Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Rick Perry’s Concealed Carry Permit Suspended

Rick Perry’s Concealed Carry Permit Suspended

Indictments have consequences.

Democrats are still smiling over the recent felony indictment of Rick Perry, even as the Governor’s legal team is taking steps in court to reveal the spurious nature of the charges.

One consequence of the indictment, however, has thrown conservatives in Texas for a loop.

Texas media began reporting last week that because of the charges against him, Governor Perry’s concealed carry license has been suspended by operation of law.

§411.187 of the Texas Government Code states that the Department of Public Safety shall suspend (not revoke, as it has been reported) a concealed carry license if the license holder is charged with the commission of a felony under an information or indictment. The same section of the statute states in part that if the suspension is due to a felony indictment, that the Department shall suspend the license until dismissal of the charges.

While the actual suspension of Governor Perry’s concealed carry license isn’t malicious — you can tell it’s a statutory directive by the use of the word “shall” — it’s sure to pose an inconvenience to a man who has defined himself as a champion of gun rights. According to Reuters, the indictment also limits Governor Perry’s Second Amendment rights in other ways:

Under federal law, he is prohibited from buying guns and ammunition while under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.

“What he has he can use, but he can no longer purchase new stuff because of this felony charge,” said Josh Felker, who runs Lone Star Handgun, a shooting range near San Antonio.

Fortunately, the Governor will not be forced to surrender any guns or ammunition currently in his possession, and is still permitted to carry handguns on property that he “owns or controls.” He won’t be left defenseless, either: the ability of his security detail to carry concealed hasn’t been affected by the indictment.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

JimMtnViewCaUSA | August 28, 2014 at 11:41 am

Innocent until proven guilty?

    Innocent until white, male, Palin, pro-self-defense, pro-human rights (e.g. right to life), conservative, … Essentially, you are innocent until American.

    Not where carry laws are concerned.

    This is not limited to Texas, BTW. Most if not all states have similar restrictions on carry by those who have been indicted. I’d like to see that changed to “convicted” and perhaps it will get to that eventually, but for now…stand accused, be disarmed.

      MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to Larry. | August 28, 2014 at 2:18 pm

      I don’t think it is a bad idea to limit those indicted. As long as they are indicted of a felony involving violence ,

        JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | August 28, 2014 at 3:16 pm

        “I don’t think it is a bad idea to limit those indicted.”

        Yeah, overall, it may be a good idea on balance. Or not.
        Certainly in this case, we’re seeing the bad side of the idea.

        tom swift in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | August 28, 2014 at 3:24 pm

        These laws are not about protecting the public from violent crime.

        I can’t address the peculiarities of Texas, but in Massachusetts one of the many things which will prevent you from exercising any firearms possession rights in perpetuity is conviction of the crime of “failure to report a hotel or motel fire”. How’s that for violent crime? And it really doesn’t matter how long it takes them to think this crap up. Once a restriction like that is in there, there it will stay.

      Phillep Harding in reply to Larry. | August 28, 2014 at 4:33 pm

      There are so many ways that can be misused.

This is such BS.

What especially frosts me (and I know it is legally apples and oranges) is how the Obama Administration has been flaunting laws and the need for a special prosecutor for years. And they are not called on it.

I am losing faith in the justice system.

    Ragspierre in reply to EBL. | August 28, 2014 at 12:07 pm

    I’ll take the opportunity to revisit my caution: it is NOT a “justice system”. It should NEVER be called that. It is…on a GOOD day…a legal system. Any “justice” resulting from it is pure coincidence.

    It is a very good effort, however, by very imperfect people, to TRY to do each other “justice” in its BEST iterations.

    With people like Holder, Obama, and the Texas Deemocrats, it is used perversely, like any system CAN be used.

    Just a note on Jim’s comment…yeah, when you are indicted for a felony, you ARE at disabilities. One is having to post a bond to regain your freedom (even a limited freedom). It was pretty much ever thus.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Ragspierre. | August 29, 2014 at 1:57 pm

      Great post Rags.

      I would add that if you need a practical example of what Rags is saying just think of your average trial where the outcome is decided by “a jury of your peers”. Just ask yourself does the jury make their decision based on “justice” or based on what one side can convince them is the truth.

I have not completely lost faith, but it is eroding.

    JimMtnViewCaUSA in reply to EBL. | August 28, 2014 at 12:03 pm

    Erode away.
    There are big operators putting big thumbs on the scales of justice. And there are smaller operators putting smaller thumbs on the scales.
    I think there is not much doubt, if you are the “little guy” you will not get a fair shake.

    I do believe, however, that it is worse in most other countries and often much worse.

Henry Hawkins | August 28, 2014 at 12:03 pm

The Power Of Pettiness – VOTE DEMOCRAT

One good thing is that the law is now widely known – whereas before, most folks probably thought that until you were *convicted* that you retained your full rights.

Phillep Harding | August 28, 2014 at 12:51 pm

1968 gun control laws strike again.

Until 1968, anyone who was not actually in prison or (perhaps) a nuthouse could buy any sort or amount of weapons or ammo.

How much trouble was there, really?

    PersonFromPorlock in reply to Phillep Harding. | August 29, 2014 at 5:50 pm

    The start was really the Federal Firearms Act of 1934: restricted machine guns, silencers, sawed-off long arms and so on. The 1968 act was basically to protect US manufacturers and gun stores from mail-order competitors selling war surplus arms. And from the Democratic point of view, to increase gun control on general principles, of course.

      Phillep Harding in reply to PersonFromPorlock. | August 29, 2014 at 7:05 pm

      What you say is true if you only look at what was on the books. By the 60’s, the 34 law was simply ignored out of existence, for most (white) people.

      (Real and lethal bigotry did exist back then, not this foolishness we see today.)

filiusdextris | August 28, 2014 at 1:13 pm

A lesson for legislators to watch for overinclusive draft language, perhaps?

How legal would it be to buy the puir wee man a box of ammo as a gift?

Henry Hawkins | August 28, 2014 at 4:33 pm

Anti-gunners don’t realize that they are not restricting gun ownership whatsoever, they are restricting legal gun ownership. If the law and the process are reasonable I’ll comply, but if not I’m still going to own and carry.

I require defense of self and family far more than compliance with any law that would rob me of the ability to do so.

We all have our red lines regarding our rights and this is one of mine.

    Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 28, 2014 at 4:46 pm

    Bingo. I’ve never carried for my personal protection. I’ve often carried for my family’s protection.

    If someone wanted to do something evil to them, I was going to have the ability to reach out and touch someone, as the Bell ad used to say.

9thDistrictNeighbor | August 28, 2014 at 7:20 pm

Does anyone think we’d be having any issues with ISIS if the POTUS could handle a firearm like that? How about problems for Ukraine? Anyone? Bueller?

I think I need that image as a poster on my wall the way my husband had Farah Fawcett on his wall lo those many years ago.

A gun range is opening soon near us…in Jan Schakowsky’s district; I can’t wait….

Be a good time for him to just sign an executive declaring the Natural Right to Carry…and tag and bag illegals, but mostly Right to Carry.

He still has his job as Governor. That is in stark contrast to Tom Delay who had to step down as Majority Leader on equally bogus charges by the same prosecution office.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Dr P. | August 29, 2014 at 2:02 pm

    Unfortunately for DeLay the charges weren’t as obviously malicious and spurious as these charges. Also for Mr. DeLay when his charges came out the “New Media” that practice real journalism was not quite the powerhouse nor as wide spread as it is today. One of the reasons these charges were questioned so readily is because of the video of the Drunken DA being put out so quickly and that was thanks to New Media.

Connivin Caniff | August 29, 2014 at 1:20 pm

How do you deprive someone of a Constitutional right without a hearing?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend