Think all liberals are against gun rights?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bellevance

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
186
Location
Vermont
Think again. A lot of us progressives support the Second Amendment without equivocation.

From today's "New York Times":

Keith Patton was driving home one night in February when police officers pulled over his red Ford Explorer for a traffic stop.

His license and insurance form were in his gym bag on the floor near the back seat. Under the bag was a .357 Magnum.

Mr. Patton, 51, an oil-field geologist, software tester and martial arts instructor from suburban Katy, told the police about the gun, which he said he had bought hours before from a co-worker for target shooting. Moments later, he was handcuffed and on his way to jail, facing a charge of unlicensed carrying of a weapon.

The arrest might have been routine elsewhere, but this is Texas, where a code rooted in the days of the highwayman recognizes the right of travelers to be armed, and the Legislature has repeatedly endorsed that principle.

Defiant police officers and prosecutors, however, saying they retain law enforcement discretion, have continued arresting and bringing cases against motorists like Mr. Patton found with unlicensed handguns.

The conflict has led to a legal standoff and a new effort by legislators to resolve the issue. It has also inspired an unlikely alliance between the gun lobby, which has long drawn support from the political right, and civil liberties advocates, long identified with the left, in defense of pistol-packing travelers.

In a report issued in February, the Texas affiliate of the National Rifle Association joined the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition “to spotlight unlawful, unnecessary governmental encroachment on average law-abiding citizens.”

More:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05guns.html
 
This is not new to those of us in Texas, though the Legal forum is probably a better place for this.

It's been discussed there at some length. The DAs and cops are doing some questionable things no doubt, and the Texas Legislature has a couple different bills proposed to fix the problem.

At the end of the day however, the problem stems from things like this:

told the police about the gun,

Why would you ever do that? Part of having rights is knowing when to use them. Not running your mouth to the police is as important as having prosecutors that follow the spirit as well as the letter of the law.
 
If i'm not correct please correct me but...I thought Texas law stated that the gun had fo be open carry. under the bag in the back seat is concealed. If heh didn't have a CWP he'd be guilty. All he had to do was put it on teh passenger seat in plain view and it would have been OK.

Car/Gun law summary
Date updated: Aug 23, 2005 @ 8:18 pm

See Peaceable Journey Section.

§46.15 NONAPPLICABILITY.

(a) Sections 46.02 and § 46.03 do not apply to: (3) People traveling;

§46.15 (i)

(i) For purposes of Subsection (b)(3), a person is presumed to be traveling if the person is:
(1) in a private motor vehicle;
(2) not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic;
(3) not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm;
(4) not a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01; and
(5) not carrying a handgun in plain view.


from packing.org
 
(3) People traveling;

The problem stems from that. There are many precedents to describe exactly what that is.

It's not nearly as simple as it sounds.

The Legislature last year redefined "travelling" but it is still not clear enough for the DAs and some of them are falling back on the older case law.

Until "travelling" is well defined, it's a gamble.

The law says a person is "presumed" to be travelling if those conditions are met. Many DAs are saying that is for juries to decide, not cops.

So, arrests continue and there are a couple of proposals to fix the problem.
 
I would presume that if Texas liberals (Democrats) and conservatives (Republicans) in the legislature were in agreement on this issue, a bill to correct the perceived problem would quickly be forthcoming and on the governor's desk to be signed into law.

However this doesn't seem to be the case, which makes me wonder, "why not?"

Texas may (or may not) be an exception, but as a rule urban "progressives" are not known to be gun friendly. Anyone who thinks otherwise should go live in San Francisco, New York City, Chicago or Washington D.C. :scrutiny:
 
However this doesn't seem to be the case, which makes me wonder, "why not?"

As you sort of point out, the "liberals" are not so open minded as the title of this thread would lead you to believe :D
 
My wife's uncle is the most liberal, way out there far left, NY'er there is. He has stated on many occassions that he would pull the D lever even if Satan were on the ticket.

However, what surprises me is that he is advid 2nd amendment guy and pro gun even though he does not own any. Maybe it is because of his military service - I don't know.

I guess there is some hope.
 
If you're the LEO in Texas, you pull over a car, the driver tells you he has gun under his bag, why would you arrest him? He isn't trying to hide it from you. Just knee jerk reaction from LEO?:)
 
I don't understand the title. What has this got to do with liberals? Because the TX ACLU supports the arrested gun owner?

Who does a liberal 2nd amendment supporter vote for anyway? Hillary? Obama? Edwards? Or does he/she just vote for a Dem or Green congressman that purports to support RKBA ....... until the party leadership really needs his vote, that is.
 
My CHL instructor told the class that City of Austin District Attorney will charge anyone with possession without a license, and leave it to the judge and/or jury to sort out.
 
Last edited:
Texas does NOT have open carry.

All folklore aside, in Texas, if an LEO stops you and finds a handgun, concealed or open in your vehicle, you may go to jail. I'm not speaking here of how it should be, I'm telling you how it is. To my knowledge it has always been that way.
Get a concealed carry license. It saves all sorts of wear and tear on you and your money.
 
Think all liberals are against gun rights?
I sure do. In the end any one of them would sell you out if they believed it was in the interest of the nanny state to do so.
 
Nicky Santoro said:
Think all liberals are against gun rights?
I sure do. In the end any one of them would sell you out if they believed it was in the interest of the nanny state to do so.

With comments like these, we are frequently our own worst enemy.
 
I thought in texas the gun needs to be in the trunk or at least out of arms reach from the driver.
 
As for why he told them he had the gun, the original post explained that the license and insurance form were in his gym bag in the back seat, on top of the gun. He would have to turn around (or get out) and get the forms, which keeping the bag on top of the gun would be difficult, and the cop would see it, then the driver gets a ride. This was a case of negligence, IMO. The driver should have known the law would consider a gun under a bag in the back seat as "concealed". He should have also known the proper way to transport it, at least in accordance with federal law. We push safety a lot, but what about dilligence and responsibility?
 
Very good points Fiero

Absolutely right Fiero... the consequences of our actions are at the root of this situation it seems to me.

The person was carrying concealed, without a license. Forget the circumstances (traveling, legally owned, just purchased, etc.). Concealed + no license = unlawful.

While we may not agree with the law and we may not agree with the LEO's actions, we must respect the laws on the books for what they are and work to change them through the system that is... not simply refuse to follow them as we see fit. I'm not saying this guy was defying the law, but he was certainly breaking it and therefore must accept the consequences of being caught doing so.

From what I've seen and read on THR, this is the concept that the forum is based upon. Defending 2A rights, changing the public opinion, working within the system to change the law, and supporting those wrongfully persecuted by those that represent the government and/or the law. In this case the person with the gun was in the wrong. It's unfortunate that he was caught, even more so because he was trying to do the right thing by revealing the location of the gun.

Could the LEO have looked the other way? Maybe. Should the LEO have? Depends upon policy and instruction by the LEO's superiors. Was the LEO legally in the right? You bet.
 
Was this gun in the article loaded? Or unloaded? If unloaded, are you saying in Texas they will arrest you for having an unloaded gun in a car? That sounds crazy! And what's this "unlicensed handgun thing? In Texas you have to have a license to have a handgun? Or it has to be "registered"? Or you need a CCL to carry loaded? Something sounds screwy.
 
For those of you who are so against "liberals" I'd suggest you study a little history. Probably the most liberal, in the truest sense, document ever written is The Constitution of the United States. The Founding Fathers were anything but "conservative". If they had been we'd still be part of the British Empire.

The political parties in this country have become what they are now because the voters are too lazy to remind them who really controls, or should, the power in this country. Remember Lincoln's statement, ".... government of the people, by the people and for the people". It seems people have forgotten that 'of the people' and 'by the people' come before 'for the people'.
 
In my experience, Liberals in general believe in waiting periods and background checks when purchasing firearms, but they also believe one should have the right to purchase that firearm should a person pass those background checks. All of the Liberals I know support the 2nd Amendment primarily for the purpose of civilians A) Supporting military forces in the event of an invasion that reached U.S. soil as resistance fighters, and B) To allow an armed resistance should the Constitutional government somehow be overthrown (a major military coup, insane Dictator wannabe, or whatever reason). Admittedly both are unlikely, B extremely so, but they are situations that were considered when the 2nd Amendment was written and they are situations where Liberals would step up and say, "I need a gun."
 
Archer1945 - Conservative and Liberal have to do with one's time on earth. I consider myself Conservative because I believe in the U.S. Constitution as written.

I cannot think of a recent "Liberal" or "Progressive" idea that puts power in the hands of the People.

I am neither "Liberal" nor "Progressive". I am Conservative and Regressive, but my regression stops at 1776.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top