Rick Perry on Constitutional Carry

[Mark 1911]

Rick Perry is....one of...."them"....

Former Gov. Rick Perry Kills TX Constitutional Carry, Presidential Aspirations? - The Truth About Guns

That was disappointing, to say the least. Politicians need to get out of the control freak business and get back to the business of running the country. sheesh.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

No, constitutional carry is the removal of laws that restrict the carry of firearms. If there are exceptions then it is no longer constitutional carry, even if it is a looser law than currently exists.

Right. The next thing you'll tell me is that they couldn't use the term Affordable Care Act unless it really made healthcare affordable.

 

[Bill of Rights]

This is the ABSOLUTE worst way to vote. When you pick the lesser of two evils you still end up with evil. You should always vote for the best man for the job. Not the most likly to win. According to your own ideas of voting YOU should have voted for Obama last time. Mitt Romney never stood a chance against him so he had the only chance of winning. That is how much your method makes sense.

I tell people to think of it like this. You are planning for if you die who will raise your children. Two people are SUGGESTED to you one is a child molester and the other killed one of his kids cause he was mad. Now you COULD pick from these two evil men that where suggested to you or you could do the right thing and find a suitable father to raise your kids in case you die.

This senerio fits well because when you pick these Democrats and Republicans it is your childrens future you are voting on. Wether this country will be in debt so far they go bankrupt and/or having no Liberty left because of who you voted for or do you want them to live free and live in a great country.

You have the choice evil or good. It is that simple. When someone wants to destroy the thing they swear a oath to protect they are EVIL. When they want to ensure freedom and Liberty they are Good.

I've made that same statement, that one's vote should go to whomever s/he thinks is best, not most popular. My point is simply that if half of the non-liberal vote goes GOP and the other half gets split between 2 or 3 other parties, we can expect that the libs will win every election from now on.
And unfortunately, we do not have the choice of good or evil... We have evil. "Good" is intelligent enough to follow the axiom not to go mudslinging with pigs... You both get dirty and the pig likes it. We have not had actual "good" in many, many years, if ever; even Reagan passed laws that were not 100% pro-gun rights. (And yes, I agree that FOPA was a good thing to pass, although far from being an "end game".)

My thinking is not to pick the child killer or the molester, but rather to pick the person least likely to stomp on our rights. It ain't Obama or Clinton.


Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bfish]

I plan to cast principled vote for a candidate that I do agree (mostly) with. Like it or not there WILL be other choices on Indiana's presidential ballot in the general election. If there is no-one I like on there then I will write in NONE OF The ABOVE and cast that as my vote.

I won't be voting for Hillary, either. But, I certainly would never cast a vote for a Christie, Jindal, Bush or other turd. Fortunately, I have choices, whether I cast for a winner or not.

I understand why you hate Christie... But Jindal??

 

[mrjarrell]

I understand why you hate Christie... But Jindal??

Already explained upthread. The man's a moron and can't do basic math.

 

[Drail]

I would not vote for Rick Perry if he was the most PRO GUN dude on the planet. He's a moron. I am 62 years old and in my entire life I have never seen a Presidential candidate worth voting for. Not one. And I never bought into voting for the lessor of two evils. Every election we have in this country I look at the candidates and think to myself - of all the people in this country - THIS is the best you can come up with?

 

[chipbennett]

TTAG is full of wind. Rick Perry was and is overall a popular guy in Texas, but he is no longer governor and has very little, if any, influence on the Legislature.

OCT and OCTC killed unlicensed open carry in Texas. They almost certainly mortally wounded licensed open carry as well, and if by some miracle it does get through, it will be despite them, not because of them (the only way they could help at this point is sit down and shut up). OCT and OCTC basically took the caricatures of gun owners perpetrated by bloombergists and made them come to life.

I call Barbara Streisand on that. Open carry in Texas will pass if presented in the legislature. The only reason not to bring it up for a vote is for the powers-that-be not wanting to bring it up for a vote. That the PTB have found a useful scapegoat doesn't change the real reason that open carry will or won't pass.

I wanted to vote for Perry in the 2012 primary, but he dropped out before I had the chance. He's now lost any chance of ever getting my primary vote.

 

[bwframe]

Did you all read the links posted or just fall for someone's opinion of someone's opinion?
Maybe I'm blind, but I don't read ANYTHING about Perry speaking on constitutional carry?

Perry did give commentary on his opinion of open carry, “not necessarily all that fond of this open carry concept,” without reference to current pending legislation. The interview was about presidential politics not Texas legislation. With OCTC loons like Kory Watkins making treason accusations and death threats, why would anyone expect Perry come close to agreeing with them?

It appears as if someone is looking for a scapegoat to take the heat off of these OC "suicide bombers"?

 

[chipbennett]

Maybe I'm blind, but I don't read ANYTHING about Perry speaking on constitutional carry?

Roll tape:

Perry said he was “not necessarily all that fond of this open carry concept,” adding that those who carry guns ought to be “appropriately backgrounded, appropriately vetted, appropriately trained.”

“We license people to drive on our highways,” he said. “We give them that privilege. The same is true with our concealed handguns.”

The right to carry firearms as a granted privilege from the government is the polar opposite of constitutional carry. Perry doesn't like open carry, and thinks that concealed carry is a mere privilege. Perry's stated views leave absolutely no room for carrying without the consent of the government. Perry's statements are explicitly anti-constitutional carry.

 

[Thor]

I'll wait for a more complete analysis from a source in his own words (all of them, not just a few choice clips edited out). There are a lot of others running that are far more anti 2nd Am. Regardless of how you parse it he's one of the most pro-2nd Am. candidates we've seen from any party for about a century. Well, any party that could win the election anyway.

 

[arthrimus]

Right. The next thing you'll tell me is that they couldn't use the term Affordable Care Act unless it really made healthcare affordable.

Well I get what you're saying, they can call whatever law they pass just about anything, but in my home state of Arkansas for example, constitutional carry was passed in 2013, and no where in the law does it say the words "constitutional carry." The law that was passed lifted all restrictions on otherwise lawful carry, which therefore made Arkansas a de facto constitutional carry state.

The point is that what they call it is irrelevant to what it actually is. And if something that is sub constitutional carry is passed off as "constitutional carry" then it needs to be noted that it is not and the people of whatever state attempts that garbage need to push to get it done right.

 

[chipbennett]

Well I get what you're saying, they can call whatever law they pass just about anything, but in my home state of Arkansas for example, constitutional carry was passed in 2013, and no where in the law does it say the words "constitutional carry." The law that was passed lifted all restrictions on otherwise lawful carry, which therefore made Arkansas a de facto constitutional carry state.

The point is that what they call it is irrelevant to what it actually is. And if something that is sub constitutional carry is passed off as "constitutional carry" then it needs to be noted that it is not and the people of whatever state attempts that garbage need to push to get it done right.

I believe most - if not all? - state constitutions restate, in some form or another, the second amendment of the US constitution. The concept of "constitutional carry" simply refers to removing any restrictions placed upon the federal and state constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. Thus, to enact "constitutional carry" statutory language would be redundant. In almost all cases, constitutional carry would require striking statutory language, not enacting new language.

So, if any legislation purports to be "constitutional carry", but enacts new statutory language, I would be wary.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I believe most - if not all? - state constitutions restate, in some form or another, the second amendment of the US constitution....

Most. For some reason, the number 44 sticks in my memory in re: this. Your point is a fair one, though.