“The Texas Department of Public Safety is searching the bags of anyone entering the (state senate) gallery to watch (abortion bill) debate and confiscating any tampons or maxipads found. There is concern that these female hygiene products could be used as projectiles and thrown at state senators. However, visitors can still bring guns into the gallery if they have a concealed carry license.” [at thedailybeast.com]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

60 COMMENTS

  1. I think that is an inflammatory lie. I don’t know of an exception to CHL holders. I may be wrong but I don’t think so.

    I know you can bring a pocket knife in.

      • From my reading it seems your link confirms the above quote as a hoax or at least misconception, guns seem to be allowed in the office areas and on the reps on the floor, but there are metal detectors outside the gallery for visitors negating guns in the galleries.

        • It’s well known to CHL holders in Texas that firearms ARE allowed at the Texas capitol building. They even have a separate line, sans metal detector, that has a lone DPS Trooper and used solely for CHL holders. You show your CHL, he looks, and says “Have a nice day” as you walk on in to the building.

        • Yes steve the building, but the linked article states no guns in the galleries, second layer of detectors outside the galleries for everyone. It was mentioned that some reps would allow constituents to store firearms in their offices while visiting restricted areas of the building like galleries.

          I’m not stating one way or the other just putting it out there for clarification that the quoted individual might be doing that “There are no background checks we need background checks” when that’s not quite the whole story thing.

          EDIT: Double checked and I did misread it, it was referring to a temporary situation some time ago in which detectors were used outside the galleries.

          Not sure where to stand on it then, if they are indeed confiscating hygiene products, which I doubt.

    • I’ve carried in the Capitol Building myself. We even get our own security line. Shockingly enough, I’m not of aware of any gun-related incidence inside the Capitol.

  2. I have no problem with tampons being taken into the gallery as long as they are properly “concealed”.

  3. This is stupid. The results of shooting a gun at a senator would be pretty steep, therefore most normal people and especially CHL holders will not be doing any shooting. It’s another “try to make gun owners appear to be murderers in waiting” quote.

    I don’t think they should be confiscating their property though. If they are found to be a tampon tosser, then toss them out of the building.

  4. I can be ok with confiscating used hygien products. Taking away unused procts especially from a woman who might be menstrating and thus have need of them seems like an undue restriction.

    • From my cold, dead…

      Never mind.

      Actually, tampons have killed more people than any of my pistols.

      But I can see why Texas would be more scared of a wad of cotton that goes to places that most of its males never did.

      (ducking behind the berm, chuckling)

  5. Confiscating everyone’s property because they think some individuals might do something bad with it… Sounds kinda familiar.

  7. ‘Dafuq?

    There ain’t one o’ these here Benighted States which ain’t got a loony somewhere in the Halls o’ Power.

    It does however prove the adage that “Anything can happen in Texas.”

    Next they’ll be forcing all women of childbearing age to wear a GPS tracker and take a p¡ss test when crossing into any neighboring state lest they seek an abortion elsewhere.

    • So how old does your child have to be before it’s not OK to kill him or her?

      • I’m not making a pro-abortion argument, here; I will go on record that it shouldn’t be thought of as a contraceptive, though.

        I’m just saying that when Texas does a stupid thing, they tend to do it Texas big.

        While I freely admit that they do get it right far more often than they get it wrong, this piece merits some serious heckling.

        As for how old a kid has to be, I’d say ‘twain thirteen and nineteen is about right for killin’ ’em should the need arise.

        • Can’t say I disagree about teens or Texas, but as I understand it half of this bill is to prevent another Kermit Gosnell situation from happening in TX. The same people who are always claiming that the Republicans want to send women back to the back alleys cry foul when they try to put an end to cut rate unsanitary abortion mills. Can’t have it both ways.

        • I believe it was Idaho?, Russ, that had the poorly worded save the babies law that allowed people to drop unwanted babies safely and with no questions asked at hospitals and fire houses etc.

          Thanks to the way the law was worded teen agers were being dropped off. As one who has raised kids I thought a no questions asked return policy on teens was a great idea.

      • Edit: Now that I’ve read the linked story, I’ll go easier on Texas – this time.

        Pity some of the salient facts were omitted from the TTAG blurb.

        Texas, thou hast mine most humble of apologies.

      • According to Obamacare, it’s not a human life until it has a social security number.

      • How many guns can you own before it’s not OK to own any more guns? I know people who say no one should have guns. That is their choice. It is not my choice. I would not force them to own a gun. I would not force my views or morals upon them, they must live with their choices and die with their choices.

        I’ve made my decision as to when it is when it is no longer OK to terminate my children. A choice that I have to live with, not you.

        You have to make your own choice and live with it. But that is your choice, not mine.

        • No I don’t have to live with it, it’s your children (or not).

          If we’re going to stop “forcing our morals on others” then we will have to stop enforcing laws like, “Thou shalt not murder” and “Thou shalt not steal”. A child is either human or it’s not so the debate isn’t about morals. I don’t know of anyone who believes it should be legal to kill you 2 month old child. The debate is about science, only there’s only one side that has any interest in prenatal science.

      • >> So how old does your child have to be before it’s not OK to kill him or her?

        It has to be a child, for a start, as opposed to a lump of dividing cells.

        • One pregnant woman is NOT two people!

          If government power doesn’t stop AT OUR SKIN then we might as well just all don our swastika armbands and start marching the goose-step.

        • At 18 days an embryo (not even a fetus yet) develops his or her (yes the sex has already been determined) own heartbeat which often pumps blood that is not even of the same blood type as his or her mother. By 140 days this is a child, not just a “lump of cells”.

          • According to Genesis 2:7, “He breathed the breath of life into the man’s nostrils, and the man became a living person,” it’s not a person until God breathes the Breath of Life into its nostrils.

    • The twenty week rule is standard in most civilized countries. The United States has the most lenient abortion culture in the developed world. The recent moves to limit abortions to the time period when the fetus is not viable is a product of the Kermit Gosnell trial. Gosnell, if you don’t know, was the sociopath that ran a prenatal Birkenau in Philadelphia. One woman died and numerous born alive babies had their spinal columns snipped. Gosnell kept souvenirs in his office. He was convicted of several counts of murder in the first. The good Dr. Gosnell was an honest man about his profession unlike the other sociopaths who run pre-natal Theresienstadts — the very model of a modern fetal death facility. There is a reason that even pro-abortions members of the medical profession ostracize professional abortionists.

  8. There is no constitional right to bear tampons. The TDPS acted properly knowing there was a plan afoot (if that’s the proper term in this case) to throw these devices at the evil law makers. It may be profiling but if you show up with an orange Tee shirt and a bag full of tampons, your primary goal is not keeping your girly parts clean.

  9. I think they’d let them keep their tampons if it wasn’t for the jars of poop and piss. Seriously, if you’re carrying a couple jars of poop and piss and a few used tampons what do you think they’re going to think you intend to do with them?

    • To be fair… Walking around with a jar of human waste on your person is a bit much. Plus, there is no fourth amendment protection at security checkpoints. Sad, but true. The CCW holders are subject to inspections also, it’s just that their guns are licensed and therefore allowed in the secured area.

      • what’s fair?
        freedom is carrying all the excrement you want. Throw it at someone, and then that’s a violation of another’s rights, and therefore another story. (illegal)

        what’s the difference between carrying excrement and carrying firearms if they sit pretty in your holster and never come out?

        shall we ban excrement because it COULD be used as a weapon? Therefore we should ban firearms. Shame on some of us.

        • Are we seriously arguing about the right to keep and bear poo to fling at people? While the principle is interesting. Human feces in your pocket is both a sign of mental illness and a public health hazard. (Fecal coliforms anybody?)

        • @ Thomas Paine
          Grabbers, extremists, politicians and the media already throw verbal sh1t around all day long.

          I think we can draw the line at that, regardless of the issue.

        • …as much as I think some politicians deserve to have poo flung at them, doing it is lowering yourself to their level.

  11. The guns have been asked not to kill anyone and they all have promised to be good little guns.

  12. I don’t see the issue.

    It’s far more likely someone will throw tampons and condoms at the senators and reps than for a CHL holder to pull their firearm out and do something with it.

    Plus, I’m willing to bet the majority of Pro-choice orange shirts aren’t the type of people who are pro-choice when it comes to firearms, and probably don’t have a CHL.

  13. I’m waiting for this story…

    BREAKING: Shots Fired at Texas Capitol Building

    AUSTIN—A suspect was arrested today for entering the Texas Capitol building and opening fire. According to sources, the shooter used a Taurus Judge loaded with shotgun shells that “contained bloody tampons.”

Comments are closed.