October 18, 2019

Tom Delay Wants His Concealed Weapons Permit Re-Instated

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Texas has an odd law that was passed back in 1995 the says that anyone charged with, not convicted of, a Class A or Class B misdemeanor or indicted on felony charges, cannot carry a concealed weapon.

Tom Delay has been indicted on charges of money laundering, which is a felony, and a Texas judge has revoked Delay’s permit to carry. Whether you think Delay is guilty or innocent, you have to ask yourself why would Texas have a law like this? – or any other state for that matter. Isn’t a person innocent until proven guilty?

Here’s an explanation of the founding of the bill.

The author of the original bill, Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, who was a state senator, said the section of law calling for suspension of licenses of people under indictment should probably be removed from the statute.

“It is clearly not rational, not called for, but it was one of those things we did to make somebody say, ‘OK, I’ll vote for it,’ ” Patterson said Monday.

Another day in the life of sleezy politicians. This kind of behavior that goes on daily in the halls of Congress is one reason why people don’t trust, don’t like, and don’t want anything to do with these people. What kind of lawmakers, yield away a person’s Constitutional rights in order to get some other bill through Congress? All kinds, that’s who. This is one very big reason that we all need to pay attention to what our lawmakers are doing so this doesn’t happen.

During a question and answer period when representatives of Delay were announcing the plan to appeal the decision, a reporter asked why Delay wanted to carry a concealed weapon. Of course the representative replied that that was a personal issue, angering some in attendance who felt that they had a right to know.

Why is taking away one right of a presumed innocent individual considered acceptible? Why didn’t they pass a law the makes free speech illegal to someone accused of a felony? Or they could tell someone under indictment they cannot practice freedom of religion. The key here is where is the presumption of innocence?

Tom Remington

Share