Gun Control

Democrats and Tea Party Supporters Teaming Up To Stop Lawmakers Giving Themselves Gun Perks



Tea Party supporters and Democrats in Texas and North Carolina have found a common gripe: legislators giving themselves gun perks that won't extend to the public. 

From Fox News:

WASHINGTON –  It's not a political alliance people are used to seeing. But in states like Texas and North Carolina, Tea Party supporters have been teaming up with Democrats to defeat measures that would expand gun rights for lawmakers but not the general public.

In Texas, the House defeated a measure on Sunday that would have given prosecuting attorneys and lawmakers permission to carry guns anywhere they wanted to in the state. Just 38 lawmakers voted for it, while 103 voted against.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

Spice up your blog or Website with Reason 24/7 news and Reason articles. You can get the widgets here. If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

NEXT: Rand Paul Visiting Internet Giants This Week in Silicon Valley

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. In Texas, the House defeated a measure on Sunday that would have given prosecuting attorneys and lawmakers permission to carry guns anywhere they wanted to in the state.


    1. The Texas legislature had a pretty good session this year. Perry just called for a special session though so still some time to ruin that.

    2. +1 Orwell.

    3. my classmate’s sister-in-law makes $64/hr on the internet. She has been unemployed for 7 months but last month her check was $17878 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more here… http://WWW.DAZ7.COM

      1. YOU LIE

  2. Comforting to know that some people still believe that we live in a republic where one set of laws applies to everyone, regardless of if they are aristocracy or not.

    For now.

    1. Most jurisdictions have laws that allow cops and ex-cops to carry guns in both type and location that the rest of us can’t.

      1. Some animals are more equal than others.

        1. Lawmakers and law enforcement being the most equal of all.

      2. That would include the whole of the United States:…..Safety_Act

        1. The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons?the “qualified law enforcement officer” and the “qualified retired law enforcement officer”?to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States

          A law passed which covers ‘classes of persons’. You know who else had laws which were targeted at ‘classes of persons’?

          1. Victorian Britain?

          2. “You know who else had laws which were targeted at ‘classes of persons’?”

            Uh, give me a minute. Begins with G?

            1. Guyana? I suppose.

          3. The German unDemocratic Republic and the U’R So Sorry Republic?

        2. Although LEOSA preempts state and local laws, there are two notable exceptions: “the laws of any State that (1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property” (such as a bars, private clubs, amusement parks, etc.), or “(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park”

          The Texas bill was attempting to remove these exceptions for police only:

          Current Texas law restricts concealed handgun license holders from taking their weapons into schools, bars, sporting events and federal buildings.

          1. Sorry lawmakers, so I guess the two are unrelated. I’m interested in seeing if Texas already gives police officers that exception.

            1. For lawmakers, Chicago is the worst offender:

              1. This was prior to McDonald v. Chicago so it’s not as bad now. Plus IL passed concealed carry so I do see us finally moving in the right direction.

                1. Eh? Did they pass something?

                  Last I knew is that a bill was rejected, and if they don’t pass shall-issue by June 9th, any FOID holder can carry, any way they want.

                  Also, Chicago-area sheriffs may be threatening to shoot anyone carrying afterwards, which should make for some great cop stories/lawsuits/fireworks.

                  1. The House passed a “decent” shall issue SB2193 and the Senate immediately derailed it. They are at an impasse right now.

                    Without Preemption Constitutional carry will be nightmare with 200+ communities enacting their own different laws.

            2. You’ll want to see Chapter 46 of the Texas Penal Code, Apatheist. The relevant sections on where you can’t take your concealed weapon are 46.02 and .03, like bars and within 300 feet of a school.

              46.15, Nonapplicability, is the carve out section for LEOs, D.As, and other animals more equal than the others. It includes judges, ADAs, county and city attorneys, and others in the FYTW group.

              Equal protection? What?

      3. That one is federal.

        1. But supposedly overrides state laws.

          But wait . . . if all *we* need are cops to protect us the why do off-duty and former cops need to carry guns?

          I suppose I should say “law enforcement officer” instead of cop as the former term covers a lot more people than actual police (like prison guards, park rangers, and meter maids).

          1. Once in the brotherhood…

          2. Cops don’t carry guns to protect us. They carry guns to protect themselves. Once they are accustomed to initiating violence at the slightest provocation, they need a firearm to protect themselves in case the violence gets out of hand. Because not initiating violence at the slightest provocation is not an option. I mean, they’re trained to be violent. That’s why losing their job is a death sentence. They’re unfit for normal society where violence is not the accepted reaction to any perceived slight. You call the cops when people initiate violence. Except when the person initiating the violence is a cop or an ex-cop. Then no one will help you.

            1. Cops don’t carry guns to protect us.

              You don’t need any of the rest of the explanation. The courts, including the SCOTUS, have repeatedly ruled the police have no duty to protect us.

              1. But wait . . . if the cops have no duty to protect us then shouldn’t we have equal access to the tool to do it ourselves?

                1. No, because you’re a stupid peasant and have no power.

                2. But wait . . . if the cops have no duty to protect us then shouldn’t we have equal access to the tool to do it ourselves?

                  One of the judges on the court that upheld the NY decision on this (Riss v NY 1958) saw the irony of the Sullivan laws in combination with this argument from NYC.

            2. Cops don’t prevent crime. They “solve” crimes.

              1. Ooooh, like on the teevee?

              2. Cops don’t prevent crime.

                This! ^^^^

                They “solve” crimes.

                Yeah, let’s go with that. I used to live in a city with a homicide clearance rate so bad they cooked the books. Even then they admitted to leaving about 1/3 of murders unsolved.

                1. When you consider that the only cop show made by someone who actually spent a lot of time with cops is The Wire, you’ll come to realize how bad things are.

                  All that stuff about cooking the clearance rates, moving up the ladder through politics rather than competence, and using illegal means to gather information about suspects? Virtually all of it actually happens.

      4. Most jurisdictions have laws that allow cops and ex-cops to carry guns in both type and location that the rest of us can’t.

        It’s like that all over the country, Paul.

        It’s for their SAFETY, you animal.

      5. Yes, like DC, VA, and TN. I would know more of those “exceptions” places, but these are the only ones I paid attention to in the past 10 years.

        1. I suspected “and everywhere else” now I know the reference.

    2. Only racist sexist homophobic lunatic redneck rich people think that there should be one set of laws.

          1. This Goldwyn Smith is a rabble-rouser. We don’t need him/her to upset the delicate balance of H&R.

            1. …”upset the delicate balance of H&R.”
              Shreek, you haven’t a clue.

              1. I think that counts as a “whoosh!” for you, Sevo. I’m pretty sure Mr. Buttplug was being humorous.

      1. I always loved how in the beginning the news would struggle to try and come up with new hyperbolic descriptions of the Tea Party that was even more delusional than the last one.

        And suddenly you have a caucus that actually has principles like this, rejecting party allegiance in order to conserve said principles, and the left is scratching their heads to explain why they christofags are supporting a democratic bill.

        Does anyone really think Rand Paul believes deep down any special allegiance to the GOP?

        Cause I don’t.

        1. Does anyone really think Rand Paul believes deep down any special allegiance to the GOP?

          I don’t believe he has, but I worry that he’s gonna turn into a useful idiot for the party. As in, he’s promised votes on things, or committee positions for endorsements and playing the good republican on teevee, but gets nothing in return.

  3. Hopefully they will team up and toss out the bastards that proposed the legislation next election cycle.

    1. Recall!

  4. OT:…..ricin.html

    Ricin letters sent to Mayor Nanny and his thug group– real or false flag?

    1. Probably someone mad that the soda ban got struck down. Someone wanting no more than 8oz sodas, and a million dollar per pack tax on cigarettes (to pay for more fascism)

      1. “You know who I feel bad for? The detective who has to solve my murder.”

        1. I find it hilarious that he most probably thought this comment would garner sympathy for himself.

          All I felt was “Jeez, should that such an event come to pass in the near future”.

    2. Could well be real; he’s pissed off about everyone who doesn’t think he’s the ultimate judge of what humans are allowed to do.
      WTH, he uses a gun to threaten anyone buying a soda larger than X and he’s surprised when someone threatens back? The asshole’s as dumb as shithead.

  5. OT:
    Wimenz may take pill that third-party twits don’t like!
    “Scientists fear female libido booster too effective”
    The jokes write themselves……..effective/

    1. “There was a lot of discussion about it by the experts in the room ? the need to show that you’re not turning women into nymphomaniacs.”

      Hhmm… makes me wonder just what kind of freaks these “experts” are?

      I think all women should be required to ingest this drug for a month or so just to know what life is like for the average, healthy male.

  6. “. . .the F.D.A. would reject an application out of concern that a chemical would lead to female excesses, crazed binges of infidelity, societal splintering,” Bergner writes.”

    Except that the FDA doesn’t have authority to stop drugs for those reasons. The FDA’s authority extends to ensuring that a drug is safe and effective (safe primarily and that it at least kinda does what it says it does secondarily).

    1. And only conservatives would over-rule FDA science with political considerations, huh?

      1. Well, if the FDA was DOING ITS FUCKING JOB then they’d just say that “If you, the legislature, want to try to ban it because of any perceived social effects, well that’s your business. We only say if it s safe and effective.”

    1. I just read today (and I should of noticed this) that the last 5 teams in the playoffs are the last 5 cup winners. I think we’re gonna have an eventful conference/cup finals.

      1. 4.

        1. Oh snap, I didn’t see that the B-hawks took the series. This long break was used by myself to relax a bit and stop obsessing. I’ll need all of my psychic energy for the Boston series.

          I have a feeling that it’s gonna be tough.

  7. I don’t understand this. Prosecutors in Texas are already legally considered cops. They get a badge and everything.

    1. Stop right where you are! You know the score, pal! You’re not a cop, you’re little people.

  8. Sounds like a very good plan to me dude. Wow.

  9. So, funadamental rights are fundamental. Natural righs are natural rights. Innate rights are innate. Such rights apply equally to everyone, no matter who they are, what they do for a living or where they live. Innate rights can’t be stolen, legislated away or waived.

    Using whatever means are necessary, you can willingly defend your natural and innate rights against those who would take them from you. Anyone who would steal your rights is no longer a willing participant of any normal social contract. Such individuals or groups of individuals who make any manner of attempt to steal your rights are outlaws and should be dealt with as such.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.