DeLay wants concealed handgun permit back

[davec]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12047283/from/RSS/

RICHMOND, Texas - Rep. Tom DeLay is fighting to regain his concealed handgun permit after it was suspended because of his indictment on felony charges.

A justice of the peace suspended DeLay’s license in January after the former majority leader was indicted last year. A judge dismissed a conspiracy charge, but DeLay still faces a felony charge of money laundering.

Under state law, the Texas Department of Public Safety can suspend a handgun license if its holder has been charged with certain misdemeanors or higher.

DeLay, a vocal gun rights proponent, has appealed the suspension and has asked for a new hearing after missing a Jan. 26 court date.

“Without objection, they (the Department of Public Safety) presented a copy of an indictment,” Justice of the Peace Jim Richard said. “And that was about it for the case.”

Steve Brittain, one of DeLay’s Austin attorneys, filed the appeal March 14. A hearing date has not been set.

Steve Moninger, an attorney for the Department of Public Safety, which administers the handgun licensing law, said the state will contest the appeal.

“We are going to keep going. Our function is to enforce the statute,” Moninger said.

Brittain did not return telephone messages left Monday.

DeLay spokeswoman Shannon Flaherty said neither Brittain nor DeLay was able to make the original court hearing.

Flaherty would not say whether DeLay needs a handgun permit. In a written statement, she said, “As for whether or not he carries it — that’s the point of having a CHL (concealed handgun license) in Texas, potential criminals should assume everyone is.”

The indictment cost DeLay his leadership post. He won his Republican primary election earlier this month and faces former Democratic Rep. Nick Lampson in the Nov. 7 general election.

 

[Car Knocker]

DeLay spokeswoman Shannon Flaherty said neither Brittain nor DeLay was able to make the original court hearing.

Then they should have asked for a continuance.

 

[Manedwolf]

Stand in line with everyone else filing for such things, Tom.

No special treatment. Why does he think he's above the law?

 

[DKSuddeth]

two things will happen,

Delay doesn't get preferential treatment so pressures lawmakers to make changes, or

He DOES get preferential treatment and Democrats get hold of the state legislature next election.

 

[dasmi]

A third possibility:
He carries anyway.
If he doesn't get caught, he's fine.
If he does, it looks bad, but probably nothing will happen to him.

 

[DKSuddeth]

A third possibility:
He carries anyway.
If he doesn't get caught, he's fine.
If he does, it looks bad, but probably nothing will happen to him.

i wonder, getting caught in texas would screw him. they don't play around.
but D.C.....would he get cut any slack for carrying with a suspended permit?
(yes, I know that D.C. is a no carry area, but are there exceptions?)

 

[Erebus]

D.C. reelected a mayor that served time on drug charges. Oh that's right he's a Democrat.

Delay would be screwed.

 

[ElTacoGrande]

He's not such a fool that he would carry without a permit.

I also think this is a case where the rules are the rules and the bureaucrats know that this is all under public scrutiny and they shouldn't be seen doing favors.

And finally, DeLay has enough problems that he may not have as many friends as he used to have.

Remember, the guy is getting PROSECUTED. If he had some magically ability to control the TX judicial system, he wouldn't be being prosecuted so he wouldn't have to worry about his permit.

 

[Nitrogen]

I hope he gets his permit back...

...after he lobbies for a change in the law, when the Texas state legislature meets again...


.... In 2007.

EDIT: Or he gets Acquitted. Which I doubt.

 

[LAR-15]

Wunder what ol Ronnie Earle thinks?

 

[Ira Aten]

Quote from ElTacoGrande "Remember, the guy is getting PROSECUTED. If he had some magically ability to control the TX judicial system, he wouldn't be being prosecuted so he wouldn't have to worry about his permit."

Prosecuted, or Persecuted? The original charges of conspiricy were found to be without merit. (They were bogus, and politically motivated because he was charged with violating a law that did not exist, and that is why the original charge was dismissed) Secondly, the alleged felony is one that is not violence related, and the man is not a threat to anyone. But you have hit on the answer, by saying if he had the control of the judicial process, he would not be charged. The point is, his political opposition does have control of the judicial process in Travis County, and that is the only reason he is being prosecuted.

I ask you to consider this. In Texas, you could be convicted of domestic violence charges if a former girlfriend, spouse, or someone who had resided in your home in the past, made a claim (claim only) that you threatened them with harm. You would therefore be denied the right to own a firearm, for the remainder of your life, if you were convicted of only an oral threat, under the domestic violence rule, as that is a felony if you are found guilty.

Were that you, I believe you would feel Persecuted, not Prosecuted.

Additionally, Mr. Delay has not been found guilty, yet he has been denied his right to protect himself should he leave his home, as he can only possess a gun at home, and not as a CHL holder. The whole matter, is political.

When Gore broke the campaign rules as Vice President the DA in Tennesse, never indicted him for the supposed "No controlling legal authority" campaign donation scandal he was involved in, because the District Attorney in the county chose not to do so. It was not due to there not being a "controlling legal authority", it was because the controlling legal authority chose not to pursue charges as is the District Attorney's sole choice.

The controlling legal authority in the DeLay case is Ronnie Earle, and he asked the grand jury to indict Delay, for a crime that did not exist, therefore, the original charge has been dismissed, as I have come to understand. The second charge is believed to be bogus by many also.

So my point is, you would not want your rights taken away just because you were a Democrat, and a Republican DA had the opportunity to harrass you in the media and cause you to resign your position as Speaker of the House of Representatives. Especially if you were not convicted of anything. Would you?

 

[ElTacoGrande]

Hey, my own opinion is that felons should have a straightforward process for getting their rights back. If they are dangerous they should be kept in the cage. If they are safe they should be able to get their rights back in most cases.

And I think that all the financial crime laws should be not felonies. In fact I think the only things that should be felonies are serious violent crimes, like murder, rape, etc. There should be very few Federal felonies, because to me, a felony needs to be a serious violent crime, and violent crime is inherently physical and local in nature.

So I don't think the law is right but I also don't think even a Congressman should be able to wriggle out of it. He's under indictement, he loses his guns, same as all of us.

I do hope that after this is over, maybe he will have the cojones to introduce some reforms to this situation.

 

[perpster]

Issue the permit, but without the DeLay.

 

[Nitrogen]

Ira Aten,

It doesn't matter if he's guilty or innocent. Under current Texas law, your CHL can be suspended if you're mearly indited. It sucks, but it's the law.

If Mr. Delay feels wronged, I hope he'll petition to have the law changed. I'd certianly support him in doing that.

I think Mr. Delay is a thief, a cheat, and an all-around no-goodnik, but I also don't think he's a danger to anyone with his CHL. I think he should keep it.

The law is the law however. We have to follow it, and hope to change it.

As far as being a political matter, sure, whatever.
He played hardball by pushing for a redistricting outside of the "norms"
If there are no grounds to the charges Mr. Earle is bringing, i'm assuming the judges in the case would have thrown the charges out. In fact, from memory, they already have thrown one charge out.

 

[Ira Aten]

Nitrogen:
I realize it doesn't matter if he is innocent as far as the CHL law is concerned, and that he loses his CHL if indicted. Yes, I realize that, and that is my entire point.

People don't seem to realize, a DA can choose not to ask for an indictment from a Grand Jury on any matter, at their SOLE choosing. So my entire point is, Delay is indicted and called a crook because a prosecuter in Texas has managed to convince a grand jury to indict him for a law that did not exist, while Al Gore was allowed to take approximately thirteen sixteen thousand dollar checks as campaign finance donations while at a fund raiser at a Buddist temple from members of a group of church members who made no money as salary, and had sworn a vow of poverty to their church.

The money was supplied from Chinese businessman Johnnie Wong (and others from China) but Gore simply went unindicted and therefore was able to claim there was "No controlling Legal Authority" and he got by in the mainstream press, because he had a pass.

Delay on the other hand is now labeled a crook, but has not been found to have done anything near what Gore did, but have the bad luck to be pursued by (what even his supporters will admit) is a somewhat overzealous prosecuter, and has therfore lost his CHL because we have a rule in Texas which allows you to be punished when you have not been found guilty.

And so my point is, we should be careful when rejoicing that others lose their liberties because of political control of the judiciary, as ELTacoGrande originally pointed out. When Delay does it, he is evil, when Gore does even worse, it goes totally past the mainstream press.

 

[DKSuddeth]

First off, lets not do a different version of the 'Bush did, but Clinton did' using delay and gore

second, delays license is in texas while....does gore have a license? anyway, the issue isn't about delay, its about the law being applied all around fairly in texas. so far it has been.

 

[gezzer]

Issue the permit, but without the DeLay.

best yet +1

 

[Standing Wolf]

And I think that all the financial crime laws should be not felonies.

So it'd be a mere misdemeanor if I were to empty out your 401(k) and throw a party for a few hundred close personal friends?

 

[ElTacoGrande]

So it'd be a mere misdemeanor if I were to empty out your 401(k) and throw a party for a few hundred close personal friends?

I really don't want any help from my government in defending against such things. Yup, I know, probably sounds goofy even in this crowd, but that's how I feel. I'd rather take care of my own security than have any help.

 

[dav]

Quote:
And I think that all the financial crime laws should be not felonies.

So it'd be a mere misdemeanor if I were to empty out your 401(k) and throw a party for a few hundred close personal friends?

Close, but you are putting words in our mouths that were never there.

If found guilty of the crime you mention, you should be forced to reimburse me and make up for the trouble you caused. But you should not be classed as a murderer. They are not comparable crimes, and should not be treated by the government as being equivalent.

 

[geekWithA.45]

I really only have one question on the matter:

The only moral or ethical reason to disarm someone is because they pose a valid, recognizable danger to the public.

Does an armed Tom Delay present such a public hazard?

Is he likely to knock over a liquor store? Blaze away at a bailiff during his legal proceedings? Decide that ravers really are zombies and have at them?

Naw. I don't think so.

 

[MudPuppy]

Well, you're right--that is a question.

I like it when politicians feel the "infringed" all up close and personal.

 

[Maxwell]

I like it when politicians feel the "infringed" all up close and personal.

Hmm... I'd feel better if it was happening to one of the more prominant anti-gun politicans.
Harshing the mellow of this one seems more like singing to the choir.

 

[Chris Rhines]

The only moral or ethical reason to disarm someone is because they pose a valid, recognizable danger to the public.

Does an armed Tom Delay present such a public hazard?

He's a politician. He's a public hazard just by the nature of his job.

- Chris

 

[Firethorn]

He's a politician. He's a public hazard just by the nature of his job.

And because he's a politician, he should experience the law in all it's horrible unfairness, so he's motivated to make it better.