TX is a concealed carry state. Being an avid supporter of our 2nd and proud of this fact, I find a disturbing clause in the Tx law. In order for an establishment or business to restrict the right to carry on their premises, which I also support, all they have to do is post a sign in 1" characters stating so. In English and Spanish! Can an anyone of knowledge explain this one to me?
217248
Well I'm from the peoples republic of California and we don't enjoy such right to carry laws here...so I have a hard time relating.  I don't understand why a state like Texas tolerates an illegal resident period....I would think a good ole boy state like Texas would be rounding up anyone without a green card and shipping them south....
178654
I think you are the gal having a legal mexican bf... Some of us do not forget the word illegal actually I say it and often and I do not agree on how some actions are being taken to solve this issue ,as well as on the american side as on the Mexican/ sud american side. To secure your borders is ok but the way some americans attack them and refer to them is unacceptable even those patrolling and shooting , or those who throw things to ppl while marching no matter what ppl are free to express themselves specially in USA , am I not right? You can not talk about 3er world mentallity and are just showing a bit of missinformation for you to know Mexico belongs to the 2nd world countries.Unfortunatly most of the ppl who cross are ppl who couldn´t really study much and americans do wrong by stereotyping every person cuz of a small group.Not all the ppl in USA have a first world mentallity I can tell I Live on a first world country. Anyway it is not a matter of pin pointing anyone it is a matter of making ppl understand on both sides that the best is to reach an agreement in which both sides will get benefits.
395834
Quoting: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."\n\nWhat it means is that states must have electoral processes to pick an executive and a legislature -- these cannot be hereditary, or the result of winning a lotter (though elections often seem like it).\n\nThe domestic violence clause allows the states to call for federal assistance if there is armed revolt against the state govt. \n\nThe invasion clause makes the federal govt responsible for ensuring that hostile forces do not invade (attack), and at an invasion of any state is an invasion of the country. \n\nWhile I see your point, neither of these has any bearing on the immigration issue. We're not seeing immigrants rolling in with tanks and assault rifles. So, it's not a military invasion. \n\nWhat you're really talking about is the Article I power to regulate when and how private individuals can come into the country. And the federal government has exclusive authority to do that.
660599
What you are about to do is illegal.  READ THE YELLOW FEDERAL FORM.   The firearm must be for you.  If you buy it then give it to him you have committed a felony because the gun was never meant to be for you!!!!!!!!!
633686
No.  It only means that police don't ask if they are here legally until the arrest stage.  Then they ask.   I believe Colorado just passed a law outlawing sanctuaries.  I think that is a good thing.  The idea that somehow it is 'unfair' to enforce the law is one big reason why we got into this situation with 12 to 20 million illegals here.
161953
I have changed mine since it was deregulated.  There are still issues to deal with, but it is getting easier to deal with....\n\nSince it was Bush's state, that must be why it is sooo good!\n\nJust remember this...  Most of our armed forces come from TX.   Texas can live without the USA... The USA can not live without Tx.
439790
As a Brit  I apologise for stepping in here, but would just like to say that the only two members of my American family who possess guns are police officers.  The remainder refuse to own guns on the grounds that too many 'accidents' occur in households where weapons are kept. They have a point - I lived in New York for a while and the number of accidental (fatal) shootings by children of children, in the home, amazed me - as did the arbitrary and senseless shooting of people on the streets.  So I guess the family has a point. \n\nIncidentally, regarding the comment above that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives Americans the constitutional right to own guns, doesn't the relevant sentence say  "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."   Surely, all that means is that in the absence of a standing army (the newly formed United States not yet having a regular army when the Constitution was drafted), the people were allowed to bear arms, as members of a disciplined militia, in order to protect their new nation in case of an attack by outside forces?  Now that the USA has both a National Guard  _and_  an enormous Regular Army, isn't that Amendment now redundant and a couple of centuries out of date?     \n\nI'm only asking... but it's a question that's worth calm, reasoned discussion, surely?
203438
I'm going to go against liberals on this one even though I consider myself a liberal. Gun ownership is protected by the 2nd ammendment. Everyone (with the exception of felons convicted of violent crimes) has the right to bear arms. I did qualify that right because I believe if you take away the rights of another through violence, you deserve to have your right taken away.\n\nI find it funny, and a bit hypocritical, that all the sponsers (except 1) of this are Republicans.\n\nThe 2nd ammendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In October, 2001, the Fifth Circuit upheld the validity of federal firearm statute at issue but, importantly, the court held that the Second Amendment does guarantee individuals the right to possess firearms, not just members of "militias." (see link)\n\nThere are no exceptions in the 2nd ammendment. It does imply that self defense is the primary objective. So, where should the line be drawn? If you feel you may be threstened at work, on your way to/from work, or at any point along the way, then you have a right to carry. \n\nWhile I can't email Florida Reps because I don't live in that state, I support you in your efforts.
456563
The City of Farmers Branch, Texas  has passed an ordinance banning Illegals to live or work in the city, there are fines.  They also have adopted English as official language in city.  There are big organized protests and suit is to be filed against city.  Don't know what sparked the move, but city has a large population of Mexicans. and there are places they have had problems.  Around here most Illegals keep a low profile.  Oh yes the police of Farmers Branch will check status if Mexicans are stopped or in a disruption/fight.. We will see what happens.  you can read about it on yahoo if you scan the news by state.
105807
As long as you are not a FELON and you HAVE on YOUR person a valid weapons(gun) carry permit, AND you are of legal age to OWN and POSSES a firearm, there is nothing they can do about it;however,our LIBERAL MEDIA and their followers have done such a wonderful job scareing the heck out of the public at large that (people) will probably be some what alarmed by the presence of it if they notice it and you don't "LOOK" like someone who "should" be carrying a gun on your hip.Hereto there are so many places now that are posted "NO WEAPONS" that you would be taking it off and putting it on so frequently,why bother?In which case you might as well get a permit to carry a concealed weapon and then as your hopefully common-sense driven discretion allows you could "playfully" expose it to get the thrill of talking to the POLICE and being the center of attention that you're so desperately seeking as to be willing to have some trigger-happy cop take a shot at youbecause when he asked you to take it out and give it to (HIM) you did actually remove it from the holster instead of leaving it in the holster and handing over the whole thing so he could take it and check the national registry to see if it was stolen and to verify your credentials.DON'T THINK THAT I AM KIDDING AROUND HERE...They take people and train them regardless of personality to be pit bulls, suspiciuos of every one.In my town they kill people frequently and get away wth it,either with guns or tasers or their squad cars or their K-9,Oh yea babe! BAM! IF you really are such a thrill seeker or you just don't value your life at least get some life insurance so your poor family can give you a decent burial...
567447
While I'm not sure what state you are in it is possible for you to be charged with carrying a concealed weapon in your car in California.  (where I am from).\n\nIn California if I we're to take a gun to a gun shop I must have it in plain view, unloaded and be on the way to a gun shop.  Otherwise it could well be considered a concealed weapon in the car.  \n\nIt depends on where it was in the car - if it was hidden there is a good chance you will face charges.  If it was in plain view you could argue you we're moving it from home to the office, from home to a gun shop or that you we're intending to go shooting that night?\n\nBy the way - how did they find it?  They had to have cause to search unless you gave them consent?
542205
I will give you an eyewitness statement. First, I'm not from Texas (I'm a Tar Heel!!! - GO NC!!), second I'm not in the National Guard, I'm active duty. Now the account, I served with an active duty battalion that was assigned 2 National Guard companies - one was from Kansas and one was from Texas. They were truck companies, and both saw heavy action. On a side note, I found both units to be extremely professional in their duties. Neither shirked from any mission assigned to them and had an amazing "Can Do" attitude. If I had any negative comments about the Guard units I have served with - they are minor. I found they had a bit of a height/weight and PT shortcoming, but they more than made up for that with their Mission First attitude. My BC had a board in his office/tent with a collection of all the Guard patches of units we had run into over there. I don't recall a single state missing from his board - we even had a couple territory patches (Guam and PR). So whoever posted that on a Yahoo Board is simply giving into conspiracy BS and once again, as they almost always seem to be - are yapping away and have NEVER spent a day. Isn't it curious how the folks who seem to to come up with this crap have a mysterious lack of service to go along with their tripe?
375207
"However, when did this country decide that hate crime language is O.K. to spew at a PAYING audience? Why shouldn't the group of people offended sue his *ss off?"\n\nUhh... when the First Amendment was ratified way back in 1776... It isn't "illegal", so the lawsuit would have no merit and be tossed on Constitutional grounds... By the way, I find your "hate crime language" comment highly offensive- expect to hear from my attorney!
495040
Law abiding citizens can have all the guns they want. Everyone I know has at least one.  If the police show up to take my gun, well, there will be some shooting. It is my right to have one and to defend myself in my home. Badge or no badge, no one will get it without getting shot.
181858
This is actually not a question. It's a partial statement. Just because you put a ? behind it doesn't make it a question. Some people have been getting reported because this is against the YA! community guidelines. However, I will try to respond to your non-question. I believe that this is one of the most reasonable questions? statements? partial statements? to be voiced around this community. I think this could be a very viable OPTION. Of course, not every "illegal" may meet all of the requirements, just like not all Americans meet all of the requirements. If there could be a few more reasonable options in place, this might have a shot at working. \n\nI appreciate the explanation of your plan, no matter how brief it was. It shows actual thought and foresight and a solution for their families as well. It's not just rhetoric and propaganda meant to incite people. Not everyone will agree with this suggestion, as someone has already called you a name because of it but at least it's a viable thought/option.\n\nThe statement from someone that said there would be money required out of your pocket to teach them English shows the amount of ignorance in our culture. If they knew any Mexicans they would know that the majority already speak English, as well, if not better than many Americans. I know not all of them do but if they don't their kids do and they learn it from them. All of my family (aunts, uncles, cousins) including my grandparents spoke English and spoke it very well. There were no communication problems. In fact, every Mexican family I know that came from Mexico speaks English.\n\n\nP.S. I was trying to be nice by informing you that there are others who have reported people for not asking "real questions". I still do not agree that your question was one whether it was in the form of a question or a statement. That's not the issue. The issue is what others might do, not me.\n\nI still find your solution to be a refreshing change. I think it tries to make it a win/win situation for both parties involved. Not everyone thinks outside the box. I believe both sides of the issue need to have more of this sort of thinking.
533816
The most important information was left out of the question....What state do you live in???....If you want a gun so you can be an armed guard then the company you will be employed by will sponsor you for the Gun Permit.  That permit is generally only good for the time you are working.  In other words, you would sign-out your weapon at the beginning of your work day and sign it back in at the end of the day.  Some states allow you to carry the weapon at all times as long as you are employed by the Guard Service.  I have carried a gun for nearly 40 yrs as a former Police Officer.  Believe me, it is a heavy burden(NYPD Ret).
331013
The administration did play by the rules if you are talking about the sending of national gaurd troops down to the border.  The President does have the authority to federalize gaurd troops if you didn't know that.  The ID cards will be in English because American Businesses operate in English, was that a hard question?  Finally, the drugs thing, are you kidding me? Bush said that to not piss off the hispanics that are taking this country hostage any more than he did for actually TRYING to enforce our immigration laws.  What's hilarious about this whole issue is the fact that not one of these illegals or their supporters openly admit what they are doing is illegal!\n\np.s. Mexican President Vicente Fox recently almost signed a law decriminalizing all drugs in the country for "personal use".  Still think drugs aren't coming from there?