Main Menu
Advertisement
Affiliates
Advertisement
Newest Members
Bullegend, CootGod, 5121, GoldenBear03, Ronniej
64184 Registered Users
Top Posters
dogcatcher 89676
stxranchman 53481
bill oxner 49131
RKHarm24 44577
rifleman 44406
BOBO the Clown 43998
BMD 40992
SnakeWrangler 38972
Big Orn 37484
txshntr 35360
facebook
Forum Stats
64184 Members
45 Forums
415974 Topics
6048853 Posts

Max Online: 16728 @ 03/25/12 08:51 AM
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#7247402 - 08/06/18 06:21 PM Gun control in Texas.....
BillS2008 Offline
Outdoorsman

Registered: 01/24/08
Posts: 79
Loc: Gonzales, Texas
It is not much of a reach to say that Texas is the #1 gun friendly state in the Union. If it is not, Texas is certainly near the top of the list. Nonetheless, recent tragic events at the Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs and at Santa Fe High School have proven that even in Texas, the debate over the right to arms enumerated in the U.S. and Texas Constitutions can be animated, if not downright hostile.

After the Santa Fe High School tragedy, Texas Governor Greg Abbott convened a series of roundtable discussions which ultimately produced a 42 page “School Firearm and Safety Action Plan”. Both Texas House and Texas Senate committees have begun interim studies and public hearings on elements of the Governor's draft plan.

The most controversial idea being considered is the Extreme Risk Protective Order (ERPO) also known as a “Red Flag” law. Many gun rights advocates claim such a law would be unconstitutional. In fact, some of those opposed to a ERPO statute also claim ANY restriction or regulation of firearms is unconstitutional and are quick to defend that premise with the “What part of ‘shall not infringe’ don’t you understand?” cliche.

Claiming any government regulation or restriction on firearms is unconstitutional is bizarre. Not once has the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) come even close to such a conclusion.

But let’s not take SCOTUS word for it. Let’s go back to the 1789 final draft of the Bill of Rights as well as the correspondence on the subject by James Madison, the author of those first ten amendments to the Constitution. What was Madison thinking and what did the words “shall not infringe” mean in his mind?

The 2nd Amendment 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 the 4th Amendment we find “The right of the people to be secure . . . against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated " which raises the question as to which word is more restrictive: “infringed ” or “violated ”? Does the use of infringed mean you cannot restrict gun rights in any fashion? If violated had been used instead of infringed, would that mean something else?

For that matter, the 9th Amendment relates “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

So we have infringe, violate, deny, and disparage used in the Bill of Rights. I conclude that Madison as a writer did not put any more significance to any of them but rather did not want to use the same word too many times over a short expanse of copy. Nowhere does it say that government cannot make law regulating firearms. If that were Madison's intent, we know exactly what he would have said.

The 1st Amendment protecting freedom of religion, speech and assembly begins with “Congress shall make no law…” There you have it. The strongest limitation on Congress was not the use of shall not infringe or violate or deny or disparage - it was “Congress shall make no law…”

If Madison had intended to deny Congress the right to regulate firearms as a matter of law, he would have written the same words used in the 1st Amendment. He did not.

So Congress and the legislature can regulate firearms and do so constitutionally. The problem is when regulation becomes prohibition or becomes so onerous as to effectively deny these enumerated rights to the people - that is an unconstitutional act by government.

So while “What part of 'shall not infringe' don’t you understand?” makes a great bumper sticker, it does not go very far in defending 2nd Amendment rights. Those who use it are hurting - not helping - the cause of liberty.

Semper Fi and God Bless Texas!

Jerry Patterson

Top
#7259507 - 08/17/18 01:19 PM Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: BillS2008]
Marc K Offline
Tracker

Registered: 11/02/10
Posts: 940
Loc: Eustace, TX
From the piece above:

"If Madison had intended to deny Congress the right to regulate firearms as a matter of law, he would have written the same words used in the 1st Amendment. He did not."

"I conclude that Madison as a writer did not put any more significance to any of them but rather did not want to use the same word too many times over a short expanse of copy."


Hard to accept that someone today, is able to clearly guess what Madison and others meant - beyond their actual words. Sure, anyone can claim that the Founders actually meant something different than their carefully chosen words.

The words "Shall not infringe" are actually pretty clear in terms of intent, regardless of spin being applied.

Marc
_________________________
A Democracy is when two wolves and a lamb vote on the dinner menu. That is why this country was not designed to be a Democracy.

Top
#7259579 - 08/17/18 02:00 PM Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: Marc K]
BOONER Online   content
THF Trophy Hunter

Registered: 10/26/09
Posts: 5440
Loc: Brownwood,Tx
Originally Posted By: Marc K
From the piece above:

"If Madison had intended to deny Congress the right to regulate firearms as a matter of law, he would have written the same words used in the 1st Amendment. He did not."

"I conclude that Madison as a writer did not put any more significance to any of them but rather did not want to use the same word too many times over a short expanse of copy."


Hard to accept that someone today, is able to clearly guess what Madison and others meant - beyond their actual words. Sure, anyone can claim that the Founders actually meant something different than their carefully chosen words.

The words "Shall not infringe" are actually pretty clear in terms of intent, regardless of spin being applied.

Marc




up
And how many would have died in that church without the law abiding citizen with a gun!

Top
#7259797 - 08/17/18 04:49 PM Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: BillS2008]
SapperTitan Online   content
Taking Requests

Registered: 11/17/10
Posts: 26693
Loc: Killeen/Ft Hood, TX
The guy running against Cruz is all about gun control and wants to completely ban so called assault rifles
_________________________
Originally Posted By: bill oxner
I plowed mules.
Originally Posted By: Roll-Tide
I did build a cabin. Aka “the brokeback shack”.


Top
#7259830 - 08/17/18 05:15 PM Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: SapperTitan]
Slow Drifter Offline


Registered: 04/09/09
Posts: 4638
Loc: Central Texas
Originally Posted By: SapperTitan
The guy running against Cruz is all about gun control and wants to completely ban so called assault rifles


Yes, and he's done a lot of fund raising in California, which I believe is where a lot if not most of his campaign funds have come from.
_________________________
"I have no idea what WW-III will be fought with, but WW-IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

A. Einstein


Top
#7259880 - 08/17/18 06:03 PM Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: BillS2008]
luv2brode Online   content
Extreme Tracker

Registered: 09/23/06
Posts: 3989
Loc: austin area
see the problem is people trying to pick apart these rights that it clearly expresses these rights are no granted by the govt but come from god himself.
_________________________
i am cancelling my subscription, i am tired of your issues!

Top
#7291192 - 09/19/18 09:09 AM Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: luv2brode]
Gangly Offline
Bird Dog

Registered: 10/14/13
Posts: 394
Loc: The Woodlands, Texas
Originally Posted By: luv2brode
see the problem is people trying to pick apart these rights that it clearly expresses these rights are no granted by the govt but come from god himself.


That will be the next attack from the liberals: "There is no God, therefore your God given rights are null and void....gimme your guns!"
_________________________
Aaron

Do it right, do it once.

Top
#7291276 - 09/19/18 09:55 AM Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: BOONER]
Choctaw Online   content
THF Trophy Hunter

Registered: 11/13/04
Posts: 6983
Loc: Grayson County
Originally Posted By: BOONER
Originally Posted By: Marc K
From the piece above:

"If Madison had intended to deny Congress the right to regulate firearms as a matter of law, he would have written the same words used in the 1st Amendment. He did not."

"I conclude that Madison as a writer did not put any more significance to any of them but rather did not want to use the same word too many times over a short expanse of copy."


Hard to accept that someone today, is able to clearly guess what Madison and others meant - beyond their actual words. Sure, anyone can claim that the Founders actually meant something different than their carefully chosen words.

The words "Shall not infringe" are actually pretty clear in terms of intent, regardless of spin being applied.

Marc




up
And how many would have died in that church without the law abiding citizen with a gun!


Have you seen the NRA commercial with the good guy? He is talking about the shooter and says, "he had an AR-15 but so did I." He is very matter-of-fact and makes one heck of a good impression.

Top
#7291292 - 09/19/18 10:14 AM Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: Gangly]
Cast Offline
THF Celebrity

Registered: 12/14/08
Posts: 18715
Loc: North Texas - God's Country
Originally Posted By: Gangly
Originally Posted By: luv2brode
see the problem is people trying to pick apart these rights that it clearly expresses these rights are no granted by the govt but come from god himself.


That will be the next attack from the liberals: "There is no God, therefore your God given rights are null and void....gimme your guns!"


And that is why liberals attack God at every level.
_________________________
Cast



I have a short attention spa

Top
#7291300 - 09/19/18 10:26 AM Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: BillS2008]
Dave Scott Offline
Tracker

Registered: 10/16/13
Posts: 513
Well, the Second says "Shall not be infringed upon". That means hands off by Fed. Gov. The problem is.....what exactly should not be infringed upon? There are other areas in the Constitution saying you cannot be deny rights without due process, etc. and that's an infringement so it would seem to contradict the 2nd which is impossible since the Constitution was pretty carefully worded. Former Chief Justice Warren Burger claimed no individual right was created in the 2nd because it says "People" not person but then Burger errs (In my opinion) because he makes this huge leap from "People" to State or Federal Government. That's plain wrong.
So what exactly is a "collective" right held by the American "people". This is simply my opinion but here's how I see it.
1. The firearms are something more that "sporting" small arms. They are arms suitable for serving in the militia. Today that would be an AR-15 or semi-auto handgun. It would not go up to heavy weapons like mortars, machine guns, tanks since a militia man could not report for duty with any way to handle all the ammunition, etc. to use such. So...something more than a 22 rimfire or shotgun but not the heavy infantry weapons.
2. They would have to be privately owned firearms kept in the home. This is because of the "shall not be infringed upon". Article 1, Section 8 gives congress the power to arm, train, discipline the militia- that's infringement all over the place so the arms that "shall not be infringed upon have to be something else. NOT arms in a national guard armory.
3. "People" might not mean "person" BUT it also doesn't mean any sort of governmental body. People means the entirety of American citizens. Private citizens.
4. So....and this is my opinion. The government can look to an individual but they can't look to the American People. So let's say there is a criminal background check on Bob Smith- does that effect me or the American people owning firearms? NO. So okay. Now let's say Fred Jones gets convicted of a violent crime and can't own a firearm any more due to due process of law. Once again, does that effect me or the American People? NO.
But let's now consider some other gun control laws. "No more semi-auto rifles for ANYONE. You might have received a few purple hearts in combat, got the silver star but now the government says you aren't fit to own a firearm suitable for militia service. This law applies to the American PEOPLE. There is no due process of law and jury trial to restrict your rights. Any such law should absolutely be viewed as Unconstitutional as it disarms the "People".

Top
#7291551 - 09/19/18 02:16 PM Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: BillS2008]
jeffbird Online   content


Registered: 03/09/09
Posts: 3421
Dave,

the 14th Amendment makes the Second Amendment applicable to actions of the state governments as well as the federal government.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Heller definitively decided the Second Amendment is an individual right.
_________________________
Professionally trained and certified pistol and license to carry instructor.

Top
#7291658 - 09/19/18 04:06 PM Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: jeffbird]
SnakeWrangler Online   content
THF Celebrity

Registered: 01/22/11
Posts: 38972
Loc: Over yonder.....
Originally Posted By: jeffbird
Dave,

the 14th Amendment makes the Second Amendment applicable to actions of the state governments as well as the federal government.

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Heller definitively decided the Second Amendment is an individual right.

Word.....but that doesn't stop the left from trying any way and every way they can think of.....
_________________________
Originally Posted By: skinnerback
Milf does the trick.

"You're statistically more likely to be killed by Hillary Clinton than an NRA member. - PolitiDiva

"You Cannot Simultaneously Be Politically Correct And Intellectually Honest!"

Top
#7293416 - 09/21/18 12:54 PM Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: jeffbird]
Dave Scott Offline
Tracker

Registered: 10/16/13
Posts: 513
Thanks, I thought that was part of the original Constitution. In any event, my main point was when those opposed to private ownership of firearms drag up the "Communal Right" aspect, they immediately leap over to "communal" meaning some sort of government, local, state, etc. My point is such is a flawed argument. Since the second says the right can't be infringed upon- that's the strongest guarantee of "hands off" of any right. For example the first says "Congress shall pass no laws...." but doesn't say anything about state governments, etc. In any event, there is something out there that can't be infringed upon and that entity who has this guarantee is the people, not local or state government.
I therefore tend to think that a city (Washington DC or NYC, etc.) that categorically bans ANYONE (The People) from a handgun, etc.- that is unconstitutional. If the city wants to do a background check and bar felons, etc. from owning a firearm- well okay. But infringing across the board on "The People"- that has to be absolutely unconstitutional.

Top
#7294678 - 09/22/18 10:31 PM Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: Dave Scott]
easttxhoghunter Online   content
Woodsman

Registered: 07/03/17
Posts: 217
Loc: Crosby, Tx
VETO BETO, VOTE CRUZ!!!!!!
_________________________
NRA Life Member

Top
#7294682 - 09/22/18 10:39 PM Re: Gun control in Texas..... [Re: easttxhoghunter]
SnakeWrangler Online   content
THF Celebrity

Registered: 01/22/11
Posts: 38972
Loc: Over yonder.....
Originally Posted By: easttxhoghunter
VETO BETO, VOTE CRUZ!!!!!!
cheers
_________________________
Originally Posted By: skinnerback
Milf does the trick.

"You're statistically more likely to be killed by Hillary Clinton than an NRA member. - PolitiDiva

"You Cannot Simultaneously Be Politically Correct And Intellectually Honest!"

Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >



© 2004-2018 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide