The ACLU supporting carrying in Texas?

Here is the whole article...
Roddy Stinson: State's new gun-toting law has surprise backer: ACLU

Web Posted: 02/05/2006 12:00 AM CST



San Antonio Express-News

The Texas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union is unhappy about last Thursday's column concerning the state's new gun-toting law.

I know this because of an e-mail exchange I had with chapter spokesman Scott Henson, who chided:

—"Your interpretation of House Bill 823 relies on an analysis by a handful of prosecutors who opposed the law, but not the bill language itself."


—"It's true that some prosecutors are telling police to keep arresting people ... but they are raising a red herring. The law is really not unclear."
—"The lawmakers wanted drivers to be able to have a stowed gun driving to the bank or the grocery store."


And the real shocker:
—"I was closely involved in the legislative process that created the new law."


Somebody check the weather in Hades. Snowflakes must be falling on Beelzebub's head.
Whether this conservative turn is an ACLU aberration or a step in the right-wing direction won't be known for a while. But news of the organization's loose-gun-control stance will surely cause a few spluttering Sunday morning readers to lose their coffee.

Incidentally, if you missed Thursday's column ...

House Bill 823, which was passed by Texas legislators during the 2005 regular session, states that a person "is presumed to be traveling" and is legally permitted to carry a handgun in his car or truck if he is (1) in a private motor vehicle, (2) not engaged in criminal activity, (3) not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm, (4) not a member of a "criminal street gang" and (5) not carrying the handgun "in plain view."

The bill was vigorously opposed by prosecutors and law enforcement officials who believed it would increase the number of guns on the state's streets and highways and do more harm than good.

In the column, I quoted Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal, who said that in his jurisdiction, "It is still going to be against the law for (unlicensed) persons to carry handguns in autos." And I suggested that Texans should probably think twice before stashing pistols in their glove boxes or under their bucket seats.

That warning prompted the Henson-initiated e-mail exchange.

"The new statute says juries MUST presume a driver is traveling and therefore legally carrying a gun unless the state disproves one of the five elements," the ACLUer insisted. "State Rep. Terry Keel, who authored the bill, says: 'In plain terms, a law-abiding person should not fear arrest if they are transporting a concealed weapon in a motor vehicle.' ...

"The story here isn't that the law was poorly written. The story here is that some prosecutors are so arrogant they think they don't have to follow the law."

Still, Henson cautioned: "I agree that drivers should be wary. Until this is settled (in the courts), they risk arrest."

Toward the end of the e-mail exchange, I wondered about the potential ramifications of the new law and shared my concern with Henson:

"As I understand the intent of the original 'traveling' law, it was written so bona fide travelers could have a weapon (for protection) as they drove down the open road.

"It seems to me that HB 823 turned that intent on its head, allowing an individual to be armed going to the corner grocery store."

Unfazed, Henson responded with his "driving to the bank or grocery store" remark.

And that's pretty much the up-to-date story of the new gun law and the controversy surrounding it.

Henson said the ACLU has filed open records requests with prosecutors across the state to determine which ones are telling officers to continue making arrests, and he believes if state courts don't "slap them down," the House and Senate will spank them during the next legislative session.

Meanwhile, the debate over the new law will continue.

Frankly, I find myself leaning a bit left of the ACLU position.

But maybe I'm missing something.

Lend me a contemplative hand here.

Use the feedback information below to call or e-mail me your take on Texas' new gun-toting law.
Click to expand...
 
He requested letters, so here is mine...

rstinson@express-news.net

Roddy,

In your article you mention that you're left of the ACLU on the gun-in-car law. You ask for other views but this makes precise discussion difficult since you don't say what portions of the law you dislike.

Coming from gun-friendly Arizona, I'm a little amused at all the concern of "blood in the streets" that I hear EVERY time less restrictive bills are considered in (your state here) legislatures.

Rick
Phx, Az
Click to expand...
 
The ACLU seems to have as its "agenda" Civil Liberties. What a surprise.

Sometimes that means they zealously pursue the "innocent until proven guilty" line of thought. So it looks like they're soft on crime, and you hate'em.

Sometimes they support getting people out of trouble on technicalities (searches, drugs, 4th amendment). So it looks like they support drugs and you hate'em.

Sometimes they support freedom from religion, which only the biggest of morons would argue is different from freedom of religion. So it looks like they are god-haters and you hate'em.

But sometimes they support the right of the KKK to march. Hmmmm. No comments there.

And once in a while they speak up for that 2nd amendment, too. Hmmmm.

Has it occurred to anybody that they stand for nothing more than Civil Liberties? Like YOUR liberties?

I say: Busybodies and moralizers, MYOB. Every crime should have a victim or be taken off the books.

Just for clarity:

Victim - somebody who can show a police officer or the State Attorney he's been damaged by a criminal.

Busybody - somebody who is sure that somebody, somewhere is having too much fun.

Maybe it's time for ACLU-haters to take a more objective look (not objective as in O'Reilly/Hannity) at what the ACLU actually does.
 
As someone who follows these things it is true that the TX ACLU has been active in supporting gun rights in the TX legislature. However, don't mistake that to mean the national ACLU has made any such shift in direction.
 
"And once in a while they speak up for that 2nd amendment, too. Hmmmm."

I can't think of a single time the ACLU stood up for the Second Amendment. Can you? If so, I'd love to hear about it.

Tim
 
Gentlemen:

Go to the top of the page, and click on 'Library'

Find the heading 'Position on the RKBA'

Click on 'ACLU position on the 2nd Amendment'

Enjoy
 
The ACLU has been steadfast in its opposition to the right to keep and bear arms. They deem the Second Amendment a "collective" right only to be exercised by government.

The ACLU is not our friend. The ACLU views the Bill of Rights in a grrranimal or a la carte manner--they pick and choose which rights will advance their agenda of instituting socialism in the USA (purpose for which it was founded).
 
"There! I found it! It's the post that started this thread!"

It's not clear to me from the article what the ACLU thinks it's doing in this case, but my guess is that they see this as a search and seizure issue rather than 2A. The ACLU is strongly opposed to the notion that the Second Amendment grants an individual right to own and possess a firearm, and they specifically say that on their web site.

Tim
 
Texas: Even our liberals are conservative*.

LawDog

*As compared to liberals most other places. Like California. Or Massachusetts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top