[Manedwolf]

I'm actually glad to see this. It means that no matter how much money and power you have, the law IS being egalitarian in that a felon is not allowed to CCW!

Thank you, Texas, for being just.

http://www.rawstory.com/images/delayloseshandgun.jpg

[Erebus]

What has he been convicted of?

[Manedwolf]

He was indicted. Apparently that's enough under Texas law?

I just mean that I'm glad to see that the law is being applied to ALL, regardless of power and influence...nothing to do with politics.
The same thing would happen to Joe Citizen, so it's just that it applies to an influential lawmaker.

[CZ 75 BD]

I was not aware of the fact that Mr. DeLay is a felon.

[TrapperReady]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Delay only under felony indictment right now?

[Zundfolge]

actually you don't have to BE a felon to lose your permit (or the ability to buy a firearm)

on the 4473 it asks if you're under indictment for a felony, and thats enough to disqualify you.


So if you're charged with a felony you can't buy guns until its cleared up and in Texas (and I suspect elsewhere) your permit gets suspended (not revoked, just suspended)

[WT]

Maybe he had 2 beers in a Texas bar.

[Kruzr]

Texas law for a CHL says a person may have a CHL if he:

Is not currently charged with a class A or B misdemeanor or an offense of Disorderly Conduct, or under information or indictment for a felony.

Delay is under two felony indictments.

[Manedwolf]

I'm not saying that the law is good or bad. But yes, on checking, it seems like under Texas law, being under indictment is enough to get a suspension of the license...which this is, not a complete revokation.

Isn't it just reassuring to know that in this case, congresspeople are NOT above the law that you and I have to follow?

That's my point.

[cracked butt]

Isn't it just reassuring to know that in this case, congresspeople are NOT above the law that you and I have to follow?

When Ted Kennedy rots in prison I'll finally feel reassured.

[DonP]

To lose his license would mean it was revoked. Read your own post, it was suspended, not revoked.

Nobody, me, you, or Tom DeLay, is considred a felon until they have been convicted or pled guilty.

There are circumstances that can get a CC permit suspended (as in this case) temporarily. If DeLay is not found guilty the permit will most likely just be reinstated.

My guess is it's one more attempt by Ronnie Earl and his boys to try and embarrass him in public, like the mug shot that backfired and PO'd the entire DU and Daily KOS crowd because DeLay had the audacity to smile at the camera.

I'm not even from Texas but I appreciate that DeLay, from what little I understand, was the primary guy responsible for seeing to it that the Federal AWB died in committee. For that I think any of us with an AR, AK or any magazine over 10 rounds owe him a tip of the hat and a "Present Arms" with our AR's.


(I mean it's not like Clinton losing his license to practice law for perjuring himself before a grand jury and being impeached ... in addition to lieing to his cabinet, the media and the United States public.)

[ElTacoGrande]

Every year they publish statistics about CCW permits, saying sometihng like "In 200_, 0.1% of permits were suspended due to the following: ...." So I guess we now know one example of a permit holder getting his permit suspended!

As the others have said, it's good that it works this way for everyone. Get an indictement, lose your guns, everywhere in the US AFAIK. I don't think that law is right, but that is the law.

[El Tejon]

Kruzr, I thought the prosecution was down to one felony count? Was not one count tossed?:confused:

[xd9fan]

so the hammer is ........hammerless????:D

[Manedwolf]

How about this not turning into a "But CLINTON...!..." fest, or a "He's INNOCENT!..." or "He's GUILTY!"... ramble? :rolleyes:

I don't care what the politics involved are. And it's up to the courts to decide if he's guilty of any crimes or not.

What I care about is that the law, right or wrong, has affected a powerful lawmaker the same as it would you or I...and that means something. I wouldn't care if it was Republican, Democrat, or independent, or whatever.

Just that it's a reminder that the law is the law, and it should and did apply to everyone, here.

[Mr. James]

:confused:

"The Licensee, THOMAS DALE DELAY, having been provided notice of the hearing, appeared with counsel [or] failed to appear."

WTH, over? Which is it? Did he contest the suspension and lose on the merits, or did he not bother showing and lose by default?

:confused:

[davec]

One less criminal with a gun.

[O.F.Fascist]

Mr. James,
"The Licensee, THOMAS DALE DELAY, having been provided notice of the hearing, appeared with counsel [or] failed to appear."

WTH, over? Which is it? Did he contest the suspension and lose on the merits, or did he not bother showing and lose by default?

Its probably just a form letter. Either he appeared or he didnt, but they didnt bother to have two forms one for if he did or if he didnt.

[gunsmith]

how many of us would have that if we lost our ccw?

[davec]

local blog with more info.

http://www.brazosriver.com/

[Delmar]

While I am sure the haters of Delay and of congressmen in general are dancing the happy dance, I'd say this law may not be a good one to have around.

Think about it. You make a good shoot on your property or whatever, and the district attorney gets it past a grand jury for whatever reason and its going to court. The bad guy is/was a gang member, or maybe the family wants revenge.

Scenario #2. You and the wife split the sheets and she is wanting to cause maximum interference in your life. You are accused of whuppin her.

In both cases, YOU lose your so called rights because of an accusation, without due process, or really, ANY process for you to present a case for yourself.

In a way, maybe its good that this happened to Delay or to someone rather famous-especially if he is found innocent. I take a very dim view of people having their rights stripped away with out real cause, and that has yet to be determined.

I'm really amazed at some of the replies here so far.

[Gordon Fink]

I agree with you, Delmar, but I think you may be missing Manedwolf’s point about equality before the law.

~G. Fink

[real_name]

Wasn't De Lay the one who was scared of a statue having female breasts and ordered it to be covered up?
I thought insane people weren't allowed permits?
And anyway, 'De Lay', what kind of French name is that anyway? :p

[Delmar]

the law IS being egalitarian in that a felon is not allowed to CCW!

I don't think I missed a thing, Gordon. Maned Wolf is apparently already convinced of the man's guilt. I do see his point about "the law being the law", but that is something I do not personally agree with. Bad law has been passed and ruled on in this country time and time again. Making something a law does not make it right.

[Monkeyleg]

real_name, that was John Ashcroft.

As for Tom DeLay, this is probably the least of his problems.

Nothing like a political vendetta by Dem's against a real conservative.

[real_name]

Ashcroft indeed, sorry, they all kind of merge sometimes.
I'm not the most political creature. :o

[Gordon Fink]

Bad law has been passed and ruled on in this country time and time again. Making something a law does not make it right.

Like I said, I agree with you. :)

~G. Fink

[Delmar]

Gordon-you running for office? I like to see people go to congress who think laws are not the do all and end all. Ya got my vote. Its long past time for politicians to start paying attention to what is right and wrong. Most folks would be happier if they did.

[ElTacoGrande]

Think about it. You make a good shoot on your property or whatever, and the district attorney gets it past a grand jury for whatever reason and its going to court. The bad guy is/was a gang member, or maybe the family wants revenge.

That's exactly the problem I have with this law. People who are in situations where they really really need a gun are disarmed.

The law made sense back in the days when all indictements had to be made by grand juries, and when grand juries didn't just rubber-stamp everything the prosecutor gives them. But that's not the case now. If a prosecutor wants to get an indictement, he can get it.

[Double Naught Spy]

I can see that several of y'all are not familiar with Texas CHLs. Believe it or not, you can be a peace officer in Texas, carry a gun, but not qualify for a CHL. CHL restrictions are high. Part of the Texas CHL is even allowing DPS to check your Juvie record to see if you were legally a good kid or not.

Incidents such as domestic violence (not necessarily any conviction) or unclaimed bad checks can keep you from gettting a CHL, but not keep you from being a peace officer. A peace officer can have a colorful juvie record, but without explanation or justification for the incidents, such a juvie record could keep a person from getting a CHL.

In Texas, having a CHL means passing a significant background check. It really means that you are one of the card carrying "legally" good guys. Of course, background checks don't do any good if you have never been caught breaking the law, hence "legally" in quotes.

To my knowledge, lots of people have committed various limited felonies for which they were never caught, arrested or prosecuted and so their records are clean. For example, seeing if you car will hit the 150 mph on the speedometer and going that fast may be a felony where the speed limit is half that or less, but if no wreck, no ticket, etc., then no record and hence no problem.

[Nitrogen]

I'm not a big fan of Mr. Delay, but, I hope this publicity brings to light this unfair requirement.

The guy should keep his CHL unless the DA has a reason to believe he'll do something wrong with it. Texas law allows for ANYONE to submit a sworn affidavit to the DPS on why a particular person shouldn't have a CHL. Even with all the Delay haters (of which I am one) I can think of no reason that the man should not still have his CHL.

[ozarkhillbilly]

How about this not turning into a "But CLINTON...!..." fest, or a "He's INNOCENT!..." or "He's GUILTY!"... ramble

I'm actually glad to see this. It means that no matter how much money and power you have, the law IS being egalitarian in that a felon is not allowed to CCW!
You started it by calling him a felon when he has not even been to trial so you have no room to complain.

]One less criminal with a gun.[/B]

One more post from a ill informed gun hater.

I agree with Delmar this post is more about how some poeple hate Tom Delay then about guns

[MechAg94]

Double Naught Spy wrote:To my knowledge, lots of people have committed various limited felonies for which they were never caught, arrested or prosecuted and so their records are clean. For example, seeing if you car will hit the 150 mph on the speedometer and going that fast may be a felony where the speed limit is half that or less, but if no wreck, no ticket, etc., then no record and hence no problem.
Double Naught, exactly why is this relevant? When you go down this line of reasoning you start suggesting that we should not let anyone buy a gun or carry one legally since "everyone" has committed felonies and just not been caught. You can justify all sorts of police state nonsense with that line of reasoning. We are all innocent until proven guilty under the law.

I doubt you meant that, just thought I would comment.

[Hawkmoon]

MechAg94

In theory we are innocent until proven guilty, but that only points out what's wrong with the law. Yes, as long as the law says people under indictment cannot have a CCW, I am happy that the law applies to everyone.

That does not change the fact that an indictment is not a conviction, that many if not most people under indictment are not in jail but are out living in the same house, driving the same car, and walking the same streets as they were the day before the indictment. Since an indictment is NOT a conviction, why does the law establish persons under indictment (especially persons under indictment for non-violent crimes) as being not allowed to exercise their right of self-defense?

The law is wrong, and should be revised.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Tom Delay has the right to a fair trial by jury. Article III, Sixth Amendment

Tom Delay has the right to council. Sixth Amendment

Tom Delay has the right to not be a witness against himself. Fifth Amendment

Tom Delay has the right to exercise his religion and be free from abridgment of his speech. First Amendment

Tom Delay has the right to expect his home not be used as a barracks in time of peace if he so wishes. Amendment Three

Tom Delay has the right to due process before his life, any liberty, or property can be denied him. Fifth Amendment

Tom Delay has the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Second Amendment

None of these rights can be denied Tom Delay(or anyone else for that matter) under any circumstances, ever.

Nothing in the Fifth Amendment's implication that life, liberty, or property can be denied an individual after due process of the law, implies or directly addresses the denial of any right.

Denying Tom Delay's Right to Keep and Bear Arms is no less an unconstitutional act than denying him a fair trial would be. It is no less unconstitutional than denying him the right to practice his religion. It is no less unconstitutional than denying him the right to seek council, or turning his home into a barracks, or abridging his speech, or forcing him to sign a confession.

The only constitutional means available to deny anyone their arms is to imprison them. Even at that, all you can constitutionally do is deny them access to them. They cannot constitutionally be taken away. If a person is such a violent offender that (s)he cannot be trusted with arms, that person should be locked up and not released until that person can be trusted with arms.

The only effective means to secure society from such violent offenders is to maintain a physical barrier between them and arms. A law denying arms to such offenders is no physical barrier. Where there is a will, there is a way. If a violent offender wishes to continue a life of violent crime, no law will ever deny that violent person physical access to any arms that person desires to use to that end.

After being released from prison, an ex-con is no longer under the direct protection of the government. A law breaker who has been convicted and done the time has as much a right to self defense and no less duty to defend the nation than anyone else. Otherwise, that person should never be released from prison. Period.

Want to be practical? Never releasing violent offenders will cut down on the number of times such a person will be released, cause harm, searched for, investigated, tried, and appealed over and over and over again. I'll bet the load on the prison system would be lessened as well.

Anyone disagree? If you can find anything in the Constitution that says any right can be denied anyone, I'd like to see it.

Woody

"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this nation - founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood

[Robert Hairless]

I'd welcome thoughtful comments about something that has puzzled me for many years. Although I can't rule out comments from those who speak with the voice of a wrathful deity of any persuasion, I'd be much more interested in the thinking of those who are willing to consider my puzzlement unaided. My question doesn't have anything to do with Texas law or, perhaps, even with Tom DeLay except as the occasion for raising the question.

What has been puzzling me is whether all felons, whether or not they have been judged guilty of a violent crime, should have no right to defend their lives when attacked with deadly force?

Or does the life of a man or woman who has been indicted for or judged guilty of a felony have no value or lesser value than that of other people?

[wjustinen]

From a British newspaper article "...as late as 1914, the right even of an Irishman to carry a loaded revolver in the streets was upheld in the courts (Rex v. Smith, KB 1914) as a manifestation simply of the guarantees provided by our Bill of Rights." This, in spite of massive republican unrest.

In this neck of the woods no one "needs" a gun for self-defence more than the prostitutes who are being murdered at an "alarming rate."

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms - a right taken from the British Bill of Rights - was considered to be so important that, for the reason given in the second amendment, government was not to be allowed to tamper with it. Thus, the words "shall not be infringed." To tell anyone who is not locked up that his/her life is of less worth than that of another, is a clear infringement.

Gun control in all forms is simply a matter of jerking around those we don't like. At the moment that happens to include this grandfather - because he's an alien in your beautiful country, and at home just because the people who make the rules don't even trust themselves.

[telomerase]

Even an Irishman

That's taking political correctness just too far. Next they'll want to free the slaves.

Fortunately, in the US, only the Emperor (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/03/24/bush_shuns_patriot_act_requirement/?page=1) is above the law.

[Geno]

I agree; most here agree--but the "powers" that believe that the constitution is a "living document" to be modified and interpreted probably disagree. "Living document"--now that IS stupidity! Should we call we call 911?! After all, it hasn't breathed in over 200 years! Maybe someone should check its pulse too.

By the way, I have officially started a new THR word at the college where I am a Grad. professor. My grad. students love our THR descriptor, the "Sheeple". :evil:

Whomever coined that word, Thanks!!!

Doc2005

[Art Eatman]

This thread is about DeLay, not Ireland, etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Ronnie Earle had attempted to bring DeLay up for two prior Grand Juries before his (apparently) hand-picked third effort succeeded at getting the indictment. Earle is known as a Democratic Party hatchetman. Most of his prior efforts have been failures.

Federal law holds that a felon cannot own a firearm for self defense, not Texas law. Originally, Texas law allowed a felon to have a gun in his home--and only in his home--for defense purposes. The Texas law on this surfaced, publicly, at the time of the arrest of Henry Lee Lucas as a serial killer, I forget the year. Since DeLay has not been convicted, he can have his guns at his home, and with the new "travelling" law, in his car. He loses the privilege of walking around with a concealed handgun.

Art