. If we do not elect Conservatives to national office and throw out the Leftists we will see CHL affected thru new laws and added requirements on even getting a license in the first place. That is not an attack on the Democrat party. History has proven that they are anti-2A, anti-self defense, anti-CHL, and overall support all power belonging to the Federal Government. That means the state that sells us our privilege to CC is going to not have the power to control its own laws. That means the people of the states no longer have any real influence on their own lives. 2008 is very important for the future of Second Amendment rights as well as the improved laws we enjoy. We cannot allow ourselves to forget who is waiting for a Liberal victory in this coming election. Just because you don't hear the rats in attic for a few days doesn't mean they aren't still there.

[Stupid]

Some of the republican front runners are no better if not worse. Giuliani to be one of them, a gun grabber in disguise.

[lawrnk]

I know it is cliche, but why oh why does the Repulic of Texas not just leave the union?

[kauboy]

I know it is cliche, but why oh why does the Repulic of Texas not just leave the union?

Well, for one, it's against federal law.
Of course that wouldn't matter much if you were leaving, so that doesn't make much sense to me either. Maybe they would impose a trade tax on us.
Anyways, I also don't see a problem with Texas CHL regardless of who wins in '08.
I do see the possibility of the of the AWB coming back, but we all know how to get around that... just buy up all the guns before it passes. Thank you "grandfather clause"!!!
I'm not worried. I've got my credit card at a zero balance in shear anticipation of a Democrat win.

[Mike1951]

Well, for one, it's against federal law.

Don't think so!

You see, 49 states joined the union by conventional means.

Texas joined by treaty.

That sane treaty had some stipulations like retaining title to all of its public lands, the right to subdivide itself into five states, and (I'm pretty sure) the right to leave.

[KC5AV]

Sadly, I can't see the other 49 just standing idly by and watching us go.

[Mike1951]

Sadly, while trying to find the documentation for the secession part, I was unable to.

Also, came across info that Texas didn't join by treaty.

The treaty in 1844 was not passed by the Senate, but rather Texas was annexed the following year.

I've heard these 'facts' all of my life. Has it always been a legend or can someone with more skill find the proof?

[Frost]

I don't see anything stopping this:



Barring a massive terrorist attack and Patriot Act 2.0.

[srothstein]

I think the real reason the Republic of Texas does not secede is because there was a war the last time we tried. When we are ready for another war, we might try again, but I do not think we,a s a state, are ready for that war yet.

As to some of the other questions, there was a treaty signed in 1844 to bring Texas into the union, but the Senate did not ratify it so it became null and void. In 1845, there was a resolution of annexation passed that authorized the President to negotiate a treaty but provided for the annexation if there was no treaty successfully negotiated. The resolution contains almost the exact same terms as the treaty did.

The resolution and the treaty did provide for Texas to divide into 5 separate states. There is some legal question as to whether or not Texas took advantage of this provision or still can. After all, the territory of the Republic of Texas extended up into what is now Wyoming, so parts of Wyoming, Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico were part of the Republic of Texas. If that did not use the clause up, then there is the question of it being valid after the initial admission.

And for those who trust SCOTUS, they ruled in Texas v. White that secession was not Constitutional, since the Constitution looked to an indestructible Union, composed of Indestructible states. It said that Texas had been a state throughout the war. Which leaves in doubt the status of West Virginia as a state (part of Virginia which should also have been indestructible) and the passing of the 14th and 15th Amendments (ratified under duress by the rebel states, means that they were not properly ratified by 3/4 of the Union at the time). Of course, these are all academic questions for a debate but have no meaning in real life. I am confident SCOTUS would simply rule that the accepted condition is a legal fact.